Archive for November, 2008

Hakimiyya is the Essence of Tawheed Part 1

Posted: November 24, 2008 by millatibraheem in al-Imaan, Rebuttals

Introduction

The scholars of falsehood are desperate to twist the clear wordings of the Qur’aan and Sunnah from their rightful places and raise bogus-arguments in an attempt to extinguish the light of Allaah and to firm up the thrones of their masters from the Taaghut rulers.  The rulers who do not rule by what Allaah has revealed and have allied with the Kuffar and fought with them against the people of Tawheed and tortured and killed the ones who command good and forbid evil.  These scholars have sold their Akhirah for the Dunyah thereby destroying themselves, but they will never be able to extinguish the Truth, for Allaah the Exalted and Majestic says:

“They intend to put out the Light of Allaah with their mouths. But Allaah will complete His Light even though the disbelievers hate (it). It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of truth, that He may proclaim it over all religion, Even though the Pagans may detest (it).”[1]

Most of the arguments presented by those misguided from the truth revolve around the issue of not ruling by what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed from the famous verse of Hukm:

“Whosoever Rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon.”[2]

It is therefore pertinent to start at this juncture by exhaustively analyzing this ayah before scrutinizing the bogus-arguments and downright lies of those who try to water down the issue of not ruling by what Allaah has revealed.

Context of the Ayahs

The full context of the revelation of the ‘ayahs regarding whosoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed is as follows:

(41) Oh Messenger, let not those grieve you, who race each other into disbelief: (whether it be) among those who say ‘We believe’ with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen Even to others who have never so much As come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: They say, ‘If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!’  if any one’s trial is intended by Allaah, Thou hast no authority in the least for Him against Allaah. For such – it is not Allaah’s will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace In This world, and In the Hereafter a heavy punishment.

(42) (They are fond of) listening to falsehood, of devouring Suht (Bribery). If they do come to thee, either judge between them, or decline to interfere. If you decline, they cannot hurt you in the least. If you judge, judge in equity between them – for Allaah loves those who judge in equity.

(43) But why do they come to you for decision, when they have (Their own) law before them? – Therein is the (plain) command of Allaah. Yet even after that, they would turn away; for they are not (really) people of Faith.

(44) It was we who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light.  By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islaam) to Allaah’s will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allaah’s Book, and They were witnesses thereto: Therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not My Signs for a miserable price. And whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed, they are al-Kaafiroon.

(45) We ordained therein for them: ‘Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.’  But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for Him.  And whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed, they are al-Thaalimun.

(46) And In their footsteps we sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the law that had come before him: we sent Him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allaah.

(47) Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allaah hath revealed therein. And whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed, they are al-Faasiqun.

(48) To you we sent the Scripture In truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allaah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that has come to you. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allaah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (his plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allaah. It is He that will Show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

(49) And This (He commands): you  judge between them by what Allaah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them Lest They beguile you from any of that (teaching) which Allaah has sent down to you.  And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allaah’s purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious.

(50) Do they then seek after a Judgment of (the days of) ignorance? But who, for a people whose Faith is assured, can give better Judgment than Allaah.”[3]

FOOTNOTES
[1] Soorat as-Saff, verse 8
[2] Soorat Ma’idah, verse 44
[3] Soorat al-Ma’idah, verses 41-50

Ascertaining the most accurate wording of the hadeeth of ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit “…unless you see public Kufr for which you have evidence from Allaah”

It is reported in the al-Jaami’ as-Saheeh
al-Bukhaari,

[حدثنا إسماعيل حدثنا بن وهب عن عمرو عن بكير عن بسر بن سعيد عن جنادة بن أبي أمية قال: دخلنا على عبادة بن الصامت وهو مريض قلنا: (أصلحك الله: حدث بحديث ينفعك الله به سمعته من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم!)، قال دعانا النبي، صلى الله عليه وسلم، فبايعناه فقال فيما أخذ علينا أن بايعنا: «على السمع والطاعة، في منشطنا ومكرهنا، وعسرنا ويسرنا، وأثرة علينا، وأن لا ننازع الأمر أهله: إلا أن ترو كفرا بواحا عندكم من الله فيه برهان»].

Told us Isma’eel, told us Ibn Waĥb, from ‘Amr, from Bukayr, from Busrun Ibn Sa’eed, from Junāda Ibn Abi Umayah who said, “We entered upon ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit while he was sick. We said, “May Allaah make you healthy. Will you tell us a hadeeth you heard from the Messenger and by which Allaah may make you benefit us?” He said, “The Messenger called us and we gave him the Pledge of allegiance for Islaam, and among the conditions on which he took the Pledge from us, was that we were to listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease and to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having Kufr Bowwaĥ (open disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allaah“.

This hadith is stronger than the two previous ones we have discussed and is mentioned in both Saheeh Muslim and Saheeh al-Bukhaari and the whole Ummah has accepted it. We know of no one who has ever disputed its authenticity in any way.

In other places in Saheeh al-Bukhaari, instead of “unless you see public Kufr for which you have evidence from Allaah” the following wordings are used “unless he commands you with a disobedience to Allah publically” or the wording “unless he orders you with sin publically” or the wording “unless he orders you with a public sin for which you have evidence from the book”. All these narrations have similar authentic isnads and are authorities in and of themselves.

