abu-musa_al-leeby
19th September 2004, 12:56 PM
As-salaamu alaikum
As for the the position of the salaf towards the rulers then it has been affirmed by 12 different narrarations that the salaf used to openly attack the ruler if they saw him openly doing a sin. Or a bid’ah.An example of the is when abu sa’eed al-khudree praised that man that stood up in a crowd and criticized abdul-malik ibn marwaant(the umawee khaleefah at the time) when he gave the khutbah before the salaah in al-‘eid so this man got up and said”this is contrary to the sunnah!” and abu sa’eed alkhudree said”this man has done what is upon him”It is no coincidence that abu sa’eed alkhudree(radiallahu ‘anhu) was the narrartor of the hadeeth in saheeh muslim concerning changing the munkar!So the sahaabah know best how to implement the words of rasoolullah(alahisalam).There are too many athaar too mention in this issue so if it was an asl from the usool- of this deen they would have known it!!Not to mention that in the time of imam ahmad ibn hanbal there was a scholar named ahmad ibn nasr al-khuzaa’iee who openly spoke out against the the ruler of that time and imam ahmad praised him and didn’t call him a khaarijee although imam ahmad disagreed with him which was an indication that it was an issue of ijtihaad..
As for sheikh muqbil al-waadi’ee then he retracted his kalaam concerning the ksa but in that same tape entitled “tabri’atu-thimma” he said”as for the rest of the rulers then I don’t take back what I said about them”So his retraction was specific to Saudi and not other rulers..shaikh muqbil was asked in a lecture by kuwaitee students of knowledge about this issue and he said” and there is a difference between standing up and making inkaar of the rulers actions and between enciting the people to revolt against him for the latter is not permissible until we see clear kufr(kufrun bawaah)” source:tuhfatul-mujeeb pg-164 and imaamul-albaani was asked in his taped interview with ihyaa’u-turaath the following question”some claim that advising the ruler secretly will destroy the religious obligation of enjoing the good and forbidding the evil and they use as proof abu sa’eed akhudree’s position towards ‘abdul-malik ibn marwaan when he began with the khutbah before the salaah in al’eid so we ask your eminence to make clear to us the manhaj of the salaf in advising the ruler.
Answer”:what is found the risaalah is sufficient in this topic but I say concerning the hadeeth of abu sa’eed this is an exception to the ruler and that is because he made inkaar openly so if the ruler contradicts the sharee’ah publicly then he is to criticized publicly and this doesn’t oppose the sharee’ah”source-tape-interview with jami’yatu ihyaa’uturaath al-ilsaami in kuwait
As for the hadeeth of ‘iyaadh ibn ghanam in the sunnah of ibn abee ‘aasim and elsehere “whoever has an advice for the sultan………” then this hadeeth is da’eef and was declared da’eef by sheikh muqbil(rahimahullah).(If you want a detailed research on its weakness then let me know and I’ll send you a document).So the retraction of sheikh muqbil was concerning his stance on ksa and not on speaking out publicly against the rulers and I challenge anyone to bring me a public tawbah by sheikh muqbil concerning this.Infact yahya al-hajoooree mentioned that sheikh muqbil never took back his stance on openly speaking against the rulers(In response to what abul-hasan claimed and he lied in this).
You asked “Why is everyone who speaks about the rulers automatically become labelled as a Suroori? Or kharijee”
1-this is due to hawa or jahl because in no book that talks about the deviant sects does it mention that those who openly criticize the ruler are khawaarijj or that it is an attribute of the khawaarijj.As for the their lies and deception in claiming that this was the manhaj of a group from the khawaarijj called”al-qa’adeeyyah”They claim that their bid’ah was the public criticism of the ruler and that this was khurooj with the tongue and this is a big lie and a deception.What is affirmed is that the qa’adeeyyah never revolted with the sword themselves but they encited others to revolt with the sword and this was there bid’ah and not merely speaking out against the ruler due to an open sin or bid’ah!I challenge these jahalah to bring me where it says that merely speaking out was there bid’ah!
As for the kalaam of imam ibn baaz concerning this then this is not a hujjah and besides that sheikh ibnu baaz never said that the one who openly criticizes the ruler for an open sin or bid’ah is a kharijee, but you only hear this from the madaakhilah!So do they believe that sheikh alalbaani is a khaarijee????or sheikh muqbil????or the sahaabah?????
As for the athar of usaaama ibn zaid in al-bukhaari and muslim then we say the following
1)Where in the athar does it say that advising secretly is waajib and in his wording does it point to the wujoob of advising secretly????but what we see is that this is the manner in which he chose to advise ‘uthmaan(radiallahu ‘anhu) and what one can notice is that usaama when asked on why he doesn’t advise ‘uthmaan he didn’t use the hadeeth of ibn ghanam when it would have been in his best interest to do so!!So the most one can say about the athar is that this was the preferred way that usaama chose to advise ‘uthman!!! And the wording of the hadeeth in no way shape or form indicates that advising the ruler secretly is waajib.
