التوحيد at-Tawhid

Author Topic: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE  (Read 503 times)

Fahm'us Salaf

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • أنصار المل الحنيفية وحماة الشرع المحمديةť
Whosoever desires الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah (honour, power and glory) then to Allah belong all الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah [and one can get honour, power and glory only by obeying and worshiping Allah (Alone)]. To Him ascend (all) الْكَلِمُ الطَّيِّبُ al-Kalim al-Tayyib (the goodly words), and الْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ al-Amal al-Saalih (the righteous deeds) exalt it (the goodly words i.e., the goodly words are not accepted by Allah unless and until they are followed by good deeds). (Fatir 35/10)

Fahm'us Salaf

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • أنصار المل الحنيفية وحماة الشرع المحمديةť
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2018, 12:43:54 AM »
The Ruling of the People who Live in Dâr'ul Islâm (Abode of Islâm) and Dâr'ul Kufr (Abode of Kufr)

Quote from: Question
My first question is: What ruling can be given to those who live in Dar’ul Harb whose Aqidah is unknown by us? Is there a difference between the lands in which the Kufr law is implemented and the lands which used to be Dar’ul Islam and became Dar’ul Kufr when giving ruling to the people? In addition, does everyone have a ruling for their own situation and will these matters be taken in consideration?

Second question: Has the Alamat of Islam ever changed in the past? What are the Alamat of Islam today?

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحَمْدُ للهِ وَحْدَهُ، وَالصَّلاة وَالسَّلامُ على مَنْ لا نبيَّ بَعْدَهُ، وَبَعْدُ

Even though the questions you direct to us are very important matters, those who speak correct regarding them almost do not exist. It is because, the perspective of many towards these critical matters of “the rulings of the countries and the people” is very narrow and since implementing the Ahkâm (pl. Hukm; rulings) precisely in a manner that is prescribed in the Sharî’ah (Islâmic law) contains many hardship regarding the treatment of both the Tawaghit (pl. Tâghűt) of the countries that hold the ruler ship and the people under their ruler ship their approach is merely in order to produce Fatâwâ (religious verdicts) that does not harm their interests.

Because of the fact that the majority of the people dream of going to Jannah (Paradise) without having any hardship in Dunyâ (worldly life), they –unfortunately- find it easier to innovate Ruhsah (permit) that have no bases in Asl’ud Dîn (the fundamentals of the religion Islâm) while manipulating the related Ahkâm in Islâmic Fiqh (jurisprudence).

Nevertheless, quotations that we will present from the Kitâb (Book; Qur’ân) the Sunnah and the Fatâwâ of the Ulamâ (pl. Alîm; scholars) concerning the matter will prove –with the permit of Allâh Ta’âlâ- that the majority of the people do not hit upon the Haqq (right).

Prior to explaining the criteria for passing judgment on people whom reside in Dâr’ul Kufr, we would like to inform the reader concisely concerning what Dâr’ul Harb is and what Dâr’ul Islâm is, and with what criteria this division is made. We are going to quote some statements from the Ulamâ of the Four Madhhab (school of thought) regarding the description of Dâr'ul Islâm and Dâr'ul Harb Inshâllâh (with the will of Allâh).

The Hanâbilah (Hanbalî Madhhab)

Under the heading
فَصْل فِي تَحْقِيق دَار الْإِسْلَام وَدَار الْحَرْب "Chapter Regarding the Verification of Dâr’ul Islâm and Dâr’ul Kufr" Ibnu Muflih (d763H) stated the following in his book al-Adâb’ush Sharî’ah:

فَكُلّ دَار غَلَبَ عَلَيْهَا أَحْكَام الْمُسْلِمِينَ فَدَارُ الْإِسْلَام وَإِنْ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهَا أَحْكَام الْكُفَّار فَدَارُ الْكُفْر وَلَا دَارَ لِغَيْرِهِمَا

"Every Dâr (domain) where the Ahkâm of the Muslimîn is dominant, it is Dâr’ul Islâm, and any domain where the Ahkâm’ul Kufr (disbelief) is dominant it is Dâr’ul Kufr, and there is no other Dâr other than these two (i.e., Dâr’ul Islâm and Dâr’ul Kufr)." (Ibnu Muflih, al-Adâb’ush Sharî’ah wa’l Minah’ul Mar’îyah, 1/190)

Under the heading
فَصْلٌ ارْتَدَّ أَهْلُ بَلَدٍ وَجَرَتْ فِيهِ أَحْكَامُهُمْ "Chapter Regarding the Irtidâd (Apostatizing) of Ahlu Balad (a People of a Country) and the implementation of their Ahkâm in it" in his book al-Mughnî Shaykh Ibnu Qudâmah (d620H) said:

وَمَتَى ارْتَدَّ أَهْلُ بَلَدٍ، وَجَرَتْ فِيهِ أَحْكَامُهُمْ، صَارُوا دَارَ حَرْبٍ

"And whenever the people of a country apostatize and their Ahkâm are implemented in it, then the Dâr becomes a Dâr’ul Harb." (Ibnu Qudâmah, al-Mughnî, 9/17)

The Malikî Madhhab

Imâm Mâlik -the Imâm of the Malikî Madhhab- described Dâr’ul Harb in the following manner during the mention of another matter,


أَلَا تَرَى أَنَّ بِلَالًا أَسْلَمَ قَبْلَ مَوْلَاهُ فَاشْتَرَاهُ أَبُو بَكْرٍ فَأَعْتَقَهُ، وَكَانَتْ الدَّارُ يَوْمئِذٍ دَارَ الْحَرْبِ لِأَنَّ أَحْكَامَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ كَانَتْ ظَاهِرَةً يَوْمئِذٍ

"Don’t you see Bilâl (Radiyallâhu Anh) become Muslim before his master. Abű Bakr (Radiyallâhu Anh) purchased Bilâl (Radiyallâhu Anh) then freed him. In those days the abode was Dâr’ul Harb because the Ahkâm of Jâhiliyyah (the Days of Ignorance i.e., pre-Islâmic era) was apparent in it." (Sahnűn, al-Mudawwanat’ul Kubrâ, 1/511)

In conclusion, Imâm Mâlik (rahimahullâh) accounted the Ahkâm of Jâhiliyyah being dominant sufficient to consider it as Dâr’ul Harb. Both the Hanbalî and Malikî scholars accounted all lands in which the Ahkâm of Kufr is in force as Dâr’ul Harb –without delving into details-.

The Shâfîtes (Shâfî Madhhab)

Bujayramî (d.1221) said:


الْمُرَادُ بِدَارِ الْكُفْرِ مَا اسْتَوْلَى عَلَيْهِ الْكُفَّارُ مِنْ غَيْرِ صُلْحٍ وَلَا جِزْيَةٍ وَلَمْ تَكُنْ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ وَمَا عَدَا دَارِ الْإِسْلَامِ

"The intent with Dâr’ul Kufr is the abode that is under the invasion of the Kuffâr (pl., Kafir; disbelievers) without Sulh (peace) or Jizyah (per capita tax imposed on free non-Muslim adult males who are neither old nor sick, tax that was in states ruled by Islâmîc law) and was not under the control of Muslimîn before this. With the exclusion of Dâr’ul Islâm." (Hâshiyatu Bujayramî alâ’l Khatîb, 3/290)

As seen the Shâfî scholars also, describe Dâr’ul Harb as an abode that is under the dominion of the Kuffâr. However, there is aspect in the Shâfî Madhhab concerning an abode which used to be Dâr’ul Islâm that is invaded by the Kuffâr, such abode will not be considered Dâr’ul Kufr. There are many statements regarding the meaning and the explanation of this view of the Shâfî scholars.

Even if this view -which is weak and in opposition to the view of the Jumhűr (the dominant/vast majority of scholars)- is accounted as Sahîh (sound) –as some among our contemporaries conceive- it does not indicate the government of the Kuffâr is legitimate and that both the people and the management will be continuously accounted as Muslim.

This attempt would cause Bâtil (falsehood) such as Spain, which is settled upon the lands of al-Andulus and the Zionist Israel which is settled upon the lands of Palestine to be accounted as Islâmic state and Dâr’ul Islâm which has no intellectual explanation whatsoever. Whereas, the Fatâwâ of the Shâfî scholars is merely related with the statue of the land and related with neither the people of the land nor the governors. Ibnu Hajar al-Haythamî explained the reason the Shâfî scholars hold such view in the following manner,

"If Dâr’ul Islâm is invaded including the wealth of its people, then by force we conquer it we will dominate its owners (which is against the view of Shâfî Madhhab)." (Haythamî, Tuhfat’ul Mukhtâj, 9/269)

In the same section Haythamî mentions the lands that are under the invasion of the Kuffâr as being Dâr’ul Harb in appearance even if it is not Dâr’ul Harb in Hukm. Therefore, it can be said that the Ikhtilâf (difference) between the Shâfî scholars and the Jumhűr is merely a difference of Lafdh (expression). Moreover, there isn’t Ikhtilâf between the Shâfî scholars and the Jumhűr regarding every abode that is under the invasion of the Kuffâr being the abode of Kufr in the Dhâahir (apparent) Hukm. However, the Shâfî scholars stated that such abodes in reality are Dâr’ul Islâm while considering that these lands were our lands in origin.

The Ahnâf (Hanafî Madhhab)

In his book "al-Mabsűt" Imam Sarakhsî narrated the following view of Abű Hanifah:


وَالْحَاصِلُ أَنَّ عِنْدَ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ - رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى - إنَّمَا تَصِيرُ دَارُهُمْ دَارَ الْحَرْبِ بِثَلَاثِ شَرَائِطَ: أَحَدُهَا: أَنْ تَكُونَ مُتَاخِمَةً أَرْضَ التُّرْكِ لَيْسَ بَيْنَهَا وَبَيْنَ أَرْضِ الْحَرْبِ دَارٌ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ، وَالثَّانِي: أَنْ لَا يَبْقَى فِيهَا مُسْلِمٌ آمِنٌ بِإِيمَانِهِ، وَلَا ذِمِّيٌّ آمِنٌ بِأَمَانِهِ، وَالثَّالِثُ: أَنْ يُظْهِرُوا أَحْكَامَ الشِّرْكِ فِيهَا

"Wa’l Hasl (resulting from it): On the contrary in the presence of Abű Hanifah (Rahimahullâhi Ta’âlâ) their Dâr (i.e., Dâr’ul Islâm) becomes Dâr’ul Harb under three conditions:

The first condition: That it borders the land of the Turks (i.e. Dîr’ush Shirk); between it and the land of the Harbî there isn’t a Dâr of the Muslimîn.

The second (condition): That a Muslim given Aman (security by the Islâmic State) through his Imân or a Dhimmî (to whom) given Aman (security by the Islâmic State) through his agreement does not remain in it.

The third (condition): That the Ahkâm of Shirk is implemented in it."
(Sarakhsî, al-Mabsűt, 10/114)

Then Sarakhsî narrated the view of Imâm Abű Yűsuf and Imâm Muhammad the foremost students of Abű Hanifah:


وَعَنْ أَبِي يُوسُفَ وَمُحَمَّدٍ رَحِمَهُمَا اللَّهُ تَعَالَى إذَا أَظْهَرُوا أَحْكَامَ الشِّرْكِ فِيهَا فَقَدْ صَارَتْ دَارُهُمْ دَارَ حَرْبٍ؛ لِأَنَّ الْبُقْعَةَ إنَّمَا تُنْسَبُ إلَيْنَا أَوْ إلَيْهِمْ بِاعْتِبَارِ الْقُوَّةِ وَالْغَلَبَةِ، فَكُلُّ مَوْضِعٍ ظَهَرَ فِيهِ حُكْمُ الشِّرْكِ فَالْقُوَّةُ فِي ذَلِكَ الْمَوْضِعِ لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ فَكَانَتْ دَارَ حَرْبٍ، وَكُلُّ مَوْضِعٍ كَانَ الظَّاهِرُ فِيهِ حُكْمُ الْإِسْلَامِ فَالْقُوَّةُ فِيهِ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ

"And it was narrated from Abű Yűsuf and Muhammad (Rahimahumullâhu Ta’âlâ) that if  they exhibit the Ahkâm of Shirk in it (i.e., in Dâr’ul Islâm), then their state has become Dâr’ul Harb, because the area is only attributed to us (i.e., the Muslimîn) or to them (i.e., the Kuffâr) through consideration of Quwwah (strength) and Ghalabah (control), so every abode in which the Hukm (the ruling) of Shirk is exhibited, then the power of the abode belongs to the Mushrikîn then it becomes a Dâr’ul Harb. And every abode that is exhibiting the Hukm of Islâm, then the power belongs to the Muslimîn." (as-Sarakhsî, al-Mabsűt, 10/114)

The pupils of Abű Hanifah; Imâm Muhammad and Imâm Abű Yűsuf oppose the view of Abű Hanifah regarding three conditions for a land to be converted to Dâr’ul Harb from Dâr’ul Islâm. They said:


وَقَالَ أَبُو يُوسُفَ وَمُحَمَّدٌ - رَحِمَهُمَا اللَّهُ تَعَالَى - بِشَرْطٍ وَاحِدٍ لَا غَيْرَ، وَهُوَ إظْهَارُ أَحْكَامِ الْكُفْرِ، وَهُوَ الْقِيَاسُ

"Abű Yűsuf and Muhammad (Rahimahumullâhu Ta’âlâ) said that (Dâr’ul Islâm becomes Dâr’ul Harb) with one condition and no other which is the exhibition of the Ahkâm of Kufr and this is (according to the) Qiyâs (analogy)." (Fatâwâ-i Hindiyyah, 2/232)

Badr ad-Dîn al-Aynî narrated from the books, al-Mabsűt and Siyar’il Kabîr:


دار الحرب الأرض التي يخاف فيها المسلمون من أرض العدو، ودار الإسلام ما غلب عليها المسلمون وكانوا فيه آمنين

"Dâr’ul Harb is the abode that the Muslimîn fear from the land of enemies. Dâr’ul Islâm is the abode that the Muslimîn are dominant and live in it with security." (Badr ad-Dîn al-Aynî, al-Binâyah Sharh Hidâyah, 7/139-140)

As clearly seen Abű Hanifah stipulated conditions for an abode becoming Dâr’ul Harb other than the exhibition of Ahkâm of Kufr. This view is in opposition with the Jumhűr and a Shazz (exceptional/odd) view. Even his foremost students opposed this view concerning the matter.

Having said this even according to these conditions stipulated by Abű Hanifah still a Dâr’ul Islâm is not in existence today. Since currently there is no such a place that is surrounded by the abodes of Islâm. Nor is there such a place in which the Muslims and the Dhimmîs who reside in it by Aman given to them by the Islâmic State.

It was also stated that the intent of Abű Hanifah with stipulating the above-mentioned conditions is to emphasize that; until the Kuffâr have complete dominion over the land and remove the dominion of the Muslimîn over the land completely, it will not become Dâr’ul Harb. Meaning, the land will not become Dâr’ul Harb merely by the invasion of the Kuffâr. Because of the same reason, the Ulamâ had not called the lands that were militarily invaded as Dâr’ul Harb after the invasions of the Tatar, the Crusaders and their likes took place, the Muslimîn remaining in it lived according to the Sharî’ah under the administration of their Muslim governors.

As al-Aynî and others also pointed out, the land that is invaded completely by the Kuffar in which they have complete dominion and do not allow to manifest the Shi’ar of the Dîn in it then it is Dâr’ul Harb. The claim that -is made by some among the people of our era- regarding a land becoming Dâr’ul Harb such that the entire Shi’ar has to be abolished for a land to become Dâar’ul Harb therefore the abodes of our era, the so-called Islâmic countries in which the Adhân (call to prayer), Jumu’ah (Friday Prayer), Iydayn (two Iyd prayers) are permitted alongside the enforcement of the laws of Kufr are Dâr’ul Islâm is a baseless Bâtil Fatwâ that is not stated by even a single scholar.

It is possible to come across countries –both in the past and today- even in the Christian world that permit these above-mentioned Shi’ar to be manifested in it. No person of intellect would label these Christian countries as Dâr’ul Islâm due to the permission to manifest the Shi’ar. (Unfortunately, among the fools who have lost their intellect, there are people who claim that every country in which there is religious freedom is Dâr’ul Islâm!)

Everyone who investigates the statements of the scholars concerning the rulings of the Dâr will see that the main differentiating criterion between Dâr’ul Islâm and Dâr’ul Harb is dominion and authority. Even if the matter is taken in hand from the Lughat (lexicon) point of view, it will be determined that Dâr’ul Islâm is the abode of Islâm and Dâr’ul Harb is the abode of war meaning the abode of the Kuffâr with whom there is war in with... Therefore, countries in which the Kuffâr announce their dominion over and that the Ahl’ut Tawhîd has no say over –even if they seem to be ruled according to the Sharî’ah- are Dâr’ul Kufr. Likewise, countries in which the Ahl’ut Tawhîd has authority then it is Dâr’ul Islâm. Unfortunately, there is no such a place existing today.

