Posted by Admin in al Walaa wal Baraa, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Takfir.
The word “Ikrah” means “force, coercion, compulsion etc.” and “Mukrah,” which comes from the word “ikrah,” literally means “one who is forced.”
Allaah says:
“Whoever disbelieved in Allaah after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allaah, and theirs will be a great torment. That is because they loved and preferred the life of this world over that of the Hereafter. And Allaah guides not the people who disbelieve.” [an-Nahl 16:106-107]
ibn Abbas said: “This verse was revealed about ‘Ammar ibn Yasir. The idolaters had taken him away along with his father Yasir, his mother Sumayyah, Suhayb [al-Rumi], Bilal [ibn Rabah], Khabbab [ibn al-Aratt] and Salim [the client of Hudhayfah] and tortured them. As for Sumayyah, she was tied up between two camels and stabbed with a spear in her female organ. She was told: ‘You embraced Islam for the men’, and was then killed. Her husband Yasir was also killed. They were the first two persons who were killed in Islam. As for ‘Ammar, he was coerced to let them hear what they wanted to hear. Rasoolullaah, saAllaahu alayhi wa salam, was told that ‘Ammar has renounced faith, but he said: ‘Never, ‘Ammar is filled with faith from his head to his toes; faith is admixed with his flesh and blood!’ ‘Ammar then went to see the Rasoolullaah, saAllaahu alayhi wa salam, crying. Rasoolullaah, saAllaahu alayhi wa salam, wiped his tears with his own hand and said: ‘if they return to you, let them hear again what you told them.’ Then, Allaah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”.
Imaam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab said regarding these verses:
“So Allaah didn’t excuse anyone except the Mukrah whose heart is firm upon Imaan and Tawhid. And it’s known by necessity that it’s impossible to coerce someone to change his beliefs; but it’s possible to change his speech and actions. So this verse has clarified that whoever utters a word of kufr, or does an action of kufr, then he has indeed become a kaafir with the exclusion of the Mukrah who is firm upon Tawhid in his heart. And as mentioned in the verse, he becomes a kaafir because he preferred the worldly life, not because he changed his beliefs.” (Tarikh ibn Ghannam)
Imaam Sulayman ibn Abdullaah stated in his book “ad-Dala’il Fi Hukm Muwalat Ahlul-Ishrak” under the ‘Fourteenth Evidence’ commenting on these verses of an-Nahl 106-107:
“So He (Allaah) has made a judgment that is unchangeable- That whosoever turns back from his deen to kufr, then he is a kaafir. Regardless of whether he had the excuse of khawf (fear) for his life, wealth, family, or not; and whether he committed kufr both internally (with his heart) and externally (through actions), or only externally and not internally (i.e. only through actions, without the heart); and whether he committed kufr through his actions and his speech, or with just one of the two and not the other; and whether or not he committed kufr because of his desire to attain some worldly benefit from the mushrik; he becomes a kafir in each and every situation – except for the Mukrah. And he is the ‘Maghsub’ in our language. (Derived from “Ghasaba Yaghsibu”- which implies the meanings of “coerce, compel, force, extort, seize unlawfully, conquer, subdue, rape, etc.” And Maghsub is the one who is “coerced, compelled, forced, subdued, etc.” According to classical linguists: “Someone who is forced to do something he dislikes by means of subjugation and compulsion.” See Lisan Al-‘Arab 3/526, and Al-Misbah Al- Munir 2/729)
So if a person is forced to do kufr; and it is said to him ‘Commit kufr! Or else we shall kill you- or we will torture you’; or the mushrik take him and beat him (severely) – and it is not possible for him to be rid (of this torment) except by agreeing with them; then it is permissible for him to agree with them externally (through actions or speech) – with the condition that his heart rests upon Imaan – meaning firmly established upon it and believing in it. But as for him agreeing with them with his heart, then he is a kaafir- even if he is a Mukrah.
And what is apparent from the words of Imaam Ahmad, is that in the first situation, he would not be a Mukrah- unless the mushrik had tortured him. Because when Yahya Ibn Ma’een entered upon him while he was ill, he (Yahya) greeted him with Salaam but he (Imaam Ahmad) did not return his Salaam. So Yahya began to appeal to him saying: “The hadeeth of ‘Ammar (O Ahmad)! And Allaah said ‘excluding he who is forced thereto while his heart is at rest with Imaan’.” So Ahmad turned his face to the other side; so Yahya exclaimed, ‘He does not accept an excuse?!’ So when Yahya was leaving, Imaam Ahmad said, ‘He uses the hadeeth of Ammar as proof, and the hadeeth of Ammar is ‘I passed by them (the mushrik) while they were insulting you (O Rasoolullaah) – so I forbid them (to say such things), so then they tortured me…’ And you, it is said to you ‘We want to torture you’.” (Meaning that ‘Ammar was actually tortured, and Imaam Ahmad was saying that they themselves were not in that condition yet, but rather were merely being threatened. So mere threats are not a valid Ikrah which would permit kufr.) So Yahya said, “I swear by Allaah! I have not seen anyone under the surface of the sky of Allah who understands the deen of Allaah better than you.’ (Ibn Abu Ya’la in his At-Tabaqat 1/404, and Ibn Al-Jawzi in Manaqib Al-Imaam Ahmad on the authority of Abu Bakr Al-Marwathi 474)
Then He informed that those murtad, who opened their hearts to kufr, even though they are sure of the haqq; and that they said ‘We did not do this except because of khawf’- but still ‘on them is wrath from Allaah, and theirs will be a great torment.’
Then He informed that the reason for this kufr and eternal punishment – is not because they believed in shirk; nor because of ignorance about tawhid; nor because of hatred for the deen; nor because of love for kufr- rather, the reason is merely because of a bit from the bits of the dunya (worldly life), which he preferred above the deen and the pleasure of the Lord of the Worlds.
So He said,
“That is because they loved and preferred the life of this world over that of the Hereafter. And Allah does not guide the kafir. (Al-Nahl 16:107-109)
So He has made takfir of them. And He informed that He will not guide them, even though they try to excuse themselves with the plea that they (only did it out of) lust for the dunya.
Then He informed that these are murtad, because they preferred the life of the dunya rather than the akhirah; they are the ones whose hearts, hearing, and sight Allah has sealed, and that they are the oblivious ones; then He informed (us of their) confirmed reality:
‘That in the Hereafter, they will be the losers.’ (An-Nahl 16:109)
Posted by Admin in al Walaa wal Baraa, al-Imaan, Hijrah & Jihaad, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Takfir.
The evidence of Shari’ah indicates that it is obligatory to destroy idols, for example:
Imaam Muslim (969) narrated that Abul-Hayaaj al-Asadi said: Ali ibn Abi Taalib said to me: “Shall I not send you with the same instructions as the Messenger of Allaah (saAllaahu alayhi wa salam) sent me? Do not leave any image without defacing it or any built-up grave without leveling it.“
Imaam Muslim (832) narrated from Urwah ibn Abasah that he said to the Prophet (saAllaahu alayhi wa salam): “With what were you sent?” He said, “I was sent to uphold the ties of kinship, to break the idols, and so that Allaah would be worshiped alone with no partner or associate.”
The obligation to destroy them is even stronger if they are worshipped instead of Allaah.
Imaam al-Bukhaari (3020) and Imaam Muslim (2476) narrated that Jareer ibn Abd-Allaah al-Bajali said: The Messenger of Allaah (saAllaahu alayhi wa salam) said to me: “O Jareer, will you not relieve me of Dhul-Khalsah?” That was a house (in Yemen) belonging to the (tribe of) Khatham, which was called Kabat al-Yamaaniyyah. I set out with one hundred and fifty horsemen. I used not to sit firm on horses and I mentioned that to the Messenger of Allaah (saAllaahu alayhi wa salam). He struck me on my chest with his hand and said, ‘O Allaah! Make him firm and make him one who guides others and is guided on the right path.’ ” So Jareer went and burned it with fire, then Jareer sent a man called Abu Artaat to the Messenger of Allaah (saAllaahu alayhi wa salam). He said, “I did not come to you until we had left it like a scabby camel.” Then the Messenger of Allaah (saAllaahu alayhi wa salam) blessed the horses of (the tribe of) Ahmas and their men five times.
Ibn Hajar said: “This hadeeth indicates that it is prescribed to remove things that may tempt or confuse the people, whether they are buildings, people, animals or inanimate objects.”
The Prophet (saAllaahu alayhi wa salam) sent Khaalid ibn al-Waleed (ra) on a campaign to destroy al-Uzza.
And he sent Sad ibn Zayd al-Ashhali (ra) on a campaign to destroy Manaat.
And he sent Amr ibn al-Aas (ra) on a campaign to destroy Suwaa. All of that happened after the Conquest of Makkah.
[Al-Bidaayah wal-Nihaayah, 4/712. 776. 5/83; al-Seerah al-Nabawiyyah by Dr. Ali al-Salaabi, 2/1186.]
al-Nawawi said in Sharh Muslim when discussing the issue of image-making: “They were unanimously agreed that whatever casts a shadow is not allowed and must be changed.”
Images that cast a shadow are three-dimensional images like these statues.
With regard to what is said about the Sahaabah (ra) not destroying idols in the conquered lands, this is merely conjecture. The companions of the Prophet (saAllaahu alayhi wa salam) would not have left idols and statues alone, especially since they were worshiped at that time.
If it is asked, how come the Sahaabah left alone the ancient idols of the Pharaohs and Phoenicians? The answer is that these idols fall into one of three categories:
1 These idols may have been in remote places that the Sahaabah did not reach; when the Sahaabah conquered Egypt, for example, that does not mean that they reached every part of the land.
2 These idols may not have been visible, rather they may have been inside Pharaonic buildings etc. The Prophet (saAllaahu alayhi wa salam) told us to hasten when passing through the abodes of the wrongdoers and those who had been punished, and he forbade entering such places. In al-Saheehayn it is says: “Do not enter upon those who have been punished unless you are weeping, lest there befall you something like that which befall them.” He (saAllaahu alayhi wa salam) said that when he passed by ashaab al-hijr [the dwellers of the rocky tract see al-Hijr 15:80], in the land of Thamood, the people of Saalih (saAllaahu alayhi wa salam).
According to another report narrated in al-Saheehayn, “If you are not weeping, then do not enter upon them, lest there befall you something like that which befall them.”
What we think is that if the companions of the Prophet (saAllaahu alayhi wa salam) saw a temple or building belonging of these people, they did not enter it or even look at what was inside it.
This will dispel any confusion about why the Sahaabah did not see the Pyramids or what is inside them. There is also the possibility that their doors and entrances were covered with sand at that time.
3 Many of these idols that are visible nowadays were covered and hidden, and have only been discovered recently, or they have been brought from remote places that the companions of the Prophet (saAllaahu alayhi wa salam) did not reach.
Al-Zarkali was asked about the Pyramids and the Sphinx etc: Did the Sahaabah who entered Egypt see them?
He said: They were mostly covered with sand, especially the Sphinx. [Shibh Jazeerat al-Arab, 4/1188]
Then even if we assume that there was a statue that was visible and not hidden, then we still have to prove that the Sahaabah saw it and were able to destroy it.