2)For arguments sake lets say the athar of usaama was indication that the naseehah secretlyt to the ruler is waajib, would that be a hujjah if other companions did the contrary????For as we know the the indivusal opinion of the sahabee is not a hujjah if it there are other sahabah that contradict his opinion!What would make me take usaama’s opinion and leave abee sa’eed alkhudree’s opinon??
3-When we use the athar of usaama to say that the naseehah to the ruler must be in secret , who are we talking about here???who was the ruler at that time ???yes it was thun-noorayn ‘uthmaan(may allah be pleased with him) and he was a righteous ruler so how can we use the athar of usaama for the corrupt criminals of today?Another issue is that we ask the ghulaat was the mistake or mistakes that usaama advised uthmaan in done publicly by’uthmaan? And did ‘uthmaan have an ijtihaad?? And do we dare compare ‘uthmaan to rulers who openly allow zina and the drinking of alcohol and make it permissible by law????tabban lakum!!!!!!
It has been reported by that hasan al-basree said”3 types of people have no gheebah(meaning that it permissible to backbite them)
1-The open sinner(faasiqun mujaahir)
2-the innovator(almubtadi’
3-the tyrannical ruler(al-haakimul-jaa’ir) and this athar was attributed to al-awzaaa’ee
Another important point is that these ghulaat are not even sincere to their own manhaj!They say that openly criticizing the rulers of certain countries is the mathhab of the khawaarijj but at the same time you find them openly criticizing rulers who may have a political quarrel with Saudi Arabia like the sudaan for example.The sudaan is no different then most arab states for it doesn’t judge by the sharee’ah and supports grave worshipping and soofee orders!!but then again so does Egypt,Algeria,morroco pakistaan and Jordan but why did they concentrate on the sudan?Was it because America had sudaan on the list of terrorist states??or was it because they didn’t stand with ksa in the invasion of Kuwait???So what we can see is that the madaakhilah only openly speak ill of rulers that have problems with either the states or ksa..Muhammad ibn haadi is the poet of the madaakhilah and he has 4 tapes openly criticizing omar basheer(who the madaakhilah regard to be muslims) and hasan attoraabee!They claim that they were speaking of at-taorabee before he came to power and this is a lie because the tapes of Muhammad ibn haadi were lectures given in 1994 and 1995 but lets assume its true then according to their own manhaj they would have had to keep quiet the moment he becomes ruler becomes speaking of a ruler in public is the mathhab of the khawaarijj.right?Shaikh rabee ibn haadi in his book refuting ashaikh ‘abdurahman ‘abdul-khaaliq referred to the Sudanese government as being a qutbee government and he stays quiet concerning those criminals rulers of the countries surrounding the sudaan!Another example is what sheikh ‘andussalaam ibn burjis(may allah be merciful with him) wrote in his book entitled”darooratul-ihtimaam bissuanan” that the sudan was a secularist turaabe state!!!And when i asked him personally on whther he believed ‘umar basher to be a kaafir he said “no”so the I said to him”so woudnt that be speaking openly against a muslim ruler?? And he had no response.Then America set it sights on the Islamic government of the taalibaan and co-incidently!!!!!the ghulaat start speaking ill of the the talibaan!(with the exception of sheikh rabee’) and I remember when abu khadeejah of salafee publications criticized taalibaan in a talk after 9/11, and he was asked by a questioner “isn’t this considered opely speaking ill of the rulers???so he answered by saying”they are not rulers of afghnisataan they have 90% ofcontrol only”Abu musa says:no comment and then this miskeen goes on to relay kalaam from ahmad anajamy where he says about taalibaan”they are cursed”Abu musa says:masha’allah and the rest of the rulers are blessed ???????We started to hear all the mistakes of taalibaan by these khubathaa’ and nothing about america’s sweethearts in the region.why? I’ll leave the answer for the intelligent reader.The issue was not limited to merely speaking ill of taaliban but they gave fatawaa making it permissible to fight with the u..s.a against taalibaan like faalih al-harbee and others and then came the iraaq invasion and we started to hear how evil saddam was and this is ma’roof but why now????why speak ill of him now???The only time I ever heard al-jaabiree speak ill of a ruler is when he said about saddaam prior to the invasion of iraaq where he said” It isn’t permissible to help them because they are secularists!”
And the rest the of ruler are khulaafa who judge by sharee’ah;?????’ajaban lakum!!!
