question on hukm bi ghair ma anzalAllah

[Tuwaylib]

assalamu alaikum,

after researching the topic i have come to the conlusion that Sh. Muhammad ibn Ibrahim's explanation of the Kufr of hukm bi ghayr ma anzalAllah is the strongest and most convincing to me. However, i would ask you to excuse my ignorance and help me with the following:

In my research i found it difficult to get a clear indication of what the position of the following scholars were on this issue:

Shaykh Abdul Aziz bin Baz
Shaykh Muhammed Salih ibn Uthaymeen

A clarification would be highly appreciated and if references are provided for my reading or listening it would be great.

jazakAllahu khair

[Abuz Zubair]

With respect to Shaykh Abdul Aziz bin Baz, then it is not all that clear. In some instances he agrees with the rest of the scholars, and in other instances, he says that it is only kufr when the hakim is fought for it and he resists... So Allahu Alam about his precise position.

As for Shaykh Muhammed Salih ibn Uthaymeen, then his opinion is well known and in agreement with the rest of the scholars.

[Ibn Adam]

Akhi Abuz Zubair did you ever read Dr. Abdul-Rahman ibn Muala al-Luwayhiq al-Mutayri's book al-ghulu fi al-din fi hayatu al-muslimin al-mu'asirah, which Jamal Zarabozo translated and published as: Religious Extremism in the Lives of Contemporary Muslims?

I wanted to ask something about the comments al-Mutairi made on Muhammad bin Ibrahim's six categories of ruler who rules by other than what Allah revealed, that were originally outlined in Tahkim al-Qawanin.

After listing the six categories al-Mutairi wrote:


It seems and Allah knows best, that the Shaikh was presenting in the first four forms the exact parameters that make the ruler himself a disbeliever. Hence, he was describing the ruler with words like, “He believes,” “ He rejects,” and so on. However, in the last two categories, he was showing that the deed in itself is a form of kufr; that is why he was describing the act itself and not the doer. Therefore, to declare anyone of the last two categories a disbeliever, one must see if he fits into the any of the parameters of the first four categories. (Footnote one, p.307)

Are Shaykh Muhammad's words really restricted in meaning like this?

It just seemed a little strange to me when I read al-Mutairi's assertion; that although Shaikh Muhammad's words appeared clear (in English at least) that categories 5 & 6 were also disbelievers; a deeper meaning was observable when you noticed that the fifth and sixth categories don't use words like 'he disbelieves', etc. and that this indicated a reference only to the action rather than the one who is doing the action.

It just seemed a little weird when I read it and wanted to ask someone who had a better understanding of the issue.

Baraka Allahu fikum.

[Abuz Zubair]

That's al-Luwayhiq's understanding of Sh Muhammad b. Ibrahim's words, which I find difficult to agree with.

This is because the apparent meaning of what Sh Muhammad b. Ibrahim says is that kufr in belief is of six types, and then he lists them all. They all seem to be on the same level.

Nevertheless, the difference in understand seems to be superficial, since we all agree it is kufr in beliefs and not just actions, and that takfir on an individual in these issues requires all the obstacles of takfir removed.

[Logic lover]

Ruling by other than the Sharia is kufr in action, which expels the performer from the fold of Islam. His belief as to whether it is permissible to rule (by other than the Sharia) or not - is not necessarily conditional upon him following with his action of ruling itself.

To put it in another words - those who abandon Salah are apostates (kufr of action or inaction), without them not believing in the permissibility of abandoning the Salah itself. Also, performing Salah without believing in the obligation (of it) is kufr in belief.

Is it a correct statement?

[Abuz Zubair]

Ruling by other than the Sharia is kufr in action, which expels the performer from the fold of Islam. His belief as to whether it is permissible to rule (by other than the Sharia) or not - is not necessarily conditional upon him following with his action of ruling itself.
Yes. Scholars like Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymin argue that the one who replaces the Sharia with manmade laws only does so due to his belief that either it is permissible, or that manmade laws are better, or that Islamic Sharia is not suitable for this age.

However, he argues that the ruling is given on the deed itself and not the belief.

You are right in the rest of what you said.

[abu khattab]

Salama 3alikeum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuhu

akhi, Abu Zubair:

As we see iman made up of aqwaal and af3aal (both qalb, lisaan and jawaarih), and an action is iman and iman is action
- we do not see it as a condition for perfection of iman
- nor an indication of having iman, as, iman is action itself and vise versa.
- nor aqwaal and a3maal a sign of what is in the heart from beliefs

If thats iman, then kufr is exactly the same, having the same pillars of aqwaal and a3maal, and one does not have to belive in an action of kufr to be kufr inorder to judged as a kaafir, as Allah made Kufr of two people in Quran (in surah Tawbah) after they joked about islam.

If all is this is put infront on us, then:

We do we need to see a person having BELIF in making istihlaal in judging other than what Allah has revealed. Why cant we make kufr upon him itlaaqan?

Barakallahu feek

[knowrass]

so is king fahd (or the current king) a kaafir according to shuyuukh ibn baaz & uthaymeen?

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

fahd has returned to His Rabb 'aza wa jal, as has Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen and Bin Baz (rahimahumaullah).

i don't think it concerns us what we may assume their positions to be for the mere fact that unless thay have had it fully recorded then it is never going to be determined.

wa ALLAHU A'lam

[knowrass]

fahd has returned to His Rabb 'aza wa jal, as has Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen and Bin Baz (rahimahumaullah).

i don't think it concerns us what we may assume their positions to be for the mere fact that unless thay have had it fully recorded then it is never going to be determined.

wa ALLAHU A'lam

jazaakAllaah akhi for the response, but the reason i asked the question, is because i'd like to know how strong is the view of those that call him a kaafir, and if the salafis in saudiyyah are right in praising him, calling him "khaadim alharamayn", etc. etc.?

[Logic lover]

King Fahd or whoever is in his place has the title of the 'Custodian of the Haramayn'. So, were the Mushrikeen before the conquest of Makkah. Does it prove anything in terms of their rightfullness for the title?

[knowrass]

no akhi ofcourse it doesn't... the real thing is that im confused... is the current king a kaafir or not?

[abusufyaan]

None of the kings of Saudi Arabia were kuffaar and the current one is not a kaafir either. This is the position of Ahl as-Sunnah within and outside of Saudi Arabia. If the issue is confusing or unclear then perhaps it should be taken as an indication that the matter is at a level which you are not currently at and therefore you are unable to understand it properly.

This issue has been widespread amongst the masses, and the youth in particular have been deeply affected by it. Approach the issue with a clean heart and recall the ahadeeth of Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam), in which he said: "He who says to his brother: 'O Disbeliever,' then it returns upon one of them." He (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) also said: "And he who accuses a believer of kufr then it is like killing him." Don't just read these two ahadeeth, but read them. Read them, and contemplate your situation on the Day of Judgement. I ask Allah to protect us all from being in this position on the Day which lasts 50,000 years barefoot and naked at His Mercy. Which one of us is brave and eager enough to place themselves in this position? We seek refuge from pride and arrogance as this was the cause for the downfall of Iblees.

I advise myself and you to fear Allah and guard your tongue from speaking about matters of the deen without firm knowledge. None of these matters of the deen should be taken lightly or discussed in passing, but rather only with sure shari' knowledge. Likewise dear brothers and sisters, guard yourself from falling into the trap of the agendas of other people who translate and present material into English selectively regardless of how beautiful it is presented.

If you do not even know Arabic, or usool al-fiqh, or the basis of rulings in the Sharee'ah, do you really think Allah will ask you about the ruling of this king or that king on the Day of Judgement??? By Allah, for the sake of your own Hereafter, leave these issues for now and seriously learn the deen. Delving into these issues without knowledge brings more harm to us than any king because it causes problems from within amongst us and brings fitnah to others in their deen not only their dunyaa. How many people do we know that have passed rulings here and there on this ruler and that government on the Internet and then they themselves became Sufis or apostated? Allahul-musta'aan. For sure this is a trap of Iblees!

Dear brothers and sisters return to the basis and fundamentals of knowledge of the deen and take heed the advice of Sufyaan ath-Thawri (rahimahullah): "Those kings left the Hereafter to you, so leave the world to them!"

[abu_ibrahim]

When I read posts like yours, I can understand why this Ummah is humiliated. It is people like you who produce cowards in this Ummah. You remind me of the saying, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

This is your call, leave the apostates to rule with Kufr and let us concentrate on ourselves in the Masjid. This is why the Madkhali guys are in fact secularists when it comes to politics.

[abusufyaan]

You missed the point of the quote of Sufyaan ath-Thawri. Perhaps you think it is due to the likes of Sufyaan ath-Thawri that we are humiliated? You think this great mountain from the Salaf was a "Madkhali" and a secularist? Allahul-musta'aan.

My call is for you to fear Allah and to speak with yaqeen on the deen not with desires and doubts. If you have a proof then bring it forth, otherwise stop pondering and theorizing on the Sharee'ah of Allah. This deen is no joke and not something you talk about without knowledge to impress others and appear like a brave hero. Fear Allah akhee and be realistic. I am doubtful that you are even able to express yourself in the Arabic language fluently and with coherence, yet you are going to sit in your chair on your computer and say King Fahad died a kaafir and is destined to the Hellfire for eternity. Fear Allah akhee and hold your tongue and don't speak about this deen without yaqeen and 'ilm. Your empty slogans of takfeer haven't brought any victory to the Ummah and they never will.

I am familiar with all of the literature from the side that says the government of Saudi Arabia is apostates, but are you familiar with the literature from the opposing side of the debate? Are you even able to read what is in Arabic or are you basing your opinions, which you will be responsible for in front of Allah on Yawm al-Qiyaamah, off of English material translated with agendas? Have you analyzed the proofs, or are you being biased and simply following a group, personality, or scholar without sincerely analyzing the proofs on both sides? Are you being just? Don't let your hatred for a people allow you to deal unjustly with them akhee. Fear Allah and look into your heart to see if you are following clear proofs or instead your own desires manifested in getting involved in these issues.

Stop trying to sound brave and instead seriously help the Ummah by really learning the deen and really learning the Sharee'ah. Instead of making empty calls to the rulers to rule by the Sharee'ah, sincerely ask yourself would you even know if a ruler did or did not rule by the Sharee'ah? Do you even know the Sharee'ah? Or is this just an empty call? Fear Allah and fear a Day which every single letter will be presented to you and you will be standing in front of the King of kings.

[abu_ibrahim]

You are too predictable, whenever they are asked questions on these issues:

1.) First they would say to fear Allaah and don't talk about these matters.
2.) Then they would say to fob people off that have you mastered Usul al-Fiqh or learnt another science? And that if you haven't, then don't speak of these matters.
3.) Their third trick is to say that we need to stick with the "kibaar scholars" who are the only qualified people.
4.) If none of the above steps work, scare them with labels of Khawarij and being dogs of the hellfire.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

Brother abusufyan jzk, for your naseeha, it is a good advice in terms of that at the moment there is little good in just making takfir, except perhaps warning people about these munafiqeen who rule muslims today, except very few, but you too take this naseeha, its good too, masha Allah, like many of the posts by brother terrorthreat:

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=753

p.s. The regime of S.A. is indeed a difficult case, because so many regimes are so much worse than it, one just have to travel around middle east to see the difference, but still I respect the opinion of brothers who do make takfir of them, and they surely have basis for their opinion, imho.

p.s.2. the Judgement day for mu1meens will be like time between a few prayers of the day, May Allah make us of them.

[abusufyaan]

O mankind! Fear your Lord and be dutiful to Him! Verily, the earthquake of the Hour (of Judgement) is a terrible thing. The Day you shall see it, every nursing mother will forget her nursling, and every pregnant one will drop her load, and you shall see mankind as in a drunken state, yet they will not be drunken, but severe will be the Torment of Allah. And among mankind is he who disputes concerning Allah, without knowledge, and follows every rebellious (disobedient to Allah) Shaitan (devil) (devoid of each and every kind of good). For him (the devil) it is decreed that whosoever follows him, he will mislead him, and will drive him to the torment of the Fire. [Surah al-Hajj (22):1-4]

Dear brother abu_ibrahim, may Allah give you tawfeeq. Rather it is you that are predictable as you are the one who is fitting me into labels to scare people from reading my advice by calling me a Madkhali and a securalist and so on.