The fact of the matter is that the Sahaabah (ra) would not have been able to destroy some of these statues. It took twenty days to destroy some of these statues even with tools, equipment, and explosives etc that were not available to the Sahaabah at all.
This is indicated by what Ibn Khuldoon said in al-Muqaddimah (p. 383), that the caliph al-Rasheed was unable to destroy the estrade of Chosroes. He started to do that, and he gathered men and tools, and burned it with fire, and poured vinegar on it, but he was unable to do it. And the caliph al-Mamoon wanted to destroy the Pyramids in Egypt and he gathered workers but he could not do it.
With regard to the excuse that these statues are part of the legacy of mankind, no attention should be paid to such words. Al-Laat, al-Uzaa, Hubal, Manaat and other idols were also a legacy for those who worshipped them among Quraysh and the Arabs.
This is a legacy, but it is a haraam legacy which should be uprooted. When the command comes from Allaah and His Messenger, then the believer must hasten to obey, and the command of Allaah and His Messenger cannot be rejected on the grounds of this flimsy excuse. Allaah says:
“The only saying of the faithful believers, when they are called to Allaah (His Words, the Quraan) and His Messenger, to judge between them, is that they say: ‘We hear and we obey.’ And such are the successful (who will live forever in Paradise)” [al-Noor 24:51]
We ask Allaah to help the Muslims to do that which He loves and which pleased Him.
And Allaah knows best.
Posted by Admin in al-Imaan, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Takfir.
From the sons of Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and ‘Hamd bin Naasir, they said in “Durar” (10/136-138) when they were asked ‘verily the believer in Allaah and His messenger when he says or does what would be kufr in ignorance from him regarding it, then do not make takfir upon him until the ‘Hujjah Risaaliyyah [the proof from Islaam, Messenger, texts] has been established before him, so if the one with such condition is killed before this call becomes apparent, is it to be dropped or not?’ Thus they answered saying
“if he was acting kufr and Shirk due to his ignorance or due to the absence of anyone who would inform him, then we do not rule with his disbelief until ‘Hujjah has been established upon him But we do not rule that he is a Muslim. But rather we say, his this action is what permits Wealth and Blood, though we do not rule upon this individual due to absence of the ‘Hujjah being established upon him. And it is not said that if he is not a K?fir then he is a Muslim, but rather we say ‘his action is the action of the Kuffar and ruling upon this individual specially rests upon reaching the ‘Hujjah Risaaliyyah. Verily the people of knowledge mentioned ‘verily the people of Fatrah [people who lived between two messengers to whom the message of Allaah did not reach] they are to be tested on the day of judgment on that place and they did not make their ruling that of the kuffar and neither that of the pious) (Ad Durar: 10/137)
Sheikh ‘Abdul ‘Aziz the Judge of Ad Dar’iyyah said in “ar-Rasaail wal Masaail an-Najdiyyah” (5/576) same as what the sons of Sheikh Ibn Abdul Wahhab ????? ???? said above as you can see in the quoted part, when asked regarding the believer in Allaah and His Messenger when he says or does a thing which maybe disbelief in ignorance in his part regarding it, thus you do not make takfir of him until ‘Hujjah is established upon him?’
Sheikh ‘Hussein and ‘Abdullah, sons of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab said in “ad-Durar as-Saniyyah” (10/142) in regards of the one who dies before this call and he did not see Islaam and these actions which people do today while ‘Hujjah has not been established upon him, [so] what is the ruling in his regard?
Thus they both answered: “Verily who dies from the people of Shirk before this message reaches him, so the matter [with which] he is ruled upon is; if he is famous with doing Shirk and taking it as a religion and dies upon it, then this his apparent is that verily he died upon disbelief. And he not to be supplicated for nor are sacrificed made for him nor charity is given on his behalf. As for his true matter then it is to Allaah. Thus if the ‘Hujjah has been established upon him in his life and he refracts, thus he is a kaafir in apparent and beneath. And if ‘Hujjah has not been established upon him then his matter is to Allaah”
Posted by Admin in al Walaa wal Baraa, Rebuttals, Takfir.
Aiding the Kuffar and the Incident of Hatib (ra)
1) For takfir to be declared, the nullifiers of Islam must be known. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:
“Allah does not lead a people astray after His guidance has been given until He makes clear to them wherein error lies.” [at-Tawbah 9: 115]
Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab – Rahimahullah – gathered ten actions that negate one’s Islam (Nawaqid ul-Ashr), the eighth one of which states:
“Assisting the disbelievers (against the believers) (Mudhaharatul Mushrikeen) and supporting them against the believers is one of the actions that negates of one’s Islam…”
Thus, it is generally and widely known that one of these nullifiers of one’s Islam is supporting, aiding or allying with the kuffar against the Muslims. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:
“Obey, follow and give allegiance only to that brought to you from your Sustainer, and do not obey, nor follow nor give allegiance to those who are Awliya’ besides Him.” [al-Araf 7:3]
“You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with and loving those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they are their fathers or their sons or their kindred…” [al-Mujadila 58:22]
In addition, as Sheikh Abdullah ibn Humaid said:
“Whoever expresses Tawalli towards the disbelievers (Tawalli Kuffar) and supports and helps them against the believers, then such constitutes apostasy by one’s (proceeding) actions. It is obligatory to apply the rules of apostasy upon such a person as is proved by The Book, the Sunnah and the consensus of the scholars.” Ad-Durrar 15/479
Furthermore, Sheikh Abdul Latif bin Abdur Rahman bin Hassan Aal-Sheikh said:
“Whomsoever helps the disbelievers or brings them to the country of Ahl Al-Islam, then that person is clearly an apostate.” Ad-Durrar 8/326
Thus, we should be in no doubt that if a Muslim chooses to aid, ally themselves with, the kuffar against the Muslims then they have negated their Islam.
2) Since we judge someone by what is apparent, it is apparent that if a Muslim joins the Armed Forces or the Police of the kuffar, and wears the uniform of the kuffar, then they have sworn allegiance to the kuffar and/or to some Taghut of the kuffar – such as a President, some nation-State, or some kaffir leader – since such allegiance is a necessary part of joining and belonging to such kaffir organizations. In addition, a Muslim pledges thereby to uphold the fallible manufactured laws of the kuffar and to obey the kuffar.
Thus, by doing such things the person in question has made a knowing and willing choice, for they know and accept that such kaffir organizations have aided and do aid the kuffar over and above Muslims; that they place and value kaffir manufactured laws above Shariah, and have imprisoned Muslims, invaded and occupied Muslim lands; killed and tortured and humiliated Muslims.
Furthermore, for a Muslim, allegiance, submission and obedience can only be to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, for that is Eeman, which is manifest by:
“Those who believe in Allah and His Messenger, who are steadfast, and who strive with their wealth and their lives for the Way of Allah.” [al-Hujuraat 49:15]
However, instead of only striving for the Way of Allah, to raise the Word of Allah, those individuals who ally themselves with the kuffar are striving in the way of the kuffar, for the Taghut of the kuffar, in order to establish the Taghut of the kuffar – such as “democracy” and the nation-State and the implementation of manufactured kaffir laws in place of Shariah. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:
“Allah is the Wali of those who believe: from darkness, He leads them into the light, while those do not believe have, as their Wali, their Taghut so that they are led from light into darkness. For them, there is the Fire, where they shall dwell forever.” [al-Baqarah 2: 257]
“Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut. So therefore fight against those friends of Shaitaan.” [an-Nisa' 4: 76]
“Their way is to refer matters to a Taghut. “ [an-Nisa' 4:60]
3) Thus, we can state that takfir can – and should – be made upon those who have given their allegiance to the organizations of the kuffar, for these organizations are based upon Tawagheet and are striving through force, or persuasion, or both, to have people submit to such Tawagheet, just as such organizations demand loyalty to such Tawagheet, judge by such Tawagheet, and just as they are striving against Deen Al-Islam and Muslims who, in obedience to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, refuse to bow down to and accept such Tawagheet.
“The words of your Rabb are complete, perfect – manifesting truth, justice, and nothing shall ever abrogate them.” [al-Anaam6:115]
The Incidence of Hatib (ra)
1- The incident of Hatib (ra) is one of the greatest evidences in relation to the kufr of assisting and helping the kuffar against the Muslim (Mudhahara) and the apostasy from Islam. This is shown clearly in three points in the Hadith narrated about this incident:
a) Without hesitation Umar (ra) put takfir on Hatib directly.
The statement of ‘Umar (ra) in this Hadith: “Leave me to strike the neck of this Munafiq (hypocrite).”“Certainly he has disbelieved.” And in another narration (it is reported that he stated): And in another narration, after the Messenger (saw) said: “Did he not witness Badr?” ‘Umar replied: “Yes, however he has gone back and helped your enemies against you.”
The statements of ‘Umar about Hatib provides us with evidence to how clear and sound ‘Umar and the other Companions had established that, Mudhaharah (helping and assisting) to the Kuffar is kufr and in such case becoming murtad (abjuration) from Islam was inevitable. ‘Umar had uttered such words because his understanding of what he had seen, within the actions of Hatib in this incident, was kufr and irtidat (abjuration). The statement of ‘Umar was not because he had acted without thinking. It was only because ‘Umar only saw the peripheral of Hatib’s action and not the real intention of Hatib.
b) No one had critized Umar’s (ra) judgement and takfir
The implied approval of the Rasoolullaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam and others who had been present and involved in the judgement, for the understanding ‘Umar (ra) had; was that ‘Umar had not been censured for his hukm of Takf?r on Hatib (ra) rather, Rasoolullaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam mentioned that Hatib had an acceptable excuse for his action. ‘Umar had passed judgment from what he had seen as the action of Hatib (ra) without questioning and learning the real reason of the action of Hatib (ra). As ‘Umar passed judgment none of the Companions nor did Rasoolullaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam silence ‘Umar for his judgement. If ‘Umar had been mistaken with what he had seen on the exterior; he would have been silenced or corrected. But this did not take place which proves that the help and assistance of a Muslim to the kuffar is kufr. Rasoolullaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam however did stop to question his Companion Hatib (ra) before passing any judgment over him. Hence the incident of Hatib was a special condition and that his intention was not to harm the Muslim but only was it to protect his family; the ruling over him was that he had not performed an action of kufr because of the real intention of his action, but rather he had performed an action of haraam.
c) The manner Hatib (ra) used in defense
Hatib (ra) had defended himself by saying: “I did not do that out of Kufr nor out of apostasy from my deen or out of pleasure with Kufr after Islam.” This statement is proof that Hatib (ra) did understand that Mudhaharah of the Kuffar is Kufr, so he made sure to mention the reality of his action before any judgement could be passed of him.
In the narration of Abi Ya’la and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Hatib stated the following: “I did not take this action to fool RasulAllah (saw) or due to nifaq. Furthermore I had the belief Allah teala will make RasulAllah (saw) victorious and complete his divine radiance.” In another narration Hatib (ra) stated: “O RasulAllah (saw) by Allah teala the iman in my heart never changed.” (Majma al-Zawaid v 9, p 306) These narrations show that Hatib (ra) carried the belief that; helping and supporting the kuffar against the Muslim is kufr and irtidat. And that this action would mean showing consent to kufr and it would be nifaq and deceit to Rasoolullaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam. For this reason he wanted to explain the reality of his situation and niyah to Rasoolullaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam.