As for your question about Muhammad suroor then i will answer it in the next post if allah .inshaa’allah
Wassalaamu ‘alaikum
Abu musa al-leeby
As for the the position of the salaf towards the rulers then it has been affirmed by 12 different narrarations that the salaf used to openly attack the ruler if they saw him openly doing a sin. Or a bid’ah.An example of the is when abu sa’eed al-khudree praised that man that stood up in a crowd and criticized abdul-malik ibn marwaant(the umawee khaleefah at the time) when he gave the khutbah before the salaah in al-‘eid so this man got up and said”this is contrary to the sunnah!” and abu sa’eed alkhudree said”this man has done what is upon him”It is no coincidence that abu sa’eed alkhudree(radiallahu ‘anhu) was the narrartor of the hadeeth in saheeh muslim concerning changing the munkar!So the sahaabah know best how to implement the words of rasoolullah(alahisalam).There are too many athaar too mention in this issue so if it was an asl from the usool- of this deen they would have known it!!Not to mention that in the time of imam ahmad ibn hanbal there was a scholar named ahmad ibn nasr al-khuzaa’iee who openly spoke out against the the ruler of that time and imam ahmad praised him and didn’t call him a khaarijee although imam ahmad disagreed with him which was an indication that it was an issue of ijtihaad..
As for sheikh muqbil al-waadi’ee then he retracted his kalaam concerning the ksa but in that same tape entitled “tabri’atu-thimma” he said”as for the rest of the rulers then I don’t take back what I said about them”So his retraction was specific to Saudi and not other rulers..shaikh muqbil was asked in a lecture by kuwaitee students of knowledge about this issue and he said” and there is a difference between standing up and making inkaar of the rulers actions and between enciting the people to revolt against him for the latter is not permissible until we see clear kufr(kufrun bawaah)” source:tuhfatul-mujeeb pg-164 and imaamul-albaani was asked in his taped interview with ihyaa’u-turaath the following question”some claim that advising the ruler secretly will destroy the religious obligation of enjoing the good and forbidding the evil and they use as proof abu sa’eed akhudree’s position towards ‘abdul-malik ibn marwaan when he began with the khutbah before the salaah in al’eid so we ask your eminence to make clear to us the manhaj of the salaf in advising the ruler.
Answer”:what is found the risaalah is sufficient in this topic but I say concerning the hadeeth of abu sa’eed this is an exception to the ruler and that is because he made inkaar openly so if the ruler contradicts the sharee’ah publicly then he is to criticized publicly and this doesn’t oppose the sharee’ah”source-tape-interview with jami’yatu ihyaa’uturaath al-ilsaami in kuwait
As for the hadeeth of ‘iyaadh ibn ghanam in the sunnah of ibn abee ‘aasim and elsehere “whoever has an advice for the sultan………” then this hadeeth is da’eef and was declared da’eef by sheikh muqbil(rahimahullah).(If you want a detailed research on its weakness then let me know and I’ll send you a document).So the retraction of sheikh muqbil was concerning his stance on ksa and not on speaking out publicly against the rulers and I challenge anyone to bring me a public tawbah by sheikh muqbil concerning this.Infact yahya al-hajoooree mentioned that sheikh muqbil never took back his stance on openly speaking against the rulers(In response to what abul-hasan claimed and he lied in this).
You asked “Why is everyone who speaks about the rulers automatically become labelled as a Suroori? Or kharijee”
1-this is due to hawa or jahl because in no book that talks about the deviant sects does it mention that those who openly criticize the ruler are khawaarijj or that it is an attribute of the khawaarijj.As for the their lies and deception in claiming that this was the manhaj of a group from the khawaarijj called”al-qa’adeeyyah”They claim that their bid’ah was the public criticism of the ruler and that this was khurooj with the tongue and this is a big lie and a deception.What is affirmed is that the qa’adeeyyah never revolted with the sword themselves but they encited others to revolt with the sword and this was there bid’ah and not merely speaking out against the ruler due to an open sin or bid’ah!I challenge these jahalah to bring me where it says that merely speaking out was there bid’ah!
As for the kalaam of imam ibn baaz concerning this then this is not a hujjah and besides that sheikh ibnu baaz never said that the one who openly criticizes the ruler for an open sin or bid’ah is a kharijee, but you only hear this from the madaakhilah!So do they believe that sheikh alalbaani is a khaarijee????or sheikh muqbil????or the sahaabah?????
As for the athar of usaaama ibn zaid in al-bukhaari and muslim then we say the following
1)Where in the athar does it say that advising secretly is waajib and in his wording does it point to the wujoob of advising secretly????but what we see is that this is the manner in which he chose to advise ‘uthmaan(radiallahu ‘anhu) and what one can notice is that usaama when asked on why he doesn’t advise ‘uthmaan he didn’t use the hadeeth of ibn ghanam when it would have been in his best interest to do so!!So the most one can say about the athar is that this was the preferred way that usaama chose to advise ‘uthman!!! And the wording of the hadeeth in no way shape or form indicates that advising the ruler secretly is waajib.
