I am reading a book titled “Shahaadatu Qaadatil-Mujaahideena wal-Islaahi ‘Alaa ‘Ulamaa’is-Salaateena fee Bilaad al-Haramayn” by Aboo Mus’ab as-Sooree (Fakk Allaahu Asrah). The book online: http://tawhed.ws/r?i=nek6fgoo
In this book he crushes two idols of the “Salafee” Trinity, Ibn Baaz and Ibn ‘Uthaymeen. The book consists of an introduction followed by some letters written by al-Imaam Ibn Laadin and some letters by Sa’d al-Faqeeh, directed to Ibn Baaz and (in the case of the latter) Ibn ‘Uthaymeen. Aboo Mus’ab then briefly comments on the letters. He then finishes with a conclusion.
I want to summarize some of the points from the book here:
1. He chose to talk about these two scholars since they are the “best” (least evil) amongst the palace scholars, so anything that applies to them applies to others even more so.
2. True, the two scholars passed away, but they left a heritage that continues to be practiced and is used to justify deviance. So it is not sufficient to say “you should not talk about the dead except in good.”
3. The position of some of the Muslim leaders towards these scholars changed over the years. So, for example, you see in the very first letter that al-Imaam Ibn Laadin wrote to Ibn Baaz, he refers to him as “noble Shaykh” and says “may Allaah preserve him.” His later letters are harsher in tone and do not contain “noble” or supplication for preservation. Finally, he advises him to abandon his job and stop being a tool for the rulers. The Nidaa’ul-Islaam interview with al-Imaam Ibn Laadin, although not part of as-Sooree’s book, shows the last position of the Imaam to Ibn Baaz, since it comes after his letters written in 1995.
4. He mentions that it is Haraam to defend these scholars regarding their faults quoting verses 105 – 113 of an-Nisaa’. By defense he means defending their character not their verdicts. As for defending their verdicts, then this is extreme deviance.
5. He mentions that some youth will be harsh towards palace scholars from other countries (Egypt or Syria), but when it comes to the Saudi scholars, suddenly they are blindly defending their character. Isn’t this blind-partisanship or bigotry? They defend them because they are also “Saudi’ or because they label themselves “Salafee”.
6. He mentions that these scholars were not truly naive so that they were tricked into giving the verdicts they gave. Rather, they were advised both privately and publically that the verdicts they gave both contradict the Shar’ and Waaqi’, yet they insisted upon giving these verdicts without ever recanting them.
7. He does not make Takfeer of them, but he only wants to point out the obligation of justly applying criticism of individuals and the necessity of doing so. Those who depict them as the pinnacle of knowledge or piety are fooling themselves only.
8. I have to add that the Saudi regime’s torture policy includes reciting the verdicts of palace scholars towards the youth so that they will finally “repent.” Whose verdicts do you think they use? If the person respects these individuals, Ibn Baaz and Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, the torture and brainwashing technique is more likely to be successful. And he is at fault for respecting them to begin with. Are they not palace scholars? If one comes closer to the ruler a handspan, he only distances himself from Allaah, so what of becoming the grand Muftee or member of the official committee of scholars, signing every verdict used against the Mujaahideen?
9. Aboo Mus’ab justifies the harshness used against these scholars, although he advises wisdom and restraining one’s zealous sincerity while exposing them, since many people try to denounce the Mujaahideen saying, “they don’t respect the scholars!”… the so-called scholars.
10. Aboo Mus’ab says that he disagrees with those who make Takfeer of them, although they have a legitimate point of view but they don’t take into consideration the existence of Ta’weel that could be a barrier from Takfeer, primarily their false claim that there is a benefit in their compromise or an exit from tribulation for the Ummah, as has been reported from some close to them.
11. He advises to abstain from publically making Takfeer of the palace scholars in general, since it is hard enough to convince the people to make Takfeer of the rulers and their soldiers. But that does not mean we should treat them with respect. Again, he does not make Takfeer of Ibn Baaz or Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, so he is addressing those who actually do, or he is referring to other palace scholars.
12. He is not surprised by the Madaakhilah blindly defending the persons of these two scholars, but he is surprised by the Mujaahideen who do so, although they permitted peace with the Jews, they permitted occupation of the Arabian Peninsula and the two Haram’s, they made Halaal the blood of the Mujaahideen for killing Crusaders in Khobar, they made obedience to secularists obligatory (the PLO). Essentially, they are on the side of the enemy against the Mujaahid, so why is he defending them?
13. He says that Jihaad against this enemy is obligatory, but with the tongue and pen, not the sword and spear. In another book of his (on Syria) he says that even the outright apostate heretics from the palace scholars (he is not referring to Ibn Baaz or Ibn ‘Uthaymeen) he does not suggest killing them, since it will lead to confusion amongst the laymen who do not understand the principles of Takfeer.
14. Aboo Mus’ab declares that those who blindly praise these scholars and introduce them as role-models to the youth share (to some degree) in the sins that these scholars amass. He also aids in strengthening the throne of the tyrant they worked for, whether he admits such or not.
15. Those who point out that these two scholars had good deeds and Da’wah efforts forget that they were not unique in such. There deeds and Da’wah can be easily found amongst the non-palace scholars, and in scholarly books. He adds that they were only raised to the level that everyone perceives via the media machine the tyrants controlled.
16. I have to note, those who use old or vague statements of the scholars do a great injustice to the Da’wah. Or those who are not able to differentiate between statements describing historical facts versus those meant to be directive advice in the form of appraisal and commendation (Taareekh versus Tazkiyah or Ta’deel).
Also, those who quote the Mujaahid scholars from the Arabian Peninsula, living in it, forget that they were raised in that environment and some of them never were able to break away from this ingrained respect. Aboo Mus’ab addresses them specifically in his book.
Also read Aboo Muhammad’s essays:
Wa Hal Afsadad-Deen Illal-Mulook wa Ahbaaru Soo’in wa Ruhbaanuhaa:
Or, “The Donkey of Knowledge Slipped in the Mud” (which is about the committee of scholars that gave the verdict to execute the 4 brothers who did the 1996 Khobar attack):
Guess who was on the committee when the verdict was signed? Ibn Baaz. Ibn ‘Uthaymeen also signed a verdict by the committee (although I don’t know if it is the same one referred to by Aboo Muhammad) making Halaal the blood of anyone who fights against the Crusaders in the Arabian Peninsula, saying they will never smell the scent of Paradise. This is mentioned in Aboo Mus’ab’s book.
Finally, to crush the last idol of the trinity, al-Albaanee, read Aboo Qataadah’s Hawl Murji’at al-‘Asr:
Or Aboo Muhammad’s Tabseer al-‘Uqalaa’ (I think the link is currently down):
Allaah knows best.
شهادة قادة المجاهدين والإصلاح على علماء السلطان في بلاد الحرمين
The Author of the Book is Abu Mu’sab As Suri (May Allaah release him)
He talks about the scholars in Jazaaratul Arab.
He brings the view of the Leaders of the Mujaahideen, Like Usamah حفظه الله and Aiman حفظه الله , also from the scholars, Said Al Faqih حفظه الله .
He starts with the letters of Usaamah to Ibn Bāz, How he first wrote with ‘Sheikh and Hafizahullaahu’ but in later letters, omited these words. And how the words of Usaamah became harsher upon Ibn Bāz
And then of Said Al Faqih, which was in the same manner.
And then after showing the changes, from omitting the words like ‘Sheikh’ and ‘Hafizahullaahu’ and sternness is speaking, He proves that these people (Ibn Bāz and Utheimeen) are heads of misguidance,
أن هذين الشيخين أصبحا مدرسة ومتكأ لعلماء السلطان في الجزيرة وغيرها، هذا في حياتهما وتكرس هذا المنهج بعد موتهما، حيث يقال في كل مكان من قبل علماء السلطان وأذيالهم، وسيقال: كما أفتى بن باز.. وكما أفتى ابن عثيمين.. فيجب تبيان أن ذلك المنهج كان باطلاً، وأنهما كانا في هذا الباب رأس ضلالة وخيانة وليسا قدوة تحتذى، ولا سنداً يرجع إليه.
“Verily both of them (Ibn Bāz and Utheimeen) were in this area, head of misguidance and treason, and are not examples who must be followed…”
And also, it must be noted that;
The Author does not make Takfir of the two people,
But neither does he praise them, as it can be seen in the what is quoted above.
But it must also be noted in that book he said:
رغم أني اقتنعت بما قاله لي أحد أبرز علماء الجهاد في هذا العصر، قال لي أنه لا يكفرهم لهذين السببين المانعين، ولا يعترض على من كفرهم بدليله لأنها أدلة قوية.. لكنه رأى خطأ من كفرهم لعدم استصحاب هذه الموانع
“He (one of the notable scholars of Jihaad in this era), he does not make takfir of them (Ibn Bāz and Utheimeen and their likes) due to this two preventing reasons (mentions just above this), and neither does he argue with the one who makes their takfir, with his proof that, because those are strong proofs.. But he saw the errorness of the one who does takfir on them due to not attaching these preventing factors”
So here it looks like ‘their Manhaj is not thought to be differed with the takfir of the scholars of Taghut. As they do not argue.
And he takes a Middle path, between takfir and praising. And also goes ahead to warn the brothers to refrain from making their takfir as it requires that whether all the preventing factors are not available and other reason.
So this is a very beneficial book regarding the matter of how the scholars of Jihaad views about these people, and for those who go on praising these people.
So I found this book very beneficial, although I disagree with the conclusion of leaving the takfir.