I ask Allah to grant you tawaadu' so that you may take a step back and consider that I've been where you are. I am 100% confident you have no sufficient knowledge to really discuss this issue or you would have presented proofs by now if you are convinced by clear proofs. Rather, all of what you may present will be a copy-and-paste of what has been selectively translated into English with an agenda behind it, and in any case all of these points of which would have already been responded and is available to be read in Arabic but don't wait for anyone to translate it for you. Rather, as I am saying, learn your deen and start from point one. This is the thing that the student of knowledge always finds the most difficult and many often fall into the trap of approaching issues of the deen in which they do not have sufficient knowledge - may Allah guide us all to the Straight Path.

You are considering it a trick to have a firm understanding of Usool al-Fiqh and Sharee'ah a requirement to discuss issues of a person apostating from the deen? If your heart was ill and failing, would you go to anyone other than a heart specialist? 'Ajeeb... so the affairs of the dunyaa are treated with more caution than the affairs of the Hereafter.

What is amazing is that the same group of people that firmly call the government of Saudi Arabia an apostate government over intricate issues in the Sharee'ah that are not as black and white as they have made, have shown reluctance to apply the same label to Saddam Hussein who lived his whole life ruling by other than Allah's Law. This matter should be enough for the average Muslim to scratch his or her head and realize the matter is not as clear cut as others portray it.

Know, dear brother, that if you consider it a trick from someone to advise you with the taqwaa of Allah, then this in itself is a trick from Iblees. As for the advice of the Last Messenger of Allah (sallalllahu 'alayhi wasallam), that is: "Fear Allah wherever you are."

I advise myself and you akhee with sincerity not out of fear out of the creation or cowardice but rather out of fear of the Day about which every single person who ever set foot on this earth will say to themselves, "Myself! Myself!" except for Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) who will say, "My Ummah! My Ummah!" And Allah knows best.

Regarding the link to the article on al-Hajjaaj, I already read this the first time it was written which was a long time ago. However, this article was responded to by the opposing side, but I do not see their response included. I ask myself, why not? Well, what I have witnessed is a lot of inconsistency in truly addressing the issue. May Allah grant all of us ikhlaas and insaaf in studying this deen and protect us from falling into following our desires, regardless of how beautified they may be to us.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

Ok brother, I am really against calling people who consider themselves as muslims - kafir, In my heart I always try to find an excuse for them, however, how often did Umar ibn al -Khattab (ra) say the famous phrase "Ya Rasulullah, allow me to chop off the head of this munafiq", and did the prophet (saw) say, thats it Umar, you are a khawarij, etc. etc. If I remember correctly Khalid ibn Waleed (ra) also said a similar phrase, but Rasulullah (saw) tried to find an excuse, and generally didn't want people to say that he is killing his companions.

So if some brother sees S.A. regime or any other, commiting what he thinks is clear kufr, by helping the US fight muslims, or by exchanging sharia, and says what he says out of love for islam and muslims and out of pain in the heart for the condition we are in because of these people, why should we condemn these brothers? I think when we have no people in the Umma who feel angry when someone trangresses against Allah, His laws, or muslims, then that will be a sad day. Remember when Umar (ra) in his khutba asked what would muslims do if they found some crookedness in him, and someone said, I think Salman al Farisi (ra) that they will straighten it with their swords, - Umar (ra) said alhamdulillah that I have such followers.

p.s. Also, I find ithat people (daeei) who talk a lot about khawarij etc., speak little about crimes being comitted against muslims around the world. Today mujahedeen are fighting kuffar and munafiqeen, and they are accused of being khawarij, by people who often remain silent about crimes of the kuffar, not to mention doing something about it. I mean isn't this a trait of khawarij, to leave kuffar alone, accuse and kill muslims? These regimes, that rule muslims, are much closer to khawarij imho.

[abusufyaan]

True, Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) didn't label 'Umar (radiyallahu 'anhu) with that label. However, although you will find 'Umar asking for this permission several times in ahadeeth, how many times did he (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) grant it?? This is what we need to really think about before we issue these types of rulings and we should not be simply blind following people that we may admire for whatever reason.

If one wants to pass that ruling on Saudi Arabia, then they need to know that for every point they think is "clear kufr" then there has been a response to that point from other people of knowledge. An easy way out is to label those people of knowledge as "scholars for dollars" but the way of one seeking to know the truth of the matter and seeking only the pleasure of Allah would be to seriously approach the issue from a knowledge based angle with all of the emotional rhetoric put to the side. For example, if one wants to bring forward the book al-Kawaashif by al-Maqdisi then they should accept and not cover up the fact that there is a response written to this book and they should address all the points within this response if they have clear proof that they are holding the correct position. This is the deen it is not a light matter. I ask Allah to remove all of us from this period of immaturity that many brothers and sisters have been in and many remain in.

For all of the sayings that one can bring about 'Umar such as what you have brought, I can bring many more sayings of the Salaf stating the exact opposite such as from al-Hasan al-Basri (rahimahullah) and these sayings are well known and this is the way of the majority of the Salaf.

[WM]

brother abuzzubair, I have pm'ed you

[Shaghuri]

Brother Abysufyaan, where can I find the response to al-Kawashif al-Jaliyah? I would love to read it.

Shukran

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

True, Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) didn't label 'Umar (radiyallahu 'anhu) with that label. However, although you will find 'Umar asking for this permission several times in ahadeeth, how many times did he (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) grant it?? This is what we need to really think about before we issue these types of rulings and we should not be simply blind following people that we may admire for whatever reason.



Umar (ra) said in another narration that after rasulullah (saw), the revelation has ended, so we judge by the apparent from people.


If one wants to pass that ruling on Saudi Arabia, then they need to know that for every point they think is "clear kufr" then there has been a response to that point from other people of knowledge. An easy way out is to label those people of knowledge as "scholars for dollars" but the way of one seeking to know the truth of the matter and seeking only the pleasure of Allah would be to seriously approach the issue from a knowledge based angle with all of the emotional rhetoric put to the side. For example, if one wants to bring forward the book al-Kawaashif by al-Maqdisi then they should accept and not cover up the fact that there is a response written to this book and they should address all the points within this response if they have clear proof that they are holding the correct position. This is the deen it is not a light matter.


I would be glad to know these.


For all of the sayings that one can bring about 'Umar such as what you have brought, I can bring many more sayings of the Salaf stating the exact opposite such as from al-Hasan al-Basri (rahimahullah) and these sayings are well known and this is the way of the majority of the Salaf.

I dont know akhee, I know that rasulullah (saw) said that the way to keep on the right path when difference will arise, and many groups, is to be on what he was and the righteous khulafa after him. And I mentioned what Umar (ra) said, and we know that even Abu Bakr (ra) censured Umar (ra) for being weak at one point, when the trouble with apostates begun. Usman (ra), when the followers of Abdullah ibn Saba came and wanted him to step down or die, was answering all their questions, like why did he pray four rakat in muzdalifa instead of two, or why he is giving wealth to his realtives, and they were claiming that he got richer after becoming a khalif. Usman (ra) gave them answers, he said that he actually got poorer, that his relatives receive as all muslims do, that his four rakat were because he feared beduins will think that two rakats should be done all the time etc., These questions seem funny today, but Usman found it neccessary to answer these questions, although he could at any momnet wipe them out, and sahaba (ra) constatly were asking him to allow them to do it, during that fitna. the point is who is following the righteous khulaafa (ra) today? Sincerely answer this question for yourself.

[abusufyaan]

Alhamdulillah that you can say "I don't know," since this phrase itself is half of knowledge as Imaam Maalik (rahimahullah) said.

How do you understand the hadeeth of Hudhayfah (radiyallahu 'anhu), from which he said the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) said, "There will come leaders who will not follow my guidance nor will they follow my Sunnah. There will be amongst them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of humans." He asked, "What should I do O Messenger of Allah if I reach that?" He replied, "You should hear and obey the ruler. Even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth you should still hear and obey."

The refutation of al-Kawaashif is here: تبديد كواشف العنيد في تكفيره لدولة التوحيد (الدولة السعودية )ـ رد على أبي محمد المقدسي (http://www.islamancient.net/siteimages/libraryfiles/aneed.doc)

ِAlso refer to: البرهان المنير في دحض شبهات أهل التكفير والتفجير (http://www.islamancient.net/siteimages/libraryfiles/alborhanmoneer.doc)

May Allah grant us all sincerity in seeking knowledge and following His deen.

[abusufyaan]

By the way, I do not quite understand where the label of Khawaarij came in??? Perhaps from trying to label me with a group? I never used this phrase and I am not using it rather I am sincerely advising myself and all of you with taqwaa of Allah and that each one of us places ourselves at the appropriate level when it comes to knowledge and likewise place this matter of taking a Muslim out of the deen at the level that it deserves to be in the Sharee'ah. This is not something to chat about in passing as it has become over the recent years, but rather it is a serious matter that one will be held accountable for on the Day of Judgement.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

Alhamdulillah that you can say "I don't know," since this phrase itself is half of knowledge as Imaam Maalik (rahimahullah) said.

How do you understand the hadeeth of Hudhayfah (radiyallahu 'anhu), from which he said the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) said, "There will come leaders who will not follow my guidance nor will they follow my Sunnah. There will be amongst them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of humans." He asked, "What should I do O Messenger of Allah if I reach that?" He replied, "You should hear and obey the ruler. Even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth you should still hear and obey."


And from other narrations we know that if you see clear kufr for which you have a proof in the Book, etc., use the sword. And the Ulama have mentioned this as wajib even. Whats interesting is that the defenders of these, as they themselves admit, at the very least mubtadies, from among ulama, forget to mention other ahadith, like people falling into fitna if they go to the gates of sultan, and forget to mention how the salaf scholars used to run away from the sultans. If they are doing this ostansibly for the benefit of Islam, then what Islam it is without al wala and al bara, or tawheed al hakimiya? And full of blame for poor slaves who have made a deal with Allah, and no blame for mubtadi even according to them, sultans?

Anyway, I dont think this discussion is of benefit. S.A. is among the best places for muslims and Islam, it has given much benefit to the umma through the spread of knowledge, its a shame that their rulers have forgoten the way of their ancestors, in their race for amerikan dollars.

[abu abdil-kareem]

I have been reading this small discussion (small at the moment that is) this evening and witnessed how it has slowly developed, and Masha'Allah it is has been conducted with a reasonable amount of 'Adab which is essential in a discussion of this nature, and if I may add a response Insha'Allah to brother Abu Sufyaan where you said,



How do you understand the hadeeth of Hudhayfah (radiyallahu 'anhu), from which he said the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) said, "There will come leaders who will not follow my guidance nor will they follow my Sunnah. There will be amongst them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of humans." He asked, "What should I do O Messenger of Allah if I reach that?" He replied, "You should hear and obey the ruler. Even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth you should still hear and obey."


and you asked,


How do you understand the hadeeth of Hudhayfah (radiyallahu 'anhu)


Maybe its best answered by relating another narration,


“The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) called us and we gave Bay’ah (oath of allegiance) to him. Among the things that we pledged to do was to listen and obey him both when we felt enthusiastic and when we were disinclined to act, both at times of difficulty and times of ease, and at times when others were given preference over us, and that we would not oppose those in authority. He said: ‘unless they made a blatant show of kufr and you have evidence from Allaah that what they are doing is indeed kufr".

So how would you reconcile these two narrations? Well it might help in relating a section of Imam Ibn Hazm al-Andalousiyyah's (r.h) al-Muhallah, where he said,

"Commanding good and forbidding evil are duties on everyone according to his ability, with the hand for who is capable, and if not then with the tongue, then if not, with the heart and this is the weakest of faith, and there is no faith after that because that is clear Kufr. Allah the exalted says,

“Let there arise among you a group calling for good, enjoining good and for forbidding evil, those are the successful ones”.
[Surat Al-‘Imran: 104]

And Allah says

“If two groups of believers fight, make peace between them, if one of them transgresses then fight them until they return back to the commandment of Allah ”.
[Surat Al-Hujarat: 9].