2)For arguments sake lets say the athar of usaama was indication that the naseehah secretlyt to the ruler is waajib, would that be a hujjah if other companions did the contrary????For as we know the the indivusal opinion of the sahabee is not a hujjah if it there are other sahabah that contradict his opinion!What would make me take usaama’s opinion and leave abee sa’eed alkhudree’s opinon??
3-When we use the athar of usaama to say that the naseehah to the ruler must be in secret , who are we talking about here???who was the ruler at that time ???yes it was thun-noorayn ‘uthmaan(may allah be pleased with him) and he was a righteous ruler so how can we use the athar of usaama for the corrupt criminals of today?Another issue is that we ask the ghulaat was the mistake or mistakes that usaama advised uthmaan in done publicly by’uthmaan? And did ‘uthmaan have an ijtihaad?? And do we dare compare ‘uthmaan to rulers who openly allow zina and the drinking of alcohol and make it permissible by law????tabban lakum!!!!!!
It has been reported by that hasan al-basree said”3 types of people have no gheebah(meaning that it permissible to backbite them)
1-The open sinner(faasiqun mujaahir)
2-the innovator(almubtadi’
3-the tyrannical ruler(al-haakimul-jaa’ir) and this athar was attributed to al-awzaaa’ee
Another important point is that these ghulaat are not even sincere to their own manhaj!They say that openly criticizing the rulers of certain countries is the mathhab of the khawaarijj but at the same time you find them openly criticizing rulers who may have a political quarrel with Saudi Arabia like the sudaan for example.The sudaan is no different then most arab states for it doesn’t judge by the sharee’ah and supports grave worshipping and soofee orders!!but then again so does Egypt,Algeria,morroco pakistaan and Jordan but why did they concentrate on the sudan?Was it because America had sudaan on the list of terrorist states??or was it because they didn’t stand with ksa in the invasion of Kuwait???So what we can see is that the madaakhilah only openly speak ill of rulers that have problems with either the states or ksa..Muhammad ibn haadi is the poet of the madaakhilah and he has 4 tapes openly criticizing omar basheer(who the madaakhilah regard to be muslims) and hasan attoraabee!They claim that they were speaking of at-taorabee before he came to power and this is a lie because the tapes of Muhammad ibn haadi were lectures given in 1994 and 1995 but lets assume its true then according to their own manhaj they would have had to keep quiet the moment he becomes ruler becomes speaking of a ruler in public is the mathhab of the khawaarijj.right?Shaikh rabee ibn haadi in his book refuting ashaikh ‘abdurahman ‘abdul-khaaliq referred to the Sudanese government as being a qutbee government and he stays quiet concerning those criminals rulers of the countries surrounding the sudaan!Another example is what sheikh ‘andussalaam ibn burjis(may allah be merciful with him) wrote in his book entitled”darooratul-ihtimaam bissuanan” that the sudan was a secularist turaabe state!!!And when i asked him personally on whther he believed ‘umar basher to be a kaafir he said “no”so the I said to him”so woudnt that be speaking openly against a muslim ruler?? And he had no response.Then America set it sights on the Islamic government of the taalibaan and co-incidently!!!!!the ghulaat start speaking ill of the the talibaan!(with the exception of sheikh rabee’) and I remember when abu khadeejah of salafee publications criticized taalibaan in a talk after 9/11, and he was asked by a questioner “isn’t this considered opely speaking ill of the rulers???so he answered by saying”they are not rulers of afghnisataan they have 90% ofcontrol only”Abu musa says:no comment and then this miskeen goes on to relay kalaam from ahmad anajamy where he says about taalibaan”they are cursed”Abu musa says:masha’allah and the rest of the rulers are blessed ???????We started to hear all the mistakes of taalibaan by these khubathaa’ and nothing about america’s sweethearts in the region.why? I’ll leave the answer for the intelligent reader.The issue was not limited to merely speaking ill of taaliban but they gave fatawaa making it permissible to fight with the u..s.a against taalibaan like faalih al-harbee and others and then came the iraaq invasion and we started to hear how evil saddam was and this is ma’roof but why now????why speak ill of him now???The only time I ever heard al-jaabiree speak ill of a ruler is when he said about saddaam prior to the invasion of iraaq where he said” It isn’t permissible to help them because they are secularists!”
And the rest the of ruler are khulaafa who judge by sharee’ah;?????’ajaban lakum!!!
As for your question about Muhammad suroor then i will answer it in the next post if allah .inshaa’allah
Wassalaamu ‘alaikum
Abu musa al-leeby