The Clarification of Contemporary Sects

The Bāṭinī Movements, Secret Orders, Freemasonry, al-Ikhwān, al-Qāidah and ISIS: Part 4 - The Sūfī, Ashʿarī, takfiri Terrorist, Ḥasan al-Bannā and His Masonic Muslim Brotherhood [al-Ikhwān al-Muslimūn]. Ḥasan al-Bannā is the chief of tribulations in the 20th century, the head of takfīr, khurūj and vile ḥizbiyyah and he is the inheritor of Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī, the Bāṭinī, Rāfidī, Bābī Freemason who himself is a continuation of the legacy of the Bāṭinī movements of old. Al-Bannā is an embodiment of the Thālūth (Trinity) mentioned by Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī, the trinity of Shiʿīsm, Ṣūfism and Siyāsah. His brother was a staunch, extremist Rāfīḍī, writing and devising theatrical plays for the enemies of Allāh, the rulers of the Bāṭinī ʿUbaydiyyah. Al-Bannā called for nearness with the Shīʿītes [not surprising when your brother is from their hardcore ones]. He himself was a staunch Sūfī, wallowing in taṣāwuff and the doctrines of waḥdat ul-wujūd. So there are two prongs of the Trinity. Then add to that Bāṭinī secrecy, Freemasonic organization, and a corrupt vile Machiavellian Siyāsah and your Trinity is complete. Three are one and one is three.

For all of us know the da'wah of Hasan al-Banna. It is correct that he removed the straying youth from the cafes, and from the cinemas, this is not rejected. Everyone who knows mentions this. However, after he took them out of those places, from those places, what did he do with them? Did he invite them with the manner, with the da'wah of the Prophets?! Or did he just transfer them, gather them, and then separated into the Soofee Tariqahs. It is as if he transferred them from one jaahiliyyah to another jaahiliyyah! He did not transfer them to the correct understanding of Islaam. And the Shaykh himself used to have a tariqah, a soofee tariqah! And those ones that he transfered from the cinemans, they either adopted his tariqah or other tariqahs!

And did the da'wah of Shaykh Hasan al-Banna judge against the worship of other than Allaah, openly in his town?! And did he take the people away from making tawaaf around the tombs, the tomb of al-Husain, and Zaynab and al-Badawi?! And did he take the people away from the democratic rule to the rule of Allaah?! This is the legislation (i.e. the call to Tawheed). If the da'wah had come like this it would have been a correct Islamic da'wah.

The Ikhwan of Hassan al-Banna was not set up to rectify the affairs of Tawhid and the Sunnah, but merely to amass large numbers which can be used to further group political interests. As a result, the foundation of walaa and baraa (loyalty and disloyalty) on the basis of Tawhid and the Sunnah was demolished and laid to waste. As a result, all sorts of doors and avenues were opened for nearness and closeness to those whose straying and deviation from what the Messenger (sallallaaahu alayhi wasallam) was alraedy plain and obvious.

Hasan al-Banna founded his organization "al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen" upon the principle that anyone who says "Laa ilaaha illallaaha" can join his organization in order to work towards a collective goal - and this includes the Rafidah Shi'ah - for he strove to bring nearness, cordiality and unity between Ahl us-Sunnah and the Shi'ah. The following quote is from Umar al-Tilmisani, one of the supreme leaders of al-Ikhwan:

Know that Ahl us-Sunnah and the Shiah are Muslims, the kalima "There is none worthy of worship except Allaah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah" unites them. And this is the foundation of the aqidah. And the Sunnah and the Shiah are the same (regarding that), and (they) are upon purity. As for the difference between them both, then it is in matters in which it is possible to bring them together.

And Umar al-Tilmisani, the third supreme leader of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen wrote in his book "Dhikriyaat, Laa Mudhakkaaraat" (p. 131), (كان طلبة الإخوان يحتفلون بذكرى نواب صفوي رئيس جمعية فدائيان إسلام الشيعية في إيران), "The students of al-Ikhwaan used to celebrate the mention of Nawab Safawi, the leader of the Jam'iyyah Fedaa'iyaan Islaam al-Shi'iyyah in Iraan." He also said in the same book, (ولم تفتر علاقة الإخوان بزعماء الشيعة فاتصلوا بآية الله الكاشاني واستضافوا في مصر نواب صفوي ، كل هذا فعله الإخوان لا ليحملوا الشيعة على ترك مذهبهم ! ، و لكنهم فعلوه لغرض نبيل يدعو إليه إسلامهم وهو محاولة التقريب بين المذاهب الإسلامية إلى أقرب حد ممكن), "And the connection between the Ikhwaan and the leaders of the Shi'ah did not slacken. They connected with Ayatallaah Kashani, and they invited Nawab Safawi to Egypt (hosting him as a guest). All of this was done by Ikhwaan not in order to make the Shi'ah leave their madhhab but they did this with a noble objective which their Islam called them to, which is to try and bring closeness between the Islamic madhhabs to the closest level possible."

The Bāṭinī Movements, Secret Orders, Freemasonry, al-Ikhwān, al-Qāidah and ISIS: Part 5 - Ashʿarī, Bāṭinī, Rāfiḍī Freemason: Sayyid Quṭb, Grandfather of 20th Century Takfīrī and Terrorist Ideology Though Ḥasan al-Bannā sowed the seeds for the Takfīrī mentality and spirit, it was Sayyid Quṭb who spelled it out thoroughly and and conveyed it explicitly, placing the dots on all the letters. Just as Ḥasan al-Bannā utilized terrorism through his secret apparatus and militia wing that partook in political assassinations and bombings in the 1940s, Sayyid Quṭb also atempted to mobilize a similar apparatus in the sixties to unleash terror in Cairo and other cities across Egypt which were inhabited by "apostate" societies who had allegedly thrown the yoke of Islām from their necks and "reverted to a jāhiliyyah more severe than the pre-Islāmic jāhiliyyah." It is from the ideologies of these Ṣūfī, Ashʿarī, Bāṭinī, Takfīrī extremists that the terrorism of al-Qaidah and ISIS derives its ideological basis and justification. There is no Salafism here. These extremist, terrorist ideologies are not found in the books of the Salaf, nor Ibn Taymiyyah nor Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, but they are found in the works of the people of fikr (thought) amongst the Ashʿarī, Ṣūfī tradition that came out of Egypt.

Yusuf al-Qardawi is one of the most prominent of the contemporary figureheads of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen and he has written many times on the movements of Takfir. We see a couple of trends amongst todays Ikhwanis. Seeing that the ideologies of Takfir found in Qutb's books are harmful to their cause, a group amongst them (like al-Qaradawi) are trying to distance the Ikhwaan from these teachings. He is opposed by others, who try to downplay the issue of Takfir and argue that the books of Sayyid Qutb have been fundamental to the Ikhwaani movement, and that they have an important role to play. We'll leave them to argue about these issues, but here is a statement of al-Qaradawi taken from an article published on 4th May 2004 called (هل يكفّر "سيد قطب" مسلمي اليوم؟) in which he outlines the ideology of Takfir in the works of Sayyid Qutb.

In this quote one of major figureheads of al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen confirms that Qutb revived the manhaj of the Kharijites (Khawaarij) based upon his Takfir of the whole Ummah, and called for a destructive "Jihaad" (which really means a Leninist Revolution Islamicized as "Jihaad") against all governments and nations. As for his Takfir of all nations and societies, it is a matter as clear as daylight and there are abundant explicit texts in this regard in his books which we will highlight inshaa'Allaah. As for the Leninist-type revolution he advocated in the name of Jihaad, then contemporary members of the Muslim Brotherhood acknowledge that Qutb was influenced by Leninist revolutionary methodology. Ibrahim al-Houdaiby writes in an article "Four Decades After Sayyid Qutb's Execution" (bold emphasis is ours):

And we have seen groupings in various regions called "The Qutbiyyoon" embracing the ideology of Takfir (excommunication), and I have seen the signs of that: From those who ask me about praying in houses and abandoning the mosques upon the consideration that they are Jaahiliyyah places of worship, and this is from what they understood from az-Zilaal in tafseer of the saying of Allaah, "And take your houses as a qiblah", and I refuted them in the first chapter of my book "Fataawaa Mu'aasirah".

And whoever reads the literary works of Jamaa'at at-Takfir will find the remnants of this ideology, and its well known expressions that are from the core, essence of this ideology, even if they do not explicitly reveal their quoting from it (i.e. from the actual source, the works of Qutb).

Kamal Helbawy was a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood, being with them for six decades, since the age of 13. He left them earlier this year due to disputes or unhappiness relating to leadership nominations. He played an instrumental role in pushing the Ikhwani thought in various lands on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood, going to Saudi Arabia (setting up organizations therein), Pakistan amongst other places. He was also official spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood in the West. He is a caller to unity and nearness between the Sunnah and Shi'ah, following the way of Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb. Currently he operates from the United Kingdom.

1. First, just pay attention to the entire context. We have a member of six-decades of al-Ikhwaan who has beeen extremely active in pushing the Ikhwani ideology and agenda in the Muslim lands, visiting the state of the Baatini Raafidees, and sitting with Ayatollah Khamenei. In the course of his speech praising the state and Ayatollah Khomeini, he makes mention, in one breath of what are essentially four common teachers between the Raafidah and the Khaarijiyyah (Ikhwaan), and they are: al-Khomeini, Hasan al-Banna, Abu A'laa Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb. The latter two had the poison of the Raafidah in their works, and Hassan al-Banna was actively pursuing nearness with the Raafidah, a fundamental party policy that has remained till this day.

In an interview on the Mehwar channel in a program called 90 Minutes, Muhammad Mursi (ousted Ikhwani leader of Egypt) stated (listen to audio):

There are some differences but they are not in universal foundations (of belief)... it is not possible for their to be differences in creed, naturally, impossible. Between the Egyptians, there is no difference in creed at all (fundamentally), amongst all Egyptians, there is no difference in belief, between Muslims and Christians... there is no difference between Muslim belief and Christian belief, everyone believes what he wants. The difference is only dynamic, it is matter of ways and means, of kinetics of mechanisms, it is not in creed, it is not possible for it to be in creed...