Reported to us Abdullah Ibn Yusuf, reported to us Ahmed Ibn Fatth, reported to us Abdul-Wahab Ibn ‘Isa, reported to us Muhammad Ibn Ali, reported to us Ahmed Ibn Ali, reported to us Muslim Al-Hajjaj, reported to us Abu-Bakr Ibn Abi Shayba Muhammad Ibn Muthanna, Ibn Abi Shayba said reported to us Wak’i from Sufyan Ath-Thowri and Ibn Muthanna reported to us Muhammad Ibn Ja’far told us Shu’ba, then Sufyan and Shu’ba both agree, both of them from Qais Ibn Muslim from Ţariq Ibn Shihāb who said Abi Sa’eed Al-Khudri said I heard the Messenger of Allah saying,

“Whoever from you hears a Munkar (evil) let him change it with his hand, if he can not then let him change it with his tongue and if he can not then let him change it with his heart and this is the weakest of faith”.

With the same Is.nad to Muslim, reported to us Abdul Ibn Humaid, reported to us Ya’qub Ibn Ibra’heem Ibn Sa’ad, reported to us my father from Salih Ibn Qaisān from Al-Harith from Ja’far Ibn Abdullah Ibn Abdul-Hakam from Abdur-rahman Ibn Mis Ibn Mukhkhrumah from Abi Rafi’ from Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud that the Messenger of Allāh said,

“There was no Messenger before me from any nation except that he has from his ‘Ummah (nation) Huwwaari'oun (supporters/close followers) and companions, who takes his Sunnah and follows his commands. Then after that there will be Khulouf (descendents) who say what they do not do and do what they have not been commanded to do, whoever performs Jihad against them with his hand, he is a believer, who ever performs Jihad against them with his tongue he is a believer and whoever performs Jihad against them he is still a believer, and after that there is not even a mustard seed weight of Eamaan in their heart”.

Ali said, “No two Muslims disagreed that the two 'Ayats ahead are Muh'kamataan not Mansukhataan [they have not been abrogated]. So with this Yaqīni (certitude) then whatever seems to be contradicting them from the Hadīth or otherwise must be Mansoukh (abrogated)”

End of Quote

And we may comment by saying that if the A'hadīth about obeying tyrant rulers, if they are true, they must have a proper interpretation to fit with the 'Ayats or they are Mansoukh. It can not be otherwise because the 'Ijma' clarifies that these two ‘'Ayats are not Mansoukh, because to know that an 'Ayah is Mansoukh you must have evidence, either a narration or the Messenger (saas) saying that this is now abrogated with this, and there are many books in Islam about abrogation with lists of what has abrogated what.

Plus, if we relate the Athaar attributed to Ibn 'Abbas (r.a) where he said,

Ibn 'Abbas was asked about the statement of the Exalted "Whoever rules by other than what Allah has revealed they are al-Kafirun", he (Ibn Abbas) said "Heya Bihi Kufr (It is enough in him Kufr)”. Then Ibn Tawus (r.h) said "…and it is not like the man who denies Allah His Angels His Books and His Messengers".

Or even if we relate the 'Athaar via Hishaam Ibn Hujayr where Ibn 'Abbas (r.a) supposedly commented on the 'Ayah in Ma'idah 44,

Ibn 'Abbas (r.a) said "It is not the Kufr they take it to, it is Kufr Duna Kufr".

Now even for argument sake if we say that ruling by other than that which Allah ta 'ala has revealed is Kufr al-Asghar (which for the record I do not agree with as I believe it constitutes [I]Kufr al-Akbar) then this still constitutes a Kufr Bowwah, which according to the narration should be opposed, which is then complamented by the section that I related from Ibn Hazm's (r.h) al-Muhallah.

Insha'Allah what I have written is not obscure and is not ambiguous, Insha'Allah this has explained the narration of Hudthayfah bin Yamaan,

Wa Salam.

[Logic lover]

We are required to oppose any authority making blatant kufr(unless under a covenant), because Rasulullah, peace be upon him said:

“The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) called us and we gave Bay’ah (oath of allegiance) to him. Among the things that we pledged to do was to listen and obey him both when we felt enthusiastic and when we were disinclined to act, both at times of difficulty and times of ease, and at times when others were given preference over us, and that we would not oppose those in authority. He said: ‘unless they made a blatant show of kufr and you have evidence from Allaah that what they are doing is indeed kufr".

So, who among us would like to be obedient to the apostates?

Legislation is only for Allah and one instance of kufr legislation amounts to major kufr for which a layman has proof from Allah. Setting up a separate judicial system in addition to the Sharia courts, is more than one instance (like in the Saudi state). Takfir of a ruler does not need to be made in order to oppose him.

Allah knows best.

[abusufyaan]

The asl of Ahl as-Sunnah with their rulers is hearing and obeying, and if they command us with that which is haraam then we do not obey that command. However, the principle is not to physically oppose the Muslim ruler if he has not done kufr bawwaah. This principle is taken from the hadeeth which has been quoted: "Unless they made a blatant show of kufr and you have evidence from Allah that what they are doing is indeed kufr."

Do justice dear brothers and quote all of the ahadeeth on obeying the rulers, such as: "The person must obey in whatever he loves, and in whatever he hates, in ease and in hardship, in willingness and un-willingness; except if he is commanded to disobey Allah. So if he is commanded to disobey Allah, then he should not listen, not should he obey."

I am not disputing this or disagreeing with this brothers. What I am asking you to consider is that the issue is not as clear as it has been presented to you. Kufr bawwaah is just that.. bawwaah. If it was bawwaah then you would not find disagreement about it. And as I said, the points which are presented from the side that is opposing the government of Saudi Arabia... all of the points have been addressed and responded to by the other side which forbids opposition to the government. If you read their response you will realize the matter is not as clear as it has been made to be.

For example, and this is just an example I am not opening it up to debate, one popular proof on the side opposing the government is the issue of the mushrikeen in the Arabian Peninsula. Brothers, if you read the method and proofs of the people of knowledge who responded to this point you will find that the issue is not black and white. You will find that historically amongst the fuqahaa' there are differences of opinion as to what exactly is the Arabian Peninsula in this hadeeth and the difference of opinion of whether or not mushrikeen can visit and/or reside there or if they are completely forbidden. Read these writings dear brothers and don't accept everything that has been presented to you from one side without carefully analyzing the proofs on the opposing side. This is justice and this is sincerity and honesty in seeking knowledge and acting on the deen. This is all I am calling to brothers.

You will find many things that will make you raise your eyebrows if you put aside your emotions and zealousness and open the books of other people of knowledge discussing these issues.

If you are of the opinion that this issue is a legitimate issue of difference of opinion then you should respect the people of knowledge on all sides and not throw around labels like Madkhali and secularist.

This is advice to myself and you... don't be selective brothers in your following of the Salaf but instead exercise sincerity and insaaf in all aspects of your 'ibaadah.

Al-Hajjaaj legislated laws opposing the Sharee'ah and the majority of the Salaf did not allow rebelling against him and this is a reality the sincere person must accept. Instead, if you open the books of history you will find al-Hasan al-Basri (rahimahullah) saying: "By Allah! If the people had patience when they were being tested by their unjust ruler, it will not be long before Allah will make a way out for them. However, they always rush for their swords, so they are left to their swords. By Allah! Not even for a single day did they bring about any good." And Imaam Ahmad (rahimahullah) - Imaam of Ahl as-Sunnah - went through his trial with rulers who were forcing people to say the Qur'an is created (and this is clear kufr), and still he did not encourage opposition to these rulers, rather he said: "Verily I supplicate for the ruler, for his correctness, success and support – night and day – and I see this as being obligatory upon me."

Imaam Maalik (rahimahullah) said, "Indeed there are a people who desire worship but squander the Knowledge (being deprived of it) so they revolt against the Ummah of Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) with their swords. And if they had followed the Knowledge, then it would have prevented them from doing that."

Brothers, consider for a moment that the matter may be more complicated than you have come to think it is and don't be hasty in passing a ruling in this deen which you will stand in front of Allah and answer for.. it is a serious matter. I am not calling people away from the issue completely as I was accused of when the brother called me a secularist and Madkhali, rather I am calling everyone to learn the deen and take a knowledge based stance on the matter not an emotional based stance. And Allah knows best.

[Abu_Abdallah]

Barakallahu fik, dear brother! May Allah forgive you and us.

[abusufyaan]

آمـــــــــــــــيـــــــــــن

[knowrass]

jazaakAllaahu alif khayr akhi abu sufyaan wa baarak Allaahu feek! alhamdulillaah, your responses have really made me understood this issue more. i am able to speak arabic, alhamdulillaah, and i started reading:البرهان المنير في دحض شبهات أهل التكفير والتفجير. if you could recommend any more books that deal with the issue, that would be great in shaa Allah!

i just have one more question, in shaa Allah, i hope you could clarify... many people say that the reason the rulers are kaafir is because they've "dismantled" the shari'ah. my question is that are there really many laws in sa'uudiyyah in particularly that oppose shari'ah? for what i know, many shar'i laws are being implemented; thus is there a difference between him who rules by some laws of shari'ah and some that aren't -- yet favours shar'i laws over man-made laws, and he who rules by non-shari'a laws completely?

also, i'd like to know, if your responses about the issue are just regarding the saudi rulers or does the same apply to the other arab rulers? what about one of the north african arab presidents who mocked the shari'a publicly?

jazaakAllaah!

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

Look ikhwan, the point about mushrikin residing in Jazeera, the point even about not ruling with some of the laws of sharia, are arguable as you say. However, how about helping the kuffar against the muslims? From where did the current war in Afganistan and Iraq start? How about showing muwalat to kafir russians fighting the muslims? How about showing baraa from muslim mujahedeen? Have you read the article "When jihad is for the sake of amerika"?

I dont really care if they are muslims or no, they are openly and secretly allies of the greatest enemies of Islam, past, present and future, i.e. Ar-Rum!

So I very much hope and I pray to Allah to help the mujahedeen and to destroy anyone and everyone who is their enemy and who helps their enemies, knowingly, openly or in secret, without being cohersed into this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5yHkGRe2uw

[abusufyaan]

knowrass, wa iyyaakum akhee.

I believe your questions are answered in al-Burhaan al-Muneer and Tabdeed al-Kawaashf al-'Aneed. Particularly look in the section where the author quotes from Kitaab Mawqif Mamlakat al-'Arabiyyah as-Sa'oodiyyah min al-Qadaayah al-'Aalamiyyah fi Hay'at al-Ummam al-Muhtahidah, demonstrating how the government has openly and defianitely opposed UN resolutions which are conflict with the Sharee'ah. There are quite a few other books I am familiar with in shaa' Allah I will draw up a list for you. And Allah knows best.

Brother Abdullah believe it or not these issues have been address as well in the two books I have mentioned. Again I am not saying this or that, but I am saying approach it analyzing all sides in shaa' Allah as the issues of mudhaharah and muwaalaat are detailed issues not black and white issues. And Allah knows best.

[knowrass]

jazaakAllaah abu sufyaan, wa j'alaha fi meezaan hasanaatak! please don't forget the list in shaa Allah.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

Brother Abdullah believe it or not these issues have been address as well in the two books I have mentioned. Again I am not saying this or that, but I am saying approach it analyzing all sides in shaa' Allah as the issues of mudhaharah and muwaalaat is a detailed issue not a black and white issue. And Allah knows best.

I know akhee, I had long discussions on this with a friend of mine, a talib ul ilm from s.a., both sides use the hadith of Abu Baltah I think as evidence. The argument is that helping the kuffar against muslims is not kufr, if done for dunya reasons and not out of love for their religion. However, this is a statement of irja, and in this case as sheikh Nasir al Fahd said, any action which one does, while loving their deen, even if it be salah, will make one a kafir.