Posted by Admin in Laa ilaha illAllaah, Rebuttals, Takfir.
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”.
Posted by Admin in Takfir.
False Preventions of Takfeer
Takfeer is to expel a person from Islam, or declare them to be a non-Muslim. Every Muslim is obliged to perform takfeer upon an individual whom Allah (SWT) or His Messenger (SAW) deemed to be Kaafir or Murtad (apostate). However, nowadays takfeer has become a taboo subject and the enemies of Islam – orientalists, Disbelievers, secularists, modernists, Hypocrites and “moderates” (so-called Muslims) – are working relentlessly to deter Muslims away from this important obligation.
Many people lay down unnecessary conditions, and some have even gone as far as to say that it is not allowed to call any person Kaafir, even if they are Christian or Jew!
This short article endeavours to shed some light on this topic and refute the common false conditions of takfeer which are rife today.
Misconceptions
“It is not allowed to call a person Kaafir by name (‘ayn)”
There are two types of Takfeer:
Takfeer ul-Mu’ayyan
Takfeer un-Nawa’
Takfeer ul-Mu’ayyan is to specify or call a person “Kaafir” by name, such as to say: “President Musharraf is a Kaafir (or Murtad, ‘apostate’).” Takfeer un-Nawa’ is to apply takfeer in general without to specify a person, like saying: “Those who do not pray are Disbelievers.” Both these forms of takfeer are valid in Islam and there are plenty of evidences which suggest that the Prophet (SAW) and his Companions (RA) did both.
In Chapter 5, Verse 54 of the Qur’aan, Allah (SWT) says:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مَنْ يَرْتَدَّ مِنْكُمْ عَنْ دِينِهِ فَسَوْفَ يَأْتِي اللَّهُ بِقَوْمٍ يُحِبُّهُمْ وَيُحِبُّونَهُ أَذِلَّةٍ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَعِزَّةٍ عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ يُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَلا يَخَافُونَ لَوْمَةَ لائِمٍ ذَلِكَ فَضْلُ اللَّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ
“Oh you who believe! Whoever from among you apostatizes from his religion (Islam), Allah will bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him; humble towards the Believers, stern towards the Disbelievers, fighting in the Way of Allah, and never afraid of the blame of the blamers. That is the Grace of Allah which He bestows on whom He wills. And Allah is All-Sufficient for His creatures’ needs, All-Knower.” (Al-Maa’idah, 5:54)
This verse confirms that apostasy will occur among some Believers, as Allah (SWT) said, “Whoever from among you apostatizes from his religion…”
Moreover, the Messenger Muhammad (SAW) also said: “Whoever changes his deen (religion), kill him.”
If the Prophet (SAW) instructed his followers to kill the one who changes his religion, this person must be named and specified in order to be killed; thus, Takfeer ul-Mu’ayyan will need to be done and the person will need to be expelled from Islam before he/she is executed because it is forbidden to kill a Muslim.
Hence, looking at these two evidences from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, one cannot deny that apostasy will occur among Muslims. Another proof that substantiates this is the verse:
يَوْمَ تَبْيَضُّ وُجُوهٌ وَتَسْوَدُّ وُجُوهٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ اسْوَدَّتْ وُجُوهُهُمْ أَكَفَرْتُمْ بَعْدَ إِيمَانِكُمْ فَذُوقُوا الْعَذَابَ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَكْفُرُونَ
“On the Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection) when some faces will become white and some faces will become black; as for those whose faces will become black (to them will be said): ‘Did you reject Faith (Imaan) after accepting it? Then taste the torment (in Hell) for rejecting Faith.’” (Aal ‘Imraan, 3:106)
Examples of Takfeer ul-Mu’ayyan
In the time of Rasoolullah (SAW) there were many individuals who hastened towards riddah (apostasy) and kufr (disbelief) – particularly during the battles of Al-Ahzaab and Tabook – and as a result they became Munaafiqeen. Allah (SWT) revealed a number of verses concerning them, some of which were:
لَئِنْ لَمْ يَنْتَهِ الْمُنَافِقُونَ وَالَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ مَرَضٌ وَالْمُرْجِفُونَ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ لَنُغْرِيَنَّكَ بِهِمْ ثُمَّ لا يُجَاوِرُونَكَ فِيهَا إِلا قَلِيلا
مَلْعُونِينَ أَيْنَمَا ثُقِفُوا أُخِذُوا وَقُتِّلُوا تَقْتِيلا
“If the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who spread false news among the people in Al-Madeenah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbours but a little while.
Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter.” (Al-Ahzaab, 33:60–61)
سَتَجِدُونَ آخَرِينَ يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَأْمَنُوكُمْ وَيَأْمَنُوا قَوْمَهُمْ كُلَّمَا رُدُّوا إِلَى الْفِتْنَةِ أُرْكِسُوا فِيهَا فَإِنْ لَمْ يَعْتَزِلُوكُمْ وَيُلْقُوا إِلَيْكُمُ السَّلَمَ وَيَكُفُّوا أَيْدِيَهُمْ فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأُولَئِكُمْ جَعَلْنَا لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَانًا مُبِينًا
“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-Nisaa’, 4:91)
After these verses had been revealed, the Prophet (SAW) fulfilled Allah’s commands and consequently many of the Munaafiqeen were declared Disbelievers and executed.
Pharaoh, Abu Lahab, Abu Jahl and others were deemed Kaafir in the Qur’aan and it is therefore obligatory upon every Muslim to affirm this and believe they were Kaafireen (Disbelievers).
Sheikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (RH) declared the likes of Ibn Fayrooz and Saalih bin Abdullah as apostates. Furthermore, in the Hadeeth Saheeh (authentic narration), the Prophet (SAW) gave a green light to his Companions to execute a man who committed apostasy by marrying the wife of his father.
There were also the Khawaarij, whom the Prophet (SAW) spoke about by name and said, in reference to them: “…If I were to ever find them I would kill them like (the way in which) the people of ‘Aad (were killed).” (Saheeh Muslim, Kitaab uz-Zakaat, Chapter 47, Hadeeth no. 1064)
Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (RA) fought those who refused to pay him Zakaat during Harbu Ahlir-Riddah (the Battle of the People of Apostasy) and declared them apostates.
There was ijmaa’ (consensus) of the Sahaabah to kill the people of Kufa when they claimed that Musaylamah (may Allah’s curse be upon him) was a prophet.
Omar bin al-Khattaab (RA) declared Haatib bin Abee Balta’ah (RA) a Munaafiq (and even Kaafir in one narration), before he was cleared by Allah and a verse was revealed about him which explained his (specific) situation.
Those who claimed that ‘Ali (RA) was god were killed and burned alive by ‘Ali himself. Ibn ‘Abbaas (RA) did not disagree with ‘Ali (RA) about calling them Kaafir, but he disagreed with his method of burning them with fire, as only Allah should punish with fire, not man.
And Jahm bin Safwaan and Ibn Dirham were called Kaafirs and subsequently executed by the Imaams of the Salaf (Pious Predecessors).
The extremist Soofi scholars, Al Hallaj and ibn Arabi were also called Kaafirs and the former was executed.
There were many incidents in Islamic history and enough evidences which prove that the rightly guided ‘ulamaa (scholars) of the past – such as Imaam Abu Haneefah, Imaam ash-Shaafi’ie, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Imaam Maalik – performed Takfeer ul-Mu’ayyan and called for the execution of particular individuals.
Hence, there is no need to prove that an individual can be called Kaafir by name on matters which are clear-cut, known from Islam by necessity and after certain conditions have been met.
“We cannot call a person Kaafir if they were given a fatwa”
This is far from a valid excuse. Any scholar that issues a fatwa (Islamic verdict) permitting what Allah (SWT) has clearly forbidden, or forbidding what Allah (SWT) has clearly made permissible (or obligatory), will become a Taaghout (false god) and a Kaafir (apostate), and those who follow him will also be guilty of shirk akbar (major apostasy) for obeying him.
In the Qur’aan, Allah informs us of those who used to blindly follow their misguided leaders, scholars and mentors, taking them as false gods besides Allah. They will call upon Allah to give double punishment to those who misled them:
حَتَّى إِذَا ادَّارَكُوا فِيهَا جَمِيعًا قَالَتْ أُخْرَاهُمْ لأولاهُمْ رَبَّنَا هَؤُلاءِ أَضَلُّونَا فَآتِهِمْ عَذَابًا ضِعْفًا مِنَ النَّارِ قَالَ لِكُلٍّ ضِعْفٌ وَلَكِنْ لا تَعْلَمُونَ
“…Until they will be gathered all together in the Fire. The last of them will say to the first of them: ‘Our Lord! These misled us, so give them a double torment of the Fire.’ He will say: ‘For each one there is double (torment), but you know not.’” (Al-A’raaf, 7:38)
The people of Hell will argue with those whom they followed and obeyed instead of Allah. The weak will say to those who were arrogant, ‘We used to follow you, will you (therefore) not take a share (of the punishment)? The arrogant leaders will say, ‘We are all in this together’:
وَإِذْ يَتَحَاجُّونَ فِي النَّارِ فَيَقُولُ الضُّعَفَاءُ لِلَّذِينَ اسْتَكْبَرُوا إِنَّا كُنَّا لَكُمْ تَبَعًا فَهَلْ أَنْتُمْ مُغْنُونَ عَنَّا نَصِيبًا مِنَ النَّارِ
قَالَ الَّذِينَ اسْتَكْبَرُوا إِنَّا كُلٌّ فِيهَا إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ حَكَمَ بَيْنَ الْعِبَادِ
“And, when they will dispute in the Fire, the weak will say to those who were arrogant; ‘Verily! We followed you, can you then take from us some portion of the Fire?’
Those who were arrogant will say: ‘We are all (together) in this (Fire)! Verily Allah has judged between (His) slaves!’” (Ghaafir, 40:47–48)
In another verse, we are told that those who were followed will disown those who followed them, and those who followed will ask to be sent back to this world for a second chance:
إِذْ تَبَرَّأَ الَّذِينَ اتُّبِعُوا مِنَ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوا وَرَأَوُا الْعَذَابَ وَتَقَطَّعَتْ بِهِمُ الأسْبَابُ
وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوا لَوْ أَنَّ لَنَا كَرَّةً فَنَتَبَرَّأَ مِنْهُمْ كَمَا تَبَرَّءُوا مِنَّا كَذَلِكَ يُرِيهِمُ اللَّهُ أَعْمَالَهُمْ حَسَرَاتٍ عَلَيْهِمْ وَمَا هُمْ بِخَارِجِينَ مِنَ النَّارِ
“When those who were followed disown (declare themselves innocent of) those who followed (them), and they see the torment, then all their relations will be cut off from them.
