Question on abdullah azzam

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

as salaamu alaykum

brothers and sisters i hear that abdullah azzam brought a fatwa which he had shaykh muhammad salih al uthaymeen and shaykh ibn baz rahimullah ta ala alayh to check and they agreed to it. The issue was of jihad being fard ayn. Now this is something that can be easily seen in fiqh books as explanations. However what im curious is did they agree with abdullah azzam in his manhaj and was he of those who made takfir of rulers? And was he of one who promoted breaking of covenants.

[Abuz Zubair]

There was a link here somewhere about Abu Qutayba's blog concerning the topic... if someone provide it for us again?

And no, Abdullah Azzam was never on that tip.

[Abu Sabaya]

'Alaykum as-Salam;

And was he of one who promoted breaking of covenants.

Far from it.

To give you an idea, he even said in a recorded lecture that if you happened to be a Mujahid who was let out of a Russian prison on the condition that you would not raise arms against Russia, you would not even be allowed to kill Gorbachev if you saw him walking down the street, due to your obligation to abide by your agreement.

Also, read this: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/s...9317#post19317

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

mashaallaah my dear brother jazakallaah khayr this is the balanced view!

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

as salaamu alaykum

also what is shaykh hamood ibn uqla ash shuayb rahimullah stance on ruling by other than what Allaah revealed. I hear he has same stance as shaykh ibraheem rahimullah and shaykh ahmad shakir rahimullah.

[knowrass]

as salaamu alaykum

also what is shaykh hamood ibn uqla ash shuayb rahimullah stance on ruling by other than what Allaah revealed. I hear he has same stance as shaykh ibraheem rahimullah and shaykh ahmad shakir rahimullah.

and what's their stance?

[Suhaib Jobst]

and what's their stance?

Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Aal Ash-Shaykh (d. 1389H):

"….The fifth, and it is the greatest and the most encompassing and the clearest opposition of the Sharee'ah and stubbornness in the face of its laws and insulting to Allah and His Messenger and opposing the courts of the Sharee'ah on their roots and branches and their types and their appearances and judgements and implementations the references and their applications. So just like the courts of the Sharee'ah there are references, all of them returning back to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger like that, these courts have references, which are laws that are assembled from many legislations and laws like the laws of France and America and England and other laws and from the Madhhab of some of the innovators who claim to be under the Sharee'ah.

"And these courts are now fully operational in the settlements of Islam, people entering them one after another, their rulers judge upon them with what opposes the Sunnah and the Book with the rules of that law and they impose that on them and approve it for them. So what Kufr is there beyond this Kufr and what nullification of the Shahaadah of Muhammadar Rasool-Allah is there beyond this nullification?!" – Risalat Tahkeem Al-Qawaneen.

"As for that which is described as kufr doona kufr, it is when he refers the dispute to other than the Book of Allah knowing that he is disobeying Allah by doing so, and that the ruling of Allah is the truth, and He does it once. Such a person would not be committing major infidelity. As for those who legislate laws and make others obey them, this constitutes kufr, even if they claim that they made a mistake, and that the laws of Allah are more just; such is considered as the kufr which entails riddah (i.e. kufrul-akbar)." - Al-Fataawa, Vol. 12/280.

"Verily from the greater and clear kufr is giving the accursed man-made laws, the position of that which the faithful spirit descended upon the heart of Muhammad, sallallahu 'alayhi wa salam, so that he may be from the warners in the clear Arabic tongue, and judging between the nations, and referring back to it, is in contradiction of, and an obstinate rejection of Allah, ta'ala saying: '(And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, sallallahu 'alayhi wa salam, if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination.'(4:59).
"Allah the Most Perfect and High has negated the belief of those who do not make the Prophet the judge in that about which they differ - strengthening the negation by repeating it and swearing upon it. He says: 'But no, by your Lord, they can have no belief, until they make you a judge in all disputes between them, and find no resistance in themselves against your judgments, and instead submit wholeheartedly.'(4:65)." - Al-Fataawa, Vol. 12/284; and Risalat Tahkeem Al-Qawaneen.

Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir (d. 1377H):

"So look, O Muslims, in all of the Islamic countries or the ones which claim to be Islamic, in all the parts of the Earth, to what your enemies from the missionaries and colonists have done to you! They have put upon the Muslims, laws of misguidance, which destroy the etiquettes and the Deen. European laws, which are idols, which were never based upon any Sharee'ah or Deen, rather they were based upon rules that were made by the Kuffar who refused to believe in the Messenger of their era, Isa, alayhi sallam.

"And he remained upon his paganism with with what he had from Fisq and Fujoor (i.e. oppression). This person was Justinian, the father of the laws and the one who established the basis - so they claim - and an important man from Egypt who - due to oppression - attributes himself to Islam, and who did not feel too ashamed to translate the laws of that transgressing pagan and he called it 'The Code of Justinian,' insulting 'The code of Maalik,' one of the encyclopedias of Islamic Jurisprudence, which was based upon the Book and the Sunnah, and which is attributed to the Imam of Dar Al-Hijjrah (i.e. Madinah)! So look at the level of absurdity and shamefulness and recklessness of that man!