There is a beautiful Fatwa of Sheikh Ahmad Shakir, where he gives no excuse to the helpers of kuffar against muslims, except if they didnt know they are helping. This fatwa in my opinion is the closest to truth. In any case, even if you dont make takfir, you still fight them, just as Rasulullah (saw) said about his POW uncle (ra), when he claimed Islam, that Allah's knows better about his Islam, and that his actions were against muslims, so pay the ransom.

You see this topic was of interest to me because in Chechnya we too have so-called muslims helping the kuffar. I stress once again, I am not making specific takfir to the king, or anyone else, but I dont like him, I wish the power was taken by the righteous mujahedeen. The jihad in Iraq, is a big university, which will bring forth lions of this deen insha Allahi taala. Imagine if the afghan jiahd against the soviets and a few hundred arab veterans from there, had such an effect on the umma, then what effect will the tens or even hundreds of thousands have.

I know from the example of Chechnya, how jihad straightens crookedness and removes misguidence of large portions of a nation, even though arabic is not our language. Bush has made a big mistake by going to iraq, and even bigger mistake was by the S.A. regime and others in helping them, becasue US will run away insha Allah, sooner or later, and S.A. and others will be left alone. Thats why they were scaring US that they will intervene if they are going to leave. They are afraid, really afraid of muwahedeen in Iraq.

[abusufyaan]

The below hadeeth of Haatib ibn Abi Balta'ah founded in the six books except for Ibn Maajah.

Ubaydullah ibn Rafi' who was the scribe of 'Ali narrated: I heard 'Ali (radhiyallahu 'anhu) say: The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) sent me and Zubayr and Miqdaad, saying: "Go to the garden of Khakh and there you will find a woman riding a camel. She would be in possession of a letter, which you must get from her." So we rushed on horses and when we met that women, we asked her to deliver that letter to us. She said: "There is no letter with me." We said: "Either bring out that letter or we would take off your clothes (to find it)." She brought out that letter from (the plaited hair of) her head. We delivered that letter to the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) in which Haatib ibn Abi Balta'ah had informed some people amongst the Mushrikeen of Makkah about the affairs of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam). The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) said: "O Hatib, what is this?" He said: "O Messenger of Allah, do not be hasty in judging my intention. I was a person attached to the Quraysh." Sufyaan said: "He was their ally but had no relationship with them." Haatib further said: "Those who are with you amongst the Muhaajireen have blood-relationship with them (the Quraysh) and thus they would protect their families. I wished that when I had no blood-relationship with them I should find some supporters from (amongst them) who would help my family. I have not done this because of unbelief or apostasy and I have no liking for the unbelief after I have (accepted) Islam." Thereupon the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) said: "You have told the truth." 'Umar said: "O Messenger of Allah, permit me to strike the neck of this hypocrite!" But the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) said: "He was present at the battle of Badr, and you do not know, perhaps Allah looked at the people of Badr and said: 'Do whatever you like, for I have forgiven you.' And Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, said: 'O you who believe, do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends.' (60:1)"

With regards to it being a statement of irjaa' I do not know that there is ijmaa' on this. Rather, Shaykh 'Abdul-Lateef ibn 'Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Hasan Aal ash-Shaykh (rahimahullah) explained this hadeeth in the manner which opposes this. He (rahimahullah) explained, as found in ar-Rasaa'il wal-Masaa'il an-Najdiyyah (3/9-10) and ad-Durrar as-Suniyyah (1/474):

"Haatib is to be included among those who are addressed in the name of emaan and is described as having emaan (in 60:1) and he has a special reason which indicated what he wanted and in the noble verses of the Qur'an is that which could include the action of Haatib as being a type of allegiance to the kuffaar and the most evident indication of his love for them. If he did it due to these reasons (of loving them) then he would have strayed from the right path of guidance. However, due to his (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) saying: 'You have spoken the truth' this indicates that he did not disbelieve due to that as long as he still believed in Allah and His Messenger without doubt. He only did that due to a worldly aim and if he disbelieved after it had been said 'free their way' the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) would have said to 'Umar, 'And what do you know, Allah might have looked at them (those who fought in Badr) and said (to them), 'Do what you like, for I have forgiven you,' this would not prevent from making takfeer of him, as we say if he disbelieved what remained of his good actions it would not save him from falling into kufr and its rulings. As kufr destroys what came before it as Allah says: 'And whoever disbelieves in faith, then his work is worthless.' (5:5) 'But if they had joined in worship others with Allah, all that they used to do would have been of no benefit to them.' (6:88)

Kufr destroys one's good actions and one's emaan, this is agreed by consensus. As for Allah's saying, 'You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger...' (58:22)

And Allah's saying, 'O you who believe do not take as protectors and helpers those who take your religion as mockery and fun from among those who received the scripture before you, nor from among the disbelievers; and fear Allah if you indeed are true believers.' (5:57)

The Sunnah explains this and particularizes this as being absolute and general allegiance. The basis of allegiance is love, supporting them and having close friendship with them and numerous other characteristics and every sin has its portion of censure and threat. This issue is well-known about amongst those firmly grounded in knowledge from the Salaf, the Sahaabah and the successors."

Read the quote of Shaykh 'Abdul-Lateef ibn 'Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Hasan Aal ash-Shaykh (rahimahullah) several times.

In other words, the scholars of the view that for dunyaa purposes it is not kufr are differing on the exact definition of muwallaat. They accept the saying of Ibn Hazm (rahimahullah) which was quoted earlier, but they are differing on the shari' definition of muwallaat, and their differing on this comes from Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam) accepting the excuse of Haatib (radhiyallahu 'anhu) and in addition to that making an excuse for him mentioning his past deeds which he would not have mentioned if they were nullified due to kufr. So the difference on what exactly is "allying" and an "ally" according to the Sharee'ah.

Also look at the explanation of Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahullah) in Zaad al-Ma'aad (2/115) concerning the hadeeth of Haatib:

"This was quoted as evidence by those who do not think that the Muslim spy should be killed, such as ash-Shaafi'i, Ahmad and Abu Haneefah (may Allah have mercy on them all). And it was quoted as evidence by those who think that the spy should be killed, such as Maalik and Ibn 'Aqeel among the companions of Ahmad, and others. They said: This is because the reason for not killing him was that he had been present at Badr. If being Muslim was the reason for not killing him, he would not have given a reason that is more specific, which is the fact that he had been present at Badr."

Notice, he used this hadeeth to discuss the ruling of a Muslim spy who helps the disbelievers over the Muslims for a worldly reason.

I do not see how one could claim ijmaa' on this issue because I can bring you quotes of Imaam ash-Shaafi'i, al-Qurtubi, Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Aloosi, as-Sa'adi, ash-Shanqeeti, Ibn 'Uthaymeen and others - may Allah shower His mercy upon all of them - showing them going against this so-called ijmaa'. Al-Qurtubi (rahimahullah) said very direct and straightforward, "Whoever informs of the secrets of the Muslims to the enemies of the Muslims then such a person is not a disbeliever if he is doing it out of a worldly reason yet his belief is sound, as Haatib (radhiyallahu 'anhu) did when he mentioned that he wanted to do the kuffaar a favor (and by doing so protect his family) and not that it was done out of apostasy of the deen."

But, dear brother, to be honest with you my point of mentioning all of these quotes is not to engage in a discussion, but to demonstrate that the issue is not as black and white or clear as many brothers and sisters have come to think that it is. So according to this argument, either all of the scholars I just mentioned are guilty of irjaa' or there is in fact no ijmaa' on this issue at all.

And Allah knows best.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

But, dear brother, to be honest with you my point of mentioning all of these quotes is not to engage in a discussion, but to demonstrate that the issue is not as black and white or clear as many brothers and sisters have come to think that it is. So according to this argument, either all of the scholars I just mentioned are guilty of irjaa' or there is in fact no ijmaa' on this issue at all.

And Allah knows best.

Ya akhee, I read all of this exactly one year ago, when discussing this with one talib ul ilm. Our discussion took about 20 pages, and I too was quoting Ulama, ayat and ahadith, and I believe this opinion is the correct one, so I too dont want to repeat it all.

Just one hadith from al Bukhari:

Volume 3, Book 48, Number 809:

Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab:

People were (sometimes) judged by the revealing of a Divine Inspiration during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle but now there is no longer any more (new revelation). Now we judge you by the deeds you practice publicly, so we will trust and favor the one who does good deeds in front of us, and we will not call him to account about what he is really doing in secret, for Allah will judge him for that; but we will not trust or believe the one who presents to us with an evil deed even if he claims that his intentions were good.

[abusufyaan]

Brother Abdullah, waffaqakallah, in reality, all of the scholars I mentioned in my last post know the hadeeth you quoted and they know the explanation of it more than me and you will ever know. I have brought you the words of the Salaf and how they explained this issue. If you can bring other words from the Salaf that explain the issue in this manner then I would like to see out of interest. It is clear from the quotes I provided that there is no ijmaa' on the issue and that the opinion does not necessitate being guilty of irjaa' as you said. And obviously, as I said before, the issue is not as clear and black and white as it has been made by others. I hope we can agree to this point at least. Honestly, I am not trying to convince you of any opinion, but just sincerely advising myself and you to not be hasty on taking stances while possibly not at the appropriate level of knowledge which we will be responsible for on Yawm al-Qiyaamah. This is my advice out of my love for you and every other Muslim.

Likewise, I advise myself and you to humble ourselves and take heed of the saying of Imaam Ahmad (rahimahullah) and that is, "You should beware of speaking about an issue in which you are not preceded by a scholar." And Allah knows best.

[abusufyaan]

By the way, I also wanted to share with you related further words from Shaykh 'Abdul-Lateef ibn 'Abdur-Rahmaan Aal ash-Shaykh (rahimahullah) found in ad-Durar as-Sunniyyah fi Ajwibat an-Najdiyyah (7/177-178):

And those people - those who are under trial - do not know that with the exception of 'Umar ibn 'Abdul-'Azeez and whoever Allah willed from among the Bani Umayyah - great mishaps, insolence, taking up arms (against the people) and corruption occurred from most f those in charge (wullaat) of the people of Islam from the time of Yazeed ibn Mu'aawiyyah (till the present). But along with that, the manner and behavior of the notable scholars and mighty leaders with the rulers is well-known and renowned - they do not raise a hand against giving obedience in that which Allah and His Messenger have commanded from among the legislated actions and obligatory duties of Islam.

And I will give you an example - that of al-Hajjaaj ibn Yoosuf ath-Thaqafi, and his affair is well-known in the ummah - that of oppression, represison, excessiveness in spilling the blood (of the Muslims), desecration of the Sanctities of Allah, the killing of whomever he killed amongst the notables of the ummah such as Sa'eed ibn Jubayr, the besieging of Ibn az-Zubayr even though he had sought refuge in the Haram, and making lawful the sacred and sanctified, the killing of Ibn az-Zubayr - even though Ibn az-Zubayr had given obedience to him and the people of Makkah, Madeenah, Yemen, and most of 'Iraaq had given the pledge of allegiance to him (Ibn az-Zubayr) and al-Hajjaaj was only a deputy of Marwaan, and then of his son 'Abdul-Malik and none of the khulafaa' had given Marwaan a pledge of allegiance to him. And along with all of this none of the People of Knowledge hesitated in obeying him and complying with him in that in which obedience is permissible from amongst the pillars of Islam and its obligations.

And Ibn 'Umar and whoever met al-Hajjaaj were from amongst the Sahaabah, and they never contested with him and nor did they prevent obedience to him in that by which Islaam is establishd and by which Emaan is perfected. And it is likewise for those who were also in the era of al-Hajjaaj from among the Taabi'een such as Ibn al-Musayyib, al-Hasan al-Basri, Ibn Seereen, Ibraaheem at-Taymi, and those like them from among the leaders of the ummah.

And the affair continued like this between the leading scholars of the ummah - they would enjoin obedience to Allah and His Messenger and making jihaad in His path along with every leader whether righteous or sinful, as is well-known in the books of the fundamental principles and beliefs of the religion.