The hadith is also found in Saheeh Muslim with the isnaad: told us Ahmad ibn Abdul Rahman ibn wahb ibn Muslim, from his uncle Abdullah ibn Wahb, from ‘Amr ibn Al-Harith, from Bukayr, until its end.

It is mentioned in the Musnad Abu ‘Awanah (ch1: p4: 408): with the isnaad: Abu ‘Ubaaidah Ahmad ibn Abdul Rahman, from his uncle, from ‘Amr, from Bukayr, until its end.

It is also mentioned in the As-Sunnah al Kubra of Imaam Al-Bayhaqi, with the isnaad, Abu Tahir Al-Faqih, told us Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Al-Fadl Al-Fahim, told us Muhammad ibn yahya, from Naeem ibn Hamd, from ibn Wahb, from ‘Amr ibn Al-Harith, from Bukayr, until its end.

It is also mentioned in the Fath al Bari with the isnaad from Al-Ismaili who heard it through Uthman ibn Salih, who heard it from ibn Wahb, who heard it from ‘Amr who heard it from Bukayr, who heard it from Bashir ibn saeed, who heard it from Junāda Ibn Abi Umayah.

It is also narrated in the Musnad of Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal through another channel from Sufyan, from Yahya, from ‘Ubaaidah ibn Al-Waleed ibn ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit, who heard it from his grandfather ‘Ubaaidah, one of the seven who gave the bayah at Mina, who said “We gave the Pledge of allegiance to prophet Muhammad to listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease and not to fight the rulers and to say the truth wherever we are without fearing anybody” Sufyan said that some people added the phrase “unless you see public Kufr” into this narration and we say that this shows Sufyan was aware of this addition but maybe he had not heard it from a channel that satisfied him, whereas we know that there are other channels, including those which are contained in Saheeh Muslim and Bukhaari which establish the addition without doubt.

This is the famous hadith of kufr buwah and it is related only to the appearance of public kufr in the public sphere, independent of the ruler being kafir or not as that is not relevant here and independent of whether he has any excuse such as ignorance or otherwise as this will have implications for the person of the ruler, in the hereafter or in front of a Shariah court but it does not have an impact on whether we can see kufr buwah publically. If it exists then the hadith clearly gives you the authority to rebel, including by the sword if necessary to change the kufr buwah.

There is another hadith that has come via the Saheeh of Ibn Hibban also on the authority of Junaada Ibn Abi Umayah.who said that he heard ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit saying that the Messenger of Allah addressed him, saying “Oh ‘Ubaaidah” and he said “Yes!” Then the Messenger of Allah said ” listen and obey, both in ease and in hardship, and at times when you dislike it, and at times when others are preferred over you, even when they take your money and beat your back unless it is a disobedience to Allah publically” (meaning he commands you with a disobedience publically). Shaykh Shuhaib Al-Arnaut says that this isnaad is Hasan and we say that he has lowered it from what it should be, which is Hasan Saheeh and it should be taken as an authority in of itself.

It is mentioned in the Musnad of Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal with an even better Isnaad then the one contained in the Saheeh of Ibn Hibban that says:

Told us Al-Waleed ibn Muslim, told us Al-Awzai, From Omair ibn Hani, who heard from Junāda Ibn Abi Umayah, from ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit who said that the Messenger of Allah said,

” Listen and obey, both in ease and in hardship, and when you are active and at the time when you are tired, and at times when others are preferred over you, and don’t dispute the affairs even when you feel you are more worthy of leadership than them”

Then Imaam Ahmad said Told us Al-Waleed ibn Muslim, told us Saeed Ibn Abdul Aziz, from Hayan ibn Abi Al-Nadr, from Junāda Ibn Abi Umayah, narrating the same hadith from ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit.

Then Imaam Ahmad said: told us Al-Waleed, told us Ibn Thawban (probably Abdul Rahman ibn Thabit ibn Thawban), told us Omair ibn Hani, told us Junāda Ibn Abi Umayah, told us ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit who said that the Messenger of Allah said the same hadith but added:

“unless he commands you with a sin publically”

The first two isnaads are Saheeh hadiths which are authorities of themselves and the last one with the addition “unless he commands you with a sin publically” is hasan of itself but is raised to Saheeh because of the other witnessing hadiths in Saheeh Muslim and Saheeh al-Bukhaari and the Saheeh of Ibn Hibban. So it is Hasan Saheeh.

There is another interesting hadith in the Musnad Al-Shamiyeen of Imaam Tabarani with an important addition.

Told us Muhammad ibn Abi Zurha Al Dimishqi, told us Hisham ibn Amar, told us Ibn Dahaym, from his father (Dahaym), from Al-Waleed ibn Muslim, told us Thawban, from Omair ibn Hani, from Junaada Ibn Abi Umayah, from ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit who said that the Messenger of Allah said the hadith ” Listen and obey, both in ease and in hardship, and when you are active and at the time when you are tired, and at times when others are preferred over you, and don’t dispute the affairs even when you feel you are more worthy of leadership than them”

Omair then narrated that Hudayr or Kudayr Al-Salami said that he heard from ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit the same above hadith with the addition ” Unless they command you with a sin publically, for which you have an evidence from the book (Quran)” then Hudayr or Kudayr Al-Salami said “what if he commands me with a sin publically and i obey him, what will happen to me” ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit then said “then you will be taken by your hands and legs and thrown into the Hellfire and let him come and save you then!”

