Secondly: this thing that they say - accusing the people - this one is an agent of the British, that one is the agent of so and so - as for this which is weitten about the Muslims by their enemies - then it is not permissible to give credence to it:
If a wicked person comes to you with any news ascertain the truth [Hujurat 49:6]
Where is this proof and verification? There is no proof and no verification.
Further: The treaty between the Shaikh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul Wahhaab (rahimahulla) - and Aal Sa'ood was a treaty for furtherinf the cause of Islaam. And as if known the Deen has to have someone to carry it - so Allah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) asked the Ansaar to carry and protect it just as they would their families and wealth. But here (i.e. the case of Aal Sa'ood) something wrong occurred in that they (i.e. Aal Sa'ood) made the condition that leadership would be theirs - and this is not permissible, however the agreement in principle is correct even though it is not permissible to make it a part of the agreement that you will take the leadership since the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) refused the offer of Banoo 'Aamir to help him against the Kaafirs upon the condition that leadership would be theirs after him (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) . So we say that this matter was not for booty or worldly gain - but for aiding the Deen of Islaam and this is what happened in the beginning - they established Allah's Deen in the area and purified it from the shirk present, and that good does not cease to be present even today even if, of course, the latter generations have gone against the way of the predecessors.
QUESTION. What do you say concerning their saying that Kingship is forbidden?
A. I say this is, of course, something wrong - that rule belongs to a person whereas Kingship is in the Hand of Allah - He gives it to whomever He pleases. However the alliance in principle was allowed - since it was for aiding the Deen of Allah and establishment of the Sharee'ah. And of course they (HT) allow this, indeed the start if the state with them comes about htrough seeking aid from sources of strength and heads of tribes, heads of state, etc. - in order to bring about revilution to remove the wicked.
QUESTION. What about the saying that the office of Kingship itself is something that is not allowed - Is it not possible to rebut this with the fact, for example, that Daawood was.....
A. No - that is a fact - it is not permissible to have inherited Kings in Islaam - rather the Khaleefah is chosen from those fitting for the position and he is given oath of allegience - inherited Kingship is not allowed and Kingship is not Islamic.
QUESTION. We say that hereditary Kingship is haraam?
QUESTION. it is quoted, I thnk at the start of 'al 'Aqeedatul-Waasitiyyah' or 'Aqeedatul-Tahaawiyyah' , I am not sure - that Allah ta'aalaa - offered to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) that he be a Prophet, a king or a servant and Messenger - so if tit is not correct to be king then....?
A. This does not contain anything about it being hereditary Kingship but one of the things that go along with Kingship in practice in that it is inherited and then passed on. That is the essential thing present in any Kingship in the wordl is that the son inherits from the father.
QUESTION. Then how or why did Allah - subhaanahu wa ta'aalaa - offer this to Allah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ?
A. He, ta'aalaa offered that he be King - i.e. he himself - but not that Kingship would remain amongst his offspring - Do you understand? That was not a part of it, and of course he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said "I shoose to be servant and Messenger", and the Khaleefahs came after Allah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) - being chosen by the responsible and righteous offspring - the people of thr Soorah - so this was the Prophetic Khaleefah.
QUESTION. Some of HT accuse Shaikh Naasirul-Deen al-Albaanee of not knowing the Arabic language well.
A. This is a false slander without a doubt! Since Shaikh Naasir, may Allah protect him, gained Knowledge of Hadeeth and spent his whole life with Hadeeth - which is the essence of 'Arabic - and since we have lived witht he Shaikh for many years and he is Arabic of tounge nad they are non-Arabs - even if he is Albanian - since 'Arabic is due to language not race - and alhamdulillah (all praise is for Allah), he is an expert in that - indeed he is more competent in his language than they are!!!
QUESTION. They say that Mu'aawiyyah (ra) is not a Companion andthe evidence for their claim is that to gain the title of Companion he has to be found to have definitely fulfilled the conditions of companionship. Where are they getting this from? Then they give as an example from Sa'eed ibn al-Musayyib that he said: "The word companion (sahaabee) is one who was with Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) for [at least] one year or two and fought Jihaad along with him in [at least] one or two battles - so one who did that was a companion"
A. Firstly, Mu'aawiyyah is a Companion whether you apply their conditions or not and he is a Companion also as textually statedd by the scholars who have written his biography.