And similarly, Banu al-'Abbaas, they conquered the lands of the Muslims forcefully, with the sword - and not one of the People of Knowledge and Religion aided them int hat - and they killed hordes of people and many of the creation from among the Banu Umayyah, their leaders and their deputies. And they killed Ibn Hubayrah, the ameer of 'Iraaq and they also killed Marwaan, the khaleefah - and it was reported that the murderers killed around 80 people from the Banu Umayyah in a single day - and then they placed their blankets above their corpses, sat upon them and then called for food and drink.

So along with all of that the conduct of the leading scholars - such as al-Awzaa'ee, Maalik, al-Layth ibn Sa'ad, 'Ataa ibn Abi Rabaah - with those kings is not hidden from the one who has a share in knowledge and realization. And then the next generation of the People of Knowledge such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Muhammad ibn Ismaa'eel, Muhammad ibn Idrees, Ahmad ibn Nooh, Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh and their brothers - there occurred in their time what occurred from the kings of the great innovations and the denial of the Sifaat and they were called to (affirm) these things and were put to trial by them and whoever was killed, was killed such as Ahmad ibn Nasr. But along with all of this it is not known that a single one of them raised his hand against obedience (to those kings) and that he saw it fit to attack them.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

And did this Muhadith Judge not know the hadith of Hatib, or the words of
Salaf, before giving such fatwa?


The Verdict of Imām Ahmad Shākir 497

The Mufassir, Muhaddith, Muhaqqiq, the Salafī Muftī of the Lands of Egypt- Al-‘Allāmah
Ahmad Shākir (ra, 1309-1377) said:

“As for collaborating (Ta’āwun) with the English (against the Muslims), with any type (of cooperation) from the various types of cooperation, 498 regardless of how minute or great: then this is the extreme apostasy (ar-riddah al-jāmihah), and undeniable infidelity (al-kufr as- sirāh). And there is no acceptable excuse in this regard, nor any beneficial misinterpretation (Ta’wīl), nor does feebleminded patriotism save (anyone) from its ruling, nor any foolish politics, 499 nor in order to show courtesy (mujāmalah).

It is Nifāq (the major hypocrisy, which expels from Islām), whether it is from individuals, governments or leaders - they are all equal in kufr and riddah. 500

(No one is excused) except he who is unaware (that it might benefit the kuffār) or mistaken (not knowing that he helped them). 501 Then he becomes aware of his matter, so he repents, and takes the Path of the Mu’minīn, then those are people whom Allāh may forgive- if they become sincere to Allāh, not (if they do it) for the (sake of) politics, nor for (showing and pleasing) the people.

And I believe that I have been able to clarify the verdict for fighting the English, and the ruling regarding collaborating with them, no matter what the nature of the cooperation or association may be- so that every Muslim who can read Arabic will be able to grasp it, no matter what class (of society) the person is from, and no matter in what part of the Earth he resides.

And I assume that every reader is no longer in doubt, that it is something which is self- evident and no further explanation or evidence is needed; that the affair of the French in this sense is the same as the English, in accordance to every Muslim on the face of the Earth. For indeed the hostility of the French against the Muslims, and their extreme zeal in their activities to obliterate Islām, and in waging war against Islām, is multiple times more than the zeal of the English and their hostility. Rather, they are feebleminded in nationalism and hostility. And they are killing our Muslim brethren in each Islāmic land in which they have authority or influence. And they perpetrate such crimes and atrocities, that the crimes and
savagery of the English seem trivial and dwindle in comparison. So they and the English are
equal in the verdict: Their blood and their wealth is Halāl, regardless of where they are.
502 And it is not permissible for any Muslim, no matter where on Earth he may be, to
cooperate with them (against the Muslims) - no matter what type of collaboration it may be. And verily, cooperating with them has the same ruling as cooperating with the English - apostasy and complete exit from Islām; no matter what the colour of the cooperator is, or his type, or his nationality… “ 503

Until he stated:

“…Alas! Let every single Muslim in each and every corner of the world know! That if he collaborates with the enemies of Islām - those who are enslaving the Muslims - from amongst the English, the French or their various allies and those who resemble them- with any form of cooperation, or shows peace to them and doesn’t wage war against them with whatever he is capable of 504- let alone assisting them with statements or actions against their brethren in Dīn; So if anyone does any of these things, then he performs Salāt- then his Salāt is invalid (Bātil); or seeks to purify himself with Wudhū’ (ablution), Ghusl (bath), or Tayammum - then his purification is invalid (Bātil); or fasts an obligatory or voluntary Siyām, then his fasting is Bātil; or performs Hajj, then his Hajj is Bātil; or gives the obligatory Zakāt, or gives charity (Sadaqah) voluntarily- then his Zakāt is Bātil, and rejected (and thrown) back to him; or worships his Lord with any form of ‘Ibādah- then his ‘Ibādah is Bātil and rejected back onto him. 505 There are no rewards for him in anything from that - Rather, (it is) sin and burden against him. 506

Alas! Let every single Muslim know! That if he rides this faulty vessel (assists the kuffār
against a Muslim), then his deeds are invalidated- (meaning) every single ‘Ibādah which he dedicated to his Lord before he tossed himself into the filth of apostasy, which he was satisfied with for himself 507- and refuge is sought with Allāh, lest a Muslim who is truly deserving of the great description that he believes in Allāh and His Messenger actually be satisfied with that.

This is because Īmān is a condition for the validity and acceptance of every ‘Ibādah, as is well- known and obvious by necessity in the Dīn - and no one from the Muslims would disagree in this matter.

And this is because Allāh (Glory Be To Him) says,




“And whosoever commits kufr against Īmān, then his deeds are cancelled; and in the
Hereafter he will be among the losers.” 508

And that is because Allāh (Glory Be To Him) has said,



“And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your Dīn (Islām), if they can. And whosoever of you turns back from his Dīn, and dies as a kāfir, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter. And they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever.” 509

And that is because Allāh (Most High) has said,


“O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and Christians as Awliyā’. They are but
Awliyā’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them as Awliyā’, then surely he
is one of them. Verily, Allāh guides not those people who are the Thālimīn. And you
see in those in whose hearts there is a disease (of hypocrisy), they hurry to their friendship, saying: ‘We fear 510 lest some misfortune of a disaster may befall us.’ Perhaps Allah may bring a victory or a decision according to His Will. Then they will become regretful for what they have been keeping as a secret in themselves. And those who have Īmān will say, “Are these the men (hypocrites) who swore their strongest oaths by Allāh that they were with you (O Muslims)?” 511 All that they did has been in futility, so they have become losers.” 512

And that is because Allāh (Glory Be To Him) has said,

“Verily, those who have turned back (have apostatized) after the Guidance has been manifested to them- Shaytān has beautified for them (their false hopes), and (Allāh) prolonged their term (age). This, is because they said to those who hate what Allāh has sent down, “We will obey you in part of the matter.” But Allāh knows their secrets. Then how (will it be) when the Angels will take their souls at death, smiting their faces and their backs? That is because they followed that which angered Allāh, and hated that which pleased Him. So, He made their deeds fruitless. Or do those in whose hearts is a disease (of hypocrisy), think that Allāh will not bring to light their hidden enmity? Had We willed, We could have shown them to you, and you should have known them by their marks; but surely, you will know them by the tone of their speech! And Allāh knows (all) your deeds. And surely, We shall test you till We know the Mujāhidīn from amongst you, and the patient ones (in Jihād); and We shall test your facts. 513 Verily, those who commit kufr and hinder (people) from the Path of Allāh, and oppose the Messenger, after Guidance has been clearly shown to them, they will not harm Allāh in the least. Rather, He shall make their deeds invalid. O you who Believe! Obey Allāh, and obey the Messenger, and do not wipe your (own) deeds out. Verily, those who commit kufr, and hinder (people) from the Path of Allāh
- then die while they are kuffār - Allāh will never forgive them. So do not be weak,
and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Allāh), while you have the upper hand. Allāh is with you, and He will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.” 514

Alas! Let every Muslim and every Muslimah know! That those ones who have come out to fight against their Dīn, and are aiding their enemies - that whosoever marries these people, then their marriage is invalid (Bātil) 515, nullified from its very base, and it is not possible to validate it; and not a single thing remains from the wedlock, like affiliation and inheritance and such things. And that whosoever was already married, then their wedlock is annulled.

And likewise, those who repent 516 from amongst them - and return to their Lord and to
their Dīn, and wage war against His enemies, and help His Ummah - then the spouses that they married while in a state of apostasy, or whom they were married to at the time of the riddah - they are not their wives, nor are they under their protection. Rather, after the repentance, it is obligatory to renew their wedlock, by performing a new, valid, Shar’ī contract, 517 as is clear and obvious.

Alas! Let the Muslim women in each and every corner of the world take heed! So that before they marry, they should be sure that those who are offering to marry them are not from this forsaken group that has left the Dīn - in order to protect their own selves and their honor;
To preserve themselves from having intercourse with men whom they assume are their husbands, but in reality they are not their husbands - for verily their wedlock is invalid in the Dīn of Allāh.

Alas! Let the Muslim women know! Those whom Allāh has tested by giving them spouses who flung themselves into this filthy apostasy - Let them know that their marriages are nullified (Bātil); and they have become Harām for these men (who have collaborated with the kuffār), and they are no longer their husbands; until they (the collaborators) repent a correct repentance which is acted upon (‘Amaliyyah), 518 and then they marry them with a new, valid marriage.

Alas! Let the Muslim women know! That whosoever from amongst them is pleased to marry
a man like this, while knowing that he is such; or is pleased with remaining (in marriage) with this husband whom she knows has this riddah in him - Then she shares the same ruling as her husband in apostasy - they are equal. And may Allāh save the Muslim women from being pleased with anything like that for themselves and for their honor, and the lineage of their children, and their Dīn.

Alas! Indeed the matter is very severe, and it is not a joke. 519 And what is the benefit of setting laws that punish those who collaborate with the enemy - as indeed, how many ploys there are to dodge the texts of the Divine Laws, and how many paths there are
to free the Mujrimīn 520 of any blame- by using fabricated interpretations, and clever
statements. 521 But even so, the Ummah is responsible for establishing its Dīn, and to take
action in order to aid it, in every moment and era. And the individuals will be questioned, when they are in front of Allāh on the Day of Resurrection, regarding what their hands had sent forth, and what their hearts were doing.

So let every person look into himself, and become a fence (of protection) for his Dīn, to protect it from the abuse of the abusers, and from the treachery of the traitors; for every Muslim is (a vanguard) at a port from the ports of Islām, so let him beware lest Islām will be attacked from his side. And verily, the Victory is only from Allāh. And,







“Surely, Allāh will help those who help His Cause.” 522

- End of the words of Imām Ahmad Shākir Al-Misrī ﷲا ﻪﻤﺣر.

497 This section is taken from his book “Kalimatu Haqq” (126-137). This is taken from an extremely
lengthy Fatwa from the Shaykh entitled, “An address to the Egyptian Nation specifically, and to the Arabian and Islāmic Nations generally”. This deals with the ruling about cooperating with the English and French, during the period of their occupation and transgression against the Muslims. He is more severe against the French because they were the carriers of the banner of the Crusade in the Egyptian lands, at that time. As today the Americans are. May Allāh have mercy upon the Shaykh, and enter him into Jannah, and benefit the Ummah with his knowledge.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (ra) also didnt knowabout this hadith?

“The Eighth Nullification of Islām: Helping the kuffār and cooperating with them against the
Muslims. As Allāh (Most High) has said,


“And if any amongst you takes them (kuffār) as Awliyā’, 533 then surely he is one of them (kuffār).” 534

And it is well known that all of the Ten Nullifications are a matter of Ijmā’ of the scholars.

And Imām Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb ﷲا ﻪﻤﺣر then says at the end of his treatise, “So there is no difference concerning these Ten Nullifications between the one who does it out
of jest, or while being serious, or out of fear for his wealth and status (Khā’if); the only one excused is the Mukrah. 535 All of these are the greatest danger upon most people. So the Muslim should beware of these Nullifications, and he should fear for himself in regards to
them.”

