Archive for March, 2009

Alhumdoolillaah, as-salaatu was-salaam ‘ala Rasoolullaah.

Imaam Muslim recorded in his Saheeh under Book of Imaan, that Abu Huraira (ra) related Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa salam said (translation):

“Islaam began as something strange, and it will become strange again just like it was at the beginning, so blessed are the strangers.”

And he also reports it from bin ‘Umar (ra):

“Indeed Islaam began as something strange and it will become strange again just as it started, and it would recede between the two mosques just as the serpent crawls back into its hole.”

This is a well-known hadeeth which reaches the status of mutawatir, reported by around twenty Sahaaba (ra) with different wordings.

Imaam Tirmidhi collected the following wording from ‘Amr bin ‘Awf of Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa salam (translation):

“The deen will shrink back to the Hijaz like the snake shrinks back into its hole. It will cling to the Hijaz like the mountain goat clings to the mountaintop. The deen began as something strange, and it will become strange again just like it was at the beginning, so blessed are the strangers who restore what the people corrupt of my Sunnah.” And he graded it Hasan Saheeh.

And in Musnad Ahmed and bin Hiban’s collection, it was reported (translation):

“Islaam began as something strange and it will revert to how it began as something strange. So Tooba to the strangers” The people asked, “Who are they, Ya Rasoolullaah?” He answered, “Those who are pious and righteous when the people have become evil.”

In Imaam bin al-Mubarak’s ‘Kitab uz-Zuhd’ #775 the hadeeth ends with:

“They are righteous people among many evil people, who disobey them more than they obey them.”

Imaam at-Tabari in his famous tafsir reports that Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa salam explained “Tooba” as a tree in Jannah. The time it takes to travel it is 100 years and the clothing of the people of Jannah is taken from its lamina.

All of the above narrations are authentic by their own right or due to supporting chains.

Who exactly are these people?

Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa salam had mentioned that there will always be a group from his Umma fighting upon the truth. This was reported by many Sahaaba (ra), rising the hadeeth to the level of mutawatir. Some narrations are as follows (translation),

In Saheeh Muslim, under the Book of Government:

From Thauban (ra):

“A group of people from my Umma will always remain triumphant on the right path and continue to be triumphant (against their opponents). He who deserts them shall not be able to do them any harm. They will remain in this position until Allaah’s. Command is executed (Qayama).”

From Mughira (ra):

“A group of people from my Umma will continue to be triumphant over the people until the Command of Allaah overtakes them while they are still triumphant.”

From Jaabir bin Sumara (ra):

“This religion will continue to exist, and a group of people from the Muslims will continue to fight for its protection until the Hour is established”

From Jaabir bin ‘Abdullaah (ra):

“A group of people from my Umma will continue to fight in defense of truth and remain triumphant until the Day of Judgment…”

From Umair bin Umm Hani (ra):

“A group of people from my Umma will continue to obey Allaah’s Command, and those who desert or oppose them shall not be able to do them any harm. They will be dominating the people until Allaah’s Command is executed.”

And similar reports clearly show that this group of Strangers is, without a doubt, the Mujahideen. And to make things even clearer, Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa salam specifies to whom “Tooba” is for. The hadeeth is recorded in Saheeh Bukhaari and Sunan bin Maja, from Abu Huraira (ra), in which Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa salam mentions the destruction and humiliation for the worshipper of the dinar, dirham, khameesa and khamila. Than Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa salam mentions (translation):

“…Tooba is for the worshipper, taking the reins of his horse in the cause of Allaah; his hair flying, his feet dusty. If he is assigned the watch, then he remains on watch. If he is assigned the rear guard, he guards the rear. Yet if he asks permission, he is not permitted, and if he intercedes, his intercession is not granted.”

Hence, Tooba for the Mujahideen.

One of the disputed ahadeeth is found in Saheeh Muslim under “The Book of Descriptions of Judgment Day, Paradise and Hell”

Chapter “The Beginning of the Creation and the Creation of Adam” alayhis salaam

TRANSLATION:  Abu Haraira reported that Rasoolullaah sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam took hold of my hands and said: “Allaah, the Exalted and Glorious, created the clay on Saturday and He created the mountains on Sunday and He created the trees on Monday and He created the things entailing labor on Tuesday and created light on Wednesday and caused the animals to spread on Thursday and created Adam after ‘Asr on Friday, the last creation at the last hour of the hours of Friday.”

Several other hadeeth scholars collected this report, such as Imaam Ahmed in his Musnad, Imaam ibn Hiban in his ‘Kitab at-Tarikh’.

One scholar disputing its authenticity was Imaam bin Taymia in his ‘Majmua’ al-Fatawa’ who states other hadeeth scholars, such as Imaam Bukhaari from his ‘Tarikh’,  saying that this hadeeth is not the words of Rasooullaah sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam, but rather the words of a Tabi’ named Ka’b al-Ahbar. Imaam bin Taymia also said that some hadeeth scholars, likes of Imaam bin Jauzi, did in fact accept this hadeeth as authentic and attributed to Rasoolullaah sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam.

Ka’b al-Ahbar was a Jewish rabbi who became Muslim under Ameer ul Mumineen ‘Umar bin al-Khatab’s (ra) rule and died under Ameer ul Mumineen ‘Uthmaan bin ‘Affaans (ra) reign.  He was known to have narrated many israilite traditions.

And Allaahs knowledge encompasses all things.

Ascertaining the most accurate wording of the hadeeth of ‘Ubaidah 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,

Told us Isma’eel, told us Ibn Wahb, from ‘Amr, from Bukayr, from Busrun Ibn Sa’eed, from Junada Ibn Abi Umayah who said, “We entered upon ‘Ubaidah 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 Bowwah (open disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allaah“.

This hadeeth 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 Allaah 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 hadeeth is also found in Saheeh Muslim with the isnaad: told us Ahmad ibn Abdul Rahman ibn wahb ibn Muslim, from his uncle Abdullaah 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 ‘Ubaidah 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 Jun?da Ibn Abi Umayah.

It is also narrated in the Musnad Ahmad through another channel from Sufyan, from Yahya, from ‘Ubaidah ibn Al-Waleed ibn ‘Ubaidah 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 hadeeth 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 hadeeth 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 Junada Ibn Abi Umayah.who said that he heard ‘Ubaidah bin As-Samit saying that the Messenger of Allaah addressed him, saying “Oh ‘Ubaidah” and he said “Yes!” Then the Messenger of Allaah 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 Allaah publically” (meaning he commands you with a disobedience publically). Shaikh 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 Ahmad 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 Junaada Ibn Abi Umayah, from ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit who said that the Messenger of Allaah 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 Imam Ahmad said Told us Al-Waleed ibn Muslim, told us Saeed Ibn Abdul Aziz, from Hayan ibn Abi Al-Nadr, from Junada Ibn Abi Umayah, narrating the same hadeeth from ‘Ubaidah bin As-Samit.

Then Imam Ahmad said: told us Al-Waleed, told us Ibn Thawban (probably Abdul Rahman ibn Thabit ibn Thawban), told us Omair ibn Hani, told us Junada Ibn Abi Umayah, told us ‘Ubaidah bin As-Samit who said that the Messenger of Allaah said the same hadeeth 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 ahadeeth in Saheeh Muslim and Saheeh al-Bukhaari and the Saheeh of Ibn Hibban. So it is Hasan Saheeh.

There is another interesting hadeeth in the Musnad Al-Shamiyeen of Imam 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 Junada Ibn Abi Umayah, from ‘Ubaidah bin As-Samit who said that the Messenger of Allaah said the hadeeth ”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 ‘Ubaidah bin As-Samit the same above hadeeth with the addition ”Unless they command you with a sin publically, for which you have an evidence from the book (Qur’aan)” 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?” ‘Ubaidah 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 ‘Ubaidah bin As-Samit and Kab Al-Ahbar and Imam Bukhaari has written a short biography of him where he has named him as Hudayr, not Kudayr. This hadeeth is very importance in that it indicates that obeying the rulers in their haraam rulings will enter the doer into hellfire.

A Study of the ahadeeth 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 ahadeeth, 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;

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”“Should we not fight them?” and this has the same meaning as 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 Saheeh Muslim as well as a number of channels in the Musnad Ahmad, some of which are even stronger then the channels in Saheeh 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. Shaikh 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 channels most of which are saheeh and is also narrated in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah, 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 Islaam.

In the Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer of Imam Tabarani there is a witness to some of what has been narrated in the hadeeth 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 committed kufr” All the ahadeeth which talk of leaving the salah, have come as As-salaah (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 Islaam.

The phrase “as long as they pray” could also have a metaphorical meaning. In Arabic As-salah 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 Islaam 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 Islaam in the public affairs the hadeeth would still apply upon them. In fact the one who has committed apostasy his salah is invalid and he can be considered to have left the salah 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 Shari’ah 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.

FOOTNOTES:
[1]  Sunan Abu Dawud, (no.4760)
[2]  al-Bayhaqi, Shu’ab al-Imaan (Volume 6, p.62)
[3] Abdullaah Ibn ‘Abbas 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 Shaibah and at-Tabarani).

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

Government scholars are the body established by the rulers containing the top scholars of the country, made and sponsored by him, to justify the following:

1. His authority over the country and its people, even though he legislates against what Allaah has revealed, which is a clear kufr, under the Islamic Shari’ah. This nullifies his position as a leader of Muslims.

2. Cloaking him with qualities and titles, which deceive the Muslims and hinder them from fulfilling their obligations to Allaah to keep the Sharia intact.

3. Calling those who challenge his authority after he commits such crimes as khawaarij and disobedient to the amir of the Muslims, i.e. him.

4. Then they approve the killing and torture of those righteous Muslims who demand adherence to Allaah’s Law, whom they deceitfully defined as Khawaarij.

5. Although they might match Islamic Law most of the time, in the particulars, their main function is to screen the leader from being harmed, challenged or ultimately removed.

Ruling Regarding These Types of Individuals

These government scholars are the greatest harm to Islaam and Muslims.  This is with the stipulation that any such body of scholars in any country shouldn’t be judged for the label they carry, rather for their actions, i.e. their stance for Islaam and Muslims.  Let us refer to what Allaah and His Rasool have said about them…

Collected by Imaam Ahmad in his Musnad and also reported in Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb hadeeth #2241, that Abu Hurayrah narrated Rasoolullaah sallallaahu alayhi wasalam said, “Whoever approaches the ruler’s gates becomes afflicted. Whenever a slave draws closer to the ruler, he only gains distance from Allaah.”

Collected by Ahmad, al-Bazzaar, and Ibn Hibbaan, also recorded in Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb, hadeeth #2243 stating Jaabir Ibn ‘Abdullaah narrated that Rasoolullaah sallallaahu alayhi wasalam said to Ka’b Ibn ‘Ujrah, “O Ka’b Ibn ‘Ujrah, I seek Allaah’s protection for you from the leadership of fools. There shall be rulers, whoever enters upon them, then aids them in their oppression and validates their lies, then he is not from me nor I from him, and he shall not be admitted to the Hawd. Whoever does not enter upon them, and does not aid them in their oppression, nor validates their lies, then he is from me and I from him, and he shall be admitted to the Hawd.”

Recorded in Musnad Ahmad hadeeth # 20335 that Abu Dhar said, “I was in the presence of the Prophet one day and I heard him saying, ‘There is something more I fear for my Ummah than the Dajjaal.’ It was then that I became afraid, so I said, ‘O Rasoolullaah! Which thing is it that you fear for your Ummah more than the Dajjaal?’ He [the Prophet] said, ‘Misguided and astray scholars.’

It is related by Shidaad ibn Aws that the Prophet sAllaahu alayhi wasalam said, “Truly, I do not fear anything for my Ummah except astray scholars. Thus when the sword is raised against my Ummah, it will not be lifted until the Day of Judgment.” [Musnad of Ahmad, ahadeeth # 16493, 21360, 31359, 20334 and ad-Daarimi, ahadeeth # 211 and 216 and all of these collections are classed as authentic.]

Imaam Abu Abdullaah al-Qurtubi stated in ‘Jaami’ ul Ahkaam ul Fiqhiyyah’ Vol. 2, Pg. 227:   “The ‘Ulama have said, ‘One who is an Imaam for an oppressive ruler, prayer is not to be made behind him unless he reveals his excuse or reason why (he is an Imaam for the oppressive ruler) or he repents from it.”

Imaam ibn Taymiya stated in ‘Majmua’ al-Fataawa‘ Vol. 20, Pg 200:

“The person who is obeyed in disobedience of Allaah or the person who is obeyed in following other than the guidance of the religion of truth; in either case, if what he orders mankind is in opposition to Allaah’s orders, then he is a Taghoot. For this reason, we call the people who rule by other than what Allaah revealed, a ‘Taghoot’.”

And he (ibn Taymiya) said in Majmu’a Fataawa vol 35. Page 373:
“Whenever the ‘aalim follows the hukm of the ruler, and leaves off his knowledge, in contradiction to the book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, he is a kaafir (an unbeliever) and a murtadd (an apostate), who deserves to be punished in this life and the hereafter. This rule can also be applied with regard to the group of scholars who jumped and joined the Mongols due to fear of them and that they wanted to take benefit from them. These scholars made the excuse that some of the Mongols were speaking the Shahaada and that they were Muslims. Allaah has said,
‘Alif Laam Mim Saad. A Book sent down to you, so do not have any worry in your breast from it, so that you may warn and be a reminder to the believers. Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord and do not follow protectors and helpers besides Him. Little is it that you remember!’ [Surat al-A’raaf, ayaat 1-3]

“And even if this ‘aalim is captured, put behind bars and tortured to leave what Allaah has taught him from His Book, he should be patient with that. If he leaves all that and follows the ruler, then he is one of the people that are supposed to be doomed by Allaah Ta’ala. He should be patient even if he is harmed in the cause of Allaah Ta’ala. This is the Sunnah that Allaah Ta’ala has wanted and accepted from the Prophets and from the people who follow the Prophets. Allaah says,
‘Alif Laam Mim. Do people think that they will be left alone because they say, ‘We believe,’ and will not be tested? And We indeed tested those who were before them. Allaah will certainly make it known those who are true and will certainly make it known those who are liars. And He will make it known who the liars are.’ [Surat al-‘Ankabut, ayaat 1-3]

COMMENT: Replace the Mongols and the scholars of the past with our current regimes and scholars that rule over Muslim lands (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Algeria etc.).  Particularly the blind Muftis (both literal and figurative) that rule(d) Arabian Peninsula.

Imaam ibn Hazm on Taqlid

Posted: March 11, 2009 by millatibraheem in Laa ilaha illAllaah

Imaam Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm wrote in ‘al-Muhalla bil ‘Athaar’ vol. 1:

“Issue: It is not permissible for anyone to make taqlid of any other person, dead or alive. Everyone must exercise ijtihad according to his ability. So the one who asks about his religion, he only intends to know what Allaah had obligated upon him in this religion. So it is obligatory upon him,  if he is the most ignorant of all creation, to ask the most knowledgeable scholar in his locality, the most knowledgeable in terms of the religion that the Prophet sAllaahu alayhi wa salam brought. If he is told about this scholar, he should ask him, and then when he gives him a verdict, he should ask him “Is this what Allah and His Prophet sAllaahu alayhi wa salam said?”. If he says yes, he should accept it and act upon it always. But if he (the scholar) says “This is my personal opinion or analogy i drew upon or that this is the saying of so-and-so and names a Companion or a Follower or a Faqih, old or new or remains silent or scolds him or says I don’t know”, then he should not take his verdict, but ask someone else.

The evidence for this is the saying of Allaah “Obey Allaah and His Messenger and the Ulu al-Amr among you”, so Allaah did not tell us to obey specific scholars, so he who makes taqlid of some scholar or a group of scholars, then he neither obeys Allaah nor his Messenger sAllaahu alayhi wa salam nor the Ulu al-Amr. So if he does not do that, he has disobeyed Allaah, because Allaah never Commanded to obey some scholars to the exclusion of other scholars.”

“If it is said (in defense of taqlid) that Allaah Said “..so ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know.” (al-Anbiya 21:7) and that “of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they (who are left behind) may get instructions in religion, and that they may warn their people when they return to them, so that they may beware (of evil).” (at-Tawbah 9:122)”

Then we say: Yes indeed, but Allaah did not command that we should accept the opinions of the party who were instructed in Islamic religion (9:122) because they have understanding of Allaah’s religion and neither that the people of remembrance (21:7) should be obeyed in their opinions or legislation they carve out that Allaah did not command. Allaah only commanded that the Ahli Dhikr (21:7) should be asked about the Dhikr they know of that has come to them from Allaah only, not about what so-and-so, whom we are not ordered to hear and obey, said. Similarly Allaah only commanded that the warning of the party who were instructed in religion (9:122) , because of their understanding of Deen, should be accepted in matters they understood from Allaah’s religion that was brought by the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam, not in the religion that was not Legislated by Allaah.

So he who claims that it is waajib for the layman to make taqlid of the mufti, then he has claimed falsehood, and uttered something of which is not proven by anything in the Quraan, Hadith, or Ijma’. So something which is like that is void, since it is a saying without evidence. In fact the evidence points to its invalidity, as Allaah condemned those who will say : “Our Lord! Verily, we obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they misled us from the (Right) Way.” (al-Ahzab 33:67).”

So, Ijtihaad means to try one’s utmost to seek Allaah’s religion that he made obligatory on all His slaves. Anyone with sound senses knows instinctively and naturally that a Muslim cannot be a Muslim except that he affirms that Allaah is his Deity and none is to be worshiped except Him and that Muhammad sAllaahu alayhi wa salam is the one He sent with His religion to everyone. So if there is no doubt in that, then whoever on earth is faced with a new religious issue actually asks about Allaah’s Commandment in that matter. So if there is no doubt in that, then it is obligatory upon him to ask when he hears the mufti : “Is this Allaah and His Messenger’s Commandment?” This is what anyone who knows about Islaam is capable of doing , even ( if he is totally ignorant). And Allaah is the Source to do good…”

In ‘al-Ihkaam fi Usool ul Ahkaam’ Imaam ibn Hazm writes:

“The taqlid that we oppose them in is “To accept the saying of a person other than the Prophet sAllaahu alayhi wa salam, whom Allaah did not Command us to obey, such that there is no evidence to support that saying of his, except that (this person uses as ‘evidence’ that ) so-and-so said this…”

“If it is said: what should a layman do in case of a new religious issue?”
The answer is: We already explained that Allaah forbade taqlid completely, without differentiating the scholar from the layman… and Ijtihad in seeking Allaah and His Prophet sAllaahu alayhi wa salam’s command in all that regards a person’s religion is an obligation on every one too, upon the learned scholar and the layman without any distinction…but they differ in the way they perform their Ijtihad, as a person is only obligated to do what he can do within his abilities, as Allaah said: “Allaah does not burden anyone except up to his capacity” and “Fear Allaah as much as you can”, and fearing Allaah (taqwah) means to act upon what Allaah requires him to from the religion , and Allaah does not require us to do anything from the religion except that which we are able to do… Hence what we are not able to do becomes inapplicable to us. So this is clear evidence that no one is required to search for what the religion’s commandment, except what he is able to. So every person has his share of Ijtihad.”

“So the layman’s Ijtihad is that when he asks a scholar about religious issues and the scholar gives him a verdict, then he should ask that scholar: ‘Is this how Allaah and His Messenger ruled?’. If the scholar says, ‘Yes’, then the layman is not required to look any further and should act upon it. But if the scholar says ‘no’, or ‘this is my opinion’ or ‘this is the saying of Malik or Ibn al-Qasim or Abu Hanifa or Abu Yusuf or Shafi’i or Ahmad or Dawood or so-and-so Companion or Follower or anyone below them other than the Prophet sAllaahu alayhi wa salam’ or remains quiet or scolds him off, then it is impermissible for him to accept his verdicts. It is obligatory upon him to ask some other scholar and to seek him out wherever he may be. Because the Muslim, when faced with a religious issue he did not face before and asks a scholar, then he only asks the scholar about what Allaah and His Prophet sAllaahu alayhi wa salam commanded in this situation and what Islam obligates in this situation. If the questioner gets to know that the scholars verdict is not based on that, that he should absolve himself from this scholar and run away from him!

And it is obligatory upon the scholar that if he knows that the verdict he gave this layman is based upon the Quraan and Sunnah or Ijmaa’, then he should say ‘Yes’. And it’s not permissible for him to ascribe anything to Allaah or His Prophet sAllaahu alayhi wa salam, if what he based his verdict upon was analogy (qiyas) or istihsaan or taqlid of anyone except taqlid of the Prophet sAllaahu alayhi wa salam…And this is what we said is what no one can be excused from even if he reaches the extreme in ignorance…”

“They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah” [Surah at-Taubah: 31]

On the authority of Adi Ibn Hatim (may Allah be pleased with him), it is reported that he heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) reciting this (above mentioned) Quranic verse, so he said to him (peace and blessings be upon him): “We do not worship them.” He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Do they not forbid what Allah (Glorified be He) has permitted and do you not then forbid it (to yourselves), and do they not make permissible for you what Allah (Glorified be He) has forbidden, and do you not then make it permissible (to yourselves)?” I replied: “Certainly!” He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “That is worshiping them.” (Narrated by At-Tirmidhi, who graded it as Hasan)

After mentioning the ayah and hadeeth shown above, Akbar Shah Khan Najeebabadi writes:

“The commentators of the Quraan, in their commentaries of this verse have stated that, ‘had the monks and rabbis asked their people to abandon Allah and worship them instead, the masses would never come to terms with such a suggestion. But, instead they (the scholars) declared permissible what Allah had forbidden, and forbade what He had made permissible, and the people accepted this. And, this is what is meant by taking them as their lords (besides Allah).’

Similarly, the scholars of the Muslims have become (like) the monks and rabbis, and the Muslims have arrived at the position of the People of Israeel (the Jews). They (the Muslims) have raised their Imaams and Ullama to the stature of lords (above them). Usually, a person does not ask what the Quraan and Hadeeth have to say in regards to such and such a matter, rather they have taken the words and analogies of their scholars to be a (Shari) proof in and of it’s self, and they have covered their eyes and follow them blindly.

To claim that “we only follow our scholars because they would never go against the rulings of Allah and his Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and that they will only give us a ruling that is inline with the commandments of Allah and the guidance of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)” is utterly incorrect. In fact, this is the very same claim the Jews and Christians made in regards to their scholars, but Allah (SWT) has declared them to be misguided criminals, because Allah dislikes that His Book (the Quraan) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) be pushed aside, and that the sayings of someone else takes precedence over them in the Shariah.

The Ullama should (only) be asked about what Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) have to say in regards to such and such a matter, and not about what he himself has to say, nor what his teacher or Imaam had to say regarding it. But, since the ullama usually wish to be taken as lords (besides Allah) they fill their fataawa with their own rulings, or they parrot the rulings of those that they have taken as lords over themselves (i.e. their Imaams). And, if someone (dare) suggest that the evidence supporting this ruling were kindly presented from the Quraan and Sunnah, these Muftis and Scholars lose their senses as if someone had just proclaimed disbelief in front of them.

Verily, the verses of the Quraan or that which is required through the Ahadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), is like a death sentence to their Sheikhdom and their fatwa offices.”

[Taken from: Akbar Shah Khan Najeebabadi’s: ‘Meyaar ul Ullama’]

Translated by Shaaze (http://ilmulfaadl.muslimpad.com/)