This fact is clear for those who investigate the matter from the Islâmic Fiqh point view of. On the other hand, many people who used to call these so-called Islâmic countries Dâr’ul Harb –adopted the Kufr systems while integrated to the man-made secular regimes- today they became the defenders and protectors of the countries and states which they used to label as Dâr’ul Harb. We ask Allâh Ta’âlâ to bestow on us endurance, to pour out constancy on us and make our steps firm!
Whosoever desires الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah (honour, power and glory) then to Allah belong all الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah [and one can get honour, power and glory only by obeying and worshiping Allah (Alone)]. To Him ascend (all) الْكَلِمُ الطَّيِّبُ al-Kalim al-Tayyib (the goodly words), and الْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ al-Amal al-Saalih (the righteous deeds) exalt it (the goodly words i.e., the goodly words are not accepted by Allah unless and until they are followed by good deeds). (Fatir 35/10)

Fahm'us Salaf

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • أنصار المل الحنيفية وحماة الشرع المحمديةť
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2018, 07:07:54 AM »
ISTISHÂB (CONTINUITY), ISTISHÂB’UL HÂL (PRESUMPTION CONTINUITY)

After determining the abodes of today being Dâr’ul Kufr through, the position of Fiqh (jurisprudence) now we can deal with the actual matter. What ruling can be given to the people who live in such abodes? Many demagogies and attempts of watering down the matter have taken place regarding this matter. In summary;

The People of the abodes in our era under the dominion of the Kuffâr and consisting of people unaware of Tawhîd –which is the case for every abode in our era- whom are unknown and whose state are unknown; their ruling is Kufr in Dhâhir (apparent). Views that are classified as “Tawaqquf” or “Tabayyun” which refer to not giving Hukm (ruling) to individuals until the determination of their Aqîdah (creed) are Bâtil beliefs that are produced by those who have doubts concerning Tawhîd. Likewise the belief that individuals whose state are unknown who manifest the Shi’ar of Islâm such as Salât (daily prayers) or the Kalimah of Shahâdah are Muslim in Dhâhir and whenever they manifest Kufr they become Murtad  (apostate), is also Kufr and Bâtil. The Shi’ar of the past do not constitute as the Shi’ar of Islâm anymore. The Shi’ar of Islâm today is, manifesting the Aqîdah of the Muslimîn then referring his account to Allâh Ta’âlâ. After declaring the Haqq Aqîdah concerning the matters you directed to us in your question, now we can start explaining it.

The unknown individual whose state is not known that lives in Dâr’ul Kufr or in general in a land that the overwhelming majority is the Kuffâr will be treated as Kafir. In the same manner the unknown individual whose state is not known who lives in Dâr’ul Islâm will be treated as Muslim. Source of this ruling in Fiqh is the principle of “Istishâb (Istishâb’ul Hâl)”1.

Isnawî (d. 772) among the Shâfî Usűl (methodology) scholars, describes this principle “Istishâb” which is also known as “Istishâb’ul Hâl” in the following manner,


استصحاب الحال, وهو عبارة عن الحكم بثبوت أمر في الزمان الثاني بناء على ثبوته في الزمان الأول

“Istishâb’ul Hâl (Presumption of Continuity) is; the ruling upon Thubűt (constancy) of something in the second time (or later) while relying upon the fact of its Thubűt for the first time.” (Nihâyat’us Sűl, 361)

Istishâb can be described as a thing to be considered in its original form/ruling until its opposite is proved. In example it is a very known fact in Fiqh that the one who has Wudhű (minor ablution) is considered as having Wudhű until certainty, convinced information in regards to breaking his Wudhű is available. Its opposite is also the same, in ruling the one who broke his Wudhű (minor ablution) is considered as not having Wudhű until certainty, convinced information in regards to him having Wudhű is available. This Qâidah (principle) was formulated by the Ulamâ which is applied in every area of Islâmic Fiqh as,

اليقين لا يزول بالشك Yaqîn (certainty) is not removed by Shakk (uncertainty).”

It was narrated that the Nabî (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) said,


إِذَا وَجَدَ أَحَدُكُمْ فِي بَطْنِهِ شَيْئًا فَأَشْكَلَ عَلَيْهِ أَخَرَجَ مِنْهُ شَىْءٌ أَمْ لاَ فَلاَ يَخْرُجَنَّ مِنَ الْمَسْجِدِ حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ صَوْتًا أَوْ يَجِدَ رِيحًا
“If any one of you has pain in his abdomen, but is doubtful whether or not anything has issued from him, should not leave the mosque (i.e. continue praying) unless he hears a sound or perceives a smell.”
(Bukhârî, Hadîth no: 137, 177, 2056; Muslim, Hadîth no: 362, 649)

Imâm Nawawî stated the following regarding this principle, in his commentary to Sahîh of Muslim:

وَهَذَا الْحَدِيثُ أَصْلٌ مِنْ أصُولِ الْإِسْلَامِ وَقَاعِدَةٌ عَظِيمَةٌ مِنْ قَوَاعِدِ الْفِقْهِ وَهِيَ أَنَّ الْأَشْيَاءَ يُحْكَمُ بِبَقَائِهَا عَلَى أُصُولِهَا حَتَّى يُتَيَقَّنَ خِلَافُ ذَلِكَ وَلَا يَضُرُّ الشَّكُّ

“This Hadîth is among the Asl (fundamental) of Usűl’ul Islâm (Fundamentals of Islâm) and a great Qâidah (principle) in Qawâid (principles) of Islâmic Fiqh. (According to the principle that this Hadîth sets forth) is that things are ruled to remain as their original states unless and until it is established with certainty that they are otherwise. Extraneous doubts are of no consequence.” (Nawawî, Sharh Sahîh Muslim, 4/49)

Suyűtî stated the following regarding the importance of this principle in Fiqh,


اعْلَمْ أَنَّ هَذِهِ الْقَاعِدَةَ تَدْخُلُ فِي جَمِيعِ أَبْوَابِ الْفِقْهِ، وَالْمَسَائِلُ الْمُخَرَّجَةُ عَلَيْهَا تَبْلُغُ ثَلَاثَةَ أَرْبَاعِ الْفِقْهِ

“Know that this principle is applied in every area of Fiqh. It is estimated that the questions that are derived on its basis comprise three-fourths of (the matters of) Fiqh.” (Suyűtî, al-Ashbâh wa’n Nazâ’ir fî Qawâid wa Furű’ Fiqh’ush Shâfîyyah, 51)

If we are going to give examples regarding the matters of Imân (faith) and Kufr (disbelief); an individual who is known as Muslim can not be declared Takfîr upon with doubts or presumptions unless it is established with certainty that the situation is otherwise. Likewise an individual who is known as Kafir can not be considered as Muslim with possibilities and suppositions unless it is established with certainty that the situation is otherwise and he became Muslim. It is possible to multiply the examples.

Even though there is some indifference regarding the details of Istishâb, it is a principle that is generally accepted and used by the entire Ulamâ. Along with this, Istishâb is the last expedience that should be ruled upon when there is no Dalîl (evidence) for the matter.

The scholars as well use Istishâb concerning the matter of giving ruling to an unknown person.

Kâsânî from amongst the Hanafî said the following concerning ruling one with the Hukm of Muslim or Kafir according to the Dâr:


الطُّرُقُ الَّتِي يُحْكَمُ بِهَا بِكَوْنِ الشَّخْصِ مُؤْمِنًا ثَلَاثَةٌ: نَصٌّ، وَدَلَالَةٌ، وَتَبَعِيَّةٌ

“The ways in which a person is deemed to be a Mu’min (believer) are three: Nass (textual proof), Dalâlat (indication) and Tabaiyyah (implication).”

Kâsânî continues and explains the way of giving ruling by Nass,


أَمَّا النَّصُّ فَهُوَ أَنْ يَأْتِيَ بِالشَّهَادَةِ، أَوْ بِالشَّهَادَتَيْنِ، أَوْ يَأْتِيَ بِهِمَا مَعَ التَّبَرُّؤِ مِمَّا هُوَ عَلَيْهِ صَرِيحًا

“As for (giving ruling by) Nass, it is (given by) his witnessing (to Tawhîd) or Shahâdatayn (two testimonies i.e. witnessing to Tawhîd and the Risâlah i.e. Prophethood) or along with these two, his evidently being distant from what he was upon...”

Kâsânî then classifies the Kuffâr in various groups along with mentioning what would suffice for them to be considered as Muslim and states that among the Kuffâr; acceptance of Tawhîd by witnessing to La-ilaha Illallâh (There is no –true- god –deserves to be worshiped- but Allâh) is sufficient for the Mushrikîn and the Atheists to be considered as Muslims. As for the Jews and the Christians who affirm Tawhîd however reject the Risâlah of Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam); then it is needed from them to also affirm the second part of Tawhîd which is “Muhammadun Rasűlullâh (Muhammad is the Messenger of Allâh)” meaning the Risâlah of Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) along with their acceptance of Tawhîd in order to be considered as Muslim. As for those who affirm both parts of Tawhîd meaning “La-ilaha Illallâh Muhammadun Rasűlullâh” however accept Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) as a Prophet of Allâh whom was sent to the Arabs only; will not be considered as Muslim until and unless they keep themselves from this Aqîdah of theirs even if they witness and utter the Kalimah of Shahâdah. Kâsânî mentioned this in explanation of his statement quoted above.

As seen, in the presence of the scholars the method of giving ruling to a person is not limited to a singular form rather it can be in various forms according to the condition and Aqîdah of the person to whom the ruling is needed to be given. Since we will give more details on this issue, we suffice with this explanation.

Kâsânî then explains the way of giving ruling of Islâm to an individual by Dalâlat,


(وَأَمَّا) بَيَانُ مَا يُحْكَمُ بِهِ بِكَوْنِهِ مُؤْمِنًا مِنْ طَرِيقِ الدَّلَالَةِ، فَنَحْوُ أَنْ يُصَلِّيَ كِتَابِيٌّ، أَوْ وَاحِدٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الشِّرْكِ فِي جَمَاعَةٍ، وَيُحْكَمَ بِإِسْلَامِهِ عِنْدَنَا وَعِنْدَ الشَّافِعِيِّ - رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ - لَا يُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ

“As for explanation of those who were ruled as Mu’min (believer) by the way of Dalâlat; it is like a Kitâbî (the Jews and the Christians to whom the Book is sent) or one among the Ahl’ush Shirk praying with the Jamâ’ah (congregation). Such a person will be ruled with Islâm in our (Hanafî scholars) presence (however) in the presence of Shâfîi (Rahimahullâh) he will not be ruled with Islâm...”

Giving ruling by the way of Dalâlat means, ruling someone –whose declaration concerning his Aqîdah has not been heard- by an act indicating his Islâm or an Alâmat (sign) that he has with him which indicates his Islâm. As for the meaning of Salât and some other acts to be considered as Alâmat of Islâm, we will provide detailed information later on in this article Inshallâh.

Kâsânî then explains the way of giving ruling of Islâm to an individual by Tabaiyyah by stating the following,


وَأَمَّا الْحُكْمُ بِالْإِسْلَامِ مِنْ طَرِيقِ التَّبَعِيَّةِ فَإِنَّ الصَّبِيَّ يُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ تَبَعًا لِأَبَوَيْهِ عَقَلَ أَوْ لَمْ يَعْقِلْ مَا لَمْ يُسْلِمْ بِنَفْسِهِ إذَا عَقَلَ، وَيُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ تَبَعًا لِلدَّارِ أَيْضًا

“As for a person being ruled with Islâm (to be Muslim) by means of Tabaiyyah (implication), a child may be ruled with Islâm by implication –unless he choose not to be a Muslim by his Aql (intellect)- if his parents are Muslim, whether he has reached maturity or not. He may also be deemed to be a Muslim because of the Dâr in which he belongs.” (Badâi’us Sanâ’î, 7/102-104)

It becomes clear that it is necessary to implement one of these three methods (Nass, Dalâlat, Tabaiyyah) in order to give ruling to an individual. In opposition to some people, Tawaqquf (pausing the ruling) can not take place for the person whose Aqîdah is not known since it is mandatory to treat a person either as a Muslim or a Kâfir. For this reason, the Ulamâ give the ruling of Muslim or Kâfir to a person whose Aqîdah is not known and there is no possibility to reach such information by verifying the Alamât. If this is not available then they give ruling according to the Dâr that he lives in.

Ibnu Qudâmah (Rahimahullâh) said the following under the heading:


فَصْلٌ: وَإِنْ وُجِدَ مَيِّتٌ، فَلَمْ يُعْلَمْ أَمُسْلِمٌ هُوَ أَمْ كَافِرٌ، نُظِرَ إلَى الْعَلَامَاتِ، مِنْ الْخِتَانِ، وَالثِّيَابِ، وَالْخِضَابِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ عَلَيْهِ عَلَامَةٌ، وَكَانَ فِي دَارِ الْإِسْلَامِ، غُسِّلَ، وَصُلِّيَ عَلَيْهِ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي دَارِ الْكُفْرِ، لَمْ يُغَسَّلْ، وَلَمْ يُصَلَّ عَلَيْهِ. نَصَّ عَلَيْهِ أَحْمَدُ؛ لِأَنَّ الْأَصْلَ أَنَّ مَنْ كَانَ فِي دَارٍ، فَهُوَ مِنْ أَهْلِهَا، يَثْبُتُ لَهُ حُكْمُهُمْ مَا لَمْ يَقُمْ عَلَى خِلَافِهِ دَلِيلٌ

“If a dead body has been found and if it is not known whether the person was Muslim or a Kâfir, Alâmât (pl., Alâmat; the signs of Islâm) such as Khitân (circumcision), clothing, Hidhâb (die) will be examined. If no Alâmat (sign) is present then: If the deceased is in Dâr’ul Islâm, it will be washed and he will be prayed (the funeral prayer) over. However if the deceased is in Dâr’ul Kufr the corps will not be washed nor will be prayed (the funeral prayer) over. Regarding this Imâm Ahmad (Rahimahullâh) states: It is like this because the Asl (origin) for such case is; when a person lives in a Dâr (state) he is from Ahliha (a part of that Dâr). This is why the Hukm of a person of the Dâr is practiced, until a means of Dalîl (evidence) is found proving otherwise.” (Ibnu Qudâmah, Mughnî, 2/404, point 1638)

This view does not belong only to the Hanabila Madhhab rather it is a principle that was accepted and affirmed by the Ulamâ of the other Madhâbib (pl., Madhhab) as well.

The view of the Malikîyyah was mentioned in the book "at-Tâj wa’l Iklîl" of Abdarî (d897H) as follows:


إنْ وُجِدَ مَيِّتٌ بِفَلَاةٍ لَا يُدْرَى أَمُسْلِمٌ هُوَ أَمْ كَافِرٌ فَلَا يُغَسَّلُ وَلَا يُصَلَّى عَلَيْهِ قَالَهُ ابْنُ الْقَاسِمِ. قَالَ: وَأَرَى أَنْ يُوَارَى. قَالَ: وَكَذَلِكَ لَوْ وُجِدَ فِي مَدِينَةٍ مِنْ الْمَدَائِنِ فِي زُقَاقٍ وَلَا يُدْرَى أَمُسْلِمٌ هُوَ أَمْ كَافِرٌ قَالَ ابْنُ رُشْدٍ: وَإِنْ كَانَ مَخْتُونًا فَكَذَلِكَ لِأَنَّ الْيَهُودَ يَخْتَتِنُونَ قَالَ ابْنُ حَبِيبٍ: وَمِنْ النَّصَارَى أَيْضًا مَنْ يَخْتَتِنُ

“If a dead body has been found in a rural area and if it is not known if the person is Muslim or a Kâfir he will not be washed or prayed (funeral prayer) over. Ibn’ul Qâsim said: I see (it fits) burying him. He also said, Likewise if a dead body has been found in the cities and if it is not known if the person was Muslim or a Kâfir then his Hukm is also the same. Ibnu Rushd said, Hukm is the same even if he is circumcised since the Jews also circumcise. Ibnu Habîb said, Among the Nasâra (Christians) also there are those who circumcised.” (Abdârî, at-Tâj wa’l Iklîl, 3/71)

Likewise, the following was stated in “an-Nawâdhir wa’z Ziyâdât” of Ibnu Zayd al-Qayrawânî whom known as the Malik of the West and the Little Malik:


ومن المجموعة، قال أشهب، في رجل مات فلا يدرى أمسلم هو أم كافر: فلا يغسل ولا يصلى عليه، إلا أن يكون عليه زي الإسلام، من حصاب أو غيره، فيصلى عليه وينوى بذلك إن كان مسلما
قال ابن القاسم، في ميت بفلاة، لا يدرى أمسلم هو أم كافر: فلا يوارى ولا يُصَلَّى عليه. قال سحنون: هذا بفلاة من فلوات الشرك، فأما بفلاة من فلوات المسلمين، فإنه يغسل ويُصَلَّى عليه

“Ashhab in Majmű’ah said the following regarding a deceased man whom is not known to be Muslim or a Kâfir:

“He will not be washed nor he will be prayed (funeral prayer) over unless he has Islâmic clothing such as known by color or other than it, then his (funeral) prayer will be prayed over and Niyyah (intention) would be: If he is Muslim.”

Ibn’ul Qâsim said the following regarding a deceased body which had been found in a rural area whom is not known to be a Muslim or a Kâfir,

“Neither will he be buried nor prayed over (Janâzah; funeral prayer). Sahnűn said, the intent with the rural area is, rural areas of Shirk. When it comes to the rural area from the rural areas of the Muslimîn he (dead body found there) would be washed and prayed (funeral prayer) over.”
(al-Qayrawânî, an-Nawâdhir wa’z Ziyâdât, 1/610)

As seen the students of Imâm Malik such as Ashhab, Ibn’ul Qâsim and Sahnűn whom are the A’immah (pl., Imâm) of the Salaf openly stated that the ruling of Islâm can not be given to a dead body which had been found in Dâr’ul Kufr who had not had any Alâmat of Islâm on him. Qayrawânî who passed away in 386H related this. He was not far away from Imâm Malik and his Ashâb (companions) in terms of time. He was one of the scholars who knew the statements of Imâm Malik and his distinguished students, the best.

Therefore, it becomes clear that, both in the presence of the Salaf (predecessors) and the Khalaf (later-day scholars) the ruling of an unknown person is given according to the Dâr he lives in. Imâm Ahmad (Rahimahullâh) mentioned this by stating:

“It is like this because the Asl (origin) for such case is; when a person lives in a Dâr (state) he is from Ahliha (a part of that Dâr). This is why the Hukm of a person of the Dâr is practiced, until a means of Dalîl (evidence) is found proving otherwise.”

This is due to the principle of Istishâb which we mentioned above. It is because the Asl in Dâr’ul Kufr -in which the Kuffâr live as a majority- is Kufr, people of Dâr’ul Kufr will be treated as Kâfir according to the principle. This ruling would not be changed with doubts and possibilities unless and until certitude and convinced information, regarding his being Muslim is reached. The case is otherwise when it takes place in Dâr’ul Islâm.

