Reply to Questions from a Visitor - Tibyan Publications
This is a discussion on Reply to Questions from a Visitor - Tibyan Publications within the Global Affairs forums, part of the Main Topics category; Someone asked us some questions about our differences with the Tiby‚n forum, our stance on Ibn B‚z, our stance on ...
- 10th March 2009 #1
Reply to Questions from a Visitor - Tibyan PublicationsSomeone asked us some questions about our differences with the Tiby‚n forum, our stance on Ibn B‚z, our stance on Tah‚kum, and our stance on retaliation against non-combatants. They didnít want their name published and they asked for the reply to be in e-mail. We are answering it publicly due to the number of people who have asked about these issues in the past.
Wa ĎAlayk As-Sal‚m,
Firstly, the people who ran the forums before it was abandoned are the same people at the blog, minus the Brother who was in charge of the technical matters.
As for the issue of the TakfÓr of Ibn B‚z, then our stance is that we donít agree with making TakfÓr of him. The reason for this is that none of the contemporary Scholars that we take from ever did this, in fact, many of them praised him, and some explained their reasons for not making TakfÓr for him, and forbid people from doing so as well. The one Brother who is no longer with us was the only one who ever took this opinion, yet it was never in any of our works, nor did any of the other contributors agree with it. In fact, many of us debated this with him as well as with some of the members of the forum, in private as well as publicly. This ended up being one of the three main reasons that the Brother left us, due to him feeling we were too lenient.
As for the issue of Tah‚kum, then we assume that you are referring to the issue of seeking judgments from a non-Isl‚mic court, when a personís rights have been taken, and the person only wants his rights, nothing more. This is an issue in which our Scholars have differed. Some viewed it to be permissible and did not believe that it was included in the issue of Tah‚kum ilat-T‚ghŻt, others viewed it as kufr, while others refrained from judging upon it. From those who considered it kufr as an action, were some of the Scholars of Najd, such as Hamad ibn ĎAtÓq an-NajdÓ in ďAd-Durar as-SaniyyahĒ, Vol. 8/273, and from the current day Scholars, Shaykh ĎAbdull‚h ibn Muhammad al-Ghunaym‚n. As for those who refrained from judgment, then that was Shaykh ĎAbdul-Q‚dir ibn ĎAbdil-ĎAzÓz. As for those who permitted it and did not consider it coming under the issue of Tah‚kum ilat-T‚ghŻt, or that it was allowed due to necessity, then from amongst them were SiddÓq Hasan Kh‚n in ďAl-íIbrah FÓm‚ Warada Fil-Ghazwi wash-Shah‚dati wal-HijrahĒ, pg. 252, and from the current day Scholars, AbŻ Qat‚dah al-FilastÓnÓ, H‚mid ibn ĎAbdill‚h al-ĎAlÓ, AbŻ BasÓr at-TartŻsÓ, and ĎAbdul-ĎAzÓz ibn S‚lih al-JarbŻí, and al-H‚fith Sulaym‚n ibn N‚sir al-ĎUlw‚n explained the issue of retaining lawyers in order to defend oneself and seek damages when your rights are violated. The opinion that we feel is the strongest is that this does not come under the Tah‚kum ilat-T‚ghŻt which was declared kufr, due to the absence of an Isl‚mic court to implement the peopleís rights. However, if a person is seeking something that isnít his right, or if he has the ability to take the judgment to a Muslim who will be able to implement the rulings as a Hakam, yet chooses to go to a k‚fir court, then this still falls under the Tah‚kum ilat-T‚ghŻt. For more information on these topics, look to ďRefutation of the Doubts Concerning Bayíah and Im‚rahĒ, by Shaykh ĎAbdul-Q‚dir ibn ĎAbdil-ĎAzÓz, and ďThe Slicing Sword Against the One Who Forms Allegiances with the DisbelieversĒ, by ĎAbdull‚h ibn ĎAbd al-B‚rÓ al-Ahdal, both translated by At-Tiby‚n Publications. As for the lies that have been made against us, that we make TakfÓr for people appealing parking tickets, etc. then these are lies from people who have a vested interest in people thinking we are extreme, so that our material isnít read and they can keep spreading their ideas about current affairs. Also, this opinion of the permissibility of seeking rights was another reason that the aforementioned Brother left us.
On the issue of non-combatants and Qis‚s, first we need to define the word non-combatant. If what is meant by it is ďcivilianĒ; someone who isnít in the military, then this is a terminology which is not from Isl‚m. In Isl‚m, there is no term ďcivilianĒ. In Isl‚m there are the following categories and sub-categories. There are ďMuslimsĒ and ďdisbelieversĒ. The Muslims are protected unrestrictedly, except in a small number of instances in which their blood is permitted, such as Zin‚ from someone who has previously had intercourse, killing another Muslim, and some other instances when a judgment is placed on him. The disbelieversí blood is permitted as the default ruling, but there are instances in which they are protected. These are times when they are given an ĎAhd or covenant of security by the Islamic state, or by a Muslim individual. There are also certain categories of disbelievers who are protected as a category. Some of these categories are agreed upon by the Scholars and others are disagreed upon. As for the categories agreed upon, then they are the children; those under the age of puberty, and women; females above the age of puberty. As for the categories disagreed upon, then they are the blind person, the one missing a limb which makes him unable to fight, the old person who is not able to fight and does not have any political or other influential power amongst the disbelievers, the monks and the likes who have secluded themselves away from the people and do not get involved in political matters, and a few others. With regards to the Qis‚s or retaliation against these groups, then for all of the categories other than women and children, it is clear that retaliation is allowed, because even the evidences used to forbid their blood to begin with are either weak or are not of a type which would legislate laws. As for the women and children, then the stronger opinion seems to be that it is allowed, as long as those being retaliated against are from the same people whom the original attacks came from against the Muslims. For more detailed reading on these topic, refer to articles by Shaykh ĎAbdull‚h ibn N‚sir ar-RashÓd (ĎAbdul-ĎAzÓz ibn RashÓd at-TuwaylaíÓ), may All‚h free him, in ďSawt al-Jih‚d MagazineĒ, Issue #26, pages 13-15, Issue #27 pages 13-15, Issue #28, pages 18-24 and Issue #29, pages 28-33. Also look to ďMas‚íil Min Fiqh al-Jih‚dĒ, by Shaykh AbŻ ĎAbdill‚h al-Muh‚jir, may All‚h free him, pages 29-162.
- 16th March 2009 #2
- By Tawheedist in forum Islamic Theology and IdeologyReplies: 350Last Post: 23rd March 2011, 03:14 PM
- By C47 in forum Islam in GeneralReplies: 403Last Post: 29th November 2009, 08:33 PM
- By Mustafa al-Muhaajir in forum Global AffairsReplies: 0Last Post: 21st October 2007, 05:34 AM
- By Mustafa al-Muhaajir in forum Global AffairsReplies: 2Last Post: 11th August 2007, 02:44 AM
- By Mustafa al-Muhaajir in forum Global AffairsReplies: 0Last Post: 10th August 2007, 08:24 AM