And how about Sheikh Ibn Baz (ra) :

Shaykh ‘Abdul-Azīz Ibn Bāz ﷲا ﻪﻤﺣر? the Shaykh unrestrictedly said, “The ‘Ulamā’ of Islām are united upon the fact that whosoever aids the kuffār against the Muslims, or collaborates with them with any type of assistance - then that person is a kāfir just like them.”

Have you read the book Ad Dalaail by tibyan ya akhee? Read it and read the end of Millat Ibtahim, they deal with these things in detail. I just copy a few bits for your convenience.

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

And let us end this with the words of Imām Hamad Ibn ‘Atīq ﷲا ﻪﻤﺣر:

“Chapter: Which excuse is acceptable for harmonizing with the mushrikīn, and displaying obedience to them?

Know, that this happens within three situations 574 -

1) He harmonizes with them both externally (in actions) and internally (in the heart, belief, love, etc.); and obeys them externally, and favors them, and befriends them in
his heart (also). 575 So such a person is a kāfir, outside the fold of Islām; whether or
not he is coerced to do such. And he is of those people regarding whom Allāh said,

“but such who open their breasts to kufr, 576 on them is wrath from Allāh, and theirs will be a great torment.” 577

2) That he harmonizes with them, and favors them internally (in his heart), while being against them externally (with speech and actions). Then such is a kāfir also, and he is the munāfiq (hypocrite). But, as long as he acts according to Islām externally (and does not show any kufr), his blood and wealth is protected. 578

3) That he harmonizes with them externally (with speech and actions), while being against them internally (hating them in the heart). And this is further divided into two categories:

a) He does that because he is under their might and strength, while he is tortured and imprisoned by them; and they threaten to kill him, and they order him, “Be in harmony with us and obey us - Or else we will kill you.” So only in such a condition, it is permissible to harmonize with them externally, while his heart is firmly upon Īmān, 579 as happened to ‘Ammār ﻪﻨﻋ ﷲا ﻲﺿر for which Allāh revealed


“except he who is forced thereto while his heart is at rest with Īmān”
580


- which is just like the Verse,



“except if you indeed fear a danger from them”. 581

These two Verses have the same meaning, as was pointed out by Ibn Kathīr
in his Tafsīr on the Verse from Āl ‘Imrān.

b) He does that only externally (in speech or action), while he opposes that
internally (in his heart he hates the kuffār) - but he is not under their might nor strength.582 And the only reason he did that is because he desired a leadership role583, or money, or extreme attachment to the homeland, or because of responsibilities, or because of fear of some misfortune. So such a person becomes an apostate (murtadd), and his internal hate against kufr will not benefit him a bit. 584 And such a person is as mentioned by Allāh,



“That is because they loved and preferred the life of this world over that of the Hereafter. And Allāh does not guide the people who are kāfirīn.” 585

So Allāh has clarified that they didn’t apostatize because of being ignorant of the Truth, nor because they hated it, nor because they loved Bātil - but rather, the only reason was because of a worldly desire. So they preferred this material world rather than the Dīn.

And this is the meaning of the words of Shaykh Al-Islām Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb, 586
may Allāh have mercy upon him and forgive him.

And as for what many of the people think is an acceptable excuse, then it is from the beautification and seduction of Shaytān. That is because some of the friends of Shaytān scare these people - and this Khawf (fear) is not an excuse - they assume that it is okay to display harmony and give obedience to the mushrikīn. 587

And then there are others for whom Shaytān beautifies for them their greed for the world,
he makes them hallucinate that it is okay for them to harmonize with the mushrikīn for worldly benefits - and the Juhhāl (ignorant people) think that such a person has been coerced(by his desires); But the scholars have already mentioned what Ikrāh really means… [Then
the Imām quotes a long statement from Ibn Taymiyyah ﷲا ﻪﻤﺣر]…

And that which is benefited from this, is that no one is under Ikrāh (to commit kufr), until he
is tormented by torture or captivity. And (it also clarifies) that mere verbal threats are not considered Ikrāh. 588 And likewise is the fear (Khawf) that the kuffār will separate him from his wife - such things are not real Ikrāh. 589

So when you have realized this, and have also realized what the many people have fallen into regarding this - then the statement of the Prophet ﻢﻠﺳو ﻪﻴﻠﻋ ﷲا ﻰﻠﺻ will become obvious to you, “Verily, Islām began as something strange, and it shall return to being something strange (again) - So
all glad tidings for the Strangers (Ghurabā’).” 590 And indeed it has become something strange
again. And that which is even stranger than Islām, is that person which truly follows it. 591
And success is only from Allāh.”


- End of the words of Imām Hamad Ibn ‘Atīq ﷲا ﻪﻤﺣر. 592

[abusufyaan]

I've read at-Tibyaan and Millat Ibraaheem - both of these books have been responded to by the way, have you read these responses?

Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir (rahimahullah) did not mention the hadeeth of Haatib. I brought you the words of al-Qurtubi and Ibn al-Qayyim and one of the Imaams of the Da'wah of Najd to establish that "the basis of allegiance is love, supporting them and having close friendship with them" and to simply hold on to this letter of Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir is a bit stretching it.

As far as ad-Dalaa'il, dear brother I brought you the words of Shaykh 'Abdul-Lateef who is from Aal ash-Shaykh. I know these books you are mentioning well, and I know that in Millat Ibraaheem especially there is selective quoting and presentation of the quotes from what I have observed. The author enjoys quoting Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn Sahmaan (rahimahullah) - but why does he fail to quote how much he praised King 'Abdul-'Azeez? He quotes Shaykh Hamad ibn 'Ateeq (rahimahullah), but doesn't quote his words of praise for the rulers of Saudi Arabia. And the rest of the Imaams of the Da'wah of Najd of that time did so likewise. Why keep quiet on this? Because it doesn't support his opinions? The Imaams of the Da'wah of Najd were always close to the rulers, beginning with Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhaab (rahimahullah) himself - so does that make all of them government scholars??! Their students who are alive today are holding on to their same positions. This is not justice in presenting these scholars opinions on the matter. Be cautious akhee and guard yourself from following the agendas of other people. Be honest and open and accept that Tibyaan, al-Maqdisi, and whoever else are not the final say or major authority on this issue or any other issue. Hold positions in the deen that you yourself have reached with firm knowledge and you will stand for in front of Allah with on Yawm al-Qiyaamah, a Day where there will be no one to help you or assist you in arguing those positions - may Allah protect us all and give us His shade.

Look into the matter deeper dear brother that is all I advise you with. Before you mentioned 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab (radhiyallahu 'anhu) as a proof to judge by the apparent and to oppose oppressive rulers, but I mentioning to you the actions of his own son 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar (radhiyallah 'anhu) and how he dealt with the oppressive ruler al-Hajjaaj. Who knows 'Umar more, me and you 1,400+ years later or his own son?

Out of placing the subject in its proper position and doing justice with it, take a look into other writings on this matter. There are many other writings besides at-Tibyaan and Millat Ibraaheem. For example, see how the grandson of Shaykh Hamad ibn 'Ateeq (rahimahullah) who is alive today - Shaykh Hamad ibn 'Abdul-'Azeez ibn Hamad ibn 'Ateeq - explains the issue in many of his works and lectures. Look into matters deeper, if the words of Shaykh Hamad ibn 'Ateeq (rahimahullah) applied to Saudi Arabia, why was his own son Shaykh Sa'ad ibn Hamad ibn 'Ateeq (rahimahullah) the Chief Judge of Riyaadh?? Do these things make sense?

As I said before, I'm not here to discuss the matter itself in detail. The advice I gave before and still am giving to myself and you is to focus on attaining firm knowledge before taking such stances that you will be responsible for in front of Allah, that you may have taken without completely researching the issue. And this advice applies to all issues of 'ibaadah not just this controversial one that is being discussed here. And Allah knows best.

[knowrass]

I've read at-Tibyaan and Millat Ibraaheem - both of these books have been responded to by the way, have you read these responses?


akhi, where can I find the response to Millat Ibraheem (AS)?

[Abu Faaris As-Sumalee]

Asalamu 'Alaykum wa rahmatullah


It sadens me greatly,that we find ourselves in a time where we are being masacured and humiliated in our lands, a time when the stumouchs of our women in afganistan, iraq and shishan are being filled with the children of zina from the enemys of Allah, a time when the muslims are selling themselves to the kufar in the west, just so they can be accepted, we see this kind of talk.


Why do we always have to bring up a topic that has had its janazah before anyone of us was born?. Every time one of these people decides its time to teach people why they are khawarij, he is responded to with the qur'an, the sunnah and the words of the sahabah and the words of agreed upon classical 'ulema, yet still they never accept.

All of the evidence has been presented in the rabee' thread, but if the qur'an and sunnah with the understanding of the sahabah is not enough for you, then...what can i say?

...anyway please brothers make dua for majlis shoora in iraq, taliban in afganistan and our brothers in shishan, that Allah keeps on giving them victory. And please make dua that Allah helps our brothers in mahakim islamiya because the u.s have been attacking them from the sky with their planes and from the coast with their ships and have put soldeirs on the ground. So please make dua for all of them

jazakumallahu khairal jazaa

[abusufyaan]

With all due respect dear brother Abu Faaris, your entire post is emotions. I am simply advising brothers to look into the matter more and know that the response from the opposing side is not the result of them being government scholars, not caring about the Ummah, or wanting to label anyone Khawaarij - rather their view is a knowledge based view. If you are sincere and read the works of those who oppose your opinions, you will have to bear witness to this. Simply because one opposes you in an opinion does not make them an evil person or a person with an evil intent. Do you realize that you just made the accusation against me and others that we believe the Qur'an and Sunnah with the understanding of the Sahaabah is not enough for us? I advise myself and you to fear Allah and to choose our words more carefully. Would you accuse me of being guilty of crimes related to worldly matters such as committing zinaa and drinking alcohol without firm proof? No, but when we are discussing matters of the deen you have swiftly accused me and others. In any case, I forgive you for this and ask Allah to remove this from your record on Yawm al-Qiyaamah as I hope and believe you are sincere but overly zealous and not conscious of what everything you are saying really implies.

You are mentioning claims that are not accurate and if you are seeking the truth and not just seeking to appear correct, which I pray we all are, then why not simply accept this? Ask yourself, would you behave in the same manner if we were discussing some other aspect of the deen that many Muslims consider trivial and distant from their worldly life, such as wudhoo'? I am not even here to debate the issue brother, but on the one issue of muwaalaat I showed how it has been defined by the Salaf as the basis of allegiance is love, supporting them and having close friendship with them. Did you read the words of Shaykh 'Abdul-Lateef (rahimahullah)? From what I see you are insisting that this issue has ijmaa' on it when clearly this is not the case. So why keep insisting? Because of the humiliation the Ummah is going through?

Allah has decreed for our Ummah time after time great massacres and humiliation, but what has been the way out in the past? Has it been to agree to and blindly support and follow every call simply because it appears be a call or solution to support Islam and the Muslims? Rather the way to regain honor and escape humiliation has been from a knowledge-based response, as we see if we study the lives of those who have revived the deen and brought honor back to the Muslims, such as Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah), Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) and Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhaab (rahimahullah). We are here discussing the deen and discussing the Sharee'ah, how is this a harmful thing if this is what you desire the Muslim lands is ruled by? If there is no harm in discussing other issues of fiqh and 'aqeedah, then why is this issue harmful, simply because it affects our worldly life?

The way Salaah ad-Deen (rahimahullah) attained victory was not from ignoring past and current mistakes of the Ummah simply because he was being humiliated. Ask yourself, dear brother, where does the humiliation, massacres and any other hardship regardless of how large or small of the Ummah come from? If you answer that it is due to the Kuffaar, Munaafiqeen or Murtaddeen and their plots and so on, then you will see that this answer itself is from one of our utmost causes for humiliation. And Allah knows best.

[abusufyaan]

akhi, where can I find the response to Millat Ibraheem (AS)?