Those who reject this, go against both the Sharî’ah and the Aql (intellect). How Bâtil is treating an unknown an idol worshiper in Japan as Muslim or performing Tawaqquf regarding whether he is Muslim or Kâfir; ruling an individual from the people of the abodes in our era that are under the dominion of the Kuffâr and consist of people who are unaware of Tawhîd as Muslim or performing Tawaqquf i.e. refraining from giving Hukm to him, is Bâtil in the same degree.



Footnotes:

Quote
1- The principle of Istishâb’ul Hâl is more a rule of evidence than a method of process. The benefit of it is the assumption of a person being innocent until proven guilty or a missing person until he is found to be dead. Istishâb does not permit custom to make law. It merely establishes the presumption that no legal obligations arise except those prescribed by the accepted sources of Sharî’ah.

For a fuller treatment of this argument of Istishâb’ul Hâl (Presumption of Continuity) and its types, one may consult the relevant books such as: Ibn’ul Qayyim, I'lâm'ul Muvakkîn, 1/290-294; Ibnu Hazm, al-Ihkâm fî Usűl'il Ahkâm, 5/2-49; Ibnu Qudâmah, Rawdat’un Nâdhir, 1/176; Shawkânî, Irshâd'ul Fuhűl, 2/250-251 etc.
Whosoever desires الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah (honour, power and glory) then to Allah belong all الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah [and one can get honour, power and glory only by obeying and worshiping Allah (Alone)]. To Him ascend (all) الْكَلِمُ الطَّيِّبُ al-Kalim al-Tayyib (the goodly words), and الْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ al-Amal al-Saalih (the righteous deeds) exalt it (the goodly words i.e., the goodly words are not accepted by Allah unless and until they are followed by good deeds). (Fatir 35/10)

Fahm'us Salaf

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • أنصار المل الحنيفية وحماة الشرع المحمديةť
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2018, 07:14:03 PM »
DEMOLISHING THE REASONS FOR PEOPLE WHO GET CONFUSED REGARDING THE MATTER

From what we can see, there are two main reasons people get confused regarding the matter of Dâr, the rulings of the Dâr and its people and the declaration of Takfîr according to the Dâr.

First Reason, Doubts concerning the Aqîdah. Many do not bring doubts regarding examples such as Japan or its likes –in which its people do not attribute themselves to Islâm- is the case. However, whenever it comes to those who attribute themselves to Islâm and countries these so-called Muslims live in they begin to innovate theories such as neither Sharî’ah nor Aql would accept at the expense of abolishing the well-known principles. The reason for this is that, most of them have doubts regarding the declaration of Takfîr upon those who identify themselves as Muslim, on those who act as Muslim and –whether their acts that cause them to be declared Takfîr upon is Kufr or not.

Due to not having studied Tawhîd in its reality, the Aqîdah of Tawhîd has not settled upon them. With the effect of the Aqîdah of Irjâ (Creed of Postponement) which has been implanted in the society for centuries, they can not comprehend how those who utter La-ilaha Illallâh could be Kâfir. In addition, declaring Takfîr upon the society would cause many hardships and troubles in daily life, thus they try to clear away Takfîr with various theories.

As an example we give the mention in the question “Those who state that people of countries which used to be Dâr’ul Islâm would have different ruling than people of countries which are Kâfir in Asl”. If it is asked to them; what are the differences in terms of ruling between people who performed Irtidâd (apostate) completely, in an abode which used to be Dâr’ul Islâm and the people who are completely Kâfir in an abode which had never been Dâr’ul Islâm; they would not have an answer.

When it is examined it will clearly be seen that these people –as we previously mentioned either do not accept the Irtidâd of the society or do not believe these acts that caused them to be Murtad as Kufr or they do not declare Takfîr upon them due to deviations such as believing that Jahl (ignorance) is an Udhr (excuse). Some of them –as will be mentioned later Inshallâh- claim that the Asl of these people is Islâm while stating that whoever utters La-ilaha Illallâh then he is Muslim in Dhâhir (apparent). Therefore, they reject the fact that the Asl of those in these so-called Islâmic countries are upon Kufr.

Second Reason, Doubt Related with Confusion Regarding the Dhâahir Hukm and the Hukm in the Presence of Allâh. Many people get confused with the Dhâhir Hukm and the Hukm in the presence of Allâh Ta’âlâ. So much that those people who are unaware of the Sharî’ah and do not make their intellects exercise rejecting the fact that the unknown individual on the street is to be declared Takfîr upon. Likewise, they reject the children of the Kuffâr to be treated as Kâfir while considering those who apply this ruling to the people as mad and deviated. They can not oppose the Takfîr of the one who acts clear Kufr however they evaluate giving the name and ruling of Kufr to the people whose Kufr is not seen in the Dhâhir and there is no Dalîl (evidence) for their Islam as something absurd. Even though they deviated in this matter because of not knowing Tawhîd; not differentiating between Dhâhir Islâm/Real Islâm and Dhâhir Kufr/Real Kufr is also effected.

Takfîr according to the Dâr is a general Hukm which is given according to the Dâr one lives in, the Dhâhir of his state and also the Alâmat that he carries. Such Takfîr defines the rulings of people about the relations between them and it is not a Qat’î (definite) ruling in the presence of Allâh Ta’âlâ. Since we are aware that a person to whom the ruling of Muslim was given could be a Murtad (apostate), Mushrik, Kâfir, Munâfiq (hypocrite) or Zindiq (heretic) in the presence of Allâh Ta’âlâ likewise a person to whom the ruling of Kâfir was given would be Muslim and Ahl’ul Jannah (the People of Paradise) in the presence of Allâh Ta’âlâ. Therefore, we do not claim that the ruling that we give for any person is not their ruling in the presence of Allâh.

Likewise, we do not claim that any person living in Dâr’ul Harb to whom we give the ruling of Kufr due to not having any information which indicates him being a Muslim, will definitely be destined to Jahannam (Hell). In the same manner, we do not claim that any person to whom we give the ruling of Muslim due to having (misleading) information or witnesses that indicates him being Muslim in Dâr’ul Harb will definitely be destined to Jannah. However, we only give a ruling which defines the relationship between people according to the Dhâhir. Relations are shaped by the rulings that are given to the people.

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (Rahimahullâh) said the following while mentioning the Ikhtilâf (disagreement) of the Ulamâ concerning the Hukm of the children of the Kuffâr:


ومنشأ الاشتباه في هذه المسألة اشتباه أحكام الكفر في الدنيا بأحكام الكفر في الآخرة، فإن أولاد الكفار لما كانوا يجري عليهم أحكام الكفر في أمور الدنيا، مثل ثبوت الولاية عليهم لآبائهم، وحضانة آبائهم لهم، وتمكين آبائهم من تعليمهم وتأديبهم، والموارثة بينهم وبين آبائهم، واسترقاقهم إذا كان آبائهم محاربين، وغير ذلك - صار يظن من يظن أنهم كفار في نفس الأمر، كالذي تكلم بالكفر وعمل به ومن هنا قال من قال: إن هذا الحديث - هو قوله

"The source of suspicion regarding this matter is due to confusing the Ahkâm of Kufr in Dunyâ (the worldly life) and the Ahkâm of Kufr in the Akhirah (the Hereafter). Since the Awlâd (pl., Walad; the children) of the Kuffâr are given the Ahkâm of Kufr in the matters of Dunyâ such as; their fathers Walâyah (guardianship) over them, their fathers Hadhâna (custody) over them, their fathers (rights of) educating and disciplining them, being inheritors of one another and with their fathers, being taken as slaves due to their fathers being Muhâribîn (pl, Muhârib; warriors) and other matters that children of the Kuffâr are dependent on their fathers (in Ahkâm), they are assumed to be (i.e., children of Kuffâr) Kafir per se as one who utters Kufr or commits Kufr. Hence he said as it was said in the Hadîth:

كل مولود يولد على الفطرة
"Every child is born upon Fitrah (a true faith of Islâm i.e., to worship none but Allâh Alone)."
(Bukhârî, Hadîth no: 1358-1359, 1385, 4775, 6599-6600; Muslim, Hadîth no: 2658)

كان قبل أن تنزل الأحكام، كما ذكره أبوعبيد، عن محمد بن الحسن، فأما إذا عرف أن كونهم ولدوا عى الفطرة لا ينافي أن يكونوا تبعاً، لآبائهم في أحكام الدنيا زالت الشبهة

This was before reaching the Ahkâm, as was mentioned by Abű Ubayd who narrated it from Muhammad Ibn’ul Hasan. However when it is known that to be born with Fitrah is not an obstacle to be subjected to their fathers in the Ahkâm of Dunyâ then the doubt will be lifted up.

وقد يكون في بلاد الكفر من هو مؤمن في الباطن يكتم إيمانه من لا يعلم المسلمون حاله، إذا قاتلوا الكفار، فيقتلونه ولا يغسل ولا يصلى عليه ويدفن مع المشركين، وهو في الآخرة من المؤمنين أهل الجنة، كما أن المنافقين تجري عليهم في الدنيا أحكام المسلمين وهم في الآخرة في الدرك الأسفل من النار، فحكم الدار الآخرة غير حكام الدار الدنيا

In Bilâd’il Kufr there could be those who are Mu’min in Bâtin (inwards) who hides his Imân and the Muslim who do not know his state while fighting against the Kuffâr and kill him. For such person there will be neither Ghusl (washing) for him nor (funeral) prayer prayed over and he will be buried with the Mushrikîn. However, he is a Mu’min in the Akhirah amongst the Ahl’ul Jannah. As it is the case for the Munâfiqűn; they are ruled as a Muslimîn in Dunyâ yet they are in the lowest level of Nâr (Fire i.e., Hellfire) in the Akhirah. So the Ahkâm of Dâr’ul Akhirah differs from the Ahkâm of Dâr’ud Dunyâ." (Ibnu Taymiyyah, Dar‘u Ta‘ârud’il Aql wa’n Naql, 8/432-433)

There is no difficulty in understanding the treatment of an unknown individual who lives in Dâr’ul Harb or the children of Kuffâr as Kâfir due to the affiliation between them. As there is no difficulty in understanding the treatment of an unknown individual who lives in Dâr’ul Islâm or the children of Muslimîn as Muslim due to the affiliation between them. While those who suffer from Irjâ do not see any trouble in treating people as Muslim due to the principle of Tabaiyyah (implication), when it comes to applying the same principle of Tabaiyyah to the Kuffâr they deviate. This occurs from them due to the lack of Aqîdah.

From what we mentioned above the following is understood; the abodes of the people of our era including the governments -who are suffering from many evident Kufr such as abandoning Tawhîd, moreover the majority of them live in a manner that they are unaware of the Haqîqah (reality) of Tawhîd, they rule with the man-made laws, worship the graves and the dead, they have Jahl (ignorance) regarding the boundaries of Imân and Kufr- are Kâfir and Mushrik, their abodes are Dâr’ul Kufr and Dâr’ul Harb.

This is –unfortunately- the case and the true state of every land that is attributed to Islâm. Every individual who lives in these lands and everyone whose Aqîdah is unknown will be treated as Kâfir with the Dhâhir Hukm by taking the general population in consideration until proven otherwise. However, this is a Hukm given according to the Dhâhir and it is possible that this individual is a Mu’min in Bâtin (inwards). As for those who live in these lands and manifest Kufr acts/statements in Dhâhir then they are actually Kâfir both in the presence of Allâh Ta’âlâ and in the presence of the people.

As it was pointed out above, it is Bâtil to claim that Hukm can not be given with the Dhâhir by taking the general population in consideration and Hukm should be given individually to each person. Each individual who lives in Dâr’ul Harb will be treated as Kâfir in Dhâhir. However, if this is said while intending the real Hukm of a person it is correct, that is to say if individuals who live in Dâr’ul Harb are treated as Kâfir in Dhâhir and then if the real Hukm of each individual is asked for, the Hukm of each individual will be determined individually.

It is appropriate to mention that, we are not held responsible with this. It is because, since the era of Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam), the Muslimîn fought with many Kufr states and their subjects. However, the army of the Muslimîn was never held responsible for investigating whether or not there are Muslim living in that land in which they conquered or attacked.

On the contrary, in the lands of the Kuffâr they entered the Muslimîn never performed Tawaqquf (refraining from passing judgment) or Tabayyun (elucidation) but treated them as Kâfir; they killed the subjects or captured them. Whenever they come across individuals who manifest their Imân then they freed them. If they killed these individuals, who manifest their Imân mistakenly while deeming that they were Kâfir then they paid Kaffârah (expiation) or Diyah (blood money) according to another view without Qisâs (retaliation). This is the Ijmâ (consensus) of the Islâmic Ummah. As claiming the treatment of Kâfir cannot be applied to individuals who live in Dâr’ul Kufr until their Aqîdah is known is digression from the Ijmâ of the Islâmic Ummah it is deviation and heresy.

[Shawkânî stated the following in the explanation of the Âyah:


فَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَّكُمْ وَهُوَ مْؤْمِنٌ فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةٍ
“If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (is enough).” (an-Nisâ 4/92)

فَإِنْ كَانَ الْمَقْتُولُ مِنْ قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَكُمْ، وَهُمُ الْكُفَّارُ الْحَرْبِيُّونَ، وَهَذِهِ مَسْأَلَةُ الْمُؤْمِنِ الَّذِي يَقْتُلُهُ الْمُسْلِمُونَ فِي بِلَادِ الْكُفَّارِ الَّذِينَ كَانَ مِنْهُمْ، ثُمَّ أَسْلَمَ وَلَمْ يُهَاجِرْ، وَهُمْ يَظُنُّونَ أَنَّهُ لَمْ يُسْلِمْ، وَأَنَّهُ بَاقٍ عَلَى دِينِ قَوْمِهِ، فَلَا دِيَةَ عَلَى قَاتِلِهِ بَلْ عَلَيْهِ تَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ. وَاخْتَلَفُوا فِي وَجْهِ سُقُوطِ الدِّيَةِ، فَقِيلَ: وَجْهُهُ: أَنَّ أَوْلِيَاءَ الْقَتِيلِ كُفَّارٌ لَا حَقَّ لَهُمْ فِي الدِّيَةِ وَقِيلَ: وَجْهُهُ: أَنَّ هَذَا الَّذِي آمَنَ وَلَمْ يُهَاجِرْ حُرْمَتُهُ قَلِيلَةٌ، لِقَوْلِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى: وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَلَمْ يُهاجِرُوا مَا لَكُمْ مِنْ وَلايَتِهِمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ

“If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and they are Kuffâr of Harbî, then in this matter the Mu’min that killed a Muslim in the land of Kuffâr deeming that he was from them then became Muslim however did not perform Hijrah (emigrate) and he thought that he did not become Muslim and remained upon the Dîn of his people for this there is no Diyah upon the murderer rather it is upon him to free a Mu’min slave. There is Ikhtilâf (disagreement) regarding the Diyah being invalidated. So it was said in an opinion, the Wali of the murdered is Kafir therefore, he has no right upon the Diyah. It was said in an opinion, whoever believes but does not perform Hijrah his sanctity is lesser because of the statement (Âyah) of Allâh Ta’âlâ,

وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَلَمْ يُهاجِرُوا مَا لَكُمْ مِنْ وَلايَتِهِمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ
“…those who believed but did not emigrate, ye owe no duty of protection to them...” (al-Anfâl 8/72)

(Shawkânî, Fath’ul Qadîr, 1/575)]

We also would like to mention that there are demagogues that try to show the issue other than its true nature. Ruling the people of Dâr’ul Harb as Kâfir does not mean –as these demagogues claim- that once a ruler of a country becomes Kâfir the entire nation becomes Kâfir. Up until now, we have not come cross any sect that claims so. People will become Kâfir when they show consent to the Kâfir ruler and this is the case in our era. However, an individual who continues living in such country without showing consent to the system of Kufr, can not be declared Takfîr upon. If he is among those whose Aqîdah is unknown then he will be treated as Kâfir in Dhâhir. Both the issues shall not be confounded. Those who -present themselves as the great scholars and researchers of our era- claim that those sects whom they label as Takfîrîs rule people who live under the Kufr authorities with actual Takfir. This is a great slander and Dhulm (oppression) which proves nothing but their Jahl (ignorance).

What we have mentioned at this juncture shows that, it is a condition to uncover the Aqîdah of the people of Dâr’ul Kufr whose Aqîdah is not known in order to give the ruling of Muslim to them. The reason being the Asl of the people of Dâr’ul Harb is Kufr and not Islâm.

Today some of the deviated sects, furthermore all of the sects other than the Ahl’ut Tawhîd claim the Asl of people in our era is Islâm and that whoever claims otherwise is among the Khawârij and the Ahl’ul Bid’ah. Consequently, they claim that investigating the Aqîdah of people is a Bid’ah and a Dalâlah (deviation)!

Whereas, testing the Aqîdah of people can only be condemned in Dâr’ul Islâm in which the Muslimîn have the authority. Even in Dâr’ul Islâm –when there is need- testing the Aqîdah of people takes place. Testing the Aqîdah of people is Wâjib (obligatory) let alone being a Bid’ah furthermore giving a Kâfir the ruling of Islâm without testing his Aqîdah is Kufr and the doer is Kafir. It is because a ruling of Islâm is given to a Kâfir without taking in consideration the ways of giving a ruling namely Nass, Dalalat and Tabaiyyah which were mentioned previously. Giving a Kâfir the ruling of Islâm in this manner is calling a Kâfir as Muslim without having any evidence and this being Kufr is evident.

As we mentioned above, such acts are only ensued by those who continue to evaluate the people of our era as Muslim and do not believe that the people in our era are Kâfir. These individuals never rule unknown individuals who live in Christian, idol worshiper, pagan countries as Muslim. Furthermore, they implement testing the Aqîdah of people –which they refer to as Bid’ah- in those countries. The reason they refer to testing the Aqîdah of people as Bid’ah is because they accept the people of the so-called Islâmic countries of in our era as Muslim.