This isnaad is very good, including the addition because Hudayr or Kudayr Al-Salami is one of the thiqah narrators of the Saheeh of Ibn Hibban. Although not very famous, he is known to narrate from ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit and Kab Al-Ahbar and Imaam Bukhaari has written a short biography of him where he has named him as Hudayr, not Kudayr. This hadith is very importance in that it indicates that obeying the rulers in their haram rulings will enter the doer into hellfire.

Ascertaining the most accurate wording of the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik “No, as long as they establish the call for prayer amongst you”

It has been reported in the Saheeh of Imaam Muslim,

[حدثنا إسحاق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي أخبرنا عيسى بن يونس حدثنا الأوزاعي عن يزيد بن يزيد بن جابر عن رزيق بن حيان عن مسلم بن قرظة عن عوف بن مالك عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: «خيار أئمتكم الذين تحبونهم ويحبونكم، ويصلون عليكم وتصلون عليهم، وشرار أئمتكم الذين تبغضونهم، ويبغضونكم وتلعنونهم ويلعنونكم»، قيل: (يا رسول الله: أفلا ننابذهم بالسيف?!)، فقال: «لا ما أقاموا فيكم الصلاة: وإذا رأيتم من ولاتكم شيئا تكرهونه: فاكرهوا عمله، ولا تنزعوا يدا من طاعة!»]

Told us Ishaaq Ibn Ibraaheem al-Hanzali, informed us ‘Isa Ibn Yoonis, told us al-’Awzaa’i, from Yazeed Ibn Yazeed Ibn Jaabir, from Ruzayq Ibn Hayyaan, from Muslim Ibn Qarda, from Auf Ibn Maalik who said, “The Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid, “The best of your leaders are those whom you love and they love you, and for whom you pray and they pray for you; and the worst of your leaders are those whom you hate and they hate you, and you curse and they curse you” Someone asked, “Should we not then fight them with the sword?” He saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid, “No, as long as they establish the call for prayer amongst you” and he saAllaahu alayhi wa salamcontinued, “And if you observe something dislikeable from the ‘Ameer, then dislike it but do not release your hand from obedience”.

All the mutawatir narrations, in essence have come with the same wording. In some narrations it mentions the word Munaabidtha (disputing with them) but without the word Sayf (Sword). However, the word Sayf has come through various channels from a number of trustworthy authorities and cannot be rejected.

Otherwise, if we take the addition of a Thiqah in one narration but reject the addition of a Thiqah in another narration, then that would be a contradiction. Either you take all the words of a thiqah in a narration or you reject all their words. If he is trustworthy in the main wording of the hadeeth, he is also classed as trustworthy in the additions, unless there is a counter evidence to suggest that he has made a mistake. Accepting the hadeeth of a thiqah is required and rejecting it for no reason is haraam so we have to take this additional part of the hadeeth.

Also, by necessity of reason, disputing with the rulers is usually done with the sword otherwise how else will you be able to dispute with them, so even the other hadeeths which don’t contain the word Sayf , still imply, by necessity of reason, that the disputing with them, will be by the sword.

In some channels of narrations, it says “if there is a wali (governor) above you, and you see him committing a disobedience to Allaah, then hate the disobedience to Allaah, but don’t pull your hand from obedience” instead of the wording contained in the above narration which we have quoted in full, which says ““And if you observe something dislikeable from the ‘Ameer, then dislike it but do not release your hand from obedience”.

The narration we have quoted in full is better and more eloquent for the following reasons.

1. If you hate what the one in authority does, than that is wider then hating just the disobedience to Allaah. For example, you may hate taxes imposed upon you, but they are not a disobedience to Allaah and you are not permitted to rebel just because you hate these taxes.
2. The wording “dislikeable” has a wider meaning.
3. The other wording “then hate the disobedience to Allaah, but don’t pull your hand from obedience” may misguide some people, who may take it to mean that they must tolerate every sin. But this is not correct as some sins cannot be tolerated like the kufr buwah. So the wording “dislikeable” is more befitting and suitable for all cases.

In some of the chains of narration, the phrase “No, as long as they establish the call for prayer amongst you” is repeated two or three times, and this is just for further affirmation and does not change the meaning at all.

The hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik in Saheeh Muslim is saheeh and is confirmed by oath in another chain also contained in Saheeh Muslim:

Told us Dawud ibn Rashid, told us Al-Walid ibn Muslim, told us Abdul Rahman ibn Yazeed ibn Jaabir, from Mawla bani Fazarah (who is Razaik ibn Hayan) that he heard from Muslim ibn Karadah (who was the cousin of Auf Ibn Maalik) say that he heard from Auf Ibn Maalik that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid this hadeeth.

Then Abdul Rahman ibn Yazid ibn Jabir said “I said to Razaik (ibn Hayan) when he told me this hadeeth, by Allaah did you hear this hadeeth from Muslim ibn Karadah saying that he heard from Auf Ibn Maalik saying that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam said this hadeeth?” Razaik ibn Hayan went onto his knees and faced the Qiblah and said “By Allaah i heard this hadeeth from Muslim ibn Karadah saying that he heard from Auf Ibn Maalik saying that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid this hadeeth“

The hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik is also contained in other narrations of Saheeh Muslim, as well as al-Darimi’s Sunan, the Musnad of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal, the Saheeh of Ibn Hibban, Imaam Al-Bayhaqi’s Sunan al Qubra, the Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer of Imaam Tabarani, the Musnad al-Shamail and the Musnad ibn Rowanah from many channels so the hadeeth is well-established and authentic.

There is another similar hadeeth in the Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer of Imaam Tabarani which is not narrated from Auf Ibn Maalik, but from Uqbah ibn Aāmir:

Told us Muhammad ibn yahya ibn Mandah Al-Asbahani, from Abu Qurayb, from Yunus ibn Baqir, from Musa ibn Ali, from his father, from Uqbah ibn Aāmir who said that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid “Shall I not tell you about the best of your rulers and the worst?” they said “Yes, tell us, Messenger of Allaah” he said “the best are the ones you love and they love you and you make dua for them and they make dua for you. The worst are those who you hate and they hate you and you make dua against them and they make dua against you” they responded “should we not fight them?” the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam replied “leave them, as long as they pray and fast”

This isnaad is Hasan not saheeh, because it is said of Yunus ibn Baqir that he is “Saduq (Trustworthy), but makes mistakes” and Bukhaari and Muslim did narrate from him but only as a supporting channel not a main channel. The rest of the narrators in the chain like Musa ibn Ali, his father, and Uqbah ibn Aāmir are from the strong narrators of Saheeh Muslim. While Abu Qurayb is Muhammad ibn Alaa ibn hamdani, a teacher of both Imaams Muslim and Bukhaari and Muhammad ibn yahya ibn Mandah Al-Asbahani are famous scholars, well known to the scholars of hadeeth.

There is a third hadeeth narrated on the authority of Umar ibn al-Khattaab in the Sunan al-Tirmidhi:

Told us Muhammad ibn Bashar, from Abu Amar al-Aqdi, from Muhammad ibn Abi Hamayd, from Zayd ibn Aslam, from his father (Aslam, the freed slave of Umar), from Umar ibn al-Khattaab who said that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid “”Shall I not tell you about the best of your rulers and the worst? The best are the ones you love and they love you and you make dua for them and they make dua for you. The worst are those who you hate and they hate you and you make dua against them and they make dua against you” the hadeeth stops there and does not carry on.

Imaam Tirmidhi says the hadeeth is “Hasan, but strange” because it is only known through this channel and Muhammad ibn Abi Hamayd has been declared to be weak as a narrator of hadeeth. Shaykh Albani declared this hadeeth to be saheeh, but it is not saheeh unless he meant it is saheeh because of shawaahid (supporting) evidences, but he didn’t mention this when he declared it saheeh and he should have done so as it is not saheeh on its own.

The hadeeth is also mentioned in the Musnad of Abu Ya’la and Shaykh Husayn Salim Asad declared the isnaad to be weak, which is correct. But the hadeeth can be considered Hasan if the other supporting evidences are also taken into account as Imaam Tirmidhi stated.

So we have the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik which is Saheeh without doubt, the hadeeth of Uqbah ibn Aāmir which is Hasan and the hadeeth of Umar ibn al-Khattaab which is of a acceptable isnaad if the supporting evidences are taken into account. So the hadeeth is close to being Mutawatir.

The hadeeth is definite in meaning that it is permissible to remove the rulers including fighting them with the sword, if they do not “establish the call for prayer amongst you”.

The meaning of establishing the call for prayer amongst us can be both literal and metaphorical.

Literally, it can mean allowing us to establish the salah amongst ourselves, by leaving the mosques open, not prosecuting those who pray, not preventing people praying in the official institutions like government buildings and the armed forces. If any of this happens then they are not establishing the call for prayer amongst the Muslims.

The metaphorical meaning of establishing the call for prayer amongst us could be of establishing the deen and this would essentially convey the same meaning as the hadeeth of ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit (…unless you see public Kufr for which you have evidence from Allaah) which we will be discussing in the next section. Because whoever establishes kufr buwah in public has not established the deen.

So in the literal sense it gives a condition of allowing salah to be established in the society unhindered and in the metaphorical sense it synchronises with the hadeeth of ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit, so it must be understood by both its literal and metaphorical meanings.

A Study of the hadeeths related to Munaabidtha al-Hukaam (disputing with the Rulers)

There is no need in this brief study to examine the authenticity of the Isnaads and discuss the reliability and trustworthiness of the narrators of the three famous ahadeeth of Umm Salamah (No, as long as they pray), Auf Ibn Maalik (As long as they establish call for prayer amongst you), and ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit (…unless you see public Kufr for which you have evidence from Allaah) as they have been established beyond doubt in the collections of saheeh hadeeth, In the books of Sunan as well as the Masanid collections and can be found everywhere amongst them. The whole ummah has taken these ahadeeth as saheeh and no muhadith of any calibre has ever rejected them. What remains is tahreer, which is to find what the most accurate wording of these ahadeeth is and to discuss some necessary conclusions in relation to their meaning.

Ascertaining the most accurate wording of the hadeeth of Umm Salamah “No, as long as they pray”

It is reported in the Sunan of Abu Dawood;

[حدثنا سليمان بن داود قال: حدثنا حماد بن زيد عن هشام عن حسان عن الحسن عن ضبة بن محصن عن أم سلمة زوج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، قالت: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «ستكون عليكم أئمة: تعرفون منهم وتنكرون فمن أنكر بلسانه، فقد برئ، ومن كره بقلبه، فقد سلم، ولكن من رضي وتابع!»، فقيل: (يا رسول الله: أفلا نقاتلهم?!)، قال: «لا ما صلوا»]

Told us Sulaymaan Abu Dawood, told us Hammad Ibn Zayd, from Hishaam, from Hasan (al Basri), from Adubbat Ibn Muh’sin, from ‘Umm Salamah  the wife of the Messenger of Allaah  saAllaahu alayhi wa salam, she (r.a) said the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam said “There will be above you Imaams, some things (from them) you will accept and other things you will reject; whoever rejects with his tongue will be innocent, and whoever hates with his heart he will at least have escaped, but whoever follows and accepts!” It was said, “Should we not fight them?” The Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam said, “No, as long as they pray”.[1]

We say this is the most balanced of the various Riwayaat of this narration, both in transmission and in wording.

Some narrators have reversed the wording of the hadeeth in their minds so they say that whoever rejects with the tongue is safe from punishment and whoever hates the munkar with his heart is innocent. However, this is definitely wrong as rejecting with the tongue is a higher level then hating with the heart and being innocent is higher than being safe from the punishment because you could have been guilty, but still escape punishment because Allaah (swt) has forgiven you.

Whilst the one who is innocent has no sin and the issue of being safe from the punishment of Allaah (swt) is not relevant to him whatsoever.

The rejecting with the tongue is at a higher level and must be associated with being innocent and  divorced from the sin whilst the hating with the heart should be associated with being safe from the punishment. So, although you didn’t reject the munkar with the tongue at least you hated it with your heart. However, the one who is pleased with the munkar of what the rulers do and follows them, then it separates him from being either safe or innocent. The sahabah around the prophet understood the gravity of the sin and without hesitation asked “Should we not fight them?” and the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam replied, “No, as long as they pray”.

It is amazing that Imam Al-Bayhaqi narrates this hadeeth from the channel of Abu Dawud and you would assume that it would be the same wording but he mixes the hadeeth up and only mentions the part of the hadeeth of hating with the heart. He also states that the one who hates with the heart is innocent whereas the full hadeeth mentions only that he would have escaped punishment. Nevertheless, the dhikr is protected and the full narration is preserved in the books of ahadeeth and is established beyond doubt.

Some narrators do not use the words ‘with his tongue’ or ‘with his heart’ but what we have chosen is what must be understood by necessity because hating is something that happens in the heart. You cannot hate with the tongue. Rejecting or condemning munkar happens with the tongue and is at a higher level because the existence of hating with the heart is a necessary condition to condemn the munkar with the tongue. Otherwise condemning the munkar with the tongue whilst not hating it in your heart would be an act of hypocrisy. True sincere rejection and condemnation of munkar cannot happen with the tongue unless you first hate the munkar in your heart.

It is also not possible that both are in the heart. Otherwise, the hadeeth does not make sense. Why would the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam say condemn with the heart and also hate the munkar in your heart when we know that condemning munkar is better than just hating it in your heart. It would have mentioned just one of them and we know that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam is the most eloquent and has been given the comprehensiveness in his speech.  Whenever Inkar is mentioned alongside KARAHIYYAH then rejection must be with the tongue whilst hatred must be with the heart.

It has been said by some that the two wordings of “with his tongue” and “from the heart” are from Al-Hasan Al-Basri and not from the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam. Some narrators claim that Al-Hasan Al-Basri said ‘’with his heart’ in both of them as a tafseer and that it is not contained in the hadeeth. The one who said this is most likely Qatadah.  However, what is most correct and a proof that the two wordings weren’t added by Al-Hasan Al-Basri  is that which is found in al-Bayhaqi’s Shu’ab al-Imaan[2] where it is narrated through another channel from Al-Hasan Al-Basri that he said “whoever rejects with his tongue will be innocent, but the time of that happening has gone and whoever hates with his heart his time has come”. So he is saying that his time is so bad that no one is condemning the munkar with their tongues anymore and instead they are only hating it in their hearts. The two statements “but the time of that happening has gone” and “his time has come” are the additional comments of Al-Hasan Al-Basri. From this statement, we can prove that the wordings of “with his tongue” and “from the heart” are in the original hadeeth and the one who claims they are from Al-Hasan Al-Basri is mistaken.

The wording “Should we not fight them?” has been narrated in most of the chains of narrations. In a couple of narrations the wording has been “Should we not kill them?” however they are singular chains of narration which when compared with other chains indicate that the narrator has made a mistake with his narration. In addition, the context of the hadeeth is that it is not discussing establishing a hadd (punishment) for the rulers, but whether they should be removed from power or not. So the sahabah asking, “Should we not fight them?” means should we not fight them to remove them from power not whether they should be killed or not. In one of the Isnaads the phrase narrated is “shouldn’t we fight the evil ones amongst them” and this has the same meaning as “Should we not fight them?” as you would only fight those whose deeds are rejected.

Most of the strong narrations contain the phrase “No, as long as they pray” and in some narrations it says “No, as long as they pray the obligatory prayers” which is a further clarification.

This hadeeth establishes that if they pray regularly then it is a barrier to rebelling against them and this is different from the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik, which talks about establishing salah in the society. So if they do not establish salah in the society, then according to the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik, rebellion against them is permissible and even if they do establish the salah in society, if they themselves do not pray then that it is also permissible to rebel against them according to the hadeeth of Umm Salamah. This shows the importance of salah both at an individual level and at a societal level. We will discuss the meaning of the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik in the next section.

The hadeeth of Umm Salamah is a Saheeh hadeeth narrated through a number of channels in Sahih Muslim as well as a number of channels in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, some of which are even stronger then the channels in sahih Muslim. It is also to be found in the Musnad of Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi (d 201/818) and in the Musnad of Abu Ya’la. Shaykh Husayn Salim Asad who wrote a commentary on the Musnad of Abu Ya’la declared the isnaad to be saheeh and he is one of the best modern commentators on the Musnad of Abu Ya’la and his judgments can be relied upon to be correct. It is also narrated in the Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer of Imam Tabarani in many many channels most of which are saheeh and is also narrated in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah, in the Musnad of ibn Ruhwanah, in the Musnad of  Ishaq ibn Rahwaih and in the Tamheed of Ibn Abdul ‘Barr (Volume 24, p 312 onwards) as well as many other works of the imams of islam.

In the Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer of Imam Tabarani there is a witness to some of what has been narrated in the hadith of Umm Salamah in a hadeeth from Abdullah ibn Abbas (RA), Imam Tabarani narrates:

Told us Muhammad ibn Uthman ibn Abu Shaybah, From his father (Uthman ibn Abu Shaybah), from Yahya ibn abu Baqir, from Al-Hayyaj ibn Bustam, from Layth, from Tawoos, From ibn Abbas who said the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam said “There will be umara (leaders) over you, who you will know and will reject, whoever rejects and fights them will escape and be saved, whoever abstains from them (but doesn’t fight them) is safe, however whoever mixes with them will perish” however this hadeeth is not strong because Al-Hayyaj ibn Bustam is weak and his son Khalid, narrated very weak hadeeth from him. Also Al-Hayyaj ibn Bustam narrates from Layth ibn abu Sulaym whose memory in later life deteriorated although it was good earlier on in his life and it not clear in this hadeeth when Al-Hayyaj ibn Bustam is taking from him so the isnaad is weak.[3]

The hadeeth of Umm Salamah is definite in its meaning, that it is permissible to fight, including using the sword if necessary, with the intention and purpose of removing the ruler who does not pray. Leaving one obligatory prayer is enough to make him liable to be removed. The Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam prohibited the listener from fighting the ruler on the condition “ as long as they pray” and this condition would be violated if they leave any of the obligatory prayers clearly and intentionally.

The wording of the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam “as long as they pray” indicates a continuous action because he did not say, “Unless they leave salah” like in other hadeeths like “What is between imaan and kufr is leaving salah” or “ salah is the pillar of the deen, whoever leaves it has commited kufr” All the hadeeths which talk of leaving the salah, have come as As-salāh (The salah) which means leaving salah permanently, not just leaving one salah. But the hadeeth of Umm Salamah does not talk of leaving the salah permanently, it has a different wording, that of “as long as they pray” meaning that they must continuously offer the obligatory prayers. The moment they leave one salah then it becomes permissible to remove a ruler, even with the sword if necessary.

On a side point, this refutes those who claim that it is only permissible to remove a ruler once he has been declared a kafir, as leaving one salah is not agreed upon by all scholars to be enough to declare a person to be outside the millah of Islam.

The phrase “as long as they pray” could also have a metaphorical meaning. In Arabic As-salāh can mean the individual prayer or it can mean the deen as a whole. The metaphorical meaning would therefore be that as long as they remain committed to the deen in their private affairs and implement Islam upon the society, showing they are committed to the deen in the public affairs as well, then they cannot be removed.

However, if they commit kufr or apostasy in their personal affairs but they implement Islam in the public affairs the hadeeth would still apply upon them. In fact the one who has committed apostasy his salāh is invalid and he can be considered to have left the salāh completely and cannot be called ‘Musalli’ who are referred to in the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam “ where he said “I have been prohibited from killing the musallin’[4] meaning the Mu’min who prays.

If he establishes kufr in the public affairs then it is even worse than if he commits kufr himself as it shows he is not continuously committed to the deen in the public affairs. This is worse in the sense, that his function as a leader is to manage the affairs of the society and not applying the Shariah would have wider implications than his individual actions, so a fortiori he should be removed, and this is where the hadeeth of ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit applies.

To clarify one final point, from the wording of the hadeeth it can be deduced that fighting the ruler is permissible, the evidences to show whether it is desirable or an obligation come from other ahadeeth not from this hadeeth itself.
[1]  Sunan Abu Dawud, (no.4760)
[2]  al-Bayhaqi, Shu’ab al-Imaan (Volume 6, p.62)
[3] 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).

[4] Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 41, Number 4910: Narrated AbuHurayrah: A mukhannath who had dyed his hands and feet with henna was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He asked: What is the matter with this man? He was told: Apostle of Allaah! he affects women’s get-up. So he ordered regarding him and he was banished to an-Naqi’. The people said: Apostle of Allaah! should we not kill him? He said: I have been prohibited from killing people who pray. AbuUsamah said: Naqi’ is a region near Medina and not a Baqi (in other words not refering to Jannat al-Baqi cemetery. Indicating they were not punished.

Ikrah and the Mukrah

Posted: November 6, 2008 by millatibraheem in 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)

The Donkey of Knowledge Slipped in Mud

Verily I have read in the Arai Al Urduniyyah, dated 16 Safar 1417 H, which is 2/71996, a news with the topic: “The committee of biggest scholars in Saudi [Haiat Kibaar al Ulama] mourns the bombing incident”

And it was in the news: “the committee of the biggest scholars in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia mourns in a declaration which was taken by the newspapers of the kingdom yesterday, the incident of the bombing in the news…”

And said the declaration which was issued from an exclusive meeting concluded on Saturday in the city of Taif with the presidency of Sheikh ‘Abdul ‘Aziz bin Baz :

“Verily the committee after looking and studying and thinking concluded with Ijmaa’… verily this bombings is a criminal act which is prohibited in the Shari’ah with the Ijmaa’ of the Muslims”

And added: “In this bombings were a violation of the sanctity of Islaam which is known with necessity and a violation to the innocent souls and a violation of the sanctity of wealth and a violation to the sanctity of security and peace and the life of people who are peaceful and calm in their houses and their lives and their coming and goings…”

And they followed the Bayaan saying :

“How bad and big in crime is the person who dares upon the sanctities of Allaah and oppressed His slaves and scared the Muslims and the residence within them so woe unto him and again woe unto him from the punishment of Allaah and His vengeance and from an invocation which encompasses him. We ask Allaah to expose his hiding and humiliate his matter” end of quote.

I say: Verily Allaah has exposed your matter and opened your veil O scholars of Misguidance… and by Allaah there was a day when we used to stop our tongues from taking in your matter, and we used to make disunity with ourselves by involving ourselves with you, fearing from eruption of our quarrel and deviance from the path of our call… and we used to see it sufficient to warn the youth from your misguidance… until this led to us being declared as Kuffar by ones who made takfir upon us due to our leaving involvement in declaring you to be Kuffar…

And we used to hope that you would bring back… or you would change… or you would alter… or you would repent… or you would be shameful…. And we used to turn away from you, taking an example in the Hadeeth of the Prophet saAllaahu alayhi wa salam “leave them, people will say Muhammad kills his companions”

But you, and how sad… you have not increased but in blindness and transgression… and deviation from the truth and slipping out of tawheed, and taking place towards the tawaagheet and towards polytheism and making equals (with Allaah)…

And when your Salaf and your shuyukh whom Abdul Aziz (Akhu Naurah) and (Abu Fahd) used to see them as naive and used to laugh upon them… thus they find who would patch for them, for the intelligence of the despicable and making firm deception and deceitful…

Thus the rule of his sons to whom today you ally and give bay’ah today, and their matter is not hidden to anyone… and thus their kufr and their alliance to the enemies of the religion and the Tawaagheet of Kufr from the people of east and west and their fighting against Muwahhidun is clear and not hidden even to the blind…

And with all this, you are still naming the tawaagheet as Imaam of Muslims, and you count him and others besides him from the tawaagheet to be Shar’i leaders of matters [wali Amr], and you count the one who goes against them, the one who disbelieves in their Shirk as Khawaarij and rebels and takfiriyyeen… thus what the Messenger saAllaahu alayhi wa salam mentioned from the sayings of the early prophesy: “If you are not shameful, than do what you wish”

Verily us and our Muwahhid brothers from whom, who stands in front of the faces of the Tawaagheet in every place of the earth shred your this claimed Ijmaa’..

Either you do not count us from the Muslims!! Or you are not truthful in your claiming of this Ijmaa… and may Allaah have mercy upon the Imaam of Ahlu Sunnah and Jama’ah Ahmad bin Hanbal to whom you ascribe your school of thought-as a lie-when he said: “whoever claims Ijmaa then hus he has lied, how does he knows that maybe people differed…”

And your this falsely thought Ijmaa is nothing

Because it is the Ijmaa of Clinton and Sheraak and fahd and asad and hasan and husein and husein? anf others beside them from the scholars of fitnah and the custodians of Shirk and Laws..

As for your saying “how bad and big in crime is the person who dares upon the sanctities of Allaah and oppressed His slaves and scared the Muslims”

Thus I do not think it is hidden upon anyone O blind ones of the heart that the one most appropriate upon whom the likes of these sentences fit is your Taghut Fahd and his brothers from the tawaagheet of shirk who did not leave any sanctity from the sanctities of Allaah except that they have violated it, and neither was there a right for the slaves of Allaah except they have oppressed them regarding it… and terrorized the Muslims and gave peace to the Mushriks and made the eyes of the kaafireen cool and explaining their kufr and their Baatil and their crimes doesn’t have space in the likes of these papers..

Verily you have verified-O scholars of Evil-before this upon the killing of Juhaimaan and a group of his brothers and now these verdicts with which they were killed is preserved and gives witnesses upon your crimes, and with that it has been said that day: the matter was unclear and the a great tribulation happened with it, and carrying weapons in Haram is a fitnah and there were difference in opinions and killing of the innocent… and… and…. to its end, so you found who would patch for your Baatil… and the ones who patch did patch for you…

Then you made the wearing of the cross permissible for your taghut fahd… he wore a Cross, thus it was said the matter is unclear… and this (medal) and a symbol and the cross is not clear in it and the one who patches patched for you…

Then you gave a verdict for your Imaam to let the Americans enter and make them stable in the Jazeerah and you have given verdict for the permissibility of taking help from them against Saddam Hussein, while with it verily you did not use to make takf?r upon him or make takfir upon his army!! Rather you used to drum and sing for him when he used to fight the raafidhi Iran… then you took the path of the khawaarij, thus you made takfir upon him for his conquering of Kuweit and killing and fighting … and you have made permissible due to this, taking help from the Kuff?r in fighting against him… and there they are (Americans) residing from the blessings of your fatawa in the lands of the Muslims…

Thus it was said: “the matter has harms and benefits in it and Saddam is a taghut and a criminal, he was not to stop in the borders of Kuwait… and others besides this… thus the one who patches patched for you..!”

And how here you are taking your jilbaab of shame and you are announcing it in open, thus you are agreeing to the killing of a Muwahhid Muslim in return of a christian polytheist, thus you are giving verdict to kill four from the best of Muwahhid?n after the Riyadh bombings… while the Prophet saAllaahu alayhi wa salam verily said: “…a Muslim is not killed in return of a kaafir” narrated by Al Bukhaari… thus the ones who patch were shocked…. And the ones who had something from shame from them said: “there are things patched and things which cannot be patched”

Then here you are thinking (the ijmaa of the Muslims) upon the prohibition of this kind of action and verily that it is from the biggest of crimes and you forget the crimes of your different tawaagheet…

But we say with all clarity… all this was not strange for us… Yes, sometimes a person other than us might see that as strange, who had no insight regarding you before this day, thus he would be shocked and alarmed with the likes of these stances… as for the Muwahhid whose heart is illuminated with the light of Wa’hi, and the path of the criminals are clear (for him), and knows the rule of Allaah regarding your taghut (Imaam) then he sees you with all this giving the clap of your hands and the fruits of your hearts to him (taghut) thus you give him bay’ah…. And you agree to him that he is the Imaam of the Muslims… while he is from the tawaagheet with whom we have to first disbelieve, which Allaah commanded us!!

Thus whoever knows this and has an insight with this… he would not be shocked or alarmed with what is more little or what roots from that…

So lay eggs and make the chicks come out… and give verdicts with what you wish from falsehood and lies

The horizon is clear for you O Nu’amah (a kind of bird) thus twitter as much as you wish to twitter…

But let it be in your knowledge that after your hidden are seen, verily the Ummah will curse you if you do not repent…

“Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We have sent down, and the Guidance, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, on them shall be Allaah’s curse, and the curse of those entitled to curse.”
[al-Baqara 2:159]

So repent… and improve…. And explain the truth for the creation…

Or else, thus how much the Tawaagheet makes you shine (famous)… and how much they beautify your verdicts which helps the falsehood… and how much they ascribes titles to you… and creates committees for you… thus your return, if you do not repent and improve and explain, (then) your return is to what Allaah tabarak wa ta’ala said in it

“And recite to them the story of him to whom We gave Our Ayat, but he threw them away, so Shaitan followed him up, and he became of those who went astray. And had We willed, We would surely have elevated him therewith but he clung to the earth and followed his own vain desire. So his description is the description of a dog: if you drive him away, he lolls his tongue out, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls his tongue out. Such is the description of the people who reject Our Ayat. So relate the stories, perhaps they may reflect.” [al-Araf 7:175, 176]

O assembly of scholars verily your silence is the proof of the ignorant in every era

O assembly of scholars wake up your sleep has become long till now

O assembly of scholars stand up for Allaah (for) the word of faith

O assembly of scholars, will of the truthful which is only to Allaah free from cowardice

Thus Allaah helps who stands with His help and Allaah will not give victory to the helper of satan

And Abu Muhammad Al Maqdesi

Jordan – Jail of Suwaqah

16 safar 1417 from the migration of the Chosen one

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.