Tabdeed al-Kawaashif al-'Aneed contains responses throughout it to the author in specific and that book in general. And Allah knows best.

[abusufyaan]

jazaakAllaah abu sufyaan, wa j'alaha fi meezaan hasanaatak! please don't forget the list in shaa Allah.

Aameen wa iyyaakum akhee.

Here is a very brief list I have drawn up in the short amount of time of the works that have been written from the opposing side.


الإلْمَامُ بِمنهج السلف في التعامل مع الحكَّام (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/elemia/alilmam.doc)
التَّبيين والتَّفْصيلُ في مسألَتَي التَّقْنِينِ والتَّبْدِيل (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/elemia/altfsel.doc)
تَحْذِيرُ الشَّبابِ مِنْ أسبابِ التَّطَرُّفِ والإرْهَابِ (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/khawaridj/tahdir.doc)
التوبيخ والتشهير بثالوث التكفير والتفجير (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/khawaridj/taoubikh/taoubikh.doc)
الرد على بعض دعاة الفتنِ والفسادِ الأول والثاني (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/khawaridj/rad-fitn/rad-fitn2.doc)
الحجج القويَّة على وجوب الدفاع عن الدولة السعودية (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/difahsaudia/alhogg.doc)
ثناء الأئمة النبلاء على دولة آل سعود الأوفياء الشرفاء (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/thana-alolama.doc)
دَفْعُ الشُّبَهِ الغَوِيَّةِ عن المملكةِ العربيَّةِ السُّعُودِيَّة (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/difahsaudia/df3.doc)ِ
أسباب ضعف المسلمين (http://www.islamancient.net/siteimages/libraryfiles/daeefmuslem.doc)
الحقوق الشرعية لولاة أمور المسلمين من رب البرية (http://www.islamancient.net/siteimages/libraryfiles/hogogshareeah.doc)
الرد على من طعن في السلفية وسماها بالجامية (http://www.islamancient.net/siteimages/libraryfiles/jamiah.doc)
دك حصون الحزبية في بلاد التوحيد السعودية (http://www.islamancient.net/siteimages/libraryfiles/dakhosoonhazbiah.doc)
قيادات الصحوة التغير والتلون ..... حقائق وأخطار (http://www.islamancient.net/siteimages/libraryfiles/geiadat.DOC)
كشف الشبهات العصرية عن الدعوة الإصلاحية السلفية (http://www.islamancient.net/siteimages/libraryfiles/kshifshobat.DOC)


And Allah knows best.

May Allah grant us all sincerity in seeking knowledge for His sake alone.

[Abu Faaris As-Sumalee]

Asalamu 'Alaykum wa rahmatullah

akhi, realy im too tired of this to dedicate time to speaking to your kind, like i did with SZaman, so habibi go to the rabee' thread and read why the king of bilad al-haramain is kafir, there you will see all of the preventitive factors removed, and his kufr being explaind.

we proved it with the qur'an and its authentic explanation, and we even showed your irjah , not from us , but from your own scholers.

May Allah guide us, from speaking on matters when our salaf have already explained, the correct ruling.


And parting advice akhi: no one is scared of this "woe to those who pray" attitude, maybe the ones who infected you with this ideology, did a good job in scaring you with this attitude, but akhi your not speaking to someone who had to learn arabic and finds it hard to read the qur'an and sunnah, so leave this attitude because we have seen it before, with SZaman and the rest of your kind.

so just read the rabee' thread, or better still, why dont you phone up Shaykh salih al-fawzan and ask him wether or not hukum bi gairi ma anzallah is kufr that expells you from the fold of islam, and wether he endorses this irjah you call to?.


you might not like the answer, but what do you expect?


....oh and a side note akhi, if someone takes a ruling that is supported with authentic statments of the sahabah and has also read sayings of the classical 'ulema, and then makes takfir of Kind abdullah, how is he a kharijee?. Is not your peoples lable a bit extreme?

[Logic lover]

Quote:

''The way Salaah ad-Deen (rahimahullah) attained victory was not from ignoring past and current mistakes of the Ummah simply because he was being humiliated.''


Reply: What were the past and then current mistakes of the Ummah which Salah ad-Deen took notice of? Did he start with the Aqeedah? If so, which Aqeedah was he preaching?

[y-mughal]

The book 'Man-Made Law vs. Shari'ah' by Abdur-Rahmaan bin Saalih al-Mahmood destroys all the specious arguments and sophisms brought up by the Murji'a (and abusufyaan) in particular.

[knowrass]

Aameen wa iyyaakum akhee.

Here is a very brief list I have drawn up in the short amount of time of the works that have been written from the opposing side.


الإلْمَامُ بِمنهج السلف في التعامل مع الحكَّام (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/elemia/alilmam.doc)
التَّبيين والتَّفْصيلُ في مسألَتَي التَّقْنِينِ والتَّبْدِيل (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/elemia/altfsel.doc)
تَحْذِيرُ الشَّبابِ مِنْ أسبابِ التَّطَرُّفِ والإرْهَابِ (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/khawaridj/tahdir.doc)
التوبيخ والتشهير بثالوث التكفير والتفجير (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/khawaridj/taoubikh/taoubikh.doc)
الرد على بعض دعاة الفتنِ والفسادِ الأول والثاني (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/khawaridj/rad-fitn/rad-fitn2.doc)
الحجج القويَّة على وجوب الدفاع عن الدولة السعودية (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/difahsaudia/alhogg.doc)
ثناء الأئمة النبلاء على دولة آل سعود الأوفياء الشرفاء (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/thana-alolama.doc)
دَفْعُ الشُّبَهِ الغَوِيَّةِ عن المملكةِ العربيَّةِ السُّعُودِيَّة (http://www.otiby.net/book/files/difahsaudia/df3.doc)ِ
أسباب ضعف المسلمين (http://www.islamancient.net/siteimages/libraryfiles/daeefmuslem.doc)
الحقوق الشرعية لولاة أمور المسلمين من رب البرية (http://www.islamancient.net/siteimages/libraryfiles/hogogshareeah.doc)
الرد على من طعن في السلفية وسماها بالجامية (http://www.islamancient.net/siteimages/libraryfiles/jamiah.doc)
دك حصون الحزبية في بلاد التوحيد السعودية (http://www.islamancient.net/siteimages/libraryfiles/dakhosoonhazbiah.doc)
قيادات الصحوة التغير والتلون ..... حقائق وأخطار (http://www.islamancient.net/siteimages/libraryfiles/geiadat.DOC)
كشف الشبهات العصرية عن الدعوة الإصلاحية السلفية (http://www.islamancient.net/siteimages/libraryfiles/kshifshobat.DOC)


And Allah knows best.

May Allah grant us all sincerity in seeking knowledge for His sake alone.

jazaakAllaah akhi for the list. i just have one more question, what is the name of the book in response to Tibyaan, as it is quite popular amongst the shabaab?

[Abuz Zubair]

I feel that people have gone into extremes in this issue.

Some people have made takfir of all the rulers without exception a signpost of their da’wah, such that they judge people’s tawheed according to the number of rulers they make takfeer of.

These are then opposed by the other extreme who in their attempt to refute the obvious errors of the former, end up defending and arguing for the oppressors and the tyrants, even those of them who may be the leaders and ideologues of socialist movements, active in their war against Islam.

The golden rule for an average layman here is to remember Imam Ahmad’s statement:

Iyyaka an tatakallama fi mas’alatin laysa laka fiha imam – beware of speaking in an issue in which you have no Imam.

And this is the end of the argument, at least for a layman.

Besides, even the radical of the most radical mashaykh in Saudi, such as Shaykh Humud and others did not make takfir of the Saudi rulers. The same is applied for some of the ‘radical’ talabat al-‘ilm, such as ‘Ali al-Khudayr and others.

Besides, there are other Mashaykh, radical and not so radical, ikhwan and not so-ikhwani scholars who have never made takfir of the Saudi government or the rulers, and they are under no pressure at all.

This does not mean we go to the other extreme and make the love of Saudi gov a part of iman and manhaj, and the hatred thereof a sign of nifaq and enmity to tawheed. Rather, the Saudi government, at least after ‘Abdul-‘Aziz, has taken a completely different route such that it hates its wahhabi past and endeavours to distance itself from it. Sometimes tensions between elements of Aal al-Shaykh family and the ruling family become public, but only to fade away after a day or two. One only needs to turn on the TV, or read al-‘ukadh, Saudi Gazette or Arab News to discover the direction the Saudi society is being dragged towards. We’ve all heard about government support for the Sufis and Quburis like al-‘alawi al-maliki and others, as we are all aware of their support for the secular agenda in Saudi.

So the claim that they are the defenders of tawheed, sunnah and salafiyya is no longer correct. Yes, the past was glorious, but the present is saddening and unfortunate. But none of that warrants the takfeer on the Saudi gov, even if they be oppressors and mislead.

Moreover, the situation in Saudi, as it is in any country, is not black and white. There are many Islamists in Aal-Saud family, and indeed there are princes who are great Mashaykh, whilst there are those in Aal al-Shaykh family who are calling for free-mixing of genders and are the major force behind women driving.

Similarly, even amongst the government and intelligence services you would find really sympathetic Islamic people as you would find the opposite. Now we understand why ‘Abdullah ‘Azzam used to make du’a that O Allah! Increase the good people in mukhabarat!

In fact, there are areas where I believe that the scholars have fallen short and the government is taking a leading role therein, whereas it is the scholars who should be taking a leading role therein.

Then there are issues that do not go beyond the Administrative system in Saudi, which people have taken to be hukm bi ghayri ma anzalAllah and on account of which made takfeer on the government. In fact, to your surprise, al-Durar al-Saniya, in the last volume has a fiery letter of nasiha addressed to one of the ministers in Saudi, accusing him of hukm bi ghayri ma anzalAllah. Yet, if you read the entire document, you discover that it is all about providing job security for the employees and making sure that their rights are not abused. Why the need for that? Because the world was just been hit by industrialisation and therefore, it needed proper regulations. And this sort of legislation, one could easily argue that it falls within masalih mursalah, but not hukm bi ghayri ma anzalAllah which the esteemed Shaykh is accusing the gov of!

Whatever the case, none of the scholars have declared Saudi gov to be a kafir gov. And for argument’s sake, even if it was kafir, they wouldn’t find absolutely any benefit in declaring so to anyone, because the issue has no practical implications to it. On the other hand, the issue could prove to be dangerous if a group of young men DIY mujtahids and self-proclaimed mujaddids were to take up arms and destroy within hours what these scholars have been building for years. Fatwa is a responsibility, and a mufti calculates the consequences of everything he utters or writes.

And this is why I also think that this discussion between us in the West is fruitless because it has no practical implications in our lives. The Salaf would not speak about issues that are completely irrelevant to them. Imam Malik would actually ask the questioner before asking his question: Has it happened yet? Because they hated answering hypothetical questions or those questions that have absolutely no relevance to the questioner. Furthermore, these fruitless issues do not save one from the fire of Hell, nor enter one into Paradise, in fact, it may bring us closer to Hell by causing unnecessary dissension amongst brothers with little fiqh who are eager to divide our ranks for issues that wouldn’t even be counted as issues of fiqhi ijtihad, but only as useless issues.

What concerns is are the principles of al-hukm bi ghayri ma anzalAllah, and that to replace Sharia laws with secular laws if major kufr, and that it is prohibited to refer to secular courts, and can become kufr if one believes in the permissibility thereof; and that it is kufr by agreement to aid the kuffar against the Muslims, etc, etc.

And then even if one falls into kufr, there are certain impediments and obstacle to takfir, which must be removed before declaring an individual to be a kafir.

[Logic lover]

Quote from Abuz Zubayr:

''What concerns is are the principles of al-hukm bi ghayri ma anzalAllah, and that to replace Sharia laws with secular laws if major kufr, and that it is prohibited to refer to secular courts, and can become kufr if one believes in the permissibility thereof; and that it is kufr by agreement to aid the kuffar against the Muslims, etc, etc.''


Reply:

Yes brother! those who have issues in this matter, either side of the argument, should come forward and have a general discussion. That will, inshaAllah, reveal our beliefs regarding this issue of Iman and kufr.