And those who followed will say: ‘If only we had one more chance to return (to the worldly life), we would disown (declare ourselves as innocent from) them as they have disowned (declared themselves as innocent from) us.’ Thus Allah will show them their deeds as regrets for them. And they will never get out of the Fire.” (Al-Baqarah, 2:166–167)
Islam makes no distinction between the one who follows and the one who is followed (in disobedience to Allah) – both are in the same boat, both will receive the same punishment, and both are guilty of kufr (disbelief and apostasy). The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said, in a hadeeth saheeh (authentic narration): “The one who calls to misguidance will have the same sin as the one who followed him…” (Al-Jaami’ li-Ahkaam al-Qur’aan, by Imaam ul-Qurtubi)
In the time of the Messenger Muhammad (SAW) Allah revealed a verse accusing the Christians and Jews of taking their priests and rabbis as lords besides Allah:
اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَالْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلا لِيَعْبُدُوا إِلَهًا وَاحِدًا لا إِلَهَ إِلا هُوَ سُبْحَانَهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ
“They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah)…” (At-Tawbah, 9:31)
After this verse had been revealed, Uday bin Haatim, who was a Christian at the time, said to the Messenger of Allah, “They (Christians and Jews) do not worship them (their priests and rabbis).” To which, the Prophet (SAW) replied, “They certainly did! Verily, they (the rabbis and priests) used to forbid what was halaal for them (their followers), and permit what was haraam for them, and they used to obey them. That is how they (the Jews and Christians) used to worship them.”
Hence, we can see from the above evidences that Allah (SWT) has given no excuse whatsoever to blindly follow those who play the role of God by permitting what the Almighty has forbidden and vice versa. And those Muslims who blindly follow their scholars in disobedience to Allah are no different to the Jews and Christians who took their rabbis and priests as lords besides Allah.
It is possible to find “scholars for dollars” who work for their tyrannical governments and falsify the truth. They will not speak out against the evils in society for fear of being arrested or labelled as fundamentalists or extremists. Such scholars who fear men more than Allah should never be trusted or followed.
All the rulers of Muslim countries today are apostates because they arbitrate to Taaghout (United Nations), ally with the crusaders and have replaced the Sharee’ah of Allah with man-made laws.
However, there are still many ignorant individuals who continue to claim that we cannot call them Kaafir because they were given fatwas! But who issued these fatwas? The same scholars and muftis that are paid by the government, or are supportive of the regime!
If these very same scholars permit the worshipping of idols or graves, or the wearing of the Cross, one will undoubtedly see many people hastening to call them Kaafir. Yet, what is the difference between this and permitting Muslims to join the crusader alliance and forces of the Kuffaar?!
In the past there were many individuals, including scholars, judges and muftis, from among the Tartars and Faatimis that were declared apostates by the truthful scholars and followers of the Sunnah – even though they used to pray and recite the Book of Allah.
Therefore, it should be known that no excuse can be given to a person who follows and obeys an individual (such as a scholar, mufti, judge or ruler) who makes laws that contradict clear-cut Sharee’ah rules. If tomorrow a person issues a fatwa permitting ribaa (interest), khamr (alcohol), obedience to man-made laws, muwaalaat (alliance) with Disbelievers, zinaa (adultery), silk for men and so on, can we really obey such a person? And can any one of us say to Allah on the Day of Judgement, “I was following him, blame him not me!” when Allah has unequivocally made these things forbidden in explicit terms? Certainly not.
Scholarship does not make one immune to apostasy or misguidance.
“Hujjah needs to be established before one can be declared Kaafir”
The concept of establishing hujjah (proof) against an individual is often misunderstood. Many people claim that before a person is declared Kaafir (or Murtad) their actions must be explained to them, and they must understand what they have done. People also claim that if a person has not received the message of Islam, it is not appropriate to declare that person Kaafir.
The fact is, Ithbaat ul-Hujjah, or establishing the hujjah (proof), only requires one to prove that an individual committed an act of apostasy – that is all. So it is about establishing and showing proof that a person has said or committed an action which nullifies their Imaan (belief in Allah).
There is no need to prove that an individual will receive punishment in the Hereafter. Any individual who dies on shirk (while associating partners with Allah) and the message of Islam did not reach them, it is believed that the person died Kaafir. The issue of whether or not they will be punished (in the Hereafter) is not for us to decide. Some scholars say they will not be punished in the Afterlife if they did not hear or receive the message. The verse they cite as proof for this is:
وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولا
“…And We never punish (a people) until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning).” (Al-Israa’, 17:15)
However, this matter is in the hands of Allah. In the dunyaa (worldly life) we will consider a person who died on shirk (and did not receive the message) to have been a Kaafir, but in the Aakhirah they will be judged by Allah, and it is up to Him to punish them or not.
Moreover, it is not necessary for one to understand what they have done before they are pronounced Kaafir. Allah (SWT) informs us in the Qur’aan that even though the Kuffaar and Munaafiqeen were ignorant and did not understand what they were doing, they were still Disbelievers. Allah (SWT) says:
أَمْ تَحْسَبُ أَنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ أَوْ يَعْقِلُونَ إِنْ هُمْ إِلا كَالأنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ سَبِيلا
“Or do you think that most of them hear or understand? They are only like cattle; nay, they are even farther astray from the Path (i.e. even worst than cattle).” (Al-Furqaan, 25:44)
إِنَّا جَعَلْنَا عَلَى قُلُوبِهِمْ أَكِنَّةً أَنْ يَفْقَهُوهُ وَفِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرًا وَإِنْ تَدْعُهُمْ إِلَى الْهُدَى فَلَنْ يَهْتَدُوا إِذًا أَبَدًا
“…Truly, We have set veils over their hearts lest they should understand this (the Qur’aan), and in their ears, deafness. And if you call them to guidance, even then they will never be guided.” (Al-Kahf, 18:57)
And the people of Shu’aib (AS) said to him:
قَالُوا يَا شُعَيْبُ مَا نَفْقَهُ كَثِيرًا مِمَّا تَقُولُ
“Oh Shu’aib! We do not understand much of what you say…” (Hood, 11:91)
So in some matters of the Deen (religion), excuse of ignorance (al-‘udhru bil-jahl) cannot be given to a person. The people of Shu’aib pleaded ignorance, but this was not accepted by Allah as excuses cannot be given to those who associate partners with Allah or worship Taaghout (false gods).
Furthermore, the Messenger Muhammad (SAW) ordered the Believers to kill the Khawaarij if they meet them, even though they pray, fast and recite Qur’aan better than any ordinary Muslim:
يخرج فيكم قوم تحقرون صلاتكم مع صلاتهم، وصيامكم مع صيامهم، وعملكم مع عملهم، ويقرؤون القرآن لا يجاوز حناجرهم، يمرقون من الدين كما يمرق السهم من الرمية
“There will appear some people among you whose Salaat (prayer) will make you look down upon yours, and whose fasting will make you look down upon yours, and whose good deeds will make you look down upon yours. They will recite the Qur’aan but it will not exceed their throats (they will not understand or act on it), and they will go out of (the fold) Islam as an arrow goes out from the bow…” (Saheeh al-Bukhaari, Book 61, Chapter 36, Hadeeth no. 5058)
In another narration the Messenger Muhammad (SAW) said:
فإن قتلهم أجر لمن قتلهم يوم القيامة
“…So, wherever you find them, kill them, for there will be a reward for their killers on the Day of Resurrection.” (Saheeh al-Bukhaari, Book 61, Chapter 36, Hadeeth no. 5057)
The Khawaarij will recite the Qur’aan but it will not go past their throats; they will not comprehend it and nor will they act upon it. Despite being ignorant about the meaning of the Qur’aan, the Prophet (SAW) still instructed his followers to kill them.
However, it must be mentioned that if a person is a “new Muslim” or if they live far away from the people of Islam (i.e. Muslims), then excuses of ignorance can be granted to such a person – but not in all matters.
“Some people have been given excuse of ignorance”
Ever since Muslims were given excuses for committing kufr and shirk, people have now started to give Kuffaar excuses!
As mentioned before, excuse of ignorance cannot be given to all people, and in all circumstances.
Excuse of ignorance can only be granted to scholars in matters where they are permitted to exert ijtihaad (juristic judgement). For example, if they make mistakes in issues regarding insurance or shares, then excuses can be given because these matters (being forbidden) are not known by necessity. However, if they permit matters which have been clearly and explicitly forbidden by Sharee’ah – such as allying with non-Muslims, arbitrating to man-made law and so on – then no excuse can be given to them.
If a person says or does a thing which is kufr akbar, it is our duty to judge the apparent and not consider their intention or reason. Therefore, that person should be pronounced Kaafir and told to repent, even if they were a scholar (‘aalim). It cannot be said that scholars can be given excuse of ta’weel (interpretation) in all matters, especially if they permit what is kufr or shirk.
‘Omar bin al-Khattaab did not accept the ta’weel of Qudaamah bin Maz’oon when he permitted alcohol. He was called to repent and retract his statement, and if he had refused to do so he would have been executed by ‘Omar (RA) for legislating.
“One needs to be a scholar before they can make takfeer”
This is not the case at all. Takfeer is the hukm (ruling) of Allah and therefore it is an obligation upon every Muslim to perform takfeer. If an individual says, “Jesus is the son of God”, one cannot say, “I can’t call that person Kaafir because I’m not a scholar.”
Posted by Admin in al Walaa wal Baraa, al-Imaan, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Takfir.
Ruling On the One Who Defends the Taaghoot
By Shaykh ‘Ali ibn Khudhayr Al-Khudhayr
Question:
“There is a certain individual who defends (in arguments) the Tawaaghit day and night, and the Hujjah (evidence) has been established upon him dozens of times – yet he makes excuses for the actions of the Tawaaghit. So what is the ruling regarding such an individual?”
Shaykh ‘Ali Al-Khudhayr answered:
If these Tawaaghit are kuffar (in their eyes) that their kufr has been established – and he views them as kuffar – and then yet he defends them: Then he is a kaafir just like them. As Allaah (Most High) has said:
“And those who disbelieve are allies to one another…” [Al-Anfaal: 73]
And because his action of defending them, is Tawalli (alliance) with them. And Allaah has said:
“And thus We do make the Thaalimeen Awliya’ (supporters and helpers) one to another, because of that which they used to earn.” [Al-An’aam: 129]
And He (Most High) has also said:
“Verily, the Thaalimeen Awliya’ (supporters and helpers) one to another, but Allaah is the Wali of the Muttaqeen.” [Al-Jaathiyah: 19]
But on the other hand: If he thinks that the rulers are upon Islaam, or reality of their situation is in doubt – Then as long as you continue to give him your sincere advice and admonishment, then you have fulfilled your obligations.
But, if he thinks they are not upon kufr, but he is aware of their oppression and betrayal, and yet argues in their defense – then for him is the Statement of Allaah (Most High):
“And argue not on behalf of those who deceive themselves.” [An-Nisa’: 107]
And:
“So be not a pleader for the treacherous.” [An-Nisa’: 105]
And:
“My Lord! For that with which You have favoured me, I will never more be a helper for the Mujrimun!” [Al-Qasas: 17]
Posted by Admin in al-Imaan, Refutations, Takfir.
