Reply to Questions from a Visitor - Tibyan Publications

**Abul Hasan** · 10th March 2009

Someone asked us some questions about our differences with the Tibyân forum, our stance on Ibn Bâz, our stance on Tahâkum, and our stance on retaliation against non-combatants. They didn’t 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 ‘Alayk As-Salâm,

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 Takfîr of Ibn Bâz, then our stance is that we don’t agree with making Takfîr 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 Takfîr 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 Tahâkum, then we assume that you are referring to the issue of seeking judgments from a non-Islâmic court, when a person’s 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 Tahâkum ilat-Tâghût, 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 ‘Atîq an-Najdî in “Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah”, Vol. 8/273, and from the current day Scholars, Shaykh ‘Abdullâh ibn Muhammad al-Ghunaymân. As for those who refrained from judgment, then that was Shaykh ‘Abdul-Qâdir ibn ‘Abdil-‘Azîz. As for those who permitted it and did not consider it coming under the issue of Tahâkum ilat-Tâghût, or that it was allowed due to necessity, then from amongst them were Siddîq Hasan Khân in “Al-’Ibrah Fîmâ Warada Fil-Ghazwi wash-Shahâdati wal-Hijrah”, pg. 252, and from the current day Scholars, Abû Qatâdah al-Filastînî, Hâmid ibn ‘Abdillâh al-‘Alî, Abû Basîr at-Tartûsî, and ‘Abdul-‘Azîz ibn Sâlih al-Jarbû’, and al-Hâfith Sulaymân ibn Nâsir al-‘Ulwân 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 Tahâkum ilat-Tâghût which was declared kufr, due to the absence of an Islâmic court to implement the people’s rights. However, if a person is seeking something that isn’t 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 kâfir court, then this still falls under the Tahâkum ilat-Tâghût. For more information on these topics, look to “Refutation of the Doubts Concerning Bay’ah and Imârah”, by Shaykh ‘Abdul-Qâdir ibn ‘Abdil-‘Azîz, and “The Slicing Sword Against the One Who Forms Allegiances with the Disbelievers”, by ‘Abdullâh ibn ‘Abd al-Bârî al-Ahdal, both translated by At-Tibyân Publications. As for the lies that have been made against us, that we make Takfîr 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 isn’t 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 Qisâs, first we need to define the word non-combatant. If what is meant by it is “civilian”; someone who isn’t in the military, then this is a terminology which is not from Islâm. In Islâm, there is no term “civilian”. In Islâm there are the following categories and sub-categories. There are “Muslims” and “disbelievers”. The Muslims are protected unrestrictedly, except in a small number of instances in which their blood is permitted, such as Zinâ from someone who has previously had intercourse, killing another Muslim, and some other instances when a judgment is placed on him. The disbelievers’ blood is permitted as the default ruling, but there are instances in which they are protected. These are times when they are given an ‘Ahd 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 Qisâs 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 ‘Abdullâh ibn Nâsir ar-Rashîd (‘Abdul-‘Azîz ibn Rashîd at-Tuwayla’î), may Allâh free him, in “Sawt al-Jihâd Magazine”, Issue #26, pages 13-15, Issue #27 pages 13-15, Issue #28, pages 18-24 and Issue #29, pages 28-33. Also look to “Masâ’il Min Fiqh al-Jihâd”, by Shaykh Abû ‘Abdillâh al-Muhâjir, may Allâh free him, pages 29-162.