So, come forward with the arguments.

[knowrass]

What concerns is are the principles of al-hukm bi ghayri ma anzalAllah, and that to replace Sharia laws with secular laws if major kufr, and that it is prohibited to refer to secular courts, and can become kufr if one believes in the permissibility thereof; and that it is kufr by agreement to aid the kuffar against the Muslims, etc, etc.

akhi, could you please read the attachment and tell me if it is the correct stance of ahlus-sunnah wal-jamaa'ah? (it's less than one page, it's an excerpt from a book)

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

I've read at-Tibyaan and Millat Ibraaheem - both of these books have been responded to by the way, have you read these responses?

Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir (rahimahullah) did not mention the hadeeth of Haatib. I brought you the words of al-Qurtubi and Ibn al-Qayyim and one of the Imaams of the Da'wah of Najd to establish that "the basis of allegiance is love, supporting them and having close friendship with them" and to simply hold on to this letter of Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir is a bit stretching it.

As far as ad-Dalaa'il, dear brother I brought you the words of Shaykh 'Abdul-Lateef who is from Aal ash-Shaykh. I know these books you are mentioning well, and I know that in Millat Ibraaheem especially there is selective quoting and presentation of the quotes from what I have observed. The author enjoys quoting Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn Sahmaan (rahimahullah) - but why does he fail to quote how much he praised King 'Abdul-'Azeez? He quotes Shaykh Hamad ibn 'Ateeq (rahimahullah), but doesn't quote his words of praise for the rulers of Saudi Arabia. And the rest of the Imaams of the Da'wah of Najd of that time did so likewise. Why keep quiet on this? Because it doesn't support his opinions? The Imaams of the Da'wah of Najd were always close to the rulers, beginning with Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhaab (rahimahullah) himself - so does that make all of them government scholars??! Their students who are alive today are holding on to their same positions. This is not justice in presenting these scholars opinions on the matter. Be cautious akhee and guard yourself from following the agendas of other people. Be honest and open and accept that Tibyaan, al-Maqdisi, and whoever else are not the final say or major authority on this issue or any other issue. Hold positions in the deen that you yourself have reached with firm knowledge and you will stand for in front of Allah with on Yawm al-Qiyaamah, a Day where there will be no one to help you or assist you in arguing those positions - may Allah protect us all and give us His shade.

Look into the matter deeper dear brother that is all I advise you with. Before you mentioned 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab (radhiyallahu 'anhu) as a proof to judge by the apparent and to oppose oppressive rulers, but I mentioning to you the actions of his own son 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar (radhiyallah 'anhu) and how he dealt with the oppressive ruler al-Hajjaaj. Who knows 'Umar more, me and you 1,400+ years later or his own son?

Out of placing the subject in its proper position and doing justice with it, take a look into other writings on this matter. There are many other writings besides at-Tibyaan and Millat Ibraaheem. For example, see how the grandson of Shaykh Hamad ibn 'Ateeq (rahimahullah) who is alive today - Shaykh Hamad ibn 'Abdul-'Azeez ibn Hamad ibn 'Ateeq - explains the issue in many of his works and lectures. Look into matters deeper, if the words of Shaykh Hamad ibn 'Ateeq (rahimahullah) applied to Saudi Arabia, why was his own son Shaykh Sa'ad ibn Hamad ibn 'Ateeq (rahimahullah) the Chief Judge of Riyaadh?? Do these things make sense?

As I said before, I'm not here to discuss the matter itself in detail. The advice I gave before and still am giving to myself and you is to focus on attaining firm knowledge before taking such stances that you will be responsible for in front of Allah, that you may have taken without completely researching the issue. And this advice applies to all issues of 'ibaadah not just this controversial one that is being discussed here. And Allah knows best.


Jazak Allahu khairan bro, but I was not talking about king Abdul-Aziz, or even about the S.A. regime of 20 years ago. Infact my reason of speaking out is the fact that we have a great number of people who murder and torture muwahhideen helping the kuffar, and they do this for the dunya reasons if you ask them, so according to you they are perfectly muslim, just some sinners, and I will never agree with this opinion, or rather with the opinion that it is not allowed to kill them, but I really wouldn't like to see these people in Jannah ever, if Allah allows me to go there insha Allah, through His mercy. So according to this opinion the dead munafiq Akhmad Kadyrov could as well get to jannah, subhan Allah, because we dont know what was in his heart, and you say that we have to know whats in the heart.

You know, I dont think there are many murtadeen whatsoever in the world, according to this definition even if they kill and torture muwahhideen under the command of kuffar, because the absolute majority of them do this out of love for dunya not the kuffar.

I should remind you, dear brother, that most of the people that supported musaylimah, did not believe in him, infact the said that Rasulullah (saw) is the prophet (saw) but they are supporting him because of dunya reasons. So according to this definition they were muslims, and the war was not the war with apostasy. And you know what? Khaleed ibn Waleed (ra) detained one sahabee, and wouldn’t free him, simply because this sahabi did not fight the murtadeen, while being close to them.

Moreover, in the article of Hajjaj, it clearly states that we dream today about rulers such as al-Hajjaj, so I have no problem with Ibn Umar (ra) or others accepting him. The deviance of mutazilite khulafa in the times of Imam Akhmad was in aqida issues, and Imam believed that they have a wrong taaweel. We know that even without making takfeer to them, another scholar of Sunna, Akhmad ibn Nasr al Khuzaii, was preparing a rebellion against them, for their bida.

So, although I am grateful to you for your concern, you mention some names and their opinions, and I mention some and their opinions, and looking to the seera, and the best generation, and the best among them, and the clear ayat from the quran, and the clear ahadith, I believe it all supports the opinion which I mentioned, but in any case, I am sure that it is allowed to kill the collaborators, not only according to clear sharia, fitra, but even according to international law, because it seems the s.a. regime takes this into consideration too.

By the way, in the times of the WW2, Stalin used to imprison those Russian POWs who were taken as prisoners in battles, and later managed to escape. He used to kill those who would surrender without a fight. Forget about collaboration. This is what it took to destroy the Nazi germany. Although UK and US say that they won the germans, it were the Soviets who took on the brunt of the Nazis.

Finally I dont understand what was the reason of mentioning the 8th nullifier of Islam, if in reality any big sin, which is done with the love for kuffar, is a nullifier of Islam. What's this ijma about? And These ten nullifiers are printed and distributed and translated into all languages by the Saudi Arabia. It seems there is Islam for the outside world and Islam for S.A. regime.

I agree with brother Abu Faris, and make Dua for the mujahedeen around the world, and everyone who helps them and supports them, and I ask Allah to guide us all to the clear Sharia, and to protect us from all kinds of misguidance, to make us the inhabitants of al Firdaus.

[Abuz Zubair]

akhi, could you please read the attachment and tell me if it is the correct stance of ahlus-sunnah wal-jamaa'ah? (it's less than one page, it's an excerpt from a book) Brother, is this a joke? This is a fatwa by al-Lajna al-Daima, how can anyone declare that it is not the stance of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah?

But the fatwa itself is in response to a very general question. The general question was about ‘the one’ (without mentioning who exactly) rules according to other than Allah’s laws (and even this remains vague). And hence, the response, too, was general: the one who believes it to be permissible is a Kafir, and the one who does not, is not a Kafir.

This fatwa is too general to be applied to the ideologue of a secular party who wants to ban the Hijab in schools in some Muslim country.

But the irony is that this issue was done and dusted years ago, such that I have most probably forgotten all the detailed arguments by now. The same al-Lajna al-Daima also passed a damning verdict against the propagandist of Irja thought, and in particular, on the issue of tahkim al-qawanin, refuting three of the propagandists by name. It surprises me as to why someone would still, after six long years from the issuance of those verdicts, still pull out general fatwas, when the same Lajna has dealt with these issues in particular, such that they couldn’t have been more particular and more explicit than they were in that Sunni fatwa.

Besides, scholars have been writing books after books about this topic, from them Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd, Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan and others that I became bored of this topic years ago. This is no longer an issue in countries like Saudi Arabia.

Shaykh Ibn Baz’s words, from what is apparent to me, also do not refer to a legislator who legislates laws contrary to Sharia. It only refers to (again, very general wording), the one who ‘rules according to other than what Allah has revealed’. And when we read further, Ibn Baz states:

ومن قال: أنا أحكم بهذا، وهو يعتقد أن الحكم بغير ما أنزل الله لا يجوز، ويقول: الحكم بالشريعة أفضل، ولا يجوز الحكم بغيرها، ولكنه متساهل، أو يفعل هذا لأمر صادر من حكامه فهو كافر كفراً أصغر لا يخرج من الملة، ويعتبر من أكبر الكبائر<o></o>

I.e. the one who rules by other than Allah’s law, because such law has be issued by his ruler, i.e. he himself is like a judge in a non-Islamic court, and not that he is legislating the laws, then yes, no doubt this is not Kufr Akbar, but it is from the most major of sins.

But who would look for his general and ambiguous comments here and there and avoid reading his entire book on the topic? Naqd al-Qawmiyya al-‘Arabiyya?

But as I said, this is an old issue which has been sufficiently dealt with, such that there isn’t a need to beat the dead donkey.

[abusufyaan]

Jazakallahu khayran Abuz Zubair for your reply. I agree the issue is old but it appears that the misunderstandings surrounding it are just as old and this seems to be the reason it continues to appear.

I stand by my advice regardless of the attacks, mockery and insults the brother Abu Faaris, may Allah forgive him and us, seeks to make against me. In our strange times when we advise each other to fear Allah it is used against us to make us look weak and cowardly with an agenda to infect you with. Yes, akhee, I want to infect myself and you with the taqwaa of Allah. There is no "my peoples opinion," I already made it clear that I am not accusing anyone of being from the Khawaarij. I prefer that you actually read my posts before taking the time to violate the rights I have over you as a Muslim - but as is the case before I forgive you for this as I know where you and the other brothers are coming from.

It is amazing that a person who has so much concern and care for the Ummah in lands distant from himself is unable to carry a conversation with gentleness and manners with another Muslim whom he is in direct communication with, but this isn't too surprising as I think it demonstrates a reason why the Ummah is in the current situation. May Allah forgive us all and guide us to the Straight Path.

As far as the book by Shaykh Abdur-Rahmaan bin Saalih al-Mahmood (hafidhahullah) - if that is his belief that the government has apostated, why hasn't he proclaimed it? Is the response that the one whose book you are using as a proof a coward? Of course not.

In shaa' Allah instead sincerely look into matters deeper brothers and don't let your research into the matter end at a PDF file translated by Tibyan. Don't piece things from here and there to arrive at a ruling, rather ask those who know if something doesn't make sense to you. As far as Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (hafidhahullah), if you agree with him which I do then why don't you agree with his ruling that the government of Saudi Arabia is not kuffaar? Do you use him as proof and believe he is a coward to speak on the issue? May Allah help us all to do our research with sincerity seeking only the truth regardless of how much it opposes our desires, Shaykh Saalih is from those who wrote an introduction to the book refuting al-Kawaashif - Tabdeed al-Kawaashif al-'Aneed. Why the bias and selectiveness?

Lastly, if the matter was as black and white as you continue to make it then it would not be an exhausting effort for you to just mention the clear proofs you have for the ruling you are holding firm to. You continue to mention ijmaa', irjaa', all of these heavy words.. but unless you are accusing Imaam ash-Shaafi'i, al-Qurtubi, Ibn al-Jawzee, Ibn al-Qayyim, and many others with irjaa' and going against this ijmaa' .. then something does not add up.

I ask Allah to protect us all from following our desires regardless of how beautified they have been made to us.

The golden rule for an average layman here is to remember Imam Ahmad’s statement:

Iyyaka an tatakallama fi mas’alatin laysa laka fiha imam – beware of speaking in an issue in which you have no Imam.

And this is the end of the argument, at least for a layman.

Jazakallahu khayran Abuz Zubair for your response as this is the summary of my advice. I know you are busy and hoped you would answer the que