Should We Call Ourselves Sunni, Salafi or Any Other Name? April 1, 2012
Posted by Admin in al-Imaan, Bid'ah, Rebuttals.add a comment
Authubillaahi min ash-Shaytaani rajeem
Bismillaahi ar-Rahmaan ar-Raheem, as-Salaatu was-Salaam ‘ala Rasulullaah
Leaderless Jihad by Ibn Hazm March 8, 2012
Posted by Admin in al-Kufr bit-Taghout, Fiqh, Hijrah & Jihaad, Rebuttals.add a comment
واعلموا أنما غنمتم من شيء فإن لله خمسه
And know that whatever you have taken as booty of anything then to Allāh belongs a fifth of it. (8:41)
And He taʿālā said:
فكلوا مما غنمتم
So consume from what you have taken as booty. (8:69)
Abū Ḥanīfah said, “There is no khums (fifth) except for what has been attained by a group.” Abū Yūsuf said, “(The group is) nine or more.”
(Abū Muḥammad said:) These are opinions of extreme invalidity, as they are in opposition to the Quran, the Sunna, and the intellect. Allāh taʿālā has said:
قاتلوا الذين يلونكم من الكفار وليجدوا فيكم الغلظة
Fight those who border you of the kuffār and let them find harshness in you. (9:123)
He did not specify the command of the imām (as being necessary) nor otherwise, and if an imām forbade fighting against ahl al-ḥarb then it is obligatory to disobey him, as he ordered disobedience to Allāh and there is no listening nor obeying for such. Allāh taʿālā said:
فقاتل في سبيل الله لا تكلف إلا نفسك
So fight in the path of Allāh: you are only accountable for yourself. (4:84)
This address is directed to every Muslim, so everyone is commanded with Jihad even if he is by himself. Allāh taʿālā said:
انفروا خفافا وثقالا
March forth light and heavy. (9:41)
And He taʿālā said:
فانفروا ثبات أو انفروا جميعا
So march forth in detachments or march forth altogether. (4:71)
(al-Muḥallā, Ibn Ḥazm, 7/351 no. 964)
Removing all Doubts Surrounding Aisha’s Age of Marriage February 29, 2012
Posted by Admin in History, Rebuttals, Ulum ul Hadeeth.add a comment
No Proof of Salafiyyah in the Qur’aan and Sunna August 8, 2011
Posted by Admin in al-Imaan, Rebuttals, Refutations.add a comment
Bismillaah, as-Salaatu was-Salaam ‘ala Rasoolullaah
This is a simple, plain look into the dark world of those who exclaim themselves to be following the “Way of the Salaf” by distorting the holy texts. We will go through some of their main arguments and dismantle them by using the very evidences that they use.
First evidence:
“And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers (sabeeli al-mumineen) – We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.” [Surah an-Nisaa’ 4:1115 – to the nearest of meanings]
They claim that the words “way of the believers” is in reference to the early Muslims. Although this has a possibility of being true, we cannot say for surety, as there is no evidence clarifying it. Also, the words are general in the ayah, used in a masculine plural active participate sense and can be applicable in any era.
Second evidence:
“And the first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhajireen and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct – Allaah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment.” [Surah at-Tawbah 9:100 - to the nearest of meanings]
* This great ayah in no obligates a person to follow blindly the Salaf. It clearly says “…ittaba’owhum…” and restricts it to “…biiHsaan…”
Third evidence:
Yahya ibn Abu Muta said he heard al-‘Irbaad ibn Saariyah saying (to the nearest of meaning):
Allaah’s Messenger gave us an admonition which caused the eyes to shed tears and the hearts to fears, so we said, “Yaa Rasoolullaah, this is as if it were a farewell sermon, so what do you counsel us?” He said, “…stick to what you know from my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Kholafaa’ ar-Rashideen al-Mahdiyeen. Cling to that with your moral teeth and pursue not the affairs of innovation for every innovation is straying from the Right Path.”
[Recorded in Musnad Ahmed (4/126), ibn Maajah (# 43), al-Haakim (1/96) and al-Madkhal of al-Bayhaqee. In al-Khutub wal-Mawaa’iz of Abu ‘Obayd through ‘Abd ur-Rahmaan ibn ‘Amr as-Sulamee and in al-Kitaab un-Nawaawi through Hujr ibn Hujr]
* The hadeeth is reported with several different wordings, although all coming through al-‘Irbaad ibn Saariyah. It is important to mention that none of the ahadeeth are actually Saheeh and both ‘Abd ur-Rahmaan ibn ‘Amr as-Sulamee and Hujr ibn Hujr are unknown narrators.
It is also reported from Yahya ibn Abu Muta, who again is unknown to possess the character to transmit ahadeeth. Only one MuHadith, named Duhaym, who testified for Yahya, despite himself being not qualified. So the chain remains weak and broken.
* None of these ahadeeth specify who exactly are the Kholafaa’ ar-Rashideen al-Mahdiyeen and this is used in an unrestricted manner. We know only six people from amongst the Sahaabah to hold the office of rulership, while the last being a Kingship. By no means, does this apply solely to them as the apparent wording of Rasoolullaah states.
Fourth evidence:
Abu Hurayrah said (to the nearest of meanings):
Allaah’s Messenger was asked, “Which of the people are Khayr?” He replied, “Myself and those with me, then those after them, then those after them.”
[Recorded in Musnad Ahmed (2/297, 340) and al-Imaamah of Abu Nu’aim]
* This particular hadeeth is not Saheeh, although the basis of this hadeeth is found in as-Saheehayn.
* The word used by Rasoolullaah in reference to the first two, or three, generations is “Khayr” in all of the ahadeeth. There are several meanings to the word “Khayr,” and none signify “best.” It can mean good, it can mean fortune, it can mean charitable, yet never best. So the proper translation would be that they have “good in them” and in other narrations the later generations will have some blemish, without annulling the good in totality.
* Having khayr does not convey the obligation to follow them! This bizarre interpretation can only be done by someone whom Allaah has not given understanding.
* Many major deviant sects and innovations began during these three generations. In no way do the ahadeeth attribute purity to them and 100% authenticity in their beliefs.
* Allaah says in Surah al-Waaqi’ah (to the nearest of meanings) there will be a few Saabiqoon in the later times; clearly telling us that there will be people to be equal, if not better, than the early generations.
* Rasoolullaah in his Final Sermon said (to the nearest of meanings),
“…Let those of you who are present, inform those who are absent. Perhaps, the absent will understand better than those who are present…”
[Recorded in Saheeh ul-Muslim and Saheeh ul-Bukhaari]
Fifth evidence:
Anas ibn Maalik narrated that Rasoolullaah said (to the nearest of meanings):
“This Ommah will split into seventy three sects, all of them in al-Naar except one.” They asked, “And what is that sect?” He replied, “What I and my Companions are upon.”
[Recorded in al-Mu’jamu as-Sagheer by at-Tabaraani and in ad-Du’afaa of al-’Oqayli]
* This particular hadeeth is not Saheeh.
* There are many other similar ahadeeth and none of them are authentic due to unknown narrators like ibn ‘Omayri and ibn Ashars and the weakness of ‘Abd ul-Allaah ibn Sufyan al-Madani.
* Hadeeth reported from Abu Hurayrah through Muhammad ibn ‘Amr with the wording,
“…stick to my Sunnah and the Jamaa’ah.”
Is also weak because of Muhammad ibn ‘Amr, who was declared weak by Imaam al-Muslim. And Imaam al-Bukhaari did not take from him either due to the same reasons.
* Another hadeeth is from ‘Awf ibn Maalik through Abaad ibn Yoosef. This report is unanimously accepted to be weak.
* A narration from Mu’awiyah ibn ‘Abu Sufyan through Azhar ibn ‘Abd ul-Allaah al-Haarazi is also weak.
* Some may say that several weak isnad can strengthen the hadeeth. This is unacceptable as the narrators are either unknown or weak. Many of the ahadeeth also contain different wording that contradict each other.
* We also do not know what the “Jamaa’ah” means, as several scholars gave different meanings. Even though there is a report from the Sahaabi ‘Abd ul-Allaah ibn Mas’oud saying even one person upon the truth can be considered the Jamaa’ah.
Sixth evidence:
Hudhayfah narrated that Rasoolullaah said (to the nearest of meanings),
“Follow those after me, Abu Bakr and ‘Omar.”
[Recorded in Sunan ut-Tirmidhi (#3682), Musnad Ahmed (#23305) and Sunan ul-ibn Maajah (#97)]
* This hadeeth is not Saheeh due to Hilaal, Maola ul-Ribi’i who is unknown.
al-Humdulillaah, there is not one evidence supporting those living in darkness and their polluted call of “following the way of the Salaf.” Their continuous war against the Deen will never be won. Allaah obliged Rasoolullaah to proclaim (to the nearest of meanings),
“Say: “If ye do love Allaah, Follow me: Allaah will love you and forgive you your sins: For Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [aali-‘Imraan 3:31]
The true lovers of Allaah follow Rasoolullaah solely.
Prophet Muhammad’s Non-Arab Ancestry July 13, 2011
Posted by Admin in Rebuttals, Refutations.add a comment
Bismillaah, as-Salaatu was-Salaam ‘ala Rasoolullaah
The following lineage has been the most popular:
Prophet Muhammad – Abdullaah – Abd ul-Muttalib – Hashim – Abd Manaf – Qusaiy - Kilab (Ancestor of the Holy Prophet’s mother) – Murrah- Ka’b. Lu’ayy- Ghalib- Fihr- Malik- Al Nadr- Kinanah- Khuzaiymah- Mudrikah- Ilyas- Mudar- Nizar- Madd- `Adnan- Adad- Zayd- Yaqdud- Al Muqawwam- Al Yasa’- Nabt- Qaidar (Kedar)- Prophet Ismail – Prophet Ibraheem
It is a fact that neither Prophet Ibraheem, Hajar and their son, Ismail, were Arabs. Only Qaidar, the son of Ismail and father of ‘Adnaan, had exclusive links to the Arabs.
Hakimiyya is the Essence of Tawheed Part 2 April 14, 2009
Posted by Admin in al-Imaan, Rebuttals.add a comment
The Meaning of ‘Ruling’
Since the subject matter of these verses concerns ‘Ruling by what Allaah has revealed’, it is impossible that the word is meant to mean anything other than the sole exclusive right of Allaah ta ‘ala to legislate both in essence and meaning.
He alone has the sole prerogative of command, and this is precisely what Allaah has revealed. From this basis, other types of ruling emanate from the Nass (text) which we are supposed to elaborate upon as to how we are to rule by what Allaah has revealed. These various types are meant with the word Ruling here, and these can be placed into the following categories:
* al-Futiyyah. The first type of ruling is to give Fatwah, which means expressing an opinion which you believe to be true without it being legally binding upon others. This can be an expression of an opinion in any aspect, including religious, scientific, rational, aesthetic, and morality. All of these come within the meaning of ruling, and are construed to be within the context of what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed.
* al-Qa’dthaa’ (Judicial ruling). This involves pronouncing a point of view to settle a dispute in a binding way. It is different from a Fatwah which is not (necessarily) legally binding. This is where it can be enforced by a State. In modern times this is seen as one of the three major powers of the state, and in Arabic a judge is called Haakim, and what he pronounces is known as a Hukm (ruling). Therefore it is not permissible to enact judicial ruling except by what Allaah has revealed and whoever does not do so is one of the Thaalimun, Faasiqun and Kaafiroon.
* Managing the affairs of the public. The third type of ruling meant by the ayat is managing the affairs of the public by administrative and executive powers. The one who does this is known in Arabic as the Wali / Wali- ul amr / Haakim / Sultaan. In modern times it is also common to call the governments in the Arab world Hukoomah which refers to the executive authority of state. In the United States, the Hukoomah is the President who is the chief executive. It is not permissible to manage the affairs of the public in both the executive and administrative arms of the state except by what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed. If it is done by other than what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed then they are Dhaalimoon, Faasiqoon and Kaafiroon.
* Adoption in Ruling. This refers to the practical implementation of the divine laws. It is not formulating primary legislation but procedurally enacting the divine laws, whether that is in the format of a constitution, bye-laws or executive decree(s). The essence of adoption in ruling is ijtihad applied in governance. One can therefore discern that there is a sharp distinction between this and modern parliamentary / legislative systems that assign sovereignty to man – either the entire body politic, but more commonly through their ‘elected representatives’ – who formulate not only administrative laws, but also primary legislation. The management of the modern political society or state through the adoption of rulings, enacting constitutions, bye-laws or the like, which are made legally binding, has to be done according to what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed. Moreover, ruling does not merely involve the provision of formulating legislation. Exercising political judgement in a given situation or scenario arguably forms a key element of ruling. Underpinning such judgement are core fundamental values, and indeed, a distinctive reference point. In Islaam, this reference point is only the divine sources, namely, the Qur’aan and the Sunnah.
* Nevertheless, in either of the aspects mentioned above ruling cannot be conducted upon personal whims or desires of a political leadership, nor for that matter, can it be based upon what is considered the will of the majority or the majority’s opinion. It has to be according to what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed, lest the leadership falls within the categories of Thaalimun, Faasiqqqn and Kaafiroon as specified in the verses of al-Maa’idah.
The word Ruling in the ‘ayahs cannot be restricted to mean only judicial rulings as some contend. It is ruling with the full range of meanings in the Arabic language and has been shown and proven by the Qur’aan as it is the main authority in this issue. The word ruling and the meaning which we have discussed are encompassed within it. Other meanings are also mentioned in the Qur’aan, but they are not relevant to this present study. To give a brief example, Allaah ta ‘ala’s ruling on the day of judgement. Obviously this is confined to the ‘Aakhirah and our focus of the word is concerned with the Dunyah, but this is also a meaning of the word ruling.
Imaam Shawkaani’s (rah) Criticism on Claims of Ijmaa’ April 13, 2009
Posted by Admin in Laa ilaha illAllaah, Rebuttals.add a comment
“Whoever claims to have the Ijmaa’ of the Muslim scholars of his age on a given religious issue has made a gross claim (‘athama ad-da’wa) and asserted its existence with something which does not obtain. The feasibility of this is impossible, even If one assumes that it is possible to have such agreement, without investigation and knowledge of the opinions of each man or group of men. The truth is that this is impossible (mamnoo’). This is because the consensus of all the scholars of all the regions on an issue is impossible given the [existence of] different schools, temperaments, and differences in understanding, contradictory dispositions and the love of contradiction. This is with regards to a scholar speaking about the consensus of his generation. If he is claiming an ijmaa’ about a generation which he did not know after the age of the companions then the claim, is too impossible… The one who claims that ijmaa’ constitutes proof is not correct, for such [a claim] constitutes mere conjecture on the part of an individual from the community of Muslims. No believer can worship Allaah on the basis of this… In my works, when I report a consensus from others I do this in order to prove my point to the one who accepts that Ijmaa’ constitutes proof.”
[Wabl Al Ghamaan ‘alaa Shifaa’ Al-Uwaam in Kitaab Shifaa’ Al Uwaam 3 vols]
Imaam Malik on “Two Deens Shall not Coexist in Arabian Peninsula” April 3, 2009
Posted by Admin in Hijrah & Jihaad, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Rebuttals, Takhrij, Ulum ul Hadeeth.1 comment so far
Ahumdoolillaah, as-salaatu was-salaam ‘ala Rasoolullaah
This is a excerpt from the book ‘Kitab al-Jami’ by one of the greatest Maliki scholars ever lived, Imaam bin Abu Zaid al-Qairawani (310AH-386AH). He quotes Imaam Malik’s view about the following authentic hadeeth from al-Muwatta’ under the heading ‘The banishment of the Jews from Medinah.’ We will only quote the needed material from the section InshAllaah.
Yahya related to me from Malik from Isma’il bin Abi Hakim that he heard ‘Umar bin ‘Abdul ‘Aziz say, “One of the last things that the Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa sallam said was, ‘May Allaah fight the Jews and the Christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration. Two deens shall not coexist in the land of the Arabs.’”
Yahya related to me from Malik from bin Shihab that the Rasoolulllaah sallaahu alaihi wa sallam said, “Two deens shall not coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.”
Malik said that bin Shihab said, ”’Umar bin al-Khatab searched for information about that until he was absolutely convinced that the Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa sallam had said, ‘Two deens shall not coexist in the Arabian Peninsula,’ and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar.”
Malik said “That (Arabian Peninsula) is Makkah, Medinah, Yemen and the land of the Arabs.”
Then ‘Umar expelled the people (Jews) of Najran (place in Yemen). As for the people of Fadak, a treaty had been made with them for a half (of the produce of their land.) Their half was evaluated and he gave them camels, packed saddles and gold for it, and bought it for the Muslims. He expelled the Jews of Khaibar and didn’t take anything away because they didn’t have anything.
Malik said “As for Tayma’, their affair is clear. Between us and them is eleven nights (journey), it is not an Arab land, it is a district of Sham. I believe that the Wadi’s (Wadiul Qura) Jewish inhabitants were left because they didn’t think that it is a land of Arabs.” As for Egypt, Khorasaan and Sham, they were not expelled from there because they are non-Arab lands. Whoever is expelled from places other than Medinah which they had been inhabiting may delay more than three days until they have loaded up. ‘Umar imposed three days on them in Medinah because they were only passer-by.”
Bin Shihab said, “Khaibar (was conquered) by force, and some of it by treaty, and most of the Kateebah by force.”
Malik was asked, “What is the Kateebah?” He said, “The land of Khaibar, which is forty thousand palm trees with their fruits.”
Identifying Government Scholars and Clarifying Their Purpose and Ruling March 11, 2009
Posted by Admin in al-Imaan, Current Affairs, Fiqh, Methodology, Rebuttals.add a comment
Government scholars are the body established by the rulers containing the top scholars of the country, made and sponsored by him, to justify the following:
1. His authority over the country and its people, even though he legislates against what Allaah has revealed, which is a clear kufr, under the Islamic Shari’ah. This nullifies his position as a leader of Muslims.
2. Cloaking him with qualities and titles, which deceive the Muslims and hinder them from fulfilling their obligations to Allaah to keep the Sharia intact.
3. Calling those who challenge his authority after he commits such crimes as khawaarij and disobedient to the amir of the Muslims, i.e. him.
4. Then they approve the killing and torture of those righteous Muslims who demand adherence to Allaah’s Law, whom they deceitfully defined as Khawaarij.
5. Although they might match Islamic Law most of the time, in the particulars, their main function is to screen the leader from being harmed, challenged or ultimately removed.
Ruling Regarding These Types of Individuals
These government scholars are the greatest harm to Islaam and Muslims. This is with the stipulation that any such body of scholars in any country shouldn’t be judged for the label they carry, rather for their actions, i.e. their stance for Islaam and Muslims. Let us refer to what Allaah and His Rasool have said about them…
Collected by Imaam Ahmad in his Musnad and also reported in Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb hadeeth #2241, that Abu Hurayrah narrated Rasoolullaah sallallaahu alayhi wasalam said, “Whoever approaches the ruler’s gates becomes afflicted. Whenever a slave draws closer to the ruler, he only gains distance from Allaah.”
Collected by Ahmad, al-Bazzaar, and Ibn Hibbaan, also recorded in Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb, hadeeth #2243 stating Jaabir Ibn ‘Abdullaah narrated that Rasoolullaah sallallaahu alayhi wasalam said to Ka’b Ibn ‘Ujrah, “O Ka’b Ibn ‘Ujrah, I seek Allaah’s protection for you from the leadership of fools. There shall be rulers, whoever enters upon them, then aids them in their oppression and validates their lies, then he is not from me nor I from him, and he shall not be admitted to the Hawd. Whoever does not enter upon them, and does not aid them in their oppression, nor validates their lies, then he is from me and I from him, and he shall be admitted to the Hawd.”
Recorded in Musnad Ahmad hadeeth # 20335 that Abu Dhar said, “I was in the presence of the Prophet one day and I heard him saying, ‘There is something more I fear for my Ummah than the Dajjaal.’ It was then that I became afraid, so I said, ‘O Rasoolullaah! Which thing is it that you fear for your Ummah more than the Dajjaal?’ He [the Prophet] said, ‘Misguided and astray scholars.’
It is related by Shidaad ibn Aws that the Prophet sAllaahu alayhi wasalam said, “Truly, I do not fear anything for my Ummah except astray scholars. Thus when the sword is raised against my Ummah, it will not be lifted until the Day of Judgment.” [Musnad of Ahmad, ahadeeth # 16493, 21360, 31359, 20334 and ad-Daarimi, ahadeeth # 211 and 216 and all of these collections are classed as authentic.]
Imaam Abu Abdullaah al-Qurtubi stated in ‘Jaami’ ul Ahkaam ul Fiqhiyyah’ Vol. 2, Pg. 227: “The ‘Ulama have said, ‘One who is an Imaam for an oppressive ruler, prayer is not to be made behind him unless he reveals his excuse or reason why (he is an Imaam for the oppressive ruler) or he repents from it.”
Imaam ibn Taymiya stated in ‘Majmua’ al-Fataawa‘ Vol. 20, Pg 200:
“The person who is obeyed in disobedience of Allaah or the person who is obeyed in following other than the guidance of the religion of truth; in either case, if what he orders mankind is in opposition to Allaah’s orders, then he is a Taghoot. For this reason, we call the people who rule by other than what Allaah revealed, a ‘Taghoot’.”
And he (ibn Taymiya) said in Majmu’a Fataawa vol 35. Page 373:
“Whenever the ‘aalim follows the hukm of the ruler, and leaves off his knowledge, in contradiction to the book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, he is a kaafir (an unbeliever) and a murtadd (an apostate), who deserves to be punished in this life and the hereafter. This rule can also be applied with regard to the group of scholars who jumped and joined the Mongols due to fear of them and that they wanted to take benefit from them. These scholars made the excuse that some of the Mongols were speaking the Shahaada and that they were Muslims. Allaah has said,
‘Alif Laam Mim Saad. A Book sent down to you, so do not have any worry in your breast from it, so that you may warn and be a reminder to the believers. Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord and do not follow protectors and helpers besides Him. Little is it that you remember!’ [Surat al-A'raaf, ayaat 1-3]
“And even if this ‘aalim is captured, put behind bars and tortured to leave what Allaah has taught him from His Book, he should be patient with that. If he leaves all that and follows the ruler, then he is one of the people that are supposed to be doomed by Allaah Ta’ala. He should be patient even if he is harmed in the cause of Allaah Ta’ala. This is the Sunnah that Allaah Ta’ala has wanted and accepted from the Prophets and from the people who follow the Prophets. Allaah says,
‘Alif Laam Mim. Do people think that they will be left alone because they say, ‘We believe,’ and will not be tested? And We indeed tested those who were before them. Allaah will certainly make it known those who are true and will certainly make it known those who are liars. And He will make it known who the liars are.’ [Surat al-'Ankabut, ayaat 1-3]
COMMENT: Replace the Mongols and the scholars of the past with our current regimes and scholars that rule over Muslim lands (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Algeria etc.). Particularly the blind Muftis (both literal and figurative) that rule(d) Arabian Peninsula.
Hakimiyya is the Essence of Tawheed Part 1 November 24, 2008
Posted by Admin in al-Imaan, Murjiah, Rebuttals.add a comment
Introduction
The scholars of falsehood are desperate to twist the clear wordings of the Qur’aan and Sunnah from their rightful places and raise bogus-arguments in an attempt to extinguish the light of Allaah and to firm up the thrones of their masters from the Taaghut rulers. The rulers who do not rule by what Allaah has revealed and have allied with the Kuffar and fought with them against the people of Tawheed and tortured and killed the ones who command good and forbid evil. These scholars have sold their Akhirah for the Dunyah thereby destroying themselves, but they will never be able to extinguish the Truth, for Allaah the Exalted and Majestic says:
“They intend to put out the Light of Allaah with their mouths. But Allaah will complete His Light even though the disbelievers hate (it). It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of truth, that He may proclaim it over all religion, Even though the Pagans may detest (it).”[1]
Most of the arguments presented by those misguided from the truth revolve around the issue of not ruling by what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed from the famous verse of Hukm:
“Whosoever Rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon.”[2]
It is therefore pertinent to start at this juncture by exhaustively analyzing this ayah before scrutinizing the bogus-arguments and downright lies of those who try to water down the issue of not ruling by what Allaah has revealed.
Context of the Ayahs
The full context of the revelation of the ‘ayahs regarding whosoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed is as follows:
(41) Oh Messenger, let not those grieve you, who race each other into disbelief: (whether it be) among those who say ‘We believe’ with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen Even to others who have never so much As come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: They say, ‘If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!’ if any one’s trial is intended by Allaah, Thou hast no authority in the least for Him against Allaah. For such – it is not Allaah’s will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace In This world, and In the Hereafter a heavy punishment.
(42) (They are fond of) listening to falsehood, of devouring Suht (Bribery). If they do come to thee, either judge between them, or decline to interfere. If you decline, they cannot hurt you in the least. If you judge, judge in equity between them – for Allaah loves those who judge in equity.
(43) But why do they come to you for decision, when they have (Their own) law before them? – Therein is the (plain) command of Allaah. Yet even after that, they would turn away; for they are not (really) people of Faith.
(44) It was we who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islaam) to Allaah’s will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allaah’s Book, and They were witnesses thereto: Therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not My Signs for a miserable price. And whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed, they are al-Kaafiroon.
(45) We ordained therein for them: ‘Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.’ But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for Him. And whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed, they are al-Thaalimun.
(46) And In their footsteps we sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the law that had come before him: we sent Him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allaah.
(47) Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allaah hath revealed therein. And whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed, they are al-Faasiqun.
(48) To you we sent the Scripture In truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allaah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that has come to you. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allaah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (his plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allaah. It is He that will Show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;
(49) And This (He commands): you judge between them by what Allaah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them Lest They beguile you from any of that (teaching) which Allaah has sent down to you. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allaah’s purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious.
(50) Do they then seek after a Judgment of (the days of) ignorance? But who, for a people whose Faith is assured, can give better Judgment than Allaah.”[3]
FOOTNOTES
[1] Soorat as-Saff, verse 8
[2] Soorat Ma’idah, verse 44
[3] Soorat al-Ma’idah, verses 41-50
Research for the Athar ‘Kufr Duna Kufr’ of ibn ‘Abbas October 29, 2008
Posted by Admin in Khawaarij, Rebuttals, Takhrij, Ulum ul Hadeeth, Weak & Fabricated Hadeeth.1 comment so far
CONCERNING THE TAFSEER ATTRIBUTED TO IBN ‘ABBAS
“And whosoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”
Is The Kufr In This Ayah, Kufr Akbar Or Kufr Asghar
A beginning note, most of the following is taken from Abu Ayoob bin Noor al-Burqa’ee/Abu Marwaan as-Sudaani’s refutation of ‘Ali al-Halabi in his takhrij of the athaar of Ibn ‘Abbaas. I will quote the athar, then quote al-Burqa’ees reply, insha’Allaah.
Athar One and Two
Ibn Jareer reported, “Narrated to me, Hunaad and narrated to me, Ibn Wakee’ah who said, ‘Narrated to me, my father from Sufyaan from Mu’amr Ibn Rashaad from Ibn Tawoos from his father from Ibn ‘Abbas, “and whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”. [He said] ‘In it there is Kufr, but not like Kufr in His Angels and His Books and His Messengers’ [Tafseer Ibn Jareer, Vol. 6/256]
Comment: I say this isnaad is saheeh, and what it apparent is that all the statement is from Ibn ‘Abbas rahimahullah. And many people have fallen for this athar due to its isnaad and have not noticed the idraaj (interpolation) which is made clear by the narration found in the collection of Imaam ‘Abdurazzaaq (who said): “We were informed by Mu’amar from Ibn Tawoos from his father: “Ibn ‘Abbas was asked about His saying: “and whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”, [so] he said: “In it there is kufr” (hiya bihi kufrun). Ibn Tawoos said: “But not like kufr in His angels, and His books and His messengers”‘
And idraaj, as can be read in the small booklet on science in hadeeth in English, by Shaykh Suhayb Hasan, is: “If an expression or statement is proved to be an addition by a reporter to the text, it is declared as mudraj (interpolated).” al-Burqa’ee quotes the definition of ath-Thahabi, which adds that ‘and later a hadeeth may be found that splits the additional expression of the reporter, from the original statement. [al-Muwqitha fi 'Ilm il-Hadeeth, page 53-54]
[al-Burqa’ees words:] Add to that, that ‘Abdurrazaaq is more reliable (athbat) and more better (atqan) than Mu’amar, and the saying is for him if differing occurs: Ya’qoob bin Shaybah says: “‘Abdurazzaaq is more reliable than Mu’amar, and better”
And Ibn ‘Asaakir said: “I heard Ahmad bin Hanbal say, ‘If you see the companions of Mu’amar differ, then the hadeeth is for ‘Abdurazzaq’”. [See: Sharh 'Ilal at-Tirmithi for Ibn Rajab, volume 2/607] [In addition, one should note that Ibn Katheer does not mention the athar found in Ibn Jareer with its idraaj].
Athar Three
al-Haafith Ibn Nasr al-Marwazee said: “Narrated to us Muhammed bin Yahya, narrated to us ‘Abdurazaaq, narrated to us from Sufyaan, from a man, from Tawoos from Ibn ‘Abbas, in His saying: “…such are the disbelievers”. He said: ‘Kufr which does not expel one out of the millah.’”. [See Ta'theem Qadr is-Salaah, number 573] And the isnaad is da’eef due to the unknown man.
Athar Four
al-Haafith Ibn Nasr said: “Narrated to us Yahya bin Yahya, Sufyaan bin ‘Uyaynah informed us, from Hishaam (bin Hujayr), from Tawoos that Ibn ‘Abbas said concerning His saying, “…such are the disbelievers”, he said ‘It is not the kufr which you are going to’.
Comment: And this sanad, its people are trustworthy except Hishaam bin Hujayr al-Makki, for he has been weakened by the great a`immah: Such as ‘Ali bin al-Madeenee, Yahya bin Sa’eed. [see: al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel, volume 9/54] ‘Abdullaah bin Ahmad said: “I asked Yahya about Hishaam bin Hujayr and he weakened him very much”. [See al-'Ilal wa ma'rifat ar-Rijaal, volume 2/30]
And he also said: “I heard my father [Imaam Ahmad] say: ‘Hishaam bin Hujayr is a Makki, and he is weak in hadeeth’” [See: Ibid, volume 1/204] And also, al-’Uqayli recalled him in ad-Du’afaa’.
Athar Five
al-Haakim narrated, from the way of ‘Ali bin Harb, from Sufyaan bin ‘Uyaynah from Hishaam bin Hujayr from Tawoos, that Ibn ‘Abbas said: “It is not the kufr which you tend to, ‘Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers’ is kufr lesser than [greater] kufr”. [-See al-Mustadrak, volume 2/313]
And this athar, despite its popularity, is also from the path of Hishaam bin Hujayr and he has been declared weak by the mountains of knowledge from amongst the Salaf.
Athar Six
Ibn Jareer at-Tabari said, narrated to us al-Muthanna, ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh said, Mu’awiyah bin Saaleh told us, that ‘Ali bin Abi Talhah, from Ibn ‘Abbas that he said concerning His saying: “Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”, ‘Whoever rejects what [He] revealed then he has disbelieved, and whoever affirms it, and does not rule by it, then he is a thaalim and faasiq’” [See Ibn Jareer's tafseer, volume 4/256]
And ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh is: Ibn Muhammed bin Muslim al-Juhni al-Misree, al-Layth bin Sa’d scribe, and he is weak.
‘Abdullaah bin Ahmad said: I asked my father about ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh, the scribe of al-Layth bin Sa’d, so he said: “He was at first firm, then he became corrupt, and he is nothing.”
Ibn al-Madeenee said: “I do not narrate from him anything”. [See al-'Ilal wa Ma'rifat ar-Rijaal, volume 2/213]
an-Nisaa`ee said: “He is not trustworthy”
Ahmad bin Saaleh said: “He is accused, and is nothing”
Saaleh Jazarah said: “Ibn Mu’een used to consider him trustworthy, and he is to me a liar in hadeeth”
Abu Zur’ah said: “To me he wasn’t a person who intentionally lied, and he was acceptable in hadeeth”. [See, al-Mizaan for ath-Thahabi, volume 4/441]
Abu Haatim said: “Trustworthy, truthful, I never knew him as such” And much has been said about ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh, but the summary is as follows, as Ibn Hibbaan mentions: He was righteous within himself, but many false ahadeeth were given to him by his neighbour, and I heard Ibn Khuzaymah say, ‘He had a neighbour, with whom there was much enemity, and he [the neighbour] would narrate the false ahadeeth upon the Shaykh of Abu Saaleh, and write it in a handwriting similar to ‘Abdullaah and he would throw it in his house amongst his books, so ‘Abdullaah would imagine that that was his own handwriting, and so he would end up narrating it. [See al-Majrooheen for Ibn Hibbaan]
And in the isnaad is ‘Ali bin Abi Talhah, and his full name was Saalem bin al-Makhaariq al-Haashimi.
Ahmad bin Hanbal said: “‘Ali bin Abi Talhah, has many criticisms upon him.” [See ad-Du'afaa`, volume 3/234]
an-Nisaa`ee said: “There is no problem with him.” [See al-Mizaan for ath-Thahabi, volume 3/134]
al-’Ajali said: “He is trustworthy.” [See Tareekh al-Thiqaat, page 283]
Ibn Hibban considered him from the trustworthy reliable narrators, as can be seen in ath-Thiqaat, volume 7/211.
Ya’qoob narrated from Sufyaan that he is weak, and not reliable. And he also said: He is a Shaami, he is not avoided nor taken as evidence. As for his narration from Ibn ‘Abbas, then is it munqati’ah (not connected), for he did not hear from him. Ibn Abi Haatim said: I heard my father say, I heard Daheem saying: ‘Ali bin Abi Talhah did not hear tafseer from Ibn ‘Abbas. [See al-Maraseel, page 117]
Ibn Hibban said: “He narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas and never saw him”. [See, ath-Thiqaat, 7/211][And al-Burqa’ee quotes many more statements, and ends by saying:] al-Manwaawi quotes, in Fayd al-Qadeer, volume 2/397, Ibn Abi Haatim saying regarding ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh: “He is really bad in hadeeth when narrating from Mu’awiyah bin Saaleh”.
And as any student of this art knows, whoever this kind of statement is said of, then he cannot be used as a witness to anything. Furthermore, I found a refutation for al-Albaani – the Shaykh of al-Halabi – were he criticised Ahmad Shaakir for classifying this hadeeth, “‘Abdullaah bin ‘Amr narrates, ‘The angels said, ‘Oh our Lord, you gave the children of Aadam the dunya letting them eat and drink in it….’”, so he [al-Albaani] said: “And it is not correct to me, to declare this hadeeth as strong, relying upon that, with the statement of ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh, due to the latter being from those who have been criticised (dakhala ‘alayh)” And then he mentioned Ibn Hibaan’s statement as can be found above. [See his commentary on the explanation of at-Tahawiyyah, page 308] So we see that al-Halabi’s shaykh is in agreement with us.
And so, we conclude by saying that the only authentic narration concerning the tafseer of this ayah, from Ibn ‘Abbas is the following: We were informed by Mu’amar from Ibn Tawoos from his father: “Ibn ‘Abbas was asked about His saying: “and whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”, [so] he said: “In it there is kufr”(hiya bihi kufrun). As for the rest, they are all weak, and Allaah knows best what is correct. Written by Abu Ayoob al-Burqa’ee. [End]
In addition, Hasan bin Abir-Rabee’ al-Jurjaani said, that ‘Abdurazzaq informed him that Mu’ammar narrated from Ibn Tawoos from his father, the statement of Ibn ‘Abbas, “It is enough kufr for him” (kafaa bihi kufruh), as can be seen in Akhbaar al-Qadaa`, volume 1/40 and onwards for Imaam Muhammed bin Khalaf bin Hayyan, known as Wakee’. And from the contemporaries who have made tad’eef of the athaar that are attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas, is al-Muhaddith, al-Haafith, ash-Shaykh Sulaymaan al-’Alwaan, hafithahullah, as is in at-Tibyaan Sharh Nawaaqid al-Islaam.
Statements by other companions and tab’ieen
1. ‘Abdullaah bin Mas’ood said, as mentioned by Ibn Katheer in his tafseer, that he was asked about bribery in judgement, so he said: “That is the very kufr (thaak alkufr)”, and then he quoted the ayah, this is also mentioned by Ibn Jareer, who has numerous quotes for this, one of which is from the path of Masrooq who said: “I asked Ibn Mas’ood about as-suht (ill gotten wealth), is it [like] bribery in judgment?” So he said: “No, whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed then he is a kaafir, whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed then he is a thaalim, whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed then he is a faasiq, but as-suht is when you help someone to do something oppressive, so he gives you a gift, so you accept it” [See Tafseer of at-Tabari, 6/240].
And at-Tabaraani collected, with a saheeh isnaad, from Ibn Mas’ood that he said: “Bribery in judgement is kufr, and it is amongst the people ill gotten wealth” [Ibn Hajr al-Makki collected it in az-Zawaajir, volume 2/189, Daar al-Ma'rifah print 1402 AH]
2. And similar to this was said by ‘Umar bin al-Khattab and ‘Ali bin Abi Taalib, radiAllaahu ‘anhum, as has been collected by al-Aloosee al-Baghdaadi in his tafseer; he said: “And Ibn al-Munthir collected from Masrooq that he said: “I said to ‘Umar bin al-Khattab, radiAllaahu ta’ala ‘anh, “What do you think of bribery in judging, is it from the ill-gotten wealth? He said ‘No, rather it is kufr, ill-gotten wealth is when a man has a position and rank in the view of a ruler, and the man seeks something from this ruler, he cannot achieve this thing, unless he gives the ruler a gift [and this is ill-gotten wealth].’”
And ‘Abd bin Humayd collected from ‘Ali, radiAllaahu ta’ala ‘anh, that he was asked about as-suht (ill-gotten wealth), he said: “It is bribery”, so he was asked, “In rulership”, he replied: “That is the very kufr” (thaak al-kufr)”. And al-Bayhaqi collected from Ibn Mas’ood similar to this statement”. [See, Tafseer Rooh al-Ma'ani, for al-Aloosee, volume 3, part 6, page 140]
3. And similar to this has been said by the tabi’een, from them: al-Hasan al-Basri, Sa’eed bin Jubayr, Ibraheem an-Nakh’ee, as-Suddi, Ibn Qudaamah al-Hanbali said: “Allaah ta’ala said: “Akaloona lis-suht” (Takers of ill-gotten wealth), al-Hasan and Sa’eed bin Jubayr explained it to be, “It is bribery”, and said: “If the judge takes bribes, then it reaches alkufr”. [al-Mughni ma' ash-Sharh al-Kabeer, volume 11/437-438]
al-Qaasimi said regarding its tafseer, as has been mentioned in al-Lubaab, that Ibn Mas’ood, al-Hasan and an-Nakh’iee said: “These ayaat are general regarding the Jews, and regarding this ummah, so whoever takes bribes, and replaces the judgement of Allaah, so he ruled by other than what Allaah has revealed, then he has disbelieved, and oppressed and become evil, and to it went as-Suddi [And this statement of as-Suddi, was recalled by Ibn Katheer, and Ibn Jareer collected with his sanad: “Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revaled”, he [as-Suddi] said: “Whoever does not rule by what I revealed, so he left it intentionally, and trangressed whilst knowing, then he is from the disbelievers”. See Tafseer at-Tabari, volume 6/257.], and it is the apparent meaning of the statement [i.e. the ayah, See Mahaasin at-Ta`weel, for al-Qaasimi, volume 6/215, Daar al-Fikr print, 1398 AH]
Nubuwwa (Prophethood) of Women October 27, 2008
Posted by Admin in al-Imaan, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Rebuttals.add a comment
Nubuwwa (Prophethood) of Women
Volume V, pp 17-19
al-Fisal fi al-Milal wa-al-Ahwa’i wa-al-Nihal
By Abu Muhammad Ali Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi
(Abu Muhammad said) This is an issue we know of no debate about it except here in Cordoba and in our time. A group of people went on and denied that Prophet- hood could not be for women and made everyone that claims as such an innovator (Mubtadi’). Another group said that Prophethood is possible for women. A third group abstained from discussing this issue.
(Abu Muhammad said) We find no proof for those who claim that Prophethood is impossible for women other than that some of them denied it based on the Koranic verse:
” (O Muhammad!) Whenever we sent before you Messengers to whom we have revealed Our messages, they were but men.” (1)
(Abu Muhammad said) This is a verse none can deny as nobody claimed that Allaah (SWT) sent women Messengers. The issue here is about Prophethood (Nubuwwa) and not Messengership. Henceforth the need to understand the meaning of the word ‘Prophethood’ in the language in which Allaah (SWT) spoke to us (i.e. Arabic).
We find that this word is taken from Inba’ (prophecy) which means I’lam (revelation). So whomever Allaah (SWT) tells him about what will be before it comes to pass, or reveals to him informing him about a certain matter, then he is a Nabi (prophet) without any doubt.
This (Prophethood) should not be understood as Ilham (inspiration) which is natural as Allaah said in Surah al-Nahl:
” And behold! Your Lord has inspired the bees with this: ‘Build thy hives in the mountains, and the trees and the creepers over trellis, then drink nectar from every kind of fruit, and follow the ways made smooth by your Lord.’ From its belly comes out a fluid of varying hues wherein is healing for mankind. Here is indeed a sign for those who ponder over it.” (2)
It should neither be understood as doubt (Zann) or illusion which none would assure its truthfulness except an insane person (i.e. a crazy person would think illusion or Zann as part of what we commonly label as ‘truth’).
It neither should be understood as Kahana (sorcery) which is part of what the evil spirits (shayatin) try to get by listening to the heavens and as such get stricken by shooting stars. As Allaah (SWT) says:
” And We have always set against every prophet enemies from among satans of men and satans of jinns who have been inspiring one another with charming things in order to delude the minds. But had your Lord willed, they would never have done so. So leave them alone to continue false allegations.”(3)
Such sorcery was ended with the advent of the messenger of Allaah (SWT), Muhammad (SAAW) (4).
It is not part of Nujum (fortune telling), which can be learned. Nor is it part of dreams which none can assure their truthfulness or lies.
Revelation which is Nubuwwa (Prophethood) is meant from Allaah (SWT) to inform that to whom it was revealed of what Allaah wants to tell him. This should be understood differently from all the previous cases.
Allaah makes to whom it was revealed fully aware and fully knowledgeable of the truthfulness of what was revealed to him – (Exactly) like his knowledge of what he can sense and the (obvious) deductions of his brain – with no doubt in them.
(This revelation) can be transmitted by one of either ways: through an angel that comes to him or through a message directly revealed to him and this is a knowledge from Allaah (SWT) to whom He gives, with no transmitter or teacher.
If they deny that this is the meaning of Prophethood then let them teach us its meaning for they will not bring any single proof.
Allaah revealed in the Koran that He sent angels to women to deliver to them truthful revelations from Allaah (SWT). They gave glad tidings to the mother of Isaac (Sarah) of Isaac. Allaah says:
“…And his wife was standing by; hearing this, she laughed. Then we gave her the good news of Isaac, and after Isaac of Jacob. She said,’ Woe be me! Shall I bear a child now when I have grown extremely old, and this husband of mine has also become old? This is indeed a strange thing.’ The angels said,’ What! Are you surprised at Allaah’s decree? O people of Abraham’s household! Allaah’s mercy and blessing are upon you. Indeed, Allaah is worthy of all praise and glory.’” (5)
This is a direct address from the angels to the mother of Isaac about the blessing Allaah will bless her with -Isaac, then after Isaac Jacob – then their testimony about the power of Allaah and her astonishment of the matter of how Allaah (SWT) makes things possible.
This could not be an address from an angel except to a prophet – in one way or another – we find also that Allaah (SWT) sent Gabriel to Mary mother of ‘Isa – Jesus – (AS) with a message and told her:
“…I am a mere messenger from your Lord and have been sent to give you a pure son.” (6)
This is a true Nubuwwa with a true revelation and a (clear) message from Allaah (SWT). Zacharias (AS) used to find with her Rizq (food) for this he asked Allaah (SWT) to grant him a trustworthy son (7). We found also that Allaah re- vealed to (Yukabid) mother of Moses that she shall throw her son into the Yam (river) and she shall neither worry or have grief and promised her He shall return Moses to her and make him a prophet and a messenger. With no doubt this is a true Nubuwwa (revelation) and a logical consequence of our premises.
If she was not sure of the revelation that Allaah would return her son to her, either that this was a mere vision or a feeling she had, she would be – by throwing her son in the Yam – committing a crazy act and a heinous crime against herself. If one of us did such an act he would be an extreme transgressor or a crazy person that deserves the agony and the (psychological) consequences he has to go through – (probably) in a bimaristan (a mental institution).
Such logical analysis none could deny. Therefore it becomes – with assuredness – true that that which came to (Yukabid) – of throwing her son in the Yam – was a revelation, like that which was revealed to Ibrahim (AS) in his dream. He was ordered to slaughter his son. If Ibrahim (AS) was not a true prophet, and had he slaughtered his son for a dream he saw or a doubt he had in himself, it would be true that whoever does such an action would not be of the Prophets but an insane person. This nobody would doubt.
Hence their (the women’s) Prophethood becomes obviously true. We find that Allaah (SWT) while mentioning the prophets in Surah Mariam, He mentioned Mariam amongst them and then said:
” These are the Prophets on whom Allaah bestowed His favors. They were from the descendants of Adam, and from the seed of those whom we carried in the Ark with Noah, and from the seed of Abraham and of Israel. They were from those whom we guided aright and made our chosen ones. They were tenderhearted that whenever the Revelations of the Merciful were recited to them, they would fall down prostrate, weeping.” (8)
This is a description of all of them. One should not single her out as a special case, to be treated separately.
Now the saying ‘and his mother a Siddiqa’ (Koran) does not deny her the right to be a prophet as Allaah said: ‘Joseph, O Siddiq!’(9). and as is known he is a true prophet and a messenger; and this becomes now clear. From Allaah only one seeks guidance. We can also include along with them (Yukabid and Mariam) the wife of Pharaoh, as the prophet (SAAW) said:
” There are many persons amongst men who are quite perfect but there are not perfect amongst women except Mary, daughter of ‘Imran, and Asiya, wife of Pharaoh.” (10) or as the Messenger of Allaah (SAAW) said.
Now perfectness (kamal) for men can only be for some messengers -for those who are ‘less than them’ are not perfect-. His (the Prophet’s) particularization to Mariam and Asiya (the wife of Pharaoh) was a privilege for both of them over all those to whom Prophethood was given from amongst women – with no doubt -, as those who are a degree less than them are not perfect.
Henceforth it is clear that these two women became perfect more than any other women and even if these women were prophets. From Koranic texts we find that Allaah says:
” (O Muhammad) , most surely you are of those who have been sent as Messengers. Of these Messengers, We have raised some above others in rank.” (11) So the perfect of his gender is the one who excels in his perfection and none of his gender can reach him. They are the messengers from amongst men, of whom we find our prophet Muhammad and Ibrahim (ASWS).
The Permissibility of Fighting Alongside Sinners and Innovators October 17, 2008
Posted by Admin in Hijrah & Jihaad, Khawaarij, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Rebuttals.add a comment
People of hypocrisy and confusion have claimed all these calamities that have befallen the Muslim Ummah is because of our sins, so it’s not allowed for us to fight unless we clean our rows from sinners.
In replay to this false claim, it’s said:
FIRSTLY, This contradicts common sense, because it’s impossible to be free of sinners and we admit that all what happens to us, is because of sins. But it does not mean that we can not repel a harm, unless we repel the other harm. It’s like a person who is injured in a car accident because he hadn’t security belts on, so imagine a doctor saying: “Go and learn how to use the security belt, then we can treat your injuries.”
SECONDLY, Imaam Ibn Taymia said in “Majmu al-Fatawa“, 28/506-507:
“Those who fight the enemy have agreed upon the perfect form of jihaad and it’s the purpose of pleasing Allaah, dignifying His word and establishing His religion and obeying His Messenger, even if there is immorality and corruption of intention amongst them, like their fighting for the sake of authority or transgressing against them in some matters. And when the harm of abandoning the fight against them is greater for the religion than the harm of fighting in this way, then it becomes obligatory to repel the greater harm by accepting lesser harm. And it’s from the usul of Islaam that should be given proper attention!
That’s why it was from the usul of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah to fight with all good and bad Muslims and indeed Allaah helps sometimes this religion with bad people and even with corrupted nations as the prophet informed us about it. And if the fighting can not be achieved except with help of corrupted leaders and soldiers most of them being fajirs, then we have two situations here: either to abandon fighting with such Muslims, and it means invasion of others whose harm is greater for the religion and for worldly life, or to fight with a corrupted leader and by doing so we repell those who are more corrupted and we establish the most parts of Islaamic Shari’ah if it’s not possible to establish the whole Shari’ah and it’s obligatory to do it in such situations or similar situations. And most of the battles that happened after righteous khalifas didn’t differ from this case.”
Some may say: “Ok! but innovation is not like other sins, it’s worse than that and salaf did clearly warned us against befriending them and using their help in Jihaad”
And they cited some sayings of scholars (not Qur’aan or Sunnah) as a proof:
Ali ibn Bakaar said: “Ibn Awn sent some money to me and I divided it in the way of Allaah and he said: “Don’t give a Qadari anything” and I think he said as well “Do not do battle alongside them with you for they will not be given victory.” [Ibn Abi 'Asim, "as-Sunnah", p.88]
‘Umar bin Abdul ‘Aziz said: “Do not go to battle alongside Qadari, because you will not be given victory because of them” [Ibn Batta, "al-Ibaana", # 1848]
Similar words are reported from Imaam Ahmad about Jahmia. (Ibn Muflih, “al-Adab ash-Shari’yya“, 1/256)
In reply to this, it’s said: This is not a proof against the issue, because:
FIRSTLY, These quotes are irrelevant because it’s not a proof that seeking aid of a mubtadi’ is forbidden, rather it’s a proof that sects like qadaria and jahmia were not considered Muslims by early Muslim scholars, like Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Umar bin Abdul ‘Aziz, Malik bin Anas, Sufyan as-Sawri, Abdullaah bin Mubarak, Ahmad bin Hanbal and others treated “qadaria” as kuffar…
Ibn Battah relates from ‘Umar bin Abd al-’Aziz: “Abu Suhayl bin Malik said: “One day I was accompanying ‘Umar bin Abd al-’Aziz and he asked me: “What is your opinion about qadaris?” I said: “I think we should demand that they repent, if they repent good, otherwise I would behead them” ‘Umar said: “it’s also my opinion!” Narrators Ma’an and Qutayba said: “Malik said: “It’s my opinion as well!” ["al-Ibaana", 2/233 (1834) Dar ar-Raya, Riyad, 1410]
And it’s related from Imaam Ahmad about jahmiyya that they were kuffar.
SECONDLY, All what salaf said about seeking aid from ahlul bid’a and hawa, then it should be applied to ‘Jihaad ul Talab,’ when you are initiating war and not when Jihaad is obligatory upon every single Muslim, even women, old people, children who are able to fight.
THIRDLY, Scholars have allowed seeking help from people of innovations and we have full of exemples in the history.
Imaam Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Shaybani said:
“There is no problem for righteous muslims to fight alongside khawarij against mushriks..”
And Imaam as-Sarakhsi commented upon these words:
“Because they fight know to repell the harm of kufr and to make Islaam superior and this fighting is an obligatory kind of fighting, it’s dignifying the Word of Allaah!” ["Sharh Siyar al-Kabir", 4/# 2970]
And it’s narrated from ‘Ali that he said about khawaarij:
“We will not hinder you from taking from what you earned in Jihaad”
And Imaam as-Sarakhsi commented on these words:
“It proves that if khawaarij fight ágainst disbelievers under the banner of righteous muslims, they deserve their share from the booty as the others deserve, because they are muslims.” ["al-Mabsut", 10/125-126]
Imaam Ibn Taymia said in “Majmu al-Fatawa“, 28/212:
“If establishing the obligations such as education, Jihaad and other obligations besides that becomes impossible except with the help of one who has bid’a and its harms are less than the harms of leaving the obligation: So obtaining the interest of the obligation – even if it has some evil as a result – is better than the opposite of this (i.e. abandoning ahlul bid’a).
And we know from the history that when Fatimis ruled in Egypt whey were kuffar according to all Muslim scholars. So when Abu Yazid revolted against Banu Ubaydullah, all Sunni scholars agreed to help Abu Yazid, although he was a heretic khariji.
Imaam az-Zahabi writes:
“Faqihs and devoted worshipers began preparing with drums and banners with a great zeal and Ahmad bin Abil-Walid addressed them in a Friday sermon and encouraged them. He said: “Fight those who disbelieved in Allaah and who claims to be a Lord besides Allaah and he changed Allaahs laws and cursed His prophet and his companions. And people burst into tears. And he said: “O Allaah! This Qarmati (batini) is kaafir known as Ibn Ubaydullah, claimant to the lordship, a denier of your blessings, who disbelieves in Your Lordship, who abuses Your Messenger, who discredits Your prophet Muhammad and sheds blood of Muslims. Curse him and humiliate him and send upon him Your anger every morning and every night!” Then he stepped down and led them in the friday prayer.” ["Siyar Alam an-Nubala", 15/155 Muassasa ar-Risala]
And it was Abu Yazid Makhlad bin Kidad al-Khariji who initiated this uprising against kaafir fatimis and Sunni scholars supported them. And az-Zahabi writes:
“Abu Ishaq al-Faqih joined Abu Yazid in latter revolt and he used to say: “They are from ahlul qiblah, but those (i.e. fatimis) are not ahlul qibla, rather they are Banu Aduwullah (sons of Allaahs enemy) If we win with them, we will not obey Abu Yazid, because he is a khariji.” ["Siyar Alam an-Nubala", 15/155]
Early Maalikis Burnt Ghazali’s Books and Persecuted Sufis October 16, 2008
Posted by Admin in Rebuttals, Sufism.add a comment
‘Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt: Studies in the Writings of ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha’rani’
by Michael Winter
In collective consciousness of most Egyptian and North African Sufis, however, the enemy was personified in the future of the Maaliki faqid. Sha’rani, for all his sincere efforts to narrow the breach among the four madhhabs, bears testimony to the intensity of these memories. The history of Sufism in Egypt in the late Middle Ages is closely knit to that of North Africa and is full of incidents in which Maaliki jurists attacked the Sufis. This struggle naturally began in North Africa, where the Maaliki madhhab was dominant. The early Egyptian mystic Dhu’l-Noon al-Misri (d. 245/856) was persecuted by Maaliki jurist (1), Ghazali’s books were burnt by the Maaliki fuqaha of Spain; Abu’l Hasan al-Shaadhili himself was a victim of Maaliki harassment; and one of the fiercest attacks on popular religion in Egypt came from the Maaliki faqeeh Ihn al-Haajj. Muhammad Shams al-Deen al-Hanafi, the famous Sufi, won over a hostile Maaliki jurist, as did his dsiciple Madyan al-Ashmuni. Such conversions were considered especially impressive achievements. When Ibraheem al-Ja’bari (d. 687/1288), a popular Sufi preacher, was prohibited from preaching in a fatwa issued a Maaliki qadi, the qadis of the three other madhhabs did not join the Maaliki colleague in their decision. (This is expressly stated in the sources.) (2)
Sha’rani writes of a man who tried to validate his claim to be Sufi shaykh by obtaining an authorization from a Maaliki qadi, and adds contemptuously: “Poor man, he does not understand anything about these matters; this authorization to serve as a Sufi shaykh is given by God.” (3) It is unlikely that Sha’rani mentions the Maalikism of the qadi by chance he obviously considered a Maaliki qadi the on least qualified to determine whether a man had attained the status of a Sufi shaykh.
Footnotes
1)Lawaaqih al-Anwar p. 62
2) al-Tabaqat al-Sughra, p. 39, 45. These were Zakariyya al-Ansari and his Sufi shaykh Muhammad al-Ghamri, al-Zahids disciple. This was possible because Zakariyya lived a very long time.
3) Tabaqat, II, pp. 80-81, 92-94. Both disciples died in the same year – 850/1446-47
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3253/pagesg5.jpg
Ibn Baaz Between Reality and Illusion October 13, 2008
Posted by Admin in Khawaarij, Rebuttals.add a comment
Ibn Baaz between reality and illusion
By Sheikh Ayman az-Zawaahiri (HA)
I listened to the fataawaa of Ibn Baaz, like many other millions of Muslims, which was broadcasted all over (the world). He was calling the Muslims to pray in Masjid al-Aqsaa and permitted trade with Israel.
Then I heard the response of the prime minister of Israel, Is’haaq Raabeen, saluting and welcoming the “honorable” mufti. [1]
Unlike many people, I wasn’t very surprised from what that man (Ibn Baaz) said, because I have a very firm opinion about him, despite the great elevation that many people have given him. In my simple understanding, it is impossible for a man to be an imaam, mufti, person of fatwaa, example of education, and simultaneously have one of the highest religious positions in the regime of Aal-Sa’oud (the Saudi government) – America’s greatest agent.
So how does Aal-Sa’oud pay that man (Ibn Baaz) all these salaries, and give him all these positions whilst they are the strongest followers (allies) of America, except if the presence of that man in those positions was a major benefit for Aal-Sa’oud. Aal-Sa’oud are the ones who are ruling the Muslims by the edge of the sword (by dictatorship), without any mercy or compromise.
And if it occurred to them (the Saudi regime) once, that this sheikh will ever oppose them, or be of any kind of threat to their authority, they would have taken so many measures to silence him through isolation or even by killing him. And the history of Aal-Sa’oud of killing their oppositions goes without say.
All of the above is not the main purpose of this speech (article), but the purpose is as follows…
Verily many people have taken Ibn Baaz and those with him as an example in the Deen and as a reference for their fataawaa. They refer to their (Ibn Baaz and his followers) fataawaa and publications in the vital issues of the Deen, i.e. in ‘aqeedah and tawheed, and in the most dangerous issues related to the Muslims – being the apostate rulers who are ruling the Muslim lands.
And those followers, despite all what they choke about in regards to their independence (disassociation) from taqleed (blind following) and madhaahib (schools of thought), they are the biggest people of taqleed towards him (Ibn Baaz) and his people. And this da’wah has spread amongst thousands of Muslim youth until it has become the normality.
Until we saw someone like Safar al-Hawaali coming out with the idea that democracy might be a necessity to rescue the country from chaos, referring to Algeria as an example, he is referring all of this (i.e. the idea of democracy) to Bin Baaz, in his tape no.4661 Tasjeelaat al-Hidaayah al-Islaamiyyah in Dammaam, lecture dated 23/06/1412. All of this is despite al-Hawaali’s knowledge in ‘Ilm ut-Tawheed and despite all his books about secularism. If this was the case with Safar al-Hawaali, so what about anybody else? (In other words, if someone “knowledgeable” as Sheikh Safar al-Hawaali could be misguided by Ibn Baaz, what about those who are less knowledgeable)?
Thousands of youth have been living as prisoners to these dazzling names, Bin Baaz, ‘Uthaymeen and Abee Bakr al-Jazaa’iri, who they follow and will not even dare to oppose, even though their mistakes are so great, and their deviation is so outrageous.
And I used to wonder how do those people imitate in their Deen a man (Ibn Baaz) who never sacrificed anything for the sake of Allah and was never tested? On the contrary, he doesn’t get his salary except by defending the interests of the tawaagheet (false gods or those who do not rule by Islam). So how do these people ask him about the solution for the tawaagheet and about the sanctity of their blood and to wipe out their authority? (In other words, how can people ask him how they should deal with the tawaagheet when he himself was a defender of taaghout)?
It is about time for the Muslim youth to free themselves from these empty ringing names who have exaggerated their nifaaq (hypocrisy) with the tawaagheet until they have become a laughing-stock in front of friends and enemies. [2]
And it is about time for these youth to gather around the ‘ulamaa al-’aamileen (sincere active scholars) who are suffering and being tested for the sake of their Deen, the ones who Allah (SWT) has described them as, “And we made from among them [Children of Israel], leaders, giving guidance under Our Command, when they were patient and used to believe with certainty in Our Aayaat.” (EMQ as-Sajdah, 32:24)
It is also about time for these youth to wake up from their unconsciousness which they are living in, and understand that the battle of Islam and kufr, haq and baatil, is a crucial battle and there is no escaping it. And whoever is not going to prepare himself for it and get ready, he is going to be the first victim of it.
It would have been possible for us to stay silent about those people (Ibn Baaz and his cronies), if only they themselves accepted to keep their mouths shut, and just speak about what is not going to make the rulers angry – the personal ritual affairs of the Deen, even though that would have been impossible since all these tawaagheet are so evil and corrupted. But those ‘ulamaa have turned into the destroyers and demolishers of the ‘aqeedah for the youth, making excuses for the kufr (apostasy) of the taaghout, go against commanding good and forbidding evil, permit the settlement of the invading forces of the American crusaders in the Arabian peninsula, and bless the policies of normalizing relationship with Israel and the Jewish upper hand on the Muslim land.
Now this is what nobody with one atom’s weight of shame in his heart can accept, let alone to have one atom of imaan in his heart (in other words, if a person has an atom’s weight of shame in his heart he will never accept this, let alone to have an atom’s weight of imaan).
And I know my words are going to be too much for many of the good people who are still living in the illusion, or for the people who agree with me but have no bravery or courage to come out with it, fearing that others might start accusing them of belittling the ‘ulamaa, or because they cannot go against what they have been repeating (regurgitating) for many years.
However, the haq is ablaj (clear), and the baatil is shaken; indeed Ibn Baaz and his taa’ifah (entity, group, followers etc.) are the government scholars who are selling us (the believers) to our enemies in return for some salary and some position. Let whoever wants to be angry be angry, and whoever wants to be pleased, let them be pleased (with what I am saying).
Indeed the camp of imaan can confront the camp of kufr; we have to get rid of the munaafiqeen and the fraudsters,
“And thus do we explain the Aayaat in detail, that the way of the mujrimoon, may become manifest.” (EMQ al-An’aam, 6:55)
The Magazine of the Mujaahidoon, 11th edition, first year, Wednesday the 3rd of Sha’baan 1415
Footnotes
——————————————————————————–
1 Allah (SWT) says in the Qur’aan: “And never will the Jews and Christians be pleased with you until you follow their millah” (EMQ al-Baqarah, 2:120)
2 On one hand these people condemn those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed, yet they defend the apostate rulers and heretically justify all their crimes.
See also the following related link: http://millatibraheem.muslimpad.com/2008/09/29/identifying-government-scholars-and-clarifying-their-purpose/
And a reminder of what Imaam ibn Taymia had stated in ‘Majmua al-Fatawa‘ Vol. 20, Pg 200 :
“The person who is obeyed in disobedience of Allaah or the person who is obeyed in following other than the guidance of the religion of truth; in either case, if what he orders mankind is in opposition to Allaah’s orders, then he is a Taghoot. For this reason, we call the people who rule by other than what Allaah revealed, a ‘Taghoot’.”
Principles of Takfir October 11, 2008
Posted by Admin in Laa ilaha illAllaah, Rebuttals, Takfir.add a comment
Principles of Takfir
Imaam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab
ad-Durar as-Sanniyyah 1/102-104
The Shaykh was asked concerning that for which he fights, and upon what does he make takfir of a person.
He replied,
“The five pillars of Islam. The first of them [by which he disbelieves] is the two testimonies of faith, then the remaining four pillars. However, if he affirms their obligation but abandons them out of neglect, then even though we fight him in order to make him act upon them, we do not declare him a disbeliever by mere abandonment of them. The scholars have differed about the disbelief of the one who abandoned the prayer out of laziness, without willful denial, juhood. So we do not perform takfir on account of anything except what the all of the scholars are united upon, and that is the two testimonies of faith.
And also, we make takfir of him after acquaintance. That is after he knows, and then rejects it. So we say that those who are our enemies are of different types:
The first type: The one who comes to know that the Tawheed that is the deen of Allaah and His Messenger, is the very one that we have brought to the people, and who also affirms that these beliefs concerning the stones, trees, and men, which is the deen of the majority of the people, that it is Shirk with Allaah, and is that which Allaaah sent His Messenger to prohibit, and that he fight its people so that the all of the deen is for Allaah. So alongside all of this he does not turn to Tawheed, and does not learn it and does not enter into it, and he does not abandon Shirk, then this one is a Kaafir, and we fight him for his kufr. Since, he knew the religion of the Messenger, but did not follow it, and he knew Shirk, but did not abandon it, alongside his not having any hatred for the deen of the Messenger, and nor for anyone who has entered into it, and nor does he praise Shirk and nor does he beautify it to the people.
The second type: The one who knew all of that, however he makes clear his revilement of the deen of the Messegner, alongside his claim that he actually acts by it (the deen). And he also makes clear his praise of the one who worshipped Yusuf, and al-Ashqar, and Abu Alee, and al-Khidr, from the people of Kuwait, and he considers them better than the one who made Tawheed of Allaah and abandoned Shirk. This is one is actually more severe than the first one, and concerning this is the saying of Allaah, “And when that which they knew came to them, they disbelieved in it, so the curse of Allaah is upon the Disbelievers” (al-Baqarah 2/89), and this is the person about whom Allaah said, “But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief – for surely their oaths are nothing to them – so that they may stop (evil actions)” (At-Tawbah 9:12).
The third type: Whoever knew Tawheed, loved it, followed it, and knew Shirk and abandoned it, however, he hates the one who enters into Tawheed, and he loves the one who remains upon Shirk, so this one also is a disbeliever, and regarding this is the saying of Allaah, “That is because they hate that which Allaah has sent down, so He has made their deeds fruitless” (Muhammad 47:9).
The fourth type: The one who is free of all of this (i.e. what has been mentioned above), however the people of his town clearly express their enmity to the people of Tawheed, and their following of the people of Shirk, and they strive to fight them. So this person makes excuse that abandoning his land will be very difficult upon him. And so he fights the people of Tawheed alongside the people of his town, and he strives with his wealth and his self. So this one too is a Kaafir, for if they were to command him to abandon fasting in Ramadan, and he was not able to fast without separating from them, he would have done so. And if they were to command him to marry the wife of his father, and he was not able to do that without separating from them, then he would have done so. And his agreement with them in making jihad alongside them with his self, and his wealth, when they desire by this to cut off the deen of Allaah and His Messenger, is actually greater than that (i.e. the examples given), by a great deal, a great deal. So this one too is a Kaafir. And this is the one about whom Allaah said, “You will find others that wish to have security from you and security from their people. Every time they are sent back to temptation, they yield thereto. If they withdraw not from you, nor offer you peace, nor restrain their hands, take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them. In their case, We have provided you with a clear warrant against them” (An-Nisa 4:91).
So this is what we say.
As for the great lie and slander, then it is like their saying that we make takfir bil-‘umoom (generalized takfir) and that we make hijrah (emigration) obligatory upon the one who is able to make an apparent display of his deen, and that we make takfir of the one who does not actually disbelieve, and the one who does not fight us, and whatever (lie and slander) is similar to this, multiple times over. So all of this is lie and slander, by which they prevent the people from the deen of Allaah and His Messenger.
And when it is the case that we do not make takfir of the one who worships and idol, that which upon [the grave] of Abdul-Qaadir, and the idol that is upon the grave of Ahmad al-Badawee and whatever is similar to these two, due to their ignorance, and the absence of the one who will notify them [make them understand].
How then can we make takfir of the one who does not make Shirk with Allaah?! When he does not make hijrah to us, or does not actually disbelieve, and does not fight us, “Glory be to You this is a great lie” (An-Nur 24:16).
Rather, we make takfir of those four types, due to their enmity towards Allaah and His Messenger, and may Allaah show mercy to a man who looked to himself and knew that he will be meeting Allaah, with whom is Paradise and Hellfire, and prayers and peace be upon Muhammad, his family and companions”.
Satanic Fatwa of bin Baz and Some Remarks October 9, 2008
Posted by Admin in Khawaarij, Rebuttals.add a comment
Satanic Fatwa of bin Baz and Some Remarks
The late Mufti of al-Saud, Abdul Aziz bin Baz stated:
“What resulted from the Saudi government is for reasons of these well played out developments against the oppression of the state of Iraq towards the state of Kuwait by SEEKING HELP ALTOGETHER from the ARMIES which are composed of a number of people from the MUSLIMS and OTHER THAN THEM (kuffar) for resistance against military aggression and defense of the lands (the Peninsula).
“ Thus that (the fatwa) is a permissible order, and on the contrary its judgment is necessity, and it is a necessity on the Kingdom that it (the Kingdom) establish this compulsory act for the defense of the lands of Islam and the Muslims. The sanctity of the land and its people is an imperative matter as well. On the contrary, it is absolutely necessary and an obligatory duty.
“So it (the Kingdom) is excused and praiseworthy on its sudden, spontaneous action towards this prudence and the avid desire for protection of the land and its people from evil and defending it (the lands) from expected military aggression. It has already been established that the president of Iraq is not trusted by the common folk from the country of Kuwait. So treachery is to be expected from him. So because of this, the necessity was called to take precaution and help in a number of FOREIGN ARMIES for the protection of the land and its people and in the avid desire for the safety and well being of the land and its people from every thing.
“ And we ask Allaah that He assist it (the action) and that He put it (the action) on every good and that He benefit the motives, make good the outcome, that He put to rest every evil and that He make the plan of the enemies of Allaah go astray and that He purify the Muslims of their evil and He, Mighty and Majestic, is the best One to be responsible.” (al-Fiqhiyyat ul Ma’aasira, No. 6, year 1990 regarding the Gulf Crisis)
Remarks about this fatwa
This fatwa is nothing but a piece of satanic paperwork that has been handed out to destroy the Ummah. This is known for the following reasons,
a. This fatwa, if you have noticed, did not include one single ayah from the Qur’an, for there is no single ayah to support it, as any ayah would be against it.
b. There was not one single hadith quoted to support it, due to the fact that all ahaadith are against it.
c. He did not have any evidence from scholars of the past, which he could mention to support his evil fatwa.
d. This fatwa is hindering and denying what the Rasoolullaah sAllaahu alayhi wa salam said about expelling Jews and Christians from the Peninsula. This man is actually bringing them into the Peninsula and opposing the words of the Rasoolullaah sAllaahu alayhi wa salam and Musims. This could only be a naked kufr and clear opposition to the statements of the Rasoolullaah sAllaahu alayhi wa salam
e. This shows that he is making halaal haraam and haraam halaal, and is even willing to go against the fatwa mentioned before this one. That fatwa stressed that it is major kufr to give even the slightest aid to kuffar against Muslims. Scholars of the Peninsula have never called Saddam a kaafir, and they even called him ‘the Guardian of the Eastern Gate against the Shi’a.’ Yet, they imported all of these kuffar troops from outside of the Peninsula to kill Saddam and the Iraqi people, and this is clear kufr, for Allaah said, “And if you give allegiance to them, then you are one of them,” Surat ul Ma’ida, ayah 51
f. We can also see his true evil, when he makes the kaafir armies appear as something mild, when he writes, ‘foreign troops,’ instead of saying kuffar. And he knows that these troops are nothing but armed Crusaders, full of homosexuals, who are rejoicing at their entry into the Peninsula. Inside of these armies are the Jews and Christians, who have built churches and synagogues in the Peninsula to comfort their soldiers, even though the Rasoolullaah sAllaahu alayhi wa salam ordered their expulsion in very clear statements. This fatwa even goes against the clear verses of the Qur’an, which are also against their presence in the Peninsula. And to compound all of this, for the first time in 1400 years, the Jews have sounded the shofar (the ram’s horn blown on religious ceremonies) inside of the Peninsula to celebrate their triumphant re-entry into the Peninsula since they were forced from the area of Khaibar, which they used to inhabit. Christians as well have been active, and have not ceased in propagating their evil on radio stations, which has led some sisters astray and caused them to apostate. There have also been some reports of young Muslim girls running away with these ‘foreign’ soldiers to Western countries to claim asylum. We have Sheikh Ibn Baz and the Senior Scholars of the Peninsula to thank for these achievements.
g. Ibn Baz has gone against another one of his famous fataawa where he stated that no Muslim is allowed to take help from a pagan to fight pagans, as the Rasoolullaah sAllaahu alayhi wa salam ordered in authentic narrations. But look at what he turned around and did when he aided pagans in killing MUSLIMS using the Holy Land.
h. This fatwa is used to cast a spell over the reader, as the end is filled with supplications to Allaah. This is a clear trick of the magicians of the Pharaoh’s court. Allaah has warned us not to clothe truth with falsehood. Yet this man has, and has tried to make the falsehood appear Islamic in nature, when it is antagonistic to Islam. For the sake of evidence, this fatwa will appear in the appendices in the back of the book in its original Arabic form.
*** Until now, children are still being killed in Iraq due to this fatwa. On top of that, Ibn Baz died unrepentant and without retracting a single part of this fatwa. He simply was not told by his master to do so. – Allahs Governance on Earth
See also the following related links: http://millatibraheem.muslimpad.com/2008/09/29/identifying-government-scholars-and-clarifying-their-purpose/
Identifying Government Scholars and Clarifying Their Purpose and Ruling September 29, 2008
Posted by Admin in Current Affairs, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Rebuttals, Takfir.1 comment so far
Government scholars are the body established by the rulers containing the top scholars of the country, made and sponsored by him, to justify the following:
1. His authority over the country and its people, even though he legislates against what Allaah has revealed, which is a clear kufr, under the Islamic Shari’ah. This nullifies his position as a leader of Muslims.
2. Cloaking him with qualities and titles, which deceive the Muslims and hinder them from fulfilling their obligations to Allaah to keep the Sharia intact.
3. Calling those who challenge his authority after he commits such crimes as khawaarij and disobedient to the amir of the Muslims, i.e. him.
4. Then they approve the killing and torture of those righteous Muslims who demand adherence to Allaah’s Law, whom they deceitfully defined as Khawaarij.
5. Although they might match Islamic Law most of the time, in the particulars, their main function is to screen the leader from being harmed, challenged or ultimately removed.
Ruling Regarding These Types of Individuals
These government scholars are the greatest harm to Islaam and Muslims. This is with the stipulation that any such body of scholars in any country shouldn’t be judged for the label they carry, rather for their actions, i.e. their stance for Islaam and Muslims. Let us refer to what Allaah and His Rasool have said about them…
Collected by Imaam Ahmad in his Musnad and also reported in Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb hadeeth #2241, that Abu Hurayrah narrated Rasoolullaah sallallaahu alayhi wasalam said, “Whoever approaches the ruler’s gates becomes afflicted. Whenever a slave draws closer to the ruler, he only gains distance from Allaah.”
Collected by Ahmad, al-Bazzaar, and Ibn Hibbaan, also recorded in Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb, hadeeth #2243 stating Jaabir Ibn ‘Abdullaah narrated that Rasoolullaah sallallaahu alayhi wasalam said to Ka’b Ibn ‘Ujrah, “O Ka’b Ibn ‘Ujrah, I seek Allaah’s protection for you from the leadership of fools. There shall be rulers, whoever enters upon them, then aids them in their oppression and validates their lies, then he is not from me nor I from him, and he shall not be admitted to the Hawd. Whoever does not enter upon them, and does not aid them in their oppression, nor validates their lies, then he is from me and I from him, and he shall be admitted to the Hawd.”
Recorded in Musnad Ahmad hadeeth # 20335 that Abu Dhar said, “I was in the presence of the Prophet one day and I heard him saying, ‘There is something more I fear for my Ummah than the Dajjaal.’ It was then that I became afraid, so I said, ‘O Rasoolullaah! Which thing is it that you fear for your Ummah more than the Dajjaal?’ He [the Prophet] said, ‘Misguided and astray scholars.’
It is related by Shidaad ibn Aws that the Prophet sAllaahu alayhi wasalam said, “Truly, I do not fear anything for my Ummah except astray scholars. Thus when the sword is raised against my Ummah, it will not be lifted until the Day of Judgment.” [Musnad of Ahmad, ahadeeth # 16493, 21360, 31359, 20334 and ad-Daarimi, ahadeeth # 211 and 216 and all of these collections are classed as authentic.]
Imaam Abu Abdullaah al-Qurtubi stated in ‘Jaami’ ul Ahkaam ul Fiqhiyyah’ Vol. 2, Pg. 227: “The ‘Ulama have said, ‘One who is an Imaam for an oppressive ruler, prayer is not to be made behind him unless he reveals his excuse or reason why (he is an Imaam for the oppressive ruler) or he repents from it.”
Imaam ibn Taymiya stated in ‘Majmua’ al-Fataawa‘ Vol. 20, Pg 200:
“The person who is obeyed in disobedience of Allaah or the person who is obeyed in following other than the guidance of the religion of truth; in either case, if what he orders mankind is in opposition to Allaah’s orders, then he is a Taghoot. For this reason, we call the people who rule by other than what Allaah revealed, a ‘Taghoot’.”
And he (ibn Taymiya) said in Majmu’a Fataawa vol 35. Page 373:
“Whenever the ‘aalim follows the hukm of the ruler, and leaves off his knowledge, in contradiction to the book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, he is a kaafir (an unbeliever) and a murtadd (an apostate), who deserves to be punished in this life and the hereafter. This rule can also be applied with regard to the group of scholars who jumped and joined the Mongols due to fear of them and that they wanted to take benefit from them. These scholars made the excuse that some of the Mongols were speaking the Shahaada and that they were Muslims. Allaah has said,
‘Alif Laam Mim Saad. A Book sent down to you, so do not have any worry in your breast from it, so that you may warn and be a reminder to the believers. Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord and do not follow protectors and helpers besides Him. Little is it that you remember!’ [Surat al-A'raaf, ayaat 1-3]
“And even if this ‘aalim is captured, put behind bars and tortured to leave what Allaah has taught him from His Book, he should be patient with that. If he leaves all that and follows the ruler, then he is one of the people that are supposed to be doomed by Allaah Ta’ala. He should be patient even if he is harmed in the cause of Allaah Ta’ala. This is the Sunnah that Allaah Ta’ala has wanted and accepted from the Prophets and from the people who follow the Prophets. Allaah says,
‘Alif Laam Mim. Do people think that they will be left alone because they say, ‘We believe,’ and will not be tested? And We indeed tested those who were before them. Allaah will certainly make it known those who are true and will certainly make it known those who are liars. And He will make it known who the liars are.’ [Surat al-'Ankabut, ayaat 1-3]
COMMENT: Replace the Mongols and the scholars of the past with our current regimes and scholars that rule over Muslim lands (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Algeria etc.)