Unfortunately, many people are worrisome of testing their Aqîdah or the Aqîdah of others because, since they do not know the reality of Islâm, they do not know how the ruling of Muslim is to be given to others. Consequently, that brings us to what we are going to accommodate next; reminders regarding the matter of the reality of Islâm and its content. Inshallâh.
Whosoever desires الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah (honour, power and glory) then to Allah belong all الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah [and one can get honour, power and glory only by obeying and worshiping Allah (Alone)]. To Him ascend (all) الْكَلِمُ الطَّيِّبُ al-Kalim al-Tayyib (the goodly words), and الْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ al-Amal al-Saalih (the righteous deeds) exalt it (the goodly words i.e., the goodly words are not accepted by Allah unless and until they are followed by good deeds). (Fatir 35/10)

Fahm'us Salaf

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • أنصار المل الحنيفية وحماة الشرع المحمديةť
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2018, 09:26:14 AM »
The Reality of Islâm and its True Nature

What Islâm and Kufr are must be determined before determining how the ruling of Muslim or Kâfir can be given to the people. Due being oblivious regarding the reality of Islâm, many people among our contemporaries who speak regarding the matter fail to determine how the ruling of Muslim or Kâfir can be given to the people. In opposition to what many people deem, Islâm is not merely, not being a Jew or a Christian. In the same manner in opposition to what many people deem Islâm is not merely simply fulfilling the Shi’ar (signs) such as uttering the Kalimah of Shahâdah or praying Salât (daily prayers).

Contrarily, Islâm is primarily being distant from Shirk and its people. Muslim is the name given to those who submit/surrender to Allâh with Tawhîd (unification). There is no Islâm without Tawhîd. Since this point is not comprehended, there is chaos when giving the ruling of Muslim to the people. At this point, we would like to concisely mention the evidences that Islâm could only be actualized with distancing oneself from Shirk and Ahl’ush Shirk.

Allâh Ta’âlâ states,


قُلْ يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ تَعَالَوْا إِلَى كَلَمَةٍ سَوَاء بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ أَلاَّ نَعْبُدَ إِلاَّ اللّهَ وَلاَ نُشْرِكَ بِهِ شَيْئًا وَلاَ يَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُنَا بَعْضاً أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ اللّهِ  فَإِن تَوَلَّوْاْ فَقُولُوا اشْهَدُوا بِأَنَّا مُسْلِمُونَ
“Say: O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allâh; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allâh. If then they turn back, say ye: Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).” (Âl-i Imrân 3/64)

Wahidî in “Tafsîr’ul Wajîz” explained the Âyah “Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims.” (Âl-i Imrân 3/64) in the following manner;

أي: مقرون بالتوحيد

“Meaning; affirmers of Tawhîd.” (Wahidî, Tafsîr’ul Wajîz)

Qurtubî stated in his Tafsîr:


فَقُولُوا اشْهَدُوا بِأَنَّا مُسْلِمُونَ. أَيْ مُتَّصِفُونَ بِدِينِ الْإِسْلَامِ مُنْقَادُونَ لِأَحْكَامِهِ معترفون بما لله عليه عَلَيْنَا فِي ذَلِكَ مِنَ الْمِنَنِ وَالْإِنْعَامِ، غَيْرُ مُتَّخِذِينَ أَحَدًا رَبًّا لَا عِيسَى وَلَا عُزَيْرًا ولا الملائكة، لأنهم بشر مثلنا محدث كحدثنا، وَلَا نَقْبَلُ مِنَ الرُّهْبَانِ شَيْئًا بِتَحْرِيمِهِمْ عَلَيْنَا مَا لَمْ يُحَرِّمْهُ اللَّهُ عَلَيْنَا، فَنَكُونُ قَدِ اتَّخَذْنَاهُمْ أَرْبَابًا

“Say bear witness we are (at least) Muslims.” (Âl-i Imrân 3/64)

Those who are attributed to the Dîn of Islâm, who execute the Hukm and who confess the blessing and goodness of Allâh upon us. Moreover without making Îsâ (Alayh’is Salâm), Uzayr (Alayh’is Salâm) nor any from among the Malâ’ikah (pl. Malak; angels) our Rabb (Lord). The reason is because they are human like us and they are Mahlűq (creatures) like us whom created . For this reason, we will not accept anything made Harâm (forbidden) by the Ruhbân (scholars; priests, rabbis) which Allâh had not made Harâm, in this state we would have made them our Rabb.” (Qurtubî, Tafsîr)

Therefore it becomes evident that “being Muslim” in the Âyah refers to being Ahl’ut Tawhîd and abandoning acts/statements/beliefs of Shirk and it is not merely not being a Jew or a Christian or simply being in opposition to them. As for those who commit the same Shirk with the Ahl’ul Kitâb (the People of the Book; the Jews and the Christians), their claim to be Muslim is not valid. Allâh Ta’âlâ states,


أَمْ كُنْتُمْ شُهَدَاءَ إِذْ حَضَرَ يَعْقُوبَ الْمَوْتُ إِذْ قَالَ لِبَنِيهِ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ بَعْدِي قَالُوا نَعْبُدُ إِلَهَكَ وَإِلَهَ آبَائِكَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ إِلَهًا وَاحِدًا وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ
“Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Ya’qűb? Behold, he said to his sons: What will ye worship after me? They said: We shall worship Thy god and the god of thy fathers, of Ibrâhîm, Ismâ'îl and Ishâq, the one (True) Allâh: and unto Him we have surrendered.” (al-Baqarah 2/133)

In “Tanwîr’ul Miqbâs” which is attributed to Ibnu Abbâs (Radiyallâhu Anhuma), the last part of the Âyah “...and unto Him we have surrendered.” (al-Baqarah 2/133) is explained as in the following manner,

مقرون لله بِالْعبَادَة والتوحيد

“We acknowledge/affirm Allâh with Ibadâh (worship) and Tawhîd.” (Ibnu Abbâs, Tanwîr’ul Miqbâs)

Samarkandî stated,


أي مخلصون له بالتوحيد

“Meaning; we are faithful to Him with Tawhîd.” (Samarkandî, Tafsîr)

As Tabarî narrated, Qatâdah explained the following Âyah,


إنّ الدّين عند الله الإسلام
“The Religion before Allâh is Islâm (submission to His Will).” (Âl-i Imrân 3/19)

والإسلام: شهادة أنّ لا إله إلا الله، والإقرار بما جاء به من عند الله

“Islâm is witnessing that there is no –true- god –deserves to be worshiped- but Allâh and affirming what is (Rasűlullâh) brought from Him Ta’âlâ.” (Tabarî, Tafsîr)

Tabarî, also narrated that Muhammad bin Ja’far az-Zubayr said the following regarding the description of Islâm,


ما أنت عليه يا محمد من التوحيد للربّ، والتصديق للرسل

“O Muhammad what you are upon is; Tawhîd of Rabb and confirming the Rusul (pl. Rasűl; Messengers).” (Tabarî, Tafsîr)

It is possible to bring more evidences concerning the matter from the Qur’ân. Everyone who reads the Âyât, the terms “Islâm” and “Muslim” are mentioned and the comments of the scholars from both the Salaf and the Khalaf, will easily understand that Islâm is always approached together with Tawhîd.

Even though there are many evidences in the Sunnah, we are sufficed with mentioning only one as an example. The narration we will mention is known as “the Hadîth of Jibrîl (Alayh’is Salâm)”. In this Hadîth, Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) described the term Islâm and said,


الْإِسْلَامُ أَنْ تَشْهَدَ أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَتُقِيمَ الصَّلَاةَ، وَتُؤْتِيَ الزَّكَاةَ، وَتَصُومَ رَمَضَانَ، وَتَحُجَّ الْبَيْتَ إِنِ اسْتَطَعْتَ إِلَيْهِ سَبِيلًا
“Islâm implies that you testify that there is no god but Allâh and that Muhammad is the Rasűl (messenger) of Allâh, and you establish prayer, pay Zakât (obligatory charity), observe the fast of Ramadhân, and perform pilgrimage to the Bayt (House; Qabah) if you are solvent enough (to bear the expense of) the journey.”

Evidence that the intent with the Shahâdah (testifying) mentioned in the Hadîth not being simply Lafdh without Amâl (deed) is the narration that was related by Muslim with different wording,

الْإِسْلَامُ أَنْ تَعْبُدَ اللهَ، وَلَا تُشْرِكَ بِهِ شَيْئًا
“Islâm signifies that you worship Allâh and do not associate anything with Him...” (Muslim, Hadîth no: 8)

In fact, this shows the reality of Islâm. Unfortunately, some people who have the habit of commenting on the Nass as they wish; commented on the Hadîth as if it was mere utterance of the Shahâdah with the tongue was mentioned in the Hadîth. While commenting on the Hadîth in this manner they do not take in consideration the explanation of Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) that is not committing Shirk. Furthermore, they give precedence to mere utterance of the Shahâdah and other principles of Islâm such as Salât etc. over abandoning the Shirk, they give the ruling of Muslim to the people who utter the Shahâdah and pray Salât without verifying whether they abandon Shirk. They relied upon the following Hadîth,

أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا: لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ، فَمَنْ قَالَ: لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ، فَقَدْ عَصَمَ مِنِّي مَالَهُ، وَنَفْسَهُ، إِلَّا بِحَقِّهِ وَحِسَابُهُ عَلَى اللهِ
“I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no –true- god –deserves to be worshiped- but Allâh, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allâh.”

In another wording of the Hadîth it was stated,

حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ، وَيُؤْمِنُوا بِي، وَبِمَا جِئْتُ بِهِ
“...till they testify to the fact that there is no –true- god –deserves to be worshiped- but Allîh, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought...”

Muslim related all of these reports. There is another wording in Muslim who recorded right after what clarifies what is meant with it,

مَنْ قَالَ: لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ، وَكَفَرَ بِمَا يُعْبَدُ مَنْ دُونِ اللهِ، حَرُمَ مَالُهُ، وَدَمُهُ، وَحِسَابُهُ عَلَى اللهِ
“He who professed that there is no –true- god –deserves to be worshiped- but Allâh and made a denial of everything which the people worship beside Allâh, his property and blood became inviolable, an their affairs rest with Allâh.”

Another wording of the same Hadîth is as follows,

مَنْ وَحَّدَ اللهَ
“He who held belief in the unity of Allâh.”

This Hadîth establishes the fact that the intent with stating La-ilaha Illallâh is not mere utterance. Rather it is rejecting the Tawâghît (pl. Tâghűt) and the false deities, abandoning Shirk and performing Tawhîd of Allâh Ta’âlâ. Furthermore, the Kalimah will only protect ones wealth and blood when it is stated in this concept. This is exactly what is intended by stating La-ilaha Illallâh.

Those who claim that people are asked for the mere utterance of the Kalimah without abandoning the Shirk, deny these evident evidences that came from Allâh Ta’âlâ and His Rasűl (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam). Along with this, they slander Allâh Ta’âlâ and His Rasűl (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) while claiming that Allâh Ta’âlâ and His Rasűl (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) request mere utterance of the statement a meaningless, password like statement from people wa Iyyâdhu Billâh (seek refuge to Allâh)!

Whereas, Kalâm (speech) only has value with its meaning. Even though meanings of the worthless statement of the worthless person is requested from and that speaking meaningless statements is accounted as foolishness and stupidity then how dare these people claim that the meaning of the most virtuous statement ever La-ilaha Illallâh which comes from Rabb of the Âlamîn (worlds) is unimportant but its utterance is important! As for those who attempt to isolate the meaning of the most valuable statement, in reality are severely insulting the Kalâm (speech) of Allâh Ta’âlâ.

Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullâh) said the following to the people of Huraymilâ region when he debated them in his renowned book
“al-Jawâhir’ul Mudiyyah”:

لا إله إلا الله قد سألنا عنها كل من جاءنا منكم من مطوع وغيره، ولا لقينا عندهم إلا أنها لفظة ما لها معنى، ومعناها: لفظها، ومن قالها فهو مسلم، وقد يقولون لها معنى لكن معناها لا شريك له في ملكه
 
ونحن نقول: لا إله إلا الله ليست باللسان فقط؛ لا بد للمسلم إذا لفظ بها أن يعرف معناها بقلبه، وهي التي جاءت لها الرسل وإلا الملك ما جاءت الرسل له

“All of those which came to us from amongst the knowledgeable ones or other than ‎them asked about La-ilaha Illallâh. We have not come across ‎that in their presence this (Kalimah) is nothing but a statement that has no ‎meaning. According to them, its meaning is solely Lafdh (utterance) and that whoever utters it, is Muslim. Sometimes they even said that it has a meaning. ‎However they explain it’s meaning as Allah Ta’ala having no partner in His Mulk (possession). ‎

We say to them that; La-ilaha Illallâh is not something to merely utter with ‎the tongue. When a Muslim utters it, it is a condition that his heart ‎comprehends its meaning. The Rusul (Messengers) came with it. The Rusul ‎had not (only) come with the Mulk (belonging to Allah).”
(Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb, al-Jawâhir’ul Mudiyyah, 36)

Shaykh (Rahimahullâh) also stated the following in the same book,


والمراد من هذه الكلمة: معناها لا مجرد لفظها، والكفار الجهال يعلمون أن مراد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بهذه الكلمة هو: إفراد الله بالتعلق، والكفر بما يُعْبَد من دونه والبراءة منه، فإنه لما قال لهم قولوا: لا إله إلا الله، قالوا: أَجَعَلَ الآلِهَةَ إِلَهاً وَاحِداً إِنَّ هَذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجَابٌ

فإذا عرفت أن جهال الكفار يعرفون ذلك؛ فالعجب ممن يدعي الإسلام، وهو لا يعرف من معنى هذه الكلمة ما عرفه جهال الكفار، بل يظن أن ذلك هو التلفظ بحروفها من غير اعتقاد القلب بشيء من المعاني، والحاذق منهم يظن أن معناها: لا يخلق ولا يرزق، ولا يحيي ولا يميت، ولا يدبر الأمر إلا الله. فلا خير في رجل، جهال الكفار أعلم منه بمعنى لا إله إلا الله

“The intent with this Kalimah (statement i.e. La-ilaha Illallâh) is its meaning (along with its Lafdh) and not mere Lafdh (utterance). The ignorant Kuffâr knew the intent of the Nabî (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) with this Kalimah which is as follows; unification of Allâh with Tâlluq (attachment), rejecting whatever is worshiped besides Allâh and performing Barâh (keep distant) from them. When the Nabî (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) told them to say, La-ilaha Illallâh they responded,

أَجَعَلَ الآلِهَةَ إِلَهاً وَاحِداً إِنَّ هَذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجَابٌ
“Has he made gods (all) into one God? Truly this is a strange thing!” (Sa’d 38/5)

When you come to know that these ignorant Kuffâr knew this (the meaning of the Kalimah) you’ll come to know those who claim Islâm (i.e. to be Muslim) do not know the meaning of this Kalimah which the ignorant Kuffâr knew. Rather they deem that meaning of the Kalimah is (mere) utterance of its letters without believing in anything of it in his heart. Those who are wiser than they are deem that its meaning is; there is neither a creator nor a sustainer, nor a reviver nor a giver of death or a manager of the affairs other than Allâh. There is no Khayr (goodness) in a man when the ignorant Kuffâr is more knowledgeable than him in the meaning of La-ilalah Illallâh better than him!” (Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb, al-Jawâhir’ul Mudiyyah, 6)

The condition of our time is no different, nevertheless even worse than the condition of the era of Shaykh Muhammad (Rahimahullâh). Many people in the society including the so-called Dai of our era request from people the mere utterance of Kalimah of Tawhîd. Those so-called knowledgeable people who request knowledge of the meaning of the Kalimah of Tawhîd look for whether the individual affirms there is no creator other than Allâh along with claiming to be a Muslim find it is sufficient for giving the ruling of Muslim to the individuals. They all deem that requesting more information regarding the meaning, context and requirements of the conditions of the Kalimah is going extreme!

Almost all of those who attribute themselves to Tawhîd and the Salaf also believe in the same manner. Even though they know very well that most of the people who attribute themselves to Islâm today do not know the meaning of the Kalimah not even as much as the Mushrik Arab knew and that they also know very well that they utter the Kalimah without intending its actual meaning. Yet they still continue to account mere utterance of the Kalimah as an Alâmat of Islâm. Furthermore, they also consider requesting information regarding the meaning of the Kalimah from the one who utters Shahâdah as Bid’ah and deviation. La Hawla wa lâ Quwwata Illâ Billâh (There is no might nor power except in Allâh)!

Whereas they know very well that, the Mushrik Arab would utter the Kalimah after abandoning the Shirk. If there were some among them who continue worshiping Lât or Uzzâ after uttering the Kalimah, no doubt Rasulullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) and his Ashâb would never accept it from them unless they abandon the idols and the Shirk. Likewise, Christians uttered La-ilaha Illallâh but it was not accepted from them until they abandon deifying Îsâ (Alayh’is Salâm) and affirming Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) as a Messenger of Allâh Ta’âlâ who was sent to all mankind and Jinnkind. Narration in this regards will be given later in this article Inshallâh.

An individual who lives in a Mushrik society can only be given the ruling of Muslim after it becomes clear that he abandons Shirk. Moreover, for those who ponder Shahâdah (witnessing) and Qawl (saying) have the same meaning. Witnessing has value when it is based upon information. The one who witnesses there is no god but Allâh while not knowing its meaning, is same as a deceiving witness who testifies for a matter in which he has no knowledge of. In the same manner, saying something means truly believing in it.

For this reason, we say when we intend to mention the views; Qawl (saying) of the Ahl’us Sunnah is like this and the Qawl of Mu’tazilah is like that. In the same manner we say there are two Qawl reported from Imâm Shâfî (Rahimahullâh) and the Qawl of Imâm Ahmad (Rahimahullâh) concerning this Fiqhî matter is like this and like that. All of these express the belief of the above mentioned sects or individuals concerning the matter.

In the same manner the expression, “whoever says La-ilaha Illallâh” refers to “whoever says there is no –true- god –deserving to be worshiped- but Allâh” meaning “whoever believes in the fact that there is no –true- god – deserving to be worshiped- but Allâh”.

When it is said that people of our era already knew this meaning, we say; their belief is the same as the belief of the Ahl’ul Kitâb regarding Tawhîd. As the Jews and the Christians say “there is no –true- god –deserving to be worshiped- but Allâh” however they emptied out its meaning and did not regard asserting Uzayr (Alayh’is Salâm) and Îsâ (Alayh’is Salâm) to be sons of god, or giving the right of legislating something to be Halâl (permissible) or Harâm (prohibited) to their scholars -namely priests and rabbis- to be in opposition to Tawhîd!