Imaam Ibn Taymiya stated in ‘Majmoo’ il Fataawa’ Vol 3, 283-284:
“If a Muslim is incorrect in his understanding about killing (a Muslim) or making takfir, then he does not become a disbeliever because of that, this is like when Umar Ibn al Khattaab said about Haatib ibn Abi Balta’, “O Rasoolullaah! Allow me to behead this hypocrite!”
Rasoolullaah replied, “Indeed, he is one who witnessed Badr. And you do not know if Allaah has looked towards the people of Badr and said to them ” Do as you like, for you have been forgiven. “ And this [hadeeth] in found in the two Saheeh collections.[ Bukhaari Maghazi 46 & Muslim Fadailu's-sahaba 161]
And in them is also found the narrations of “al-Ifk”: Usayd ibn Hudayr [ra] said about Sa’d ibn Ubaadah, [ra]; “Indeed, you are a hypocrite, arguing (on behalf of) the hypocrites.” So the two parties (Aws and Hazraj) began to argue, and Rasoolullaah made peace between them.” [Bukhaari Shahadat 15; Magazi 34 & Muslim Tawba 56]
These (Companions mentioned in this hadeeth) were all participants in Badr and from them was the one who said, “You are a hypocrite.”, (and yet) Rasoolullaah did not call him a disbeliever, nor the other, but rather he bore witness that all of them will be in paradise.
And similarly to this is what is authentically established in the two saheeh collections regarding Usaamah ibn Zayd. He killed a man after he said “There is nothing worthy of worship except Allaah”, and Rasoolullaah severly reprimanded him when he heard about it and said to him, ” Oh Usaamah! Did you kill him after he said there is nothing worthy of worship except Allaah? “” I wished that I had not accepted Islam until that day” and he kept on repeating this question to Usaamah until Usaamah [ra] said, [Bukhaari diyat 2 & Muslim Tawba 159]
And along with this, he, Rasoolullaah, did not seek any retribution (from Usaamah) nor blood, nor expiation from him, because he was mistaken (in his belief about killing that man), thinking that that man only said those words to protect himself (from Usaamah’s sword). “
Imaam Abdul Rahmaan bin Hasan bin Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab said in (Durar Saniyyah) :
“If it supposed that a person from the Muslims said regarding some people who did matters upon which the scholars have said that it is kufr, while relying upon Quraan and Sunnah in it, while in gheerah for Allaah, and while hating what Allaah hates from these actions, thus it is not permitted for anyone to call in his (the one who made takfir) right (and who makes takfir of a Muslim then he is a kaafir) end, page 132 from the part of Jihaad.
Posted by Admin in Current Affairs, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Rebuttals, Takfir.
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.)
Posted by Admin in al Walaa wal Baraa, al-Imaan, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Takfir.
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=2972
Collected by Imaam Bukhaari in his Saheeh vol. 3, Book 31, Hadeeth #115
From Qutaybah ibn Saeed from Isma’eel ibn J’affar from his father Abu Suhail from his father Talha ibn ‘Ubaidullaah:
A bedouin with unkempt hair came to Rasoolullaah sAllaahu alayhi wa salam and said, “O Rasoolullaah! Inform me what Allaah has made obligatory for me as regards the prayers.”
He (sAllaahu alayhi wa salam) replied: “You have to offer perfectly the five obligatory prayers in a day and night, unless you want to pray Nawafil.”
The bedouin further asked, “Inform me what Allaah has made obligatory for me as regards fasting.”
He (sAllaahu alayhi wa salam) replied, “You have to fast during the whole month of Ramadan, unless you want to fast more as Nawafil.”
The bedouin further asked, “Tell me how much Zakat Allaah has enjoined on me.”
Thus, Rasoolullaah (sAllaahu alayhi wa salam) informed him about all the rules (fundamentals) of Islaam. The bedouin then said, “By Him Who has honored you, I will neither perform any Nawafil nor will I decrease what Allaah has enjoined on me.”
Rasoolullaah (sAllaahu alayhi wa salam) said, “If he is saying the truth, he will succeed (or he will be granted Paradise).”
Also the hadeeth qudsi Imaam Bukhaari collected in His Saheeh, that Abu Hurairah (ra) reported Rasoolullaah (sAllaahu alayhi wa salam) said:
“Allaah the Almighty has said: ‘Whosoever acts with enmity towards a closer servant of Mine, I will indeed declare war against him. Nothing endears My servant to Me than doing of what I have made obligatory upon him to do. And My servant continues to draw nearer to Me with supererogatory (nawafil) prayers so that I shall love him. When I love him, I shall be his hearing with which he shall hear, his sight with which he shall see, his hands with which he shall hold, and his feet with which he shall walk. And if he asks (something) of Me, I shall surely give it to him, and if he takes refuge in Me, I shall certainly grant him it.’“
Posted by Admin in Laa ilaha illAllaah, Rebuttals, Takfir.
Imaam ibn Taymia had stated in ‘Majmu’ il Fataawa’ vol3, p. 283-284:
“If a Muslim is incorrect in his understanding about killing (a Muslim) or making Takfir (of a Muslim), then he does not become a disbeliever because of that. This is like when Umar Ibn al Khattaab (ra) said about Haatib ibn Abi Balta’ (ra), “Oh RasulAllaah (sAllaahu alayhi wa salam)! Allow me to behead this hypocrite! RasulAllaah replied, “Indeed, he is one who witnessed (participated in) Badr. And you do not know if Allaah has looked towards the people of Badr and said to them “Do as you like, for you have been forgiven.” And this (hadeeth) in found in the two Saheeh collections. [ Bukhaari Maghazi 46 & Muslim Fadailu's-sahaba 161]
And in them is also found the narrations of “al-Ifk”: Usayd ibn Hudayr (ra) said about Sa’d ibn Ubaadah (ra): “Indeed, you are a hypocrite, arguing (on behalf of) the hypocrites.” So the two parties (Aws and Hazraj) began to argue, so RasulAllaah (sAllaahu alayhi wa salam) make peace between them.” [Bukhari Shahadat 15; Magazi 34 & Muslim Tawba 56]
These (Companions) were all participants in Badr and from them was the one who said, “You are a hypocrite.”, (and yet) RasulAllaah (sAllaahu alayhi wa salam) did not call him a disbeliever, nor the other, but rather he bore witness that all of them will be in paradise.
And similarly to this is what is authentically established in the two saheeh collections regarding Usaamah ibn Zayd (ra). He killed a man after he (the person he killed) said “There is nothing worthy of worship except Allah”, and RasulAllaah (sAllaahu alayhi wa salam) severly reprimanded him when he heard about it and said to him, “Oh Usaamah! Did you kill him after he said there is nothing worthy of worship except Allaah? “ and he (sAllaahu alayhi wa salam) kept on repeating this question to Usaamah (ra) until Usaamah (ra) said, “I wished that I had not accepted Islam until that day” [Bukhaari diyat 2 & Muslim Tawba 159]
And along with this, he (sAllaahu alayhi wa salam), did not seek any retribution (from Usaamah) nor blood, nor expiation from him, because he was mistaken [in his belief about killing that man], thinking that that man only said those words to protect himself (from Usaamah’s sword). “
Posted by Admin in al Walaa wal Baraa, al-Imaan, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Rebuttals, Takfir.
NOTE: This was originally published in a refutation form against a lying arrogant palace worshiper from the Sahawi Salafi sect. But I chose to edit everything out except the evidences and sayings of scholars.
The First: The vast majority of scholars agreed that it was Haraam, as a basic ruling. They then went on to state an entire list of conditions for any exceptions to this basic rule, as follows:
a) If there is a need; most said “necessity”
b) No one else is able to help
c) The Muslims are able to repel those Kuffar, whose assistance was sought, from killing the defeated Muslim rebels who flee
d) The rule of the Muslims is dominant over the Kuffar
e) That these Kuffar are brave and able to fulfill what they are being asked to fulfill
f) That he trusts them to not contradict his orders in how to fight the Bughat as far as attacking and pursuing those Muslim rebels (Bughat) who flee or give up.
Then at this point, if the conditions existed for the exception to be made for that general prohibition, an Islamic state would be permitted to seek the military assistance of the Kuffar against the Muslim rebels, although some scholars left it unrestrictedly forbidden.
The statement of Ibn Hazm is in the original Fatwa of Shaykh Hamood (ra), and it states that the state’s failure to comply with the EXCEPTIONAL conditions he lists WOULD BE KUFR in that instance!
The Second: And it was referred to in the previous address; since when does declaring an action to be Kufr, necessitate that those who don’t see it as Kufr are Kuffar, let alone that they have committed Kufr? This has never been answered.
Shaykh Hamood (ra) said that it is not permissible for a Muslim to seek the assistance of a Kafir against the Bughat.
Hanafiyyah
‘Al-Bahr Ar-Râ’iq’, by Ibn Nujaym Al-Misri:
“And from them is that it is not allowed for us to seek help from the people of Shirk against the people of rebellion if the ruling of the Shirk is dominant. And there is no harm for the people of justice to seek help from the Bughat and the Thimees against the Khawaarij, if the ruling of the people of justice is dominant.”
Shafi’iyyah:
‘Rawdhat At-Taalibeen’, by An-Nawawi:
“The fifth: It is not allowed to seek help against them from the Kuffâr because it is not allowed to give a Kaafir authority over a Muslim.” – until he said: “...unless he is in need of seeking their help; then it is allowed with two conditions. One of them is that they have bravery and good performance and the second is that he is able to repel them if they (i.e. the Kuffar) pursue the people of rebellion (i.e. the Muslim rebels) after their defeat. And it is a must for the two conditions to be together for the permissibility for seeking help. This was stated by Ibn as-Sabbâgh and ar-Rûyânî and others from the agreement of the companions. And the phrasing of al-Baghawî necessitates its permissibility with one of them.”
‘Asnal-Matâlib’ by Abû Yahyâ Zakariyyâ Al-Ansârî:
“And seeking help against them from a Kâfir is Harâm, even if he is a Thimmî, as it is not allowed to give authority to him over us.” – until he said: “Yes, it is allowed to seek their help when it is a necessity…”
‘Tuhfat Al-Habîb’, by Al-Bujayrimî:
“His statement: ‘Because it is Harâm to give him authority over the Muslim..’ And likewise to make him the one who implements the Hudûd upon the Muslims…” – until he said: “Yes, if the benefit necessitates entrusting him with the authority of something, which no one other than him from the Muslims can establish, or the one who performs that from the Muslims has had some betrayal shown from him, while the Thimmî is considered trustworthy even if it is due to his fear of the ruler, for instance. Then it is not farfetched that it would be permissible to give him that authority when there is necessity.”
‘Hawâshî Al-Sharwânî’, by Abdul-Hakîm Al-Makkî Ash-Sharwânî’:
“What is apparent from their words is that this is not allowed, even if necessity calls for that. But it was clearly stated in ‘At-Tamammah’ the permissibility of seeking his help, in other words the Kaafir, when there is a necessity.”
