Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Sayyid Qutb" in English language version.
Questioner: ... one of the contemporary writers is of the view that this religion, at its inception, was compelled to accept the institution of slavery ... [but] ... that the intent of the Legislator [i.e. God] is to gradually end this institution of slavery. So what is your view on this?
Shaikh Salih alFawzaan: These are words of falsehood (baatil) ... despite that many of the writers and thinkers – and we do not say scholars – repeat these words. Rather we say that they are thinkers (mufakkireen), just as they call them. And it is unfortunate, that they also call them 'Du'at' (callers). And this (type of statement) is found in the tafsir of Sayyid Qutb in Dhilaal ul-Qura'aan. He says 'Islam does not affirm slavery, but it only allowed it to remain out of fear that the people may turn to despotism, that they may disapprove of its abolition since they had been accustomed to it. Hence Islaam has allowed ti to continue out of courtesy to the people.' ... These words are falsehood and (constitute) deviation (ilhaad) ... This is deviation and a false accusation against Islaam. And if it had not been for the excuse of ignorance [because] we excuse them on account of (their) ignorance so we do not say that they are Unbelievers because they are ignorant and are blind followers .... Otherwise, these statements are very dangerous and if a person said them deliberately he would become apostate and leave Islaam. ..." Source: Cassette Recording dated 4/8/1416 and subsequently verified by the Sahikh himself with a few minor alterations to the wording.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) quoting Hourani, A. Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age: 1798–1939. Cambridge University Press, 1962. and Mitchell, Richard S. The Society of The Muslim Brotherhood. Oxford University Press, 1969.{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)Questioner: ... one of the contemporary writers is of the view that this religion, at its inception, was compelled to accept the institution of slavery ... [but] ... that the intent of the Legislator [i.e. God] is to gradually end this institution of slavery. So what is your view on this?
Shaikh Salih alFawzaan: These are words of falsehood (baatil) ... despite that many of the writers and thinkers – and we do not say scholars – repeat these words. Rather we say that they are thinkers (mufakkireen), just as they call them. And it is unfortunate, that they also call them 'Du'at' (callers). And this (type of statement) is found in the tafsir of Sayyid Qutb in Dhilaal ul-Qura'aan. He says 'Islam does not affirm slavery, but it only allowed it to remain out of fear that the people may turn to despotism, that they may disapprove of its abolition since they had been accustomed to it. Hence Islaam has allowed ti to continue out of courtesy to the people.' ... These words are falsehood and (constitute) deviation (ilhaad) ... This is deviation and a false accusation against Islaam. And if it had not been for the excuse of ignorance [because] we excuse them on account of (their) ignorance so we do not say that they are Unbelievers because they are ignorant and are blind followers .... Otherwise, these statements are very dangerous and if a person said them deliberately he would become apostate and leave Islaam. ..." Source: Cassette Recording dated 4/8/1416 and subsequently verified by the Sahikh himself with a few minor alterations to the wording.