So much so that even in the well-known Qissa (story) of Adiyy bin Hâtam (Radiyallâhu Anh), he objected to Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) while stating that they do not take their scholars as their Lords besides Allâh. For this reason, the utterance of La-ilaha Illallâh by the Ahl’ul Kitâb was not taken into consideration. Even if it is taken into consideration then it is accepted from them with the condition that there is Qarîna (presumption) they abandoned Shirk. Likewise, Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) stated in the following Hadîth when he sent Mu’âdh (Radiyallâhu Anh) to the Ahl’ul Kitâb in order to call them to Islâm,


فَادْعُهُمْ إِلَى شَهَادَةِ أَنَّ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنِّي رَسُولُ اللهِ، فَإِنْ هُمْ أَطَاعُوا لِذَلِكَ فَأَعْلِمْهُمْ أَنَّ اللهَ افْتَرَضَ عَلَيْهِمْ خَمْسَ صَلَوَاتٍ فِي كُلِّ يَوْمٍ وَلَيْلَةٍ، فَإِنْ هُمْ أَطَاعُوا لِذَلِكَ، فَأَعْلِمْهُمْ أَنَّ اللهَ افْتَرَضَ عَلَيْهِمْ صَدَقَةً تُؤْخَذُ مِنْ أَغْنِيَائِهِمْ فَتُرَدُّ فِي فُقَرَائِهِمْ
“So first call them to testify that there is no god but Allâh, that I (Muhammad) am the messenger of Allâh, and if they accept this, then tell them Allâh has enjoined upon them five prayers during the day and the night and if they accept it, then tell them that Allâh has made Zakât obligatory for them that it should be collected from the rich and distributed among the poor Ilkh...” (Muslim, Hadîth no: 19)

In another wording of the Hadîth is as follows,

فَلْيَكُنْ أَوَّلَ مَا تَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَيْهِ عِبَادَةُ اللهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ، فَإِذَا عَرَفُوا اللهَ
“The very first thing to which you should call them is the worship of Allâh, Azza wa Jalla, and when they become fully aware of Allâh…” (Muslim, Hadîth no: 19)

The wording of the Hadîth in “Imân” by Ibnu Mandah is as follows,

فَلْيَكُنْ أَوَّلُ مَا تَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى أَنْ يُوَحِّدُوا اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ، فَإِذَا عَرَفُوا ذَلِكَ
“The very first thing to which you should call them is Tawhîd (unification) of Allâh, Azza wa Jalla, and when they become fully aware of it…” (Ibnu Mandah, Kitâb’ul Imân, 213; Bayhaqi, Madkhal, Hadîth no: 314)

Ibnu Zanjawayh in his book “al-Amwâl” narrated the beginning of the Hadîth in the following manner,

إِنَّكَ سَتَقْدُمُ عَلَى قَوْمٍ أَهْلِ كِتَابٍ، فَادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّوْحِيدِ، فَإِنْ أَقَرُّوا لَكَ بِذَلِكَ فَقُلْ لَهُمْ: إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ فَرَضَ عَلَيْكُمْ خَمْسَ صَلَوَاتٍ بِاللَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ
“Verily you would reach a community of Ahl’ul Kitâb (the people of the Book i.e. the Jews and the Christians), call them Tawhîd, and when they affirm you in that then tell to them, Indeed Allâh has enjoined you five prayers during the night and the day.” (Ibnu Zanjawayh, Kitâb’ul Amwâl, Hadîth no: 2238)

Aynî in “Umdat’ul Qârî” while explaining the related Hadîth stated,

قَوْله: (فَإِذا عرفُوا الله) أَي: بِالتَّوْحِيدِ، وَنفي الألوهية عَن غَيره

“His (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) statement, “When they know Allâh” meaning, with the Tawhîd and negating (the claim of) the Lordship other than Him Ta’âlâ.” (Aynî, Umdat’ul Qârî, 9/25)

As seen, the intent with the expression of witnessing that there is no –true- god –deserving to be worshiped- but Allâh, is not mere utterance of the Kalimah of Shahâdah by the tongue rather Tasdîq (confirmation) of Tawhîd –in opposition to the understanding of Tawhîd by the Ahl’ul Kitâb when they emptied its meaning- and that worshiping Allâh Alone without committing Shirk (associating partners) to Allâh in Ibadâh (worship) –again in opposition to the understanding of Ibadâh to Allah by the Ahl’ul Kitaab in which they commit Shirk- and the religion belongs Allah's in its entirety.

This Hadîth also indicates that uttering the Kalimah by knowing its meaning was requested from the Ahl’ul Kitâb and in the case they confirm Tawhîd in this manner the treatment of Muslim and commanding them with Ibadâh such as Salât, Zakât etc. would take place.

All of these evidences clearly invalidate the attitude of those who claim mere utterance of the Kalimah is sufficient to give ruling of Muslim to the people and not their repentance from Shirk.

There is also another fact one should ponder upon and it is the claim of the Ahl’ul Kitâb in regards to them being people of Tawhîd, knowing Allâh and that they were worshiping Allâh which was not accepted from them. Rather they were described as ignorant in terms of knowing Allâh. They are accounted as having Ma’rifatullâh (knowledge of Allâh) after they accept Tawhîd in its reality.

There is beneficial information in this regards in the explanations by Nawawî of the above-mentioned Hadîth. Since we do not want to lengthen the matter we do not quote his statements, for more information do refer back to the Sharh of Nawawîi. The important fact related to our topic is, the request from the opponents to know Allâh takes place in the incident and only after fulfilling the conditions the treatment of Muslim is applied to them. What is the aim of Da’wah (call) other than introducing Allâh to the masses?

Whereas everything has been reversed in our era so much so that Da’wah is considered as merely letting individuals memorize some points and merely depict timely Fiqhî issues such as seeking judgment from the Tâghűt, joining to the army of the Kuffâr etc. as Kufr instead of introducing and education regarding Allâh to the masses and that He Ta’âlâ has no partner, His Beautiful Names and His Perfect Attributes.

The main purpose of this practice is calling people to the Madhhab or sect of a person and not to the religion of Allâh Ta’âlâ. If the purpose were calling people to the Dîn, they would teach people the Dîn of Allâh. Whereas they make people memorize some points, as it is the case in the Bâtil Sufî Tarîqahs in ceremony to entering into it. With this, they give the ruling of Muslim to the people who do not know Tawhîd and His Rabb. Furthermore, they label those who infringe their plans those who object to their attitude and state that the ruling of Muslim should only be given to the people after calling and teaching people the mutual Da’wah (call) of the Rusul (Messengers), the terms that are related with I’tiqâd and that they learn these very well in its entirety with innovating Bid’ah in Dîn.

Whereas we are only responsible with giving the ruling of Muslim to the Muslim and none else! A Muslim is -as it was described above- the one who intentionally abandons Shirk. The indication in the Hadîth of Mu’âdh bin Jabal (Radiyallââhu Anh) to Ma’rifatullâh also points out this fact. The Hadîth also establishes the fact that one can not be given the ruling of Muslim as long as he does not repent from Shirk intentionally while knowing what Tawhîd and Shirk is.

These evidences and statements by the scholars of the Salaf and the Khalaf establish the fact that the following descriptions of the scholars are well directed.

Description of Ibnu Taymiyyah (Rahimahullâh),


دِينُ الْإِسْلَامِ " الَّذِي ارْتَضَاهُ اللَّهُ وَبَعَثَ بِهِ رُسُلَهُ هُوَ الِاسْتِسْلَامُ لِلَّهِ وَحْدَهُ؛ فَأَصْلُهُ فِي الْقَلْبِ هُوَ الْخُضُوعُ لِلَّهِ وَحْدَهُ بِعِبَادَتِهِ وَحْدَهُ دُونَ مَا سِوَاهُ. فَمَنْ عَبَدَهُ وَعَبَدَ مَعَهُ إلَهًا آخَرَ لَمْ يَكُنْ مُسْلِمًا وَمَنْ لَمْ يَعْبُدْهُ بَلْ اسْتَكْبَرَ عَنْ عِبَادَتِهِ لَمْ يَكُنْ مُسْلِمًا وَالْإِسْلَامُ هُوَ الِاسْتِسْلَامُ لِلَّهِ وَهُوَ الْخُضُوعُ لَهُ وَالْعُبُودِيَّةُ لَهُ

“The religion of Islâm which Allâh has ordained and promulgated through His prophets is to submit to Him alone. Its Asl (essence) is Hudhu (submission) to Allâh alone and no other by the heart, through his worship. Hence, the one who  worships Him and worships another god besides Him, is not Muslim; similarly the one who does not worship Him and refuses out of pride to worship Him, is not a Muslim. Islâm is to submitting to Allâh; and submitting is Hudhu to Him and Ubudiyyah (servitude) to Him.” (Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmű’ul Fatâwâ, 7/263)

Ibn’ul Qayyim (Rahimahullâh) stated:


والإسلام هو توحيد الله وعبادته وحده لا شريك له، والإيمان بالله وبرسوله واتباعه فيما جاءَ به، فما لم يأْت العبد بهذا فليس بمسلم وإن لم يكن كافراً معانداً فهو كافر جاهل. فغاية هذه الطبقة أنهم كفار جهال غير معاندين، وعدم عنادهم لا يخرجهم عن كونهم كفاراً فإن الكافر من جحد توحيد الله وكذب رسوله إما عناداً وإما جهلاً وتقليداً لأهل العناد

“Islâm is actualizing Tawhîd (the Oneness) of Allâh (Ta’âlâ), worshiping Him solely (not associating anything in Ibadâh), Who has no partner, having Imân in Allâh and His Rasűl (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) and subjecting to things which the Rasűl had brought along/with. The slave who does not actualize these is not Muslim. If this individual who does not actualize these is not a Mu’ânnid (stubborn meaning the one who rejects knowingly) Kâfir then he is a Jâhil (ignorant) Kâfir. These individuals of this Tabâqah (rank) in best possibility are evaluated as Juhâl (ignorant) Kuffâr without being Mu’ânnid. Lack of stubbornness would not take them out of being Kuffâr. In fact, the Kâfir is who denies Tawhîd of Allâh Ta’âlâ and belies His Rasűl (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) due to Inâd (stubbornness) or Jahl or Taqlîd (imitating) of Ahl’ul Inâd (the People of Stubbornness).” (Tariq ul Hijratayn, 411)

The description by Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullâh) of Islâm found as the second fundamental in

“The Three Fundamentals” is as follows,

وَهُوَ: الاسْتِسْلامُ للهِ بِالتَّوْحِيدِ، وَالانْقِيَادُ لَهُ بِالطَّاعَةِ، وَالْبَرَاءَةُ مِنَ الشِّرْكِ وَأَهْلِهِ

“Islâm is becoming al-Istislâm (submission and surrender) to Allâh alone, with Tawhîd and al-Inqiyâd (submitting) to Him by at-Tâ'at (obeying) His commandments and al-Barâ (being free) from Shirk and its people (i.e., the Mushrikîn; the polytheists).” (Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb, The Three Fundamentals)

Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullâh) stated the following in one of his works titled as
“Aslu Dîn’il Islâm (The Essence of the Religion of Islâm) and its Qâidah (principles)”,

أصْلُ دِينِ الْإِسْلَامِ، وَقاعِدَتُهُ: أمْرانِ؛ اَلْأوَّلُ: اَلْأمْرُ بِعِبادِةِ اللهِ وَحْدَهُ لا شَرِيكَ لَهُ؛ وَالتَّحْرِيضُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ، وَالْمُوَالَاةُ فِيهِ، وَتَكْفِيرُ مَنْ تَرَكَهُ  الثَّانِي: اَلْإنْذارُ عَنْ الشِّرْكِ في عِبادِةِ اللهِ، وَالتَّغْلِيظُ في ذَلِكَ، وَالْمُعَادَاةُ فِيهِ، وَتَكْفِيرُ مَنْ فَعَلَهُ

“Aslu Dîn’il Islâm and its Qâidah consist of two directives:

The first directive: The order of worshiping Allâh Ta’âlâ alone Who has no partners, the encouragement (call) to this, the Muwalât (collaboration) based on it and declaring Takfîr on he who forsakes it.

The second (directive): The warning against Shirk in Ibadâh (worship) to Allâh, being harsh in it, basing enmity on it and declaring Takfîr on he who acts upon it.”
(Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb, Aslu Dîn’il Islâm)

We call one who has these characteristics as Muslim. No one from among the people of Dâr’ul Harb (Abode of War) can not be given the ruling of Muslim unless it is proven that s/he carries these characteristics. Walhamdulillâh!
Whosoever desires الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah (honour, power and glory) then to Allah belong all الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah [and one can get honour, power and glory only by obeying and worshiping Allah (Alone)]. To Him ascend (all) الْكَلِمُ الطَّيِّبُ al-Kalim al-Tayyib (the goodly words), and الْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ al-Amal al-Saalih (the righteous deeds) exalt it (the goodly words i.e., the goodly words are not accepted by Allah unless and until they are followed by good deeds). (Fatir 35/10)

Fahm'us Salaf

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • أنصار المل الحنيفية وحماة الشرع المحمديةť
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2018, 08:42:43 PM »
THE TRUE NATURE OF TAWBAH (REPENTANCE) FROM SHIRK

Allâh Ta’âlâ states,

فَإِذَا انْسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakât, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful.” (at-Tawbah 9/5)

Imâm Tabarî (Rahimahullâh) explains the expression فَإِنْ تَابُوا but if they repent” used in the Âyah in the following manner,

(فإن تابوا) ، يقول: فإن رجعوا عما نهاهم عليه من الشرك بالله وجحود نبوة نبيه محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم، إلى توحيد الله وإخلاص العبادة له دون الآلهة والأنداد، والإقرار بنبوة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم

“If they repent” if they turn from what Allâh prohibited them from; associating partners to Allâh and rejecting the Nubuwwah (prophecy) of His Nabî Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) towards Tawhîd (unification) of Allâh and directing Ibadâh with Ikhlâs (sincerity) to Him without taking the (false) deities and the Andâd (pl. Nidd; partners), also affirming the Nubuwwah of Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam).”

فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ then open the way for them...”

Tabarî then recorded the statement of Anas (Radiyallâhu Anh) which indicates this meaning with its Isnâd (chain of narration).


توبتهم، خلع الأوثان، وعبادة ربهم، وإقام الصلاة، وإيتاء الزكاة

“Their Tawbah (repentance) is abandoning the Awthân (idols), performing Ibadâh to their Rabb, performing Salât and paying Zakâh.” (Tabarî, Tafsîr)

Allâh Ta’âlâ also states,


فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ فَإِخْوَانُكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ
“But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, then they are your brethren in Dîn.” (at-Tawbah 9/11)

Tabarî stated the following in the explanation of the Âyah,

يقول جل ثناؤه: فإن رجع هؤلاء المشركون الذين أمرتكم، أيها المؤمنون، بقتلهم عن كفرهم وشركهم بالله، إلى الإيمان به وبرسوله، وأنابوا إلى طاعته

“Allâh Jalla Thanâuhu states, O Mu’minűn; if these Mushrikűn that which I commanded you to kill turn from their Kufr and Shirk against Allâh, have Imân (faith) in Allâh Ta’âlâ and His Rasűl (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) and penitence to His Tâ’ah (obedience).”

فَإِخْوَانُكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ then they are your brethren in Dîn.”

Tabarî then quoted the statement of Qatâdah in a manner that it is understood as its evidence,


إن تركوا اللات والعزّى، وشهدوا أن لا إله إلا الله، وأن محمدًا رسول الله

“If they abandon Lât and Uzzâ also witness that there is no –true- god –deserving to be worshiped- but Allâh and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allâh.”

فَإِخْوَانُكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ then they are your brethren in Dîn.” (Tabarî, Tafsîr)

Views of other Mufassirîn (Tafsîr scholars) regarding the Âyah are also the same. All of them pointed out that the Tawbah mentioned in the Âyah refers to what they used to be upon from Kufr and Shirk. Furthermore, abandoning the idols mentioned along with uttering the Kalimah in the statements of Anas and Qatâdah quoted above.

In truth, this Âyah is considered by the Ulamâ of the Salaf and the Khalaf alike the above quoted Hadîth, “I have been ordered (by Allâh) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh!” Furthermore, Bukhârî allocated a chapter in his “Sahîh” in “Kitâb’ul Imân” which is titled,


بَابٌ: {فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلاَةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ} [التوبة: 5[

Chapter: (The Statement of Allâh Ta’âlâ) “...but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakât, then open the way for them.” (at-Tawbah 9/5)

Bukhârî then related a Hadîth from Ibnu Umar (Radiyallâhu Anhuma) who narrated from Rasulullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam),


أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ، وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ، وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلاَةَ، وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ، فَإِذَا فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلَّا بِحَقِّ الإِسْلاَمِ، وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللَّهِ
“I have been ordered (by Allâh) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh and that Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) is Allâh's Messenger, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islâmic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allâh.” (Bukhârî, Hadîth no: 25)

Hâfidh Ibnu Hajar stated the following in the Sharh (commentary) of the Hadîth,

وَإِنَّمَا جُعِلَ الْحَدِيثُ تَفْسِيرًا لِلْآيَةِ لِأَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِالتَّوْبَةِ فِي الْآيَةِ الرُّجُوعُ عَنِ الْكُفْرِ إِلَى التَّوْحِيدِ

“Surely Bukhârî had made the Hadîth a Tafsîr (explanation) for the Âyah (at-Tawbah 9/5) because the intent with Tawbah (repentance) mentioned in the Âyah is the return to Tawhîd from Kufr.” (Ibnu Hajar, Fath’ul Barî, 1/75)

In order for the pre-condition of entering into Islâm namely Tawbah from Shirk to be actualized it is a must/necessary for the person to know/recognize Shirk as Shirk and have hatred towards it. For instance, in order for the one who claims to make Tawbah from drinking Khamr (alcoholic beverages) to be accounted sincere in his Tawbah, he must confess that drinking Khamr is Harâm, he must have hatred towards it and he must accept that drinking Khamr is something bad. As the Tawbah of an individual who claims to make Tawbah from drinking Khamr -while not knowing its ruling, does not confess that he became a sinner by drinking Khamr, considers drinking Khamr something good and beneficial- is not accepted from him, similarly the Tawbah of the individual who claims to make Tawbah from Shirk -while not knowing its context likewise not knowing the ruling of committing Shirk, does not confess that he became a Mushrik by associating partners to Allâh, does not have Bughdh (hatred) towards Shirk and Ahl’ush Shirk- is not accepted from him.