‘Mughnî Al-Muhtâj’, by Al-Khatîb Ash-Shirbînî:
“Point of Notice: What is apparent from their words is that this is not allowed, even if necessity calls for that. But it was clearly stated in ‘At-Tamammah’ the permissibility of seeking his help, when there is a necessity.”
‘Nihâyat Al-Muhtâj’, by Muhammad Ibn Abil-‘Abbâs Ar-Ramlî:
“And a Kâfir is not to be sought help from against them, even if he is a Thimmî because it is forbidden to give him authority over a Muslim.” – until he said: “Yes, it is allowed to seek help from them, when there is a necessity.”
Hanâbilah
‘Sharh Muntahal-Irâdât’, by Al-Bahûtî:
“And it is forbidden to seek help against them from a Kaafir because it is giving him authority over the blood of the Muslims.” – until he said: “Except if due to necessity, such as the inability of the people of truth against them.”
‘Al-Mughnî’, by Ibn Qudâmah:
“And he does not seek help from a Kaafir in fighting them in any condition, nor from he who is of the opinion of fighting them when they flee. And this was what ash-Shâfi’î stated. And the people of opinion stated that there is no problem in seeking help against them from the people of Thimmah and those who were given security and another type from them, if the people of justice are dominant over those who they are seeking help from. And we take that the point is to repel them and return obedience and not killing them. And if the need calls for seeking help from them, then if he is able to repel them (i.e. those disbelievers he is seeking help from), then he seeks help from them. But if he is not able, it is not allowed.”
[Point: Not to dwell upon the incident of Juhaymân (ra), but would the Saudi Regime in 1979 be able to repel the French Foreign Legion, when it seems they were even unable to defeat al-Juhaymân (ra) and his followers, on their own?]
‘Al-Kâfî’, by Ibn Qudâmah:
“And he does not seek help from a Kaafir in fighting them, nor from he who permits killing them, because the point is to repel them, not to kill them, whereas the objection of those ones (i.e. the Kuffâr) is to kill them. Then if the need calls for seeking help from him, and he is able to prevent them from committing what is not permitted, seeking their help is permitted. Otherwise it is not.”
‘Kashâf Al-Qinâ’’, by Al-Bahûtî:
“And it is forbidden for the people of justice to seek help from a Kâfir in their war, in other words, their fighting of the rebels, because he is not sought help from in fighting the Kuffâr. So for him to not be sought help from in fighting a Muslim is more befitting. And because the point is to repel them, not kill them, while he does not intend anything except for killing them. ‘Or’, in other words, it is forbidden to seek help in their war from he who takes the opinion of killing them when they flee, due to what is in that from giving authority to him over he who it is not allowed to kill. Except for necessity, such as if the people of justice are unable to fight them, due to their small numbers. Then it is allowed for the need, due to their actions if it is not done.”
‘Al-Mubdi’’, by Ibn Muflih:
“And they do not seek help from a Kaafir in their war because he is not sought help from in fighting against the Kuffar. So for him to not be sought help from in fighting a Muslim is more befitting and because the point is to repel them and not kill them, and he does not intend, (except) killing them. Then if it is needed and he is able to repel them from performing that which is not allowed, seeking help from them is allowed, otherwise no.”
‘Matâlib Ulin-Nuhâ’, by As-Suyûtî Ar-Rahîbânî:
“And seeking help against them from a Kaafir is forbidden, because it is giving authority to him over the blood of the Muslims.” – until he said: “Except for necessity, such as the inability of the people of truth against them.”
Thaahiriyyah
‘Al-Muhallâ’, by Ibn Hazm:
“Are the people of Harb, the people of Thimmah, or other people of rebellion sought help from against the people of rebellion?’
“Abû Muhammad (ra) said: ‘The people differed regarding this as a group stated that it is not allowed to seek help against them from the Harbi, nor a Thimmî nor from someone who permits fighting them when they flee. And this was the opinion of ash-Shâfi’î (raa). And the companions of Abû Hanîfah said, there is no problem in seeking help against them from the people of Harb, the people of Thimmah and from the likes of them from the people of rebellion.’
“And we mentioned in the ‘Book of Jihaad’, the statement of the Messenger of Allaah, ‘Verily, we do not seek help from a Mushrik.’ And this is a general (text), which prevents the seeking of help from them in authority, fighting or anything else, except (in) that which the consensus has been confirmed concerning the permissibility of seeking their help in, like taking care of the animals, employment, or fulfilling a need, and other than that, from that which they do not come out from lowliness. And the (word) ‘Mushrik’ is used for a Thimmî and a Harbî.’
“Abu Muhammad (ra) said: ‘This is according to us (i.e. that it is not allowed), as long as the people of justice have ability to defend. But if they are at the brink of annihilation, and are in necessity, and they have no stratagem, then there is no problem for them to seek refuge with the people of Harb and to use the people of Thimmah in defense, as long as they are certain that they are in their support; they do not harm a Muslim nor a Thimmî in blood, wealth or a sanctity from what is not permitted.”
The Condition of ‘Necessity’
The reason we have emphasized this condition is because this condition is almost universally applied to any generalized prohibition in the Sharî’ah as an EXCEPTION to the general rule of prohibition. Consider the statement of Allâh, the Most High:
“Say: ‘I find not in that which has been inspired to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be Maytatah (a dead animal) or blood poured forth (by slaughtering or the like), or the flesh of swine (pork, etc.) for that surely is impure, or impious (unlawful) meat (of an animal) which is slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allaah (or has been slaughtered for idols, etc., or on which Allaah’s Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering). But whosoever is forced by necessity without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, (for him) certainly, your Lord is Oft¬-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Al-An’aam, 145)
In the Verse Allâh, the Most High, Himself mentioned this topic similarly. Firstly the general prohibition of dead meat, blood, pork and animals sacrificed for other than Allâh, was mentioned. And then immediately after that general prohibition, the exception was made due to cases of necessity.
So then it is not surprising from a person with the character, that he sought only to bold and underline the portion of the references he quoted, which permit an Islâmic state to seek the assistance of a Kâfir army, in cases of necessity, as the EXCEPTION to the general prohibition of this action. And all of this was pointed out in EVERY SINGLE quotation he posted, as an EXCEPTION to this generalized prohibition, which was CONDITIONAL upon some kind of necessity, need or other set of extreme circumstances. [Some actually didn’t even permit this seeking assistance under any condition, as was stated by Ibn Qudâmah about the opinion of ash-Shâfi’î (ra).
Why is this a big deal?
The reason it’s a big deal is because what -deleted- claimed would essentially be the same as him claiming the general, unrestricted and unconditional permissibility of eating dead meat, pork, or blood etc. Because we already know these things are permitted, in cases of necessity, in the same way an Islâmic state is permitted to seek the military assistance of a Kâfir army against the Muslim rebels, in cases of necessity. But in fact, what -deleted- claimed is much worse, because many of the same scholars he even quoted (in his delusional assumption that these quotations proved his point) actually mentioned even stricter conditions for the permissibility of seeking their help, such as being able to repel those Kuffâr whom they are seeking assistance from as well as power over them to prevent them from pursuing and killing the fleeing Muslim rebels after they have been defeated. Whereas the aforementioned verse ONLY mentions one condition; the condition of necessity.
A Point to the reader about the competency of -deleted-’s Fiqh and knowledge of Arabic:
Consider the following quotation that -deleted- cherry picked to prove his point that seeking military assistance from the Kuffâr against the Muslim rebels was unrestrictedly permissible as a basic ruling ‘by the vast majority of classical scholars’:
‘Al-Hâwî Al-Kabîr’ by al-Mâwardî:
“Al-Mâwardî said: ‘As for seeking help from the people of Ahad and Thimmah, in fighting the people of rebellion, then it is not allowed in any condition.” – until he said: “As for seeking help against them (i.e. the rebels) from those AMONGST THE MUSLIMS, who see it as permissible to fight them (i.e. the rebels) when attacking and fleeing, then ash-Shâfi’î prevented that due to what is necessary from refraining from (pursuing) them (i.e. the fleeing rebels), when they are defeated.”
* There is an entire paragraph missing from -deleted-’s post between what is above and what is bellow this point. We will translate the missing paragraph from the original book, which was skipped by -deleted- in his post. It is as follows:
Missing excerpt from -deleted-’s quote: “Then if it is said: ‘Would it not be allowed to seek help against them from he who contradicts his opinion regarding it, and acts upon his own Ijtihâd, just as it is allowed for the ruler to leave behind one who rules with his own Ijtihâd, even if he (i.e. the ruler) opposes the Ijtihâd of the one he leaved behind in the same way that it is allowed for the Shâfi’î to leave behind a Hanafî and for the Hanafî to leave behind a Shâfi’î?’ It is to be said: ‘The difference between them is that the fighting against the people of rebellion when fleeing is up to the Ijtihâd of the Imâm. And the one specified for it (i.e. repelling the rebels) is under orders (and therefore) prevented from performing (his own) Ijtihâd, while the one left behind in judgment is left up to his own opinion. So (in this case) Ijtihâd is allowed for him.’
* This marks the end of the paragraph left out by -deleted- [This was from the original book: “Al-Hâwî al-Kabîr”, by al-Mâwardî, Vol. 13/129-130, publication of Dâr Al-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut]
The quotation -deleted- posted continues bellow:
“Then since it is confirmed that the seeking of the help is to be prevented, then our companions differed regarding it, in two opinions:
“One; that it is a prevention of forbiddance and prohibition, and the second; that it is a prevention of recommendation and urging.”
“Then if necessity calls him to seek help from them, due to the inability of the people of justice to resist them, then it is allowed for them to seek their help with three conditions. – End of quote.
Explanation: What is being discussed in this quotation is whether or not it is permissible for the Muslim to seek the military assistance of other MUSLIMS who take the opinion that pursuing the Bughât (i.e. Muslim rebels) in order to kill them while they are fleeing, after they have been repelled, is permissible. The reason for this discussion in a book of Shâfi’î Fiqh is that according to Imaam ash-Shâfi’î and many others, the Bughât (Muslim rebels) are never to be pursued and killed when they flee from the battlefield after being repelled. So while discussing this, al-Mâwardî (ra) digressed into the issue of whether or not the Muslim state could make use of other MUSLIMS to defend the state if these MUSLIM soldiers did not prohibit the pursuit and killing of the Muslim rebels in the way Imâm ash-Shâfi’î did. So he mentioned the impermissibility of seeking help from non-Muslims unrestrictedly, then if the matter comes to there being some kind of necessity, he permitted the MUSLIM soldiers who see it as permissible to pursue and kill the Muslim rebels who flee to be sought assistance from. But even in this case, he only permitted seeking this MUSLIM assistance with THREE CONDITIONS! Some will say that these conditions mentioned in his quote also apply to seeking help from non-Muslims, but this is not the issue here. The issue here is that here in this quote, Al-Mâwardî is discussing Muslims. This is clear from numerous points.
1-The fact that in the beginning he stated, ‘As for seeking help from the people of Ahad and Thimmah, in fighting the people of rebellion, then it is not allowed in any condition.” So for him to state this, then go on to mention conditions in which it is allowed is self-contradictory.