"These laws, which the enemies of Islam imposed upon the Muslims due to enmity; in reality it is another religion and they made it a Deen for the Muslims in replacement of their pure Deen because they made it obligatory upon them to follow it and obey it. And they put into the hearts, love and adoration for it to the point where you see upon the tongues and the pens, words like, 'The holiness of the judgments,' or 'The holiness of the courts,' or 'The holiness of the laws,' and words like these, which they refuse to describe the Islamic Sharee'ah or the opinions of the Jurists of Islam with! Instead, they describe it (i.e. the Sharee'ah) with words such as, 'Reactionism,' or 'Stagnant,' or 'Priesthood,' or 'the Sharee'ah of the Jungle,' or other than that from the evils that you see in the newspapers or the magazines or modern books, which are written by the followers of those pagans.

"Then they started to label these (fabricated) laws and the studies of those (fabricated) laws with the word, 'Al-Fiqh,' and 'Al-Faqee,' and 'At-Tashree,' and 'Al-Mushaara,' and other words that the 'Ulama of Islam used to describe the Sharee'ah and its 'Ulama. Then they go further and to the degree where they compare the Deen of Islam and its Sharee'ah with their modern Deen, and this modern Deen became the basis which the Muslims take their Hukm to and they judge with it, in most of the Islamic countries whether it is in something that complied with it coincidentally and not out of due to following it and not out of obedience to the command of Allah or the command of His Messenger.

"So whatever complies and whatever contradicts; both are stuck in the mud of misguidance and it leads the one who follows it to the Fire and it is not allowed for a Muslim to be submissive to it or be pleased with it." - Umdaat At-Tafseer Mukhtaasir Tafseer Ibn Katheer of Ahmad Shaakir, Vol. 3/214-215.

"Have you seen this strong description by Al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer - in the eighth century - about that man-made law, which was fabricated by the enemy of Islam, Genghis Khan? Do you not see that it describes the situation of the Muslims at present, in the fourteenth century? Except for one difference that we pointed out before, which was that it was within a particular group of rulers, who were destroyed so quickly. Then they were mingled within the Islamic ummah, and the effect of that which they did was removed. Then the Muslims are now in a worse situation and severer in oppression and darkness than them. This is because most of the Islamic ummah are now about to be mingled within the laws which are opposed to the Sharee'ah, and which are similar to that 'Yasiq'.

"The matter in these fabricated laws is clear with the clearness of the sun. It is clear Kufr and there is nothing hidden about it and there is no excuse for anyone who attributes themselves to Islam, whoever they may be, to act according to it or to submit to it or to approve of it. So each person should beware and every person is responsible for himself. So the 'Ulama should make the truth clear and tell what they have been ordered to tell without concealing anything." – Umdaat At-Tafseer Mukhtaasir Tafseer Ibn Katheer of Ahmad Shakir, Vol. 4/173-174.

As for the position of Shaykh Hamud ibn 'Uqla (rahimahullah), then he had the same position as the rest of the contemporary scholars, i.e. that ruling by other than Shari'ah is Kufr al-Akbar, although unfortunately I do not have the relevant documented statements. And Allah knows best.

[justabro]

ٌSomething related to the question:

http://alhawali.com/index.cfm?method...B2%D8%A7%D9%85

[Abuz Zubair]

lol... Sh Safar's tape. I heard it years ago, I remember being disappointed by it. More than half of the tape (>30 mins) was just about the title of the book: Defence of Muslim Lands, the most important obligation. True, the first obligation upon a person is Tawheed and Iman, but I don't think Sh Abdullah Azzam disagreed with that either. His book was after all directed to the Muslims. He was only paraphrasing Ibn Taymiyya's statement: There is no obligation more important - after faith - than to repel the enemy. So I felt it was a bit unjust of Sh Safar to criticise him for that, and moreover spend 30 minutes criticising just that. There may be other statements of Sh Abdullah Azzam, not present in the book but in his tapes that are more worthy of criticism. But the book was not a good target.

But the rest of what Sh Safar said is valid, i.e. even if we say Jihad is Fard 'Ayn, what does it exactly mean? Does everyone get up and leave? And to be honest, even Sh Abdullah Azzam's opinion was not clear on this issue. In many of his fatwa sessions he allowed people to stay back in their countries on the condition that they come to Jihad every now and then. Going by the book, something like that shouldn't be allowed when Jihad is Fard Ayn. He allowed many other things, too.

May Allah forgive us all.

[Shaghuri]

Do you remember back in the day, when this came out, it was responded to by Abdul Qadir Abdul Aziz, upon which, Shaikh Salah al-Sawi responded to him, defending Safar?