Ibn’ul Qayyim (Rahimahullâh) in his book "Madârij'us Sâlikîn" stated the following while explaining the conditions of Tawbah under the topic "State of Tawbah",


وَلَمَّا كَانَتِ التَّوْبَةُ هِيَ رُجُوعُ الْعَبْدِ إِلَى اللَّهِ، وَمُفَارَقَتُهُ لِصِرَاطِ الْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ وَالضَّالِّينَ، وَذَلِكَ لَا يَحْصُلُ إِلَّا بِهِدَايَةِ اللَّهِ إِلَى الصِّرَاطِ الْمُسْتَقِيمِ، وَلَا تَحْصُلُ هِدَايَتُهُ إِلَّا بِإِعَانَتِهِ وَتَوْحِيدِهِ، فَقَدِ انْتَظَمَتْهَا سُورَةُ الْفَاتِحَةِ أَحْسَنَ انْتِظَامٍ، وَتَضَمَّنَتْهَا أَبْلَغَ تَضَمُّنٍ، فَمَنْ أَعْطَى الْفَاتِحَةَ حَقَّهَا - عِلْمًا وَشُهُودًا وَحَالًا مَعْرِفَةً - عَلِمَ أَنَّهُ لَا تَصِحُّ لَهُ قِرَاءَتُهَا عَلَى الْعُبُودِيَّةِ إِلَّا بِالتَّوْبَةِ النَّصُوحِ، فَإِنَّ الْهِدَايَةَ التَّامَّةَ إِلَى الصِّرَاطِ الْمُسْتَقِيمِ لَا تَكُونُ مَعَ الْجَهْلِ بِالذُّنُوبِ، وَلَا مَعَ الْإِصْرَارِ عَلَيْهَا، فَإِنَّ الْأَوَّلَ جَهْلٌ يُنَافِي مَعْرِفَةَ الْهُدَى، وَالثَّانِيَ غَيٌّ يُنَافِي قَصْدَهُ وَإِرَادَتَهُ، فَلِذَلِكَ لَا تَصِحُّ التَّوْبَةُ إِلَّا بَعْدَ مَعْرِفَةِ الذَّنْبِ، وَالِاعْتِرَافِ بِهِ، وَطَلَبِ التَّخَلُّصِ مِنْ سُوءِ عَوَاقِبِهِ أَوَّلًا وَآخِرًا

“Tawbah is the return of the servant to Allâh and his separation from the path of those with whom Allâh is angry and those who are astray. This returning cannot be done except by Allâh's Hidâyah (guidance) to Sirât’il Mustaqîm (the Straight Path). The servant will not attain guidance except through Allâh's help and the servant's Tawhîd. Sűrat’ul Fâtihah explains this concept in the most complete and eloquent manner. So whoever appreciates (Sűrat’ul) Fâtihah and gives it its right, through Ilm (knowledge), contemplation upon its facts and by living its directives, Hâl (state) and Ma’rifah (knowing) will know that it will benefit in Ubűdiyyah (servitude) only if it is recited with Nasűh (sincere) Tawbah. The perfect guidance to the Straight Path cannot be attained along with Jahl towards sins. In addition, it cannot be attained along with persistence towards sins. Thus, the first (i.e. Jahl towards sins) negates recognizing the Hidâyah. The second (i.e. persistence towards sins) negates the Qasd (purpose) and Irâdah (will). Thus, Tawbah will not be valid except after one recognizes the sins, confesses his sins and seeks to get rid of the evil consequences altogether.

Ibn’ul Qayyim (Rahimahullâh) then said,


قَالَ: وَشَرَائِطُ التَّوْبَةِ ثَلَاثَةٌ: النَّدَمُ، وَالْإِقْلَاعُ، وَالِاعْتِذَارُ
فَحَقِيقَةُ التَّوْبَةِ: هِيَ النَّدَمُ عَلَى مَا سَلَفَ مِنْهُ فِي الْمَاضِي، وَالْإِقْلَاعُ عَنْهُ فِي الْحَالِ، وَالْعَزْمُ عَلَى أَنْ لَا يُعَاوِدَهُ فِي الْمُسْتَقْبَلِ
وَالثَّلَاثَةُ تَجْتَمِعُ فِي الْوَقْتِ الَّذِي تَقَعُ فِيهِ التَّوْبَةُ، فَإِنَّهُ فِي ذَلِكَ الْوَقْتِ يَنْدَمُ، وَيُقْلِعُ، وَيَعْزِمُ. فَحِينَئِذٍ يَرْجِعُ إِلَى الْعُبُودِيَّةِ الَّتِي خُلِقَ لَهَا، وَهَذَا الرُّجُوعُ هُوَ حَقِيقَةُ التَّوْبَةِ.
وَلَمَّا كَانَ مُتَوَقِّفًا عَلَى تِلْكَ الثَّلَاثَةِ جُعِلَتْ شَرَائِطَ لَهُ

“Harawî the author of Manâzil said, Conditions of Tawbah are three: Regret (for sinning), quitting (from sin) and apology (to Allâh). Haqîqah (the true nature) of Tawbah,

Regret for the sins that he committed in the past, quitting from it immediately and determination for not returning to the sin in the future.

During the time of Tawbah these three conditions meet. Indeed, during the time of Tawbah he (the slave) regrets, quits (from sinning) and resolves (to not sinning anymore in the future). Thus, the slave turns to Ubűdiyyah he was created for. This return is the Haqîqah of Tawbah.

When these three (states) are hoisted together then conditions of Tawbah are encountered for him.”
(Ibn’ul Qayyim, Madârij’us Sâlikîn, 1/197-200)

These are general statements by the scholars regarding the conditions for Tawbah to be accepted. This is the case for every Tawbah including both the major and minor sins. It is surely valid for Tawbah from Shirk which is the severest sin among the major sins. Therefore, the one who claims that he repents from Shirk must settle his Tawbah intentionally again, he must clearly declare from what he repents. As unconscious Tawbah will not benefit anyone, the doer will not be accounted as a repentant from Shirk and he will not be given the ruling of Muslim.

Especially in a geography Jahl regarding the context of Tawhîd is widespread, the statements -of those who claim to repent from Shirk- will not be respected unless it becomes evident that they actually know what Shirk is. This is identical to giving the ruling of Muslim to the Jews and the Christians while respecting their statement in which they declare they are distant from Shirk. It is because the Ahl’ul Kitâb already free themselves from Shirk, they dispraise Shirk, have Bughdh (hatred) towards the Ahl’ush Shirk among the pagans and idol worshipers while claiming that their deeds are not of Shirk. The state is the same for the societies of our era who attribute themselves to Islâm.

As we can not give the ruling of Muslim to the Ahl’ul Kitâb unless they clearly abandon their Shirk, we can not give the ruling of Muslim to the people who claim to be Muslim in our era unless they clearly abandon their Shirk. All of these clearly show that those who give the ruling of Muslim to people that are Kâfir in Asl (origin) -whose Tawbah from the Kufr I’tiqâd statements and acts do not evidently appear due to their uttering the Kalimah of Shahâdah and general statements concerning the rejection of Tâghűt- have nothing to do with Islâm.

Do they act in this manner when they respect the Tawbah of the one who repents from the sins like Zinâ (fornication), theft, homosexuality etc.? Do they look for general statements of the repentant mentioned without intending Tawbah or do they request from him to reject the acts/statements that fell into sin with and to guarantee that he will never ever return to it? Those who ponder upon the conditions of a Sahîh (sound) Tawbah will enlighten regarding the matter of “declaring Tawbah from Shirk and the transition from Shirk to Islâm” with the permit of Allâh Ta’âlâ.

No doubt, for the one who repents from Shirk, initially must know what Shirk he repents from. Today many people claim to make Tawbah from Shirk; however, when they say Shirk, they only intend rejecting worship to the idols and that there is/are creator/s besides Allâh.

The majority of the people do not know that Shirk is also rejecting the one who to whom Du’â (supplication) is directed; to whom Istiânah ‎‎‎(seeking aid) is sought from, to whose Hukm (ruling) one surrenders to, to whom other types of Ibadâh such as Istiâdhah (seeking refuge), Istighâthah (seeking deliverance & ‎‎rescue), Khawf (fear), Raja (hopefulness for mercy),Tawakkul (trust), Raghbah (aspiration), Rahbah (awe), Khushu (humility), Khashyah (apprehension), Inâbah (penitence), Dhabh (sacrificing animals), Nadhr (vow), Muhabbah (love), Ta’alluh (exaltation, deification), Rűku (bowing), Sajdah (prostration), Tazallul (submissiveness), Tadhim (glorification) etc. -which are from  the characteristics of Ulűhiyyah (Lordship)- is directed to besides Allâh Ta’âlâ. In short, the majority of the people in our era do not know that Shirk is taking another Ilah (deity) other than Allâh Ta’âlâ by directing one or various types of Ibadâh to that thing/person besides Allâh.

Tawbah from Shirk can only be accepted after it is intentionally done, the conditions of La-ilaha Illallâh are met, Asl of the Dîn of Islâm are fulfilled and principles that distinguish the Mu’min from the Mushrik are implemented.


Whereas the utterance of the Kalimah by a person is not taken in consideration just as it is in the case of the person –which is the reality of our age- who has no such intention, who does not consider such acts/statements/beliefs as Shirk and something bad. When the true Aqîdah of Tawhîd is articulated to him and requested from him to reject and repent from Shirk and the true nature of Tâghűt taught; then he is asked, do you say that you are distant from these, he will severely reject it. This is the true state of the majority of the people of our era who utter the Shahâdah and pray Salât.

These quotations indicate that; the condition for giving the ruling of Muslim and granting protection of wealth and blood to the one who is Kâfir in Asl or whose condition is unknown is the clear verification of his Tawbah from  Shirk. It is because Allâh Ta’âlâ stated the following expression in the Âyah,


فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ
“...but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakât, then open the way for them.” (at-Tawhab 9/5)

This is the same Âyah that which starts with the following declaration,

فَإِذَا انْسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ
”...then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).” (at-Tawbah 9/5)

Therefore, Allâh Ta’âlâ orders us to kill the Mushrikîn with the expression mentioned in the Âyah ”...then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).” and then  Allâh Ta’âlâstates, “...but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakât, then open the way for them.”

The following expression that is mentioned in the Âyah “...but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakât, then open the way for them.” is explained by the scholars with the Ittifâq (agreement) as “...if they repent from Shirk and Kufr...” indicates that; as long as Tawbah from Shirk is not clearly seen, the fight against him will continue and the treatment towards him as a Kâfir will be implemented.

In opposition to many people who deem Tawbah from Shirk is not merely a Bâtinî (inwardly) condition that has a Hukm (ruling) which will take place in the presence of Allâh Ta’âlâ. Rather it is stipulated as a condition for people to clearly declare their Tawbah from Shirk in order to rule him as a Muslim and to end fight against him in the Dhâhir (outwardly). Consequently, no one will be treated as Muslim and the sword would not be lifted from him until and unless it becomes evident that he attains the true Tawhîd as a Dîn.

Likewise, the Hadîth that is used as evidence by those who account Shahâdah as an absolute Alâmat of Islâm,


أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ، وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ
“I have been ordered (by Allâh) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh and that Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallan) is Allâh's Messenger...”

Bukhârî recorded it under the chapter regarding the Âyah,

فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلاَةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ
“...but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakât, then open the way for them.” (at-Tawbah 9/5)

This is also an indication that Tawbah from Shirk is intended in the Hadîth.

As Ibnu Hajar pointed out, Bukhârî had made the Hadîth a Tafsîr (explanation) for the Âyah (at-Tawbah 9/5) by allocating under the chapter regarding the same Âyah.

This clearly establishes the fact that Tawbah from Shirk is intended in the Hadîth. Finally, in another wording of the Hadîth the following was stated,


مَنْ قَالَ: لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ، وَكَفَرَ بِمَا يُعْبَدُ مَنْ دُونِ اللهِ
“He who professed that there is no –true- god –deserving to be worshiped- but Allâh and made a denial of everything which the people worship beside Allâh...”

This wording also refers to the fact that Tawbah from Shirk is intended in the Hadîth.

In short, the intent with both the wealth and the blood (life) of the one who utters Shahâdah becoming Harâm to shed is, by the way of making intentional Tawbah from Shirk and regarding those who make intentional Tawbah from Shirk. In order to make intentional Tawbah from Shirk, the repentant must know what the true quality of Shirk is.

Nowadays the Kalimah of Shahâdah, Salât and Adhân (call to prayer) are not taken in consideration as Alamât-i Fariqa (Distinguishing Sign) of Islâm anymore. Giving the ruling of Muslim to those who commit clear Kufr and Shirk who are unaware of the call of all the messengers furthermore to the masses altogether can only be done by those who play with the Nusűs (pl. Nass; textual proofs) and evident betrayal against Ilm.


Likewise, those who claim that the people of our era are mistaken however, they are excused due to Ta’wîl (forced interpretation) are also people who are in doubts and do not know the differences between Imân and Kufr. It is because if they were people who knew the Haqîqah of Islâm, how a person can enter Islâm, how could the ruling of Muslim be given to a person and attain this as Aqîdah; they would have never had doubts with the statements of those who give the ruling of Muslim to those Kuffâr who have not make Tawbah from Shirk. They would also have known that Jahl in this affair is a Jahl in Asl’ud Dîn.

Thus, it is understood that this Hadîth which is taken as evidence by the Ahl’ul Bâtil only refers and indicates making Tawbah from Kufr and Shirk. For this reason, the Kalimah of Shahâdah is mentioned in the Hadîth. Whereas, a Shahâdah that does not refer to the meaning “distancing from Kufr and Shirk” is not an Alamât of Islâm.

The individual who claims; “making Tawbah from Kufr and Shirk is not intended with this Hadîth. However, mere utterance of the Shahâdah by the tongue is intended with it. Even if it is known that the person who utters the Shahâdah utters it while not intending to make Tawbah from Kufr and Shirk is still to be given the ruling of Muslim due to uttering the Kalimah” opposes the Kitâb (Book; Qur’ân), the Sunnah (of the Prophet) and the Ijmâ (consensus). Moreover, he follows a path other than the path of the Mu’minîn.


The reason being there is no Dalîl (evidence) in the Nass indicating this, at all. Furthermore, no one would be able to quote even a single letter from the scholars of neither the Salaf nor the Khalaf stating that mere utterance of the Shahâdah is taken in consideration –while giving the ruling of Muslim to a person- without verifying whether he makes Tawbah from Shirk.

Contrarily utterance of Shahâdah can only be taken into consideration when it indicates the Tawbah from Shirk. If Shahâdah does not indicate the Tawbah from Shirk then it is not taken into consideration. We already made mention of this matter while quoting from al-Kasanî. However, in order to consolidate the matter next we will quote more obvious statements by the scholars regarding the matter Inshallâh.
Whosoever desires الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah (honour, power and glory) then to Allah belong all الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah [and one can get honour, power and glory only by obeying and worshiping Allah (Alone)]. To Him ascend (all) الْكَلِمُ الطَّيِّبُ al-Kalim al-Tayyib (the goodly words), and الْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ al-Amal al-Saalih (the righteous deeds) exalt it (the goodly words i.e., the goodly words are not accepted by Allah unless and until they are followed by good deeds). (Fatir 35/10)

Fahm'us Salaf

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 258
  • أنصار المل الحنيفية وحماة الشرع المحمديةť
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2018, 05:52:49 AM »
NARRATIONS IN REGARDS TO THE KALIMAH OF SHAHÂDAH IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE ALÂMAH (SIGN) OF ISLÂM

Even though in most of the above-mentioned Hadîth the wording is “I have been ordered (by Allâh Ta’âlâ) to fight against the people until they testify La-Ilaha Illallâh (there is no –true- god –deserves to be worshiped- but Allâh)” scholars mentioned that this is related only with the idol worshiper/pagan Mushrikîn and that in the case of Ahl’ul Kitâb they will be given the ruling of Muslim and treated as Muslim if they witness that “Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallan) is Allâh's Messenger.” Imâm Muhammad bin Hasan (Rahimahullâh) stated the following regarding the matter,

ذَكَرَ عَنْ الْحَسَنِ - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ - قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -: «أُمِرْت أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا: لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ. فَإِذَا قَالُوهَا فَقَدْ عَصَمُوا مِنَى دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إلَّا بِحَقِّهَا، وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللَّهِ» .
قَالَ: فَكَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - يُقَاتِلُ عَبَدَةَ الْأَوْثَانِ، وَهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَا يُوَحِّدُونَ اللَّهَ. فَمَنْ قَالَ مِنْهُمْ: لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ، كَانَ ذَلِكَ دَلِيلًا عَلَى إسْلَامِهِ.
وَالْحَاصِلُ أَنَّهُ يُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ إذَا أَقَرَّ بِخِلَافِ مَا كَانَ مَعْلُومًا مِنْ اعْتِقَادِهِ، لِأَنَّهُ لَا طَرِيقَ إلَى الْوُقُوفِ عَلَى حَقِيقَةِ الِاعْتِقَادِ لَنَا، فَنَسْتَدِلُّ بِمَا نَسْمَعُ مِنْ إقْرَارِهِ عَلَى اعْتِقَادِهِ. فَإِذَا أَقَرَّ بِخِلَافِ مَا هُوَ مَعْلُومٌ مِنْ اعْتِقَادِهِ اسْتَدْلَلْنَا بِهِ عَلَى أَنَّهُ بَدَّلَ اعْتِقَادَهُ. وَعَبَدَةُ الْأَوْثَانِ كَانُوا يُقِرُّونَ بِاَللَّهِ تَعَالَى. قَالَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى: {وَلَئِنْ سَأَلْتهمْ مَنْ خَلَقَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ} [الزخرف: 87] ، وَلَكِنْ كَانُوا لَا يُقِرُّونَ بِالْوَحْدَانِيَّةِ قَالَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى: {َإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ} [الصافات: 35] . وَقَالَ فِيمَا أَخْبَرَ عَنْهُمْ: {أَجَعَلَ الْآلِهَةَ إلَهًا وَاحِدًا إنَّ هَذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجَابٌ} [ص: 5] .
فَمَنْ قَالَ مِنْهُمْ: لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ، فَقَدْ أَقَرَّ بِمَا هُوَ مُخَالِفٌ لِاعْتِقَادِهِ (45 آ) فَلِهَذَا جُعِلَ ذَلِكَ دَلِيلَ إيمَانِهِ فَقَالَ: «أُمِرْت أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا: لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ»

No: 153 (1) “Hasan al-Basri (Radiyallâhu Anh) mentioned that Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) stated:

أُمِرْت أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا: لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ. فَإِذَا قَالُوهَا فَقَدْ عَصَمُوا مِنَى دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إلَّا بِحَقِّهَا، وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللَّهِ
“I have been ordered (by Allâh) to fight against the people until they declare La-Ilaha Illallâh (there is no –true- god –deserves to be worshiped- but Allâh). When they say it, they save their lives and property from me except for Islâmîc laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allâh.”