2-His conditions came after he mentioned the seeking of help from Muslims, and had a discussion of some of the arguments used by those who permit it. So for these conditions to go back to this discussion is more befitting than to the whole thing, since they are two separate issues.
3-Regarding seeking help from non-Muslims, he used the phrase “Lâ Yajooz” and referring to Muslims, he mention “Mana’” Later when discussing the conditions, he used “Mamnû’’, which relates to “Mamnû’” and not “Jawâz”
4-That it was also mentioned al-Mâwardî mentioned in “Al-Ahkâm As-Sultâniyah”, that it is not allowed to use help from the non-Muslims, and he didn’t mention any conditions for it to be allowed.
This proves so much about -deleted-’s inadequacy in discussing issues like this. Firstly, his lack of Arabic knowledge prevented him from noticing that he was quoting a reference, which completely refuted his own view. Second, his comprehension was so dull that he didn’t even realize whose help was being discussed in assisting with fighting the Bughât. And thirdly, despite the fact that conditions were listed in order for this seeing assistance to be permissible, it was fellow MUSLIMS being discussed and not the Kuffâr, as he claimed.
Is it possible that he is aware of these facts regarding his inadequacies, and that this is actually the cause of his embittered personality and vulgar manners?
The final quotation from Ibn Hazm (ra) from ‘Al-Muhallâ’, which he pasted into his thread, was totally messed up. Sentences were mixed, blended together and out of order, changing the context, logic and meaning of what was quoted. We wonder if we should accuse him of ‘intentionally distorting’ the words of the scholars, or if we should just assume that this error was an accident, especially because in his version, the statement ‘…and this is ash-Shâfi’î’s opinion…’ appeared after Ibn Hazm’s discussion on when it would be allowed to use the people of Harb and Thimmah in defense against the Muslim rebels. Good thing we ‘did our homework’ by correcting the errors in his.
Firstly, Ibn Hazm (ra) actually lists a situation in which seeking the military assistance against the Muslim rebels IS KUFR! As he said:
“And if the rule of the Kuffâr is dominant over him, then with that he is a Kâfir, (based) upon what we mentioned.”
Posted by Admin in al-Imaan, Current Affairs, Khawaarij, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Rebuttals, Takfir.
Prophet said “…Out of the offspring of this man there will be people who will recite the Quran but it will not go past their throats, and they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes our through the game. They will kill the Muslims and leave the pagans. If I were to be present when they appear, I would kill them as the killing of the nation of Ad.” Sahih Bukhari Vol 9 #527
The Messenger of Allah said “I have not been ordered by Allah to search the hearts of the people or to cut open their bellies” Then the Prophet looked at him while the latter (the man) was going away and said, “From the offspring of this (man) there will come out a people who will recite the Quran continuously and elegantly but it will not exceed their throats. They will then go out of the religion as an arrow goes through the games body.I think he also said, If I should be present at their time, I would kill them as the nations of Thamud were killed.” Sahih Bukhari Vol 5 #637
Abu Huraira narrated: I heard the truthful and trusted by Allah (the Prophet) saying, “The destruction of my followers will be through the hands of young men from Quraish.” Sahih Bukhari Vol 9 #180
“There shall come in another time foolish and simple minded youth. They will say the best words of creation. They will recite the Quran and it will not go past their throats. They will go out of the religion, just as the arrow goes out of the game. Then, when you establish the proof on them, then kill them. Then if you kill them, in killing them is a reward in the sight of Allah on the Day of Resurrection.”
“There will be in my Ummah differences and division. A people will speak goodly and they will do sinful acts. They will recite the Quran and it will not go past their throats. They will leave out of the religion as an arrow leaves out of the game. They will not return until a part of it apostates. They are the worst of creation and creatures. So blessings and good tidings be to the one who kills them and they kill him.”
Ali said “No, by Allah, they are still in the backs and spines of men and the wombs of women. And when are alive, they hardly leave anyone alone.” Bidayah wa Nihaya Vol 7 P295
Ibn Taymiyyah said about the Khawarij:
“And this sign which the Messenger of Allah mentioned would be the sign for the first people of the Khawaarij. But they are not the only people that are spoken of in these verses because He mentioned in other hadith that they would still keep coming until the age of the Dajjal. It is concluded by the Muslims that the Khawaarij are not the only Khawaarij mentioned in the battles with Ali in the battle of Nahraawaan.” – Majmua Fatawa Vol 28 P495-496
Ibn Taymiyyah said with regards to a helpless or weak individual of the Khawarij and the Rawafida:
“It is narrated on the authority of Ali and Umar as well as the consensus of the scholars of Islam that these two individuals should also be killed.
Some scholars argue about the individual that is not fighting. However, they all agree that to kill them in a group as a group protecting themselves with the sword is allowed. This is because fighting is more general than killing.” – Majmua Fatawa Vol 28 P476-479
Posted by Admin in al Walaa wal Baraa, Current Affairs, Fiqh, Hijrah & Jihaad, Khilafah/Imarah, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Rebuttals, Takfir.
Various Ahadith on Approaching the Rulers
Abdullaah Ibn ‘Abbaas said that Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “There shall be rulers whom you will recognize from them good and evil. Whoever opposes them is saved. Whoever abandons them is freed. And whoever intermingles with them is destroyed.” (Collected by Ibn Abi Shaybah and at-Tabaraanee; al-Albaanee authenticated it in “Saheeh al-Jaami’”, hadeeth #3661).
Abul-A’war as-Sulamee said that Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “Be wary of the ruler’s gates; for there, there is difficulty and humiliation.” (Collected by ad-Daylamee and at-Tabaraanee; al-Albaanee authenticated it in “as-Silsilah as-Saheehah”, hadeeth #1253).
Aboo Hurayrah said that Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) 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-Albaanee authenticated it in “Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb”, hadeeth #2241. A similar narration, save the last sentence, is reported from Ibn ‘Abbaas; al-Albaanee authenticated it in “Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb”, hadeeth #2242).
Jaabir Ibn ‘Abdillaah said that Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) 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.” (Collected by Ahmad, al-Bazzaar, and Ibn Hibbaan; al-Albaanee authenticated it in “Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb”, hadeeth #2243. Similar narrations are reported from an-Nu’man Ibn Basheer, ‘Abdillaah Ibn Khabbaab (from his father), Abi Sa’eed al-Khudree, and Ka’b Ibn ‘Ujrah; Al-Albaanee authenticated these other narrations in “Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb”, ahaadeeth #2243-2246).
Abu Hurairah (ra) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ? ????? ???? ??????? ? ???? ???? ??????? ? ????? ???? ?????? ? ???? ???? ?????????“”Indeed, before the Hour (Day of Judgement) there are deceptive years -the truthful one will not be believed, the liar will be believed, the trustworthy one will be accused of betrayal, the treacherous one will be trusted, and the Ruwaibidah will speak.”It was said, “And what is the Ruwaibidah?” He (saw) said: “????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ???????” “The man who is Tafih (insignificant, unwise, etc.), he will speak on the affairs of the general public (he will be trusted to rule and he will speak in the name of the people).” (Ahmad (2/291) Ibn Maajah (4042), and Al-Haakim (4/465).In As-Saheeh (1787), Albaani declared that it is an authentic Hadith.)
“Allah would grasp the whole planet of the earth and roll it up on the Day of Resurrection and all the heavens will be in His Right Hand. Then He will say: I am the King. Where are the monarchs of the earth?” (Bukhari and Muslim)
Ibn Majah on the authority of Abu Saeed, Ahmad and Ibn Majjah and Tabarani and Baihaqi on the authority of Abu Umamah, Ahmad and Nisa’i on the authority of the tabie Tariq Ibn Shihab all narrated that the messenger (saw) said : “The best of Jihad is a word of truth in the face of a tyrant ruler”.
Ma’qil bin Yasar, may Allah be pleased with him, reported: Verily I have heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Anyone amongst the slaves (of Allah) who was entrusted with the affairs of his subjects and he died in such a state that he was dishonest in his dealings with those over whom he ruled, Paradise would be forbidden for him. [Bukhari complied it the book of Legal Judgements no 6617,6618]
AbdulRazzaq and Imam Ahmad both narrated on the authority of Ibn Masood (ra) that the messenger (saw) said to him: “What will you do O Abu AbdulRahman (Ibn Massood) if you had rulers who abolished the sunnah and delayed the prayer from its time?”. Ibn Masoood said: What do you order me o messenger of Allah?. The messenger said: “Ibn Umm Abd (Ibn Masood) is asking me what will he do!!!There is no obedience to the creature by disobeying the creator”.
Al-Harth narrated on the authority of Ibn Masood that the messenger (saw) said: “For every matter, there is a thing that spoils it, and what spoils this deen is the evil rulers”. (Saheeh according to Imam Suyooti)
On the authority of Abu Musa(ra), the messenger of Allah (saw) said: “In the hellfire there is a valley, and in this valley there is a well called “Habahab”, it is duty upon Allah to reside in this well every stubborn oppressor (ruler)”. (Narated by Tabarani and its Isnad is Hasan)
“Any leader of a ten men or more, he will be brought in the judgment day chained until either the justice will unchain him or the oppression will chain him”. (Narrated by Al-Bazzar, and the men in the chain are Saheeh)
As for narrations from the words of the Companions, then as-Suyootee has collected from ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib, Ibn Mas’ood, Hudhayfah Ibn al-Yamaan, and Abi Dharr, narrations of general warning against approaching the rulers or their gates. See “Maa Rawaahul-Asaateen Fee ‘Adam al-Majee’ Ilas-Salaateen”.
There are many with similar meanings, so here are some examples:
Ibn Mas’ood said, “Whoever wishes to honour his religion, then he should not enter upon the ruler.” (Collected by ad-Daarimee).
Ibn Mas’ood also said, “A man enters upon the ruler, carrying his religion with him, then exits without anything with him.” (Collected by al-Bukhari in his “Taareekh” and Ibn Sa’d in “at-Tabaqaat”).
On the authority of Abdullah Bin Masood (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: “There will be rulers over you, who will leave the sunnah like this,” and he pointed to the origin of his finger. “If you were to leave these rulers alone, they will bring great affliction and disaster. There has been no previous ummah except that the first thing they left from their religion was the sunnah, and the last to be left was the salat , and were not these rulers shy and afraid from people, they would not pray”. (Narrated by Al-Hakim and he said this is saheeh hadith on the condition of Bukhari and Muslim)
Posted by Admin in al-Imaan, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Rebuttals, Takfir.
The Consensus Amongst the Salaf That the One Who Does Not Pray Is A Disbeliever
1 – Mujahid bin al-Hajjaj (the noble Tabi’i) asked Jabir bin ‘Abdillah (the noble Companion): “What actions did you use to differentiate between belief and disbelief during the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)?” He replied: “The prayer.” [al-Maruzi in ‘Ta’dhim Qadr as-Salah’ [2/877] and al-Lalaka’i in ‘I’tiqad Ahl as-Sunnah’ [4/829], by way of Ya’qub bin Ibrahim, who is known as a trustworthy narrator]
2 – The noble Tabi’i ‘Abdullah bin Shaqiq al-’Aqili said: “The Companions of Muhammad did not see the abandonment of any actions as consituting disbelief except for the prayer.” [at-Tirmidhi [#2622] and al-Hakim [1/1248] by way of Bishr bin al-Mufaddal. al-Hakim declared it to be authentic on the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim]
al-Mubarakfuri commented on this in ‘Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi’ [7/370] by saying: “This saying of ‘Abdullah bin Shaqiq – in its apparent meaning – proves that the Companions of the Messenger of Allah believed the abandoment of prayer to be disbelief. What is apparent from this statement is that the Companions were all agreed in this, since he said: “The Companions of Muhammad…,” which is a collective attribution.
3 – The noble Tabi’i al-Hasan al-Basri said: “It has reached me that the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) used to say: “Between a servant and his falling into polytheism and disbelief is that he leaves the prayer without a valid excuse.” [al-Lalaka’i [4/829, 1539], Ibn Battah in ‘al-Ibanah’ [p.87], and al-Khallal in ‘as-Sunnah’ [4/124 and #1372]]
4 – Hammad bin Zayd narrated from Ayyub (an well-known Tabi’i) that he said: “To leave the prayer is disbeliefl there is no difference of opinion on this.” [al-Maruzi in ‘Ta’dhim Qadr as-Salah’ [2/925 and 978]]
5 – al-Maruzi also mentions that he heard Ishaq bin Rahwiyah (the well-known trustworthy narrator, the companion of Ahmad bin Hambal) say: “It has been authentically narrated from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that the one who leaves the prayer is a disbeliever. Likewise, this has been the opinion of the people of knowledge since the time of the Prophet up until our times: that the one who leaves the prayer beyond its proper time – intentionally and without a valid excuse – is a disbeliever.”
6 – al-Maruzi also mentioned in ‘Ta’dhim Qadr as-Salah’ [2/925]: “We mentioned the reports narrated from the Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding the disbelief of the one who leaves the prayer, and his leaving the creed of Islam, and the permissibility of fighting the one who refuses to establish it. Then, we received similar reports from the Companions, and we did not come across any difference from this opinion from a single one of them. However, the people of knowledge began differing in this afterwards…”
And it is well-known that Muhammad bin Nasr al-Maruzi was famous for his vast knowledge of the sayings and opinions of the people of knowledge in the area of agreement and differing on various legal issues, as was mentioned by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in ‘Tarikh Baghdad’ [3/315] : “He was from the most knowledgable of people of the differences of opinion amonst the Companions and those who came after them.” Also, adh-Dhahabi supported this saying in ‘Siyar an-Nubala’’ [14/34]: “It is said: “he was – by far – the most knowledgable of the Imams regarding the differences of opinion between the scholars.””
7 – Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in ‘Sharh al-’Umdah’ [2/75], as did Ibn al-Qayyim in ‘as-Salah’ [p.67] that this is the consensus of the Companions, due to the saying of ‘Umar, in the presence of the Companions, without any of them opposing his saying: “There is no share of Islam for the one who leaves the prayer,” or: “There is no Islam for the one who does not pray.”
8 – With all of this, nobody who says that the one who does not pray is not a disbeliever can find a single Companion who holds their opinion. In fact, they cannot find even a single Tabi’i except az-Zuhri, who was himself a minor Tabi’i.
Ibn Hazm says in ‘al-Muhalla’ [2/242]: “We do not know of what we have mentioned from the Companions any difference of opinion amongst them, and the followers of the four madhahib are very eager to hold onto the difference of opinion from a Companion if this is in accordance with their desires. And it has been narrated from ‘Umar, ‘Abdur-Rahman bin ‘Awf, Mu’adh bin Jabal, Abu Hurayrah, and other than them from the Companions that the one who leaves a single obligatory prayer – intentionally and beyond its proper time – then he is a disbelieving apostate.”
And al-Mundhiri mentioned in ‘at-Targhib wat-Tarhib’ [1/393] additional Companions who reported this: “…’Abdullah bin Mas’ud, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas, Jabir bin ‘Abdillah, and Abu ad-Darda’ – may Allah be pleased with them all.” And from other than the Companions: “…Ahmad bin Hambal, Ishaq bin Rahwiyah, ‘Abdullah bin al-Mubarak, Ibrahim an-Nakha’i, al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah, Ayyub as-Sakhtiyyani, Abu Dawud at-Tayalasi, Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah, Zuhayr bin Harb, and other than them.”
And this is the saying of the majority of the people of Hadith, and this was the opinion of Sa’id bin Jubayr, al-Hasan al-Basri, al-Awza’i, and Muhammad bin al-Hasan. It is the authentically narrated opinion of ash-Shafi’i, as Ibn Kathir mentioned in his ‘Tafsir’ (in his explanation of verse 59 in ‘Maryam’wink and at-Tahawi narrated from ash-Shafi’i personally.
Final benefit: Ibn al-Qayyim said in ‘as-Salah’: “The Muslims do not disagree that the intentional abandonment of the obligatory prayer is from the greatest and most major of sins, and that the sin of such a person is greater in the Sight of Allah than the sin of the one who commits murder and steals wealth, and commits fornication, and drinks alcohol, and that he is exposing himself to the punishment and anger of Allah, and humiliation in this life and the next.”
Posted by Admin in al Walaa wal Baraa, al-Imaan, Rebuttals, Takfir.
WHO IS THE KAFIR?
Who is kafir and who is Muslim? People often confuse the difference between kafir asli (originally kafir) and kafir murtad (apostate) who was a Muslim but he negated his belief. Let us classify the types of Kafir below:
1. Kafir Asli – originally kafir
An example of kuffar asli are the: Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jews or atheists i.e. a disbeliever in Islam. So they could believe in God but not in The Messenger Muhammad (saw).
There are three types of Kafir Asli:
(a) Mushriks – from the people of the book i.e. Jews & Christians
(b) Mushriks – who are not people of the book, e.g. Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Zoroastrians etc.
(c) Atheists – such as those who believe in science, self-worshippers, women-worshippers, money-worshippers etc.
Therefore the Kafir is: ‘The one who does not believe in Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (saw).’
2. Kafir Murtad (apostate)
The kafir Murtad a person who was a Muslim once but committed one or more of the actions below:
(a) Al-Juhoud – To deny any obligation known by necessity
If a person denies any action that is known from Islam by necessity, such as to deny fasting, Hajj, prayer, Shari’ah, Jihad he will become Jaahid (the denier), who indulges in Juhoud.
(b) Al-Istihlaal – To permit what Allah (swt) forbids or forbids what Allah permits
Istihlaal is to permit what Allah forbids or vice versa. An example of this is the one who permits fornication or forbids. The one who commits Istihlaal is called Al-Mustahil (legislator).
(c) Al-Naaqid – Negations of the Deen
There are ten negations of the Deen (Nawaaqid ul Islam) and if a person violates any one of them he will become murtad.
Nawaaqid ul Islam – the negations of Islam
1. Shirk – Associating someone or something to Allah
Shirk is to associate anyone or anything to Allah (swt) such as to say Jesus is the son of God, Tony Blair is the legislator, Ruling by Kufr law (non-Islamic law) etc.
Whether one denies it or not or whether he legalises it or not; anyone who commits Shirk Akbar he will go out of the Millah (Islam) after it is explained to him by an ‘Alim. Allah (swt) says:
‘Verily, Allah forgives not (the sin of) setting up partners (in worship) with him, but he forgives whom he wills sins other than that, and whoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, has indeed strayed far away.’ [EMQ 4: 116 & 48]
2. To take an Intercessor between you and Allah
For example, to go to the grave of a dead person and make him an intercessor for whom, the action is kufr and will take him outside of Islam.
Another example is to seek such help from any so-called priest. In the time when the ‘Ulama were alive you can ask them for du’a, but when they die, even from the Nabi (saw), it is not allowed, the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said: ‘Oh Allah! Do not make my grave a place of worship.’ Rather when we go to the grave we say: ‘Peace to the people of the grave, you are the ones who left first and we are following.’ You can ask the one alive for du’a which is mubaah, but if you believe he has power, then this too is Shirk!
3. Whoever does not declare the kafir (non-Muslims) as kafir or doubts that they are kafir or says their religion is correct
There are some moderate ‘Muslims’ who believe we should not call the Non-Muslims kafir (even though Allah does!) but rather ‘Potential Muslims.’ Whosoever doubts or believes the Kuffar are not kafir, they become kafir.
At-Takfeer (declaring a person to be a Kafir) is part Usul ud-Deen (one of the Foundations of the Deen) and we are obliged to defend this right of Allah (swt). Only Allah (swt) has the right to legislate and no one can claim to do so.
4. The one who thinks any Shari’ah (law and order) is similar or better than the Shari’ah of Islam is a kafir
An example of this is the one who believes British law is as good as, equal to as or even better than the law of Islam!
Lord Nazir Ahmed is a good example of this. He left the fold of Islam (an apostate) by declaring that Muslims must obey the British law and Shari’ah law.
5. Whoever hates any of the Shari’ah rules (Hukm Shar’ee) is a kafir
For example, those who hate to pray, to fast, to wear hijaab, to call people to Islam, to work collectively in a group to establish the Islamic state etc. Allah (swt) says: ‘…that is because they dislike what Allah has revealed.’ [EMQ 47: 9]
6. Whoever ridicules any of the Deen of Islam, its rewards or its punishments:
Allah (swt) says: The hypocrites fear lest a Sûrah (chapter of the Qur’ân) should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts. Say: “(Go ahead and) mock! But certainly Allâh will bring to light all that you fear.” (9: 64)
If you ask them (about this), they declare: “We were only talking idly and joking.” Say: “Was it at Allâh (swt), and His Ayât and His Messenger (SAW) that you were mocking?” (9: 65)
Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after you had believed. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you because they were Mujrimeen (disbelievers, polytheists, sinners, criminals, etc.) (9: 66)
7. As-Sihr – anyone involving themselves in magic
For example, to communicate with the Jinn, to go to the magician or ask for help from the magician.
8. Alliance with the kuffar and supporting them against the Muslims
Allah (swt) says: ‘O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliya’ (friends, protectors, helpers) they are but awliya’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as awliya’) then surely, he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zaalimoun (i.e. Kuffar).’ [EMQ 5:51]
9. Whoever believes they are not obliged to follow the messenger Muhammad (saw) or believes that they can leave Islam and go to another Deen is a kafir
10. Whoever turns their back to the Deen of Islam
This can be done by not studying the Deen nor acting upon it. If someone says ‘so and so is haram’ we must go and check it. Imam Abu Hanifah (ra) was walking on the bank and he saw a child walking on the bank and he was almost falling in, Abu Hanifah said: ‘be careful you may fall in’ and in response the child said: ‘you too, and if you make a mistake many others will also fall in!’ Imam Abu Hanifah went home and reviewed all his Ahkaams and said: ‘Do not think that what I say today may not be changed tomorrow if I find a hadith’ etc…
Allah (swt) says: ‘Who is more oppressor than the one who knows the Hukm and turns his back? Verily he is Mujrim (i.e. a kaafir).’ [EMQ 32:22]