Imâm Muhammad (the author of the book) said, Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) was fighting against the worshipers of idols, and they were a tribe who had not actualized Tawhîd of Allâh. Thus, whoever among them said, La-ilaha Illallâh, it was accounted as a Dalîl (evidence) for his (being) Islâm (Muslim).

As a result, he will be ruled with his (entering) Islâm when he affirms the opposite of what is known as his I’tiqaad (creed). Because there is no method for us to inquire the reality of his I’tiqâd. Thus, we perform Istidlâl (conviction) upon what we hear regarding his affirmation of his I’tiqâd. When/if he affirms the opposite of what is known as his I’tiqâd, we perform Istidlâl with his affirmation upon that it indicates his (changing his) I’tiqâd. Pagans were affirming (the existence of) Allâh Ta’âlâ. Allâh Ta’âlâ states,


وَلَئِنْ سَأَلْتهمْ مَنْ خَلَقَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ
“And if thou ask them who created them, they will surely say: Allâh.” (az-Zukhruf 43/87)

However, they were not affirming the Wahdâniyyah (unity) of Allâh. Allâh Ta’âlâ states,

إِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ
“For when it was said unto them, La-Ilaha Illallâh (there is no –true- god –deserves to be worshiped- but Allâh), they were scornful.” (as-Sâffât 37/35);

Allâh Ta’âlâ states while informing from them,

أَجَعَلَ الْآلِهَةَ إلَهًا وَاحِدًا إنَّ هَذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجَابٌ
“Has he made the gods (all) into one Allâh? Truly this is a wonderful thing!” (Sad 38/5)

From those among them (i.e. idol worshiper pagans) whoever states “La-Ilaha Illallâh (there is no –true- god –deserves to be worshiped- but Allâh)” will have affirmed the opposite of his I’tiqâd. For this reason, it is made a Dalîl for his Imân (faith) thus Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) stated,

أُمِرْت أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا: لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ
“I have been ordered (by Allâh) to fight against the people until they declare La-Ilaha Illallâh (there is no –true- god –deserves to be worshiped- but Allâh).”

154 - وَعَلَى هَذَا الْمَانَوِيَّةُ وَكُلُّ مَنْ يَدَّعِي إلَهَيْنِ، إذَا قَالَ وَاحِدٌ مِنْهُمْ: لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ، فَذَلِكَ دَلِيلُ إسْلَامِهِ.
فَأَمَّا الْيَهُودُ وَالنَّصَارَى هُمْ يَقُولُونَ: لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ، فَلَا تَكُونُ هَذِهِ الْكَلِمَةُ دَلِيلَ إسْلَامِهِمْ. وَهُمْ فِي عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - كَانُوا لَا يُقِرُّونَ بِرِسَالَتِهِ. فَكَانَ دَلِيلُ الْإِسْلَامِ فِي حَقِّهِمْ الْإِقْرَارَ بِأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ. عَلَى مَا رُوِيَ [عَنْهُ] «أَنَّهُ دَخَلَ عَلَى جَارِهِ الْيَهُودِيِّ يَعُودُهُ فَقَالَ: اشْهَدْ أَنْ لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ، وَأَنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ، فَنَظَرَ الرَّجُلُ إلَى أَبِيهِ فَقَالَ لَهُ: أَجِبْ أَبَا الْقَاسِمِ. فَشَهِدَ بِذَلِكَ وَمَاتَ، فَقَالَ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -: الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي أَعْتَقَ بِي نَسَمَةً مِنْ النَّارِ: ثُمَّ قَالَ لِأَصْحَابِهِ: لُوا أَخَاكُمْ»

No: 154 (2) This is the state of the Mânawiyyah (Manichaeism) and all of those who claim that there are two Ilah (Thanawiyyâ; dualists). When/if one of them say “La-Ilaha Illallâh (there is no –true- god –deserves to be worshiped- but Allâh)” then it is (accounted as a sufficient) Dalîl for his (being) Islâm (Muslim).
 
As for the Jews and the Christians who say “La-Ilaha Illallâh”; then this Kalimah (statement) is not taken in consideration as a Dalîl for their (being) Islâm (Muslim). During the era of Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam), the Jews and the Christians who said “La-Ilaha Illallâh” were not affirming his (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) Risâlah (Messengership). Dalîl regarding their (being) Islâm (Muslim) is their affirmation of “Muhammadun Rasűlullâh (Muhammad is the Messenger of Allâh)”. As it was narrated from him (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam),


أَنَّهُ دَخَلَ عَلَى جَارِهِ الْيَهُودِيِّ يَعُودُهُ فَقَالَ: اشْهَدْ أَنْ لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ، وَأَنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ، فَنَظَرَ الرَّجُلُ إلَى أَبِيهِ فَقَالَ لَهُ: أَجِبْ أَبَا الْقَاسِمِ. فَشَهِدَ بِذَلِكَ وَمَاتَ، فَقَالَ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -: الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي أَعْتَقَ بِي نَسَمَةً مِنْ النَّارِ: ثُمَّ قَالَ لِأَصْحَابِهِ: لُوا أَخَاكُمْ‏
“Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) had visited his ill (young) Jewish neighbor he had asked him to proclaim, I witness that there is no –true- god –deserves to be worshiped- but Allâh and I (i.e. Muhammad) am Messenger of Allâh. The ill Jew looked at his father (as if he was asking permission to proclaim) so his father stated, respond to Abu’l Qâsim (i.e. Muhammad). The ill Jew proclaimed what he was asked to and than died. Upon this Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) stated, Hamd (praise) be to Allâh Who has saved one person from the fire of Hell with my help. Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) then said to his Ashâb (companions), do the (funeral) duties of your brother (in Dîn).”

Quotation from Imâm Muhammad bin Hasan (Rahimahullâh) by Sarakhsi ends here. (Sarakhsî, Sharh’us Siyar’il Kabîr, no: 153-154)

According to what Bayhaqî narrated from Imâm Shafi’î (Rahimahullâh) with its Isnâd (chain of narration) that, Imâm Shafi’î mentioned the Hadîth “I have been ordered (by Allâh) to fight against the people until they declare La-Ilaha Illallâh…” is related with the idol worshiper pagans and not related with Ahl’ul Kitâb. (Bayhaqî, as-Sunan’ul Kubrâ, 9/308 no: 18627)

Likewise Baghawî (Rahimahullâh) stated the following regarding the matter in question,


أَرَادَ بِهِ عَبَدَةَ الأَوْثَانِ دُونَ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ، لأَنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ: لَا إِلَهَ إِلا اللَّهُ، ثُمَّ لَا يُرْفَعُ عَنْهُمُ السَّيْفُ حَتَّى يُقِرُّوا بِنُبُوَّةِ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، أَوْ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ

“Idol worshiper pagans other than Ahl’ul Kitâb were intended with this Hadîth. It is because they were uttering La-Ilaha Illallâh. Then the sword will not be lifted upon them until Ahl’ul Kitâb affirm the Nubuwwah (Prophethood) of Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) or until they pay Jizyah (a tax levied on non-Muslims who live under the protection of Islâmîc government as an equivalent to the Zakât which Muslims pay).” (Baghawî, Sharh’us Sunna, 1/66)

Similarly, Tahâwî (Rahimahullâh) mentioned the same opinion and in addition to it he mentioned the following command of Rasulullâh (sallallâhu alayhi wa sallam) in which he commanded Ali bin Abi Tâlib (Radiyallâhu Anh) while he was going to fight the Jews of Khaybar.


قَاتِلْهُمْ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ , فَإِذَا فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَقَدْ مَنَعُوا مِنْكَ دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلَّا بِحَقِّهَا وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى الله
“Fight them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no –true- god –deserving to be worshipped- but Allâh and Muhammad is His Messenger, and when they do that then their blood and their riches are inviolable from your hands but what is justified by law and their reckoning is with Allâh.” (Tahâwî, Sharhu Ma’âni’l Athâr, Hadîth no: 5123)

After narrating this Hadîth, Tahâwî (Rahimahullâh) commented by stating,

فَفِي هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَدْ كَانَ أَبَاحَ لَهُ قِتَالَهُمْ وَإِنْ شَهِدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا مَعَ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ. لِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ كَانُوا يُوَحِّدُونَ اللهَ وَلَا يُقِرُّونَ بِرَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَأَمَرَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَلِيًّا بِقِتَالِهِمْ حَتَّى يَعْلَمَ خُرُوجَهُمْ مِمَّا أَمَرَ بِقِتَالِهِمْ عَلَيْهِ مِنَ الْيَهُودِيَّةِ كَمَا أَمَرَ بِقِتَالِ عَبَدَةِ الْأَوْثَانِ حَتَّى يَعْلَمَ خُرُوجَهُمْ مِمَّا قُوتِلُوا عَلَيْهِ

“Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) -in this Hadîth- made it Mubâh (permissible) for Ali bin Abi Tâlib (Radiyallâhu Anh) to fight them until they bear testimony that Muhammadun Rasűlullâh along with their bearing testimony to the fact that there is no –true- god –deserving to be worshipped- but Allâh. It is because they are a tribe who unify Allâh in Oneness however; they do not affirm (Messengership of) Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam). Therefore, Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) commanded Ali (Radiyallâhu Anh) to fight against them until they come out of Judaism that is the reason for the command to fight against them. Likewise Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) commanded to fight against the idol worshiper pagans until they come out of (Shirk) what causes the fight (to be declared) against them.” (Tahâwî, Sharhu Ma’âni’l Athâr, 3/214)

All of these quotations indicate the Ulamâ had not taken in consideration the Ahadîth “I have been ordered (by Allâh) to fight against the people until they declare La-Ilaha Illallâh…” in an absolute manner. The Ulamâ allocated these Ahadîth to the idol worshiper pagans and while leaning upon some other Nâss (textual proof) concerning the matter, they did not implement these Ahadîth to the Ahl’ul Kitâb. Furthermore, there are some respected scholars who stated –even though it was clearly mentioned in the Ahadîth- that the statement “La-Ilaha Illallâh” will not be considered as an Alâmat of Islâm, meaning it will not be taken as a sign for the entry to Islâm for the idol worshiper pagans either. They say that, the statement “La-Ilaha Illallâh” is taken in consideration as a request of Aman (Asylum, protection and notice period) purposes only.

Again, the Fatwâ Hâfidh Ibnu Hajar (Rahimahullâh) gave regarding the individual who utters La-Ilaha Illallâh also provides an explanation to the matter. After narrating the Hadîth, “I have been ordered (by Allâh) to fight against the people until they declare La-Ilaha Illallâh (there is no –true- god –deserves to be worshiped- but Allâh). When they say it, they save their lives and property from me except for Islâmîc laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allâh.” Ibnu Hajar says,


وَفِيهِ مَنْعُ قَتْلِ مَنْ قَالَ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَلَوْ لَمْ يَزِدْ عَلَيْهَا وَهُوَ كَذَلِكَ لَكِنْ هَلْ يَصِيرُ بِمُجَرَّدِ ذَلِكَ مُسْلِمًا الرَّاجِحُ لَا بَلْ يَجِبُ الْكَفُّ عَنْ قَتْلِهِ حَتَّى يُخْتَبَرَ فَإِنْ شَهِدَ بِالرِّسَالَةِ وَالْتَزَمَ أَحْكَامَ الْإِسْلَامِ حُكِمَ بِإِسْلَامِهِ وَإِلَى ذَلِك الْإِشَارَة بِالِاسْتِثْنَاءِ بِقَوْلِهِ إِلَّا بِحَقِّ الْإِسْلَامِ

“In the Hadîth there is prohibition of killing the one who utters La-Ilaha Illallâh even if he does not add anything to it. That is how it is however, will one be Muslim simply with (uttering) it? The preferred view is, ‘no (he will not be Muslim simply with uttering it) rather, it is necessary to stop killing him until he is tested. If he testifies to the Risâlah (of Rasűlullâh) and adheres to the Ahkâm (pl. Hukm; rules and regulations) of Islâm, he will then be given the Hukm of Islâm. This exception is pointed out in the Hadîth with the statement of Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam), إِلَّا بِحَقِّ الْإِسْلَامِ “except for Islâmic laws”.” (Ibnu Hajar, Fath’ul Bârî, 12/279)

Tahâwî also inclined to the view that was provided above by Ibnu Hajar. Our intent here is not determining the Râjih (preferred) opinion regarding the matter. This view which can be summed as “Statement of La-Ilaha Illallâh is not for giving the ruling of Muslim to the person but for lifting the sword from him” can be criticized. Whereas, such view being adapted by the scholars and mentioned by them indicates that Ahadîth in this regards were not taken without considering the Illah (reason).

Also in his statement Ibnu Hajar specified that the ruling of Islâm is to be given to the person who utters La-Ilaha Illallâh after he is tested. Many people here and there claim that giving the ruling of Islâm to the person who utters La-Ilaha Illallâh after testing him is a Bid’ah and only the Khawârij do it! There is evidence for doing so in the statement by Ibnu Hajar and evidence for the pure ignorance of those who claim so!

Furthermore, scholars –in some cases- did not even consider the utterance of both testimonies of Islâm to give the ruling of Muslim to the person –although they are clearly mentioned in the Nâss-. Sarakhsî quoted from Imâm Muhammad –from among the students of Abű Hanîfah (Rahimahullâh)- that he said,


قَالَ: فَأَمَّا الْيَوْمَ بِبِلَادِ الْعِرَاقِ فَإِنَّهُمْ يَشْهَدُونَ أَنْ لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ، وَلَكِنَّهُمْ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُ رَسُولٌ إلَى الْعَرَبِ، لَا إلَى بَنِي إسْرَائِيل. وَيَتَمَسَّكُونَ بِظَاهِرِ قَوْله تَعَالَى: {هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِنْهُمْ} [الجمعة: 2] .
فَمَنْ يُقِرُّ مِنْهُمْ بِأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ لَا يَكُونُ مُسْلِمًا حَتَّى يَتَبَرَّأَ مِنْ دِينِهِ مَعَ ذَلِكَ، أَوْ يُقِرَّ بِأَنَّهُ دَخَلَ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ. حَتَّى إذَا قَالَ الْيَهُودِيُّ أَوْ النَّصْرَانِيُّ: أَنَا مُسْلِمٌ أَوْ أَسْلَمْت لَا يُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ. لِأَنَّهُمْ لَا يَدَّعُونَ ذَلِكَ. فَإِنَّ الْمُسْلِمَ هُوَ الْمُسْتَسْلِمُ لِلْحَقِّ الْمُنْقَادُ لَهُ، وَهُمْ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّ الْحَقَّ مَا هُمْ عَلَيْهِ. فَلَا يَكُونُ مُطْلَقُ هَذَا اللَّفْظِ فِي حَقِّهِمْ دَلِيلَ الْإِسْلَامِ حَتَّى يَتَبَرَّأَ مِنْ دِينِهِ مَعَ ذَلِكَ
كَذَلِكَ لَوْ قَالَ: بَرِئْت مِنْ الْيَهُودِيَّةِ وَلَمْ يَقُلْ مَعَ ذَلِكَ: دَخَلْت فِي الْإِسْلَامِ، فَإِنَّهُ لَا يُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ، لِأَنَّهُ يُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ تَبْرَأَ مِنْ الْيَهُودِيَّةِ وَدَخَلَ فِي النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ. فَإِنْ قَالَ مَعَ ذَلِكَ: وَدَخَلْت فِي الْإِسْلَامِ فَحِينَئِذٍ يَزُولُ هَذَا الِاحْتِمَالُ. وَقَالَ بَعْضُ مَشَايِخِنَا: إذَا قَالَ: دَخَلْت فِي الْإِسْلَامِ، يُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ وَإِنْ لَمْ يَتَبَرَّأْ مِمَّا كَانَ عَلَيْهِ. لِأَنَّ فِي لَفْظِهِ مَا يَدُلُّ عَلَى دُخُولٍ حَادِثٍ مِنْهُ فِي السَّلَامِ، وَذَلِكَ غَيْرُ مَا كَانَ عَلَيْهِ. فَتَضَمُّنُ هَذَا اللَّفْظُ التَّبَرِّي مِمَّا كَانَ عَلَيْهِ
وَلَوْ قَالَ الْمَجُوسِيُّ: أَسْلَمْت، أَوْ أَنَا مُسْلِمٌ، يُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ. لِأَنَّهُمْ لَا يَدَّعُونَ هَذَا الْوَصْفَ لِأَنْفُسِهِمْ وَيَعُدُّونَهُ شَتِيمَةً بَيْنَهُمْ يَشْتُمُ الْوَاحِدُ مِنْهُمْ بِهِ وَلَدُهُ فَيَكُونُ ذَلِكَ دَلِيلَ الْإِسْلَامِ فِي حَقِّهِ

No: 155 (3) “Imâm Muhammad said, as for today, there are Ahl'ul Kitâb living in the lands of Irâq, they proclaim “La-Ilaha Illallâh Muhammadun Rasűlullâh” however, they claim that Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) was the prophet of the Arabs and not to the Ban-i Isrâ’îl (the Jews). They cling to the Dhâhir (apparent) of Allâh Ta’âlâ’s statement:

هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِنْهُمْ
“It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered a messenger from among themselves...” (al-Jumu'ah 62/2)

Whoever among them affirms Muhammad is the Messenger of Allâh then he will not become Muslim until he -along with this- distances himself from his Dîn or until he affirms that he entered Islâm. Even if a Jew or a Christian says, “I am Muslim” or says, “I became Muslim” he will not be given the ruling of Islâm. This is because they do not call to that. So indeed the Muslim is the one whom surrendered by the Haqq (truth) and submissive for it. They deem that Haqq is what they are upon it. Therefore this statement is not taken as a Mutlaq (absolute) Dalîl regarding his Islâm until and unless –along with this- he distances from his Dîn.

Likewise if he says, “I am distant from Judaism” however he does not say along with it “I entered into Islâm” then he will not be with Islâm. It is because there is possibility that he is distant from Judaism however, he entered into Christianity. If he –along with it- says, “I have entered into Islâm” then such possibility is eliminated. Some of our scholars say, If he says, “I have entered into Islâm” then he will be given the ruling of Islâm even if he does not distance from what he was upon. It is because in his statement there is what indicates his new entrance into Islâm that is different from what he used to be upon. His statement necessitates Tabarrî (distancing) from what he used to be upon.

Even if a Magian says, “I have become Muslim” or “I am Muslim” he will be given the ruling of Islâm. It is because they do not attribute themselves with it and they even use it to curse one another. One among them curses his children with it (i.e. naming s/he as Islâm/Muslim). So, this becomes a Dalîl regarding his Islâm.”
(Sarakhsî, Sharh’us Siyar’il Kabîr)

It is clearly understood from the statements of Imâm Muhammad (Rahimahullâh) that even though the Jews of Irâq bear witness there is no –true- god –deserving to be worshiped- but Allâh and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allâh –due to their claim in which they say Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) had been sent as a Messenger only for the Arabs- their testimonies are not accepted from them. This is not –as the ignorant ones deem- abandoning the Nâss rather taking the Illah (reason) for the Nâss in consideration.

After his above mentioned statements Tahâwî mentioned that there are people among the Ahl’ul Kitâb whom affirm the Nubuwwah of Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) and that they claim the Nubuwwah of Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) is not valid for the Israelites. Tahâwî then states that even if they bear witness to both testimonies they will not be given the ruling of Islâm until it becomes clear that they bear witness to both testimonies in order to be Muslim.

Likewise Imâm Muhammad bin Hasan ash-Shaybânî (132-189H), declared that the saying “I am Muslim” is not taken as an Alâmat of Islâm for/from the Ahl’ul Kitâb due to the Ahl’ul Kitâb claiming to be Muslim even though they were upon Kufr. This is the exact state of the people in our era who claim to be Muslim even though they are upon clear Kufr and Shirk. Among the common points in these statements is displaying opposition to one’s ex-belief.

Therefore, once more it becomes evident that the point for uttering the Shahâdatayn is not mere utterances of the tongue rather it is displaying opposition to the Bâtil (falsehood) I’tiqâd (creed) which he used to have before becoming Muslim. As you are aware, Imâm Muhammad (Rahimahullâh) mentioned this point in his above-mentioned statement.

As Shawkânî quoted, Imâm Baghawî (Rahimahullâh) stated,


الْكَافِرُ إذَا كَانَ وَثَنِيًّا أَوْ ثَنَوِيًّا لَا يُقِرُّ بِالْوَحْدَانِيَّةِ، فَإِذَا قَالَ: لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ حُكِمَ بِإِسْلَامِهِ ثُمَّ يُجْبَرُ عَلَى قَبُولِ جَمِيعِ الْأَحْكَامِ وَيَبْرَأُ مِنْ كُلِّ دِينٍ خَالَفَ الْإِسْلَامَ
وَأَمَّا مَنْ كَانَ مُقِرًّا بِالْوَحْدَانِيَّةِ مُنْكِرًا لِلنُّبُوَّةِ فَإِنَّهُ لَا يُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ حَتَّى يَقُولَ: مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ، فَإِنْ كَانَ يَعْتَقِدُ أَنَّ الرِّسَالَةَ الْمُحَمَّدِيَّةَ إلَى الْعَرَبِ خَاصَّةً فَلَا بُدَّ أَنْ يَقُولَ إلَى جَمِيعِ الْخَلْقِ، فَإِنْ كَانَ كُفْرُهُ بِجُحُودِ وَاجِبٍ أَوْ اسْتِبَاحَةِ مُحَرَّمٍ فَيَحْتَاجُ إلَى أَنْ يَرْجِعَ عَنْ اعْتِقَادِهِ

“If the Kuffar whether from among the idol worshiper pagans or Thanawiyyâ (dualists) who do not affirm the Wahdâniyyah says, La-Ilaha Illallâh then he will be given the ruling of Islâm. Then he will be forced to accept the entire Ahkâm and to be Barî (distant) from every Dîn that opposes Islâm.

As for the one who affirms the Wahdâniyyah and rejects the Nubuwwah then the ruling of Islâm will not be given until he says Muhammadun Rasűlullâh (Muhammad is the Messenger of Allâh). So if he believes the Risâlah of Muhammad is peculiar to the Arabs then it is unavoidable for him to say that Rasűlullâh was sent to the entire creation. If his Kufr is regarding the denying of Wâjib (obligatory) or Istihlâl (making permissible) of what is made Harâm then he needs to withdraw from his I’tiqâd (in order to be given the ruling of Islâm).”
(Shawkânî, Nayl’ul Awtâr, 7/234)

We quote these statements so that it becomes clear that those who oppose us –and accuse us with deviation and opposing the Nâss because we do not accept the Kalimah of Tawhîd as an Alâmat of Islâm anymore- are opposing to the Ummah. The statements of the scholars clarify that in order for an individual or a society to be given the ruling of Muslim, he/they need to manifest the opposite of their I’tiqâd especially the Aqîdah disease(s) they used to have which prevent them to be Muslim.

This was the reality of “Alâmat of Islâm” and this was the actual “Alâmat of Islâm” in the past and still is today. We only give the ruling of Muslim to a person whom we witness and are certain about his Tawbah from Shirk. For this reason, “La-Ilaha Illallâh” is accounted as “Alâmat of Islâm” for the idol worshiper pagans. Affirming “the Risâlah and Nubuwwah of Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam)” i.e. bearing witness to “Muhammadun Rasűlullâh” is accounted as “Alâmat of Islâm” for the Ahl’ul Kitâb in general. Lastly as for the Jews of Irâq neither of the above mentioned were accounted as “Alâmat of Islâm” but affirming the fact that Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) was sent to the entire mankind as a Prophet.

As seen, “Alâmat of Islâm” changes according to the person/society since the real intent with “Alâmat of Islâm” is to determine the act(s)/statement(s)/belief(s) that indicate(s) Tawbah from Shirk and Kufr of the person/society whom the ruling of Islâm is to be given or not.
As Baghawî (Rahimahullâh) pointed out, if one rejects a ruling of Islâm while claiming affiliation to Islâm, he will only return to Islâm by affirming the ruling that he used to reject. Otherwise, even if he bears witness to the Kalimah of Shahâdah he will not be given the ruling of Islâm.

The following was mentioned regarding how a Murtad (apostate) should perform Tawbah, in “an-Nahr’ul Fâiq” from the Hanafî Fiqh books by Imâm Sirâj’ud Dîn bin Nujaym al-Hanafî (1005H),


ولو أتى بالشهادتين على وجه العادة لم ينفعه ما لم يرجع عما قال إذ لا يرتفع بها كفره كذا في (البزازية (

“If Shahâdatayn (two testimonies of faith) are uttered by the way of custom (without intending Tawbah with it) it will not benefit him unless he withdraws (from Kufr) what he said. It is because uttering Shahâdatayn will not have lifted his Kufr. Likewise (the ruling is) in al-Bazzaziyyah.” (an-Nahr’ul Fâiq, 3/255)

It is understood that an individual or a society that is upon Kufr has to make Tawbah from their Kufr. Even utterances of the Shahâdatayn does not benefit such people and their uttering of Shahâdatayn is not accounted as their Tawbah without certain information is provided regarding their Tawbah from the Kufr they have.

If the I’tiqâd of one is unknown then the abode that he lives and the people, he belongs to will be taken in consideration for these matters as it was explained previously. This means; the Fatâwâ and statements of the Ulamâ quoted above regarding the Mushrikîn (sing. Mushrik; idol worshiper pagans), Ahl’ul Kitâb (the Jews and the Christians) and those Murtadűn (sing. Murtad; apostate ones) and Zanâdiqah (sing. Zindîq; heretics) who attribute themselves to Islâm can also be applied to the people who reside in them whose Aqîdah is unknown to us.

People will be treated according to which society they reside in and their entry into Islâm is actualized according to the ruling of the abode they resides in. He will be asked to keep himself distant from the well known Kufr and Shirk that is seen in his society. Proof for this is -like the principle of Istishâb mentioned in the beginning of this article- the general principle regarding how the ruling of Islâm would be given to those who live in Dâr’ul Harb or Dâr’ul Islâm and their Aqîdah is unknown.

There are people who become helpless against these Fatâwâ, quotes and statements by the Ulamâ and say, “We do not care about the statements of the Ulamâ. We submit only to the Nâss and in the Nâss it is clearly mentioned the utterance of Shahâdah is the Alâmat of Islâm”.

This and similar statements show nothing but their compound ignorance. It is also accusing the Ulamâ of giving rulings without having any proof. The Ulamâ do not account the Kalimah of Shahâdah as Alâmat of Islâm in some cases while relying mainly upon the Asl (fundamental bases) of Islâm that is one can only be Muslim after performing Tawbah from Shirk. By reason of not knowing the Asl of Islâm, our opponents account the mere utterance of the Kalimah of Shahâdah as Alâmat of Islâm. They are also helpless to provide even a single scholar who says the same while there are so many scholars –as we quoted from some who say exactly what we say.
Alhamdulillah! Thus it becomes clear that these people whom oppose us actually oppose both the Nâss and the Ijmâ.

Hamad bin Atîq an-Najdî (Rahimahullâh) in his book “Sabîl’un Najât” explained “the matter of it being a necessity for those who live in Dâr’ul Kufr to keep themselves distant from the types of Kufr presents in their community” in the following manner,


فاعلم أن الكفر له أنواع وأقسام تتعدد بتعدد المكفرات، وقد تقدم بعض ذلك، وكل طائفة من طوائف الكفر فلا بد أن يشتهر عندها نوع منه، ولا يكون المسلم مظهرا لدينه، حتى يخالف كل طائفة بما اشتهر عندها، ويصرح لها بعداوته، والبراءة منه، فمن كان كفره بالشرك، فإظهار الدين عنده التصريح بالتوحيد، أو النهي عن الشرك والتحذير منه، ومن كان كفره بجحد الرسالة، فإظهار الدين عنده التصريح بأن محمدا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، والدعوة إلى اتباعه. ومن كان كفره بترك الصلاة، فإظهار الدين عنده فعل الصلاة، والأمر بها، ومن كان كفره بموالاة المشركين والدخول في طاعتهم، فإظهار الدين عنده التصريح بعداوته، والبراءة منه ومن المشركين
وبالجملة فلا يكون مظهرا لدينه، إلا من صرح لمن ساكنه من كل كافر ببراءته منه، وأظهر له عداوته لهذا الشيء الذي صار به كافرا وبراءته منه، ولهذا قال المشركون للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: عاب ديننا وسفّه أحلامنا، وشتم آلهتنا

“Know that, Kufr has types and divisions so much that there are Kufr equal to the quantıty of Kuffâr. Some of them had already past (in the previous pages). It is unavoidable for every sect among the sects of Kufr that they have well known/wide spread type of Kufr in its people. The Muslim can not display his Dîn until and unless he opposes every sect that is well known/wide spread in his people, declares open enmity towards them, and keep distant from them. Whosever’s Kufr is Shirk then displaying the Dîn for him is openly declaring Tawhîd (before them), prohibiting them from Shirk and warning them from it. Whosever’s Kufr is denying the Risâlah (Messengership) then displaying the Dîn for him is openly declaring that Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) is the Messenger of Allâh Ta’âlâ and calling to submit to it.  Whosever’s Kufr is abandoning the Salât (daily prayers) then displaying the Dîn for him is praying Salât and commanding others to pray. Whosever’s Kufr is Muwalât (alliance & friendship) with the Mushrikîn and engaging under their discipline/obedience then displaying the Dîn for him is openly declaring enmity to him, Barâh (keeping himself distant) from him and the Mushrikîn.

In summary, Dîn will not be accounted as displayed except from the one who openly declares Barâh from every Kuffâr that he resides with, displaying enmity towards them in everything that may cause Kufr and keep distant from it. For this reason, the Mushrikűn said the following regarding the Nabî (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam),


عاب ديننا وسفّه أحلامنا، وشتم آلهتنا

“He condemns our religion, mocks our intellect, talks against our deities.”

Hamad bin Atîq an-Najdî (Rahimahullâh) then said,


وفي السيرة: أن خالد بن الوليد، لما وصل إلى العرض في مسيره إلى أهل اليمامة، لما ارتدوا قدم مائتي فارس، وقال: من أصبتم من الناس فخذوه. فأخذوا مجاعة، في ثلاثة وعشرين رجلا من قومه، فلما وصل إلى خالد، قال له: يا خالد، لقد علمت أني قدمت إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فبايعته على الإسلام، وأنا اليوم على ما كنت عليه أمس. فإن يك كذابا قد خرج فينا فإن الله يقول: {ولا تزو وازرة وزر أخرى} فقال: يا مجاعة، تركت اليوم ما كنت عليه أمس، وكان رضاك بأمر هذا الكذاب وسكوتك عنه وأنت أعز أهل اليمامة، وقد بلغك مسيري إقرارا له ورضاء بما جاء به، فهلا أبديت عذرا، وتكلمت فيمن تكلم!، فقد تكلم ثمامة فرد وأنكر، وتكلم اليشكري، فإن قلت: أخاف قومي، فهلا عمدت إليّ، أو بعثت إلي رسولا، فقال: إن رأيت يا ابن المغيرة أن تعفو عن هذا كله!!، فقال: قد عفوت عن دمك، ولكن في نفسي حرج من تركك

It is in the Siyar that when Khâlid bin Walîd (Radiyallâhu Anh) reached the land for marching to the Ahl’ul Yamâmah –for they (people of Yamâma) had made Irtidâd- sent two hundred chevaliers and said, whomever you come across among the people then capture him! Then the chevaliers captured Majâ’h and twenty-three men among his tribe. Once Majâ’h reached Khâlid (Radiyallâhu Anh) he told him, O Khâlid you already know that I went to Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) and I gave him Bayâh (pledge) upon Islâm. Today I am –still- upon the same thing I was upon yesterday. If you say the Kadhhâb (i.e. Musaylamah the Liar who claimed to be a prophet) has emerged in us (our tribe) then surely Allâh Ta’âlâ states,

ولا تزو وازرة وزر أخرى
“…Every soul draws the meed of its acts on none but itself…” (al-An'âm 6/164)

Thereupon Khâlid (Radiyallâhu Anh) said, O Majâ’h you abandoned today what you were upon yesterday. You showed consent to the affairs of this Kadhhâb and kept silent to him while you are the best of Ahl’ul Yamâma! My arrival reached you while you were affirming the Kadhhâb and showed consent to whatever he brought. Why did you not ask for pardon and spoke just like those who spoke? Thumâmah spoke; refused and rejected. Yashkurî also spoke. If you say, "I feared my tribe" then why did you not come to me or not sent a messenger to me? Then Majâ’h said, do you see o Ibn’ul Mughîrah (i.e. Khâlid bin Walîd), would you not forgive all these? Upon this Khalid (Radiyallâhu Anh) responded by stating, I forgive your blood (life) but in myself botheration for leaving you.” (Hamad bin Atîq an-Najdî, Sabîl’un Najât wa'l Fikâk min Muwâlât’il Murtadîn wa’l Atrâk)

This Riwâyah (narration) was recorded by al-Kilâî (634H) in his book “al-Iktifâ (2/120)” and Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullâh) in his book “Mukhtasar Sîrat’ir Rasűl (281)” attributing it to Wâqidî.

Shaykh Abd'ur Rahmân bin Hasan (Rahimahullâh) stated the following in his book “al-Mawrid’ul Azab’uz Zulâl” after mentioning this incident that took place between Khâlid bin Walîd (Radiyallâhu Anh) and Majâ’h,


فتأمل كيف جعل خالدٌ سكوتَ مجَّاعة رِضًى بما جاء به مسيلمة وإقرارًا

“Ponder upon the fact that Khâlid (Radiyallâhu Anh) took the silence of Majâ’h as his Ridhâ (consent) for whatever Musaylamah (the liar) brought and his affirmation.” (Abd'ur Rahmân bin Hasan, al-Mawrid’ul Azab’uz Zulâl, 293)

Even though these Imâms stated these regarding Idhâr (displaying/manifesting) of the Dîn, their mention of Majâ’h sheds light upon our matter in discussion. Since Khâlid (Radiyallâhu Anh) treated both Majaa’h and the tribe of Bani Hanifah as Murtad. Khalid (Radiyallâhu Anh) only freed those who displayed their Dîn just as Majâ’h did and declared their Barâh from the Kufr their tribe had. For this reason, Hamad bin Atîq (Rahimahullâh) mentioned the story.

Everyone who lives in Dâr’ul Harb will be treated as Kâfir –as we mentioned above- in Dhâhir. The individual who does not want to be treated as Kâfir merely needs to display his Aqîdah and to declare that he is distant from the Kufr that is common in his people.

As for the clear Kufr in the lands that are attributed to Islâm; they are neither democratic nor grave worshiping or seeking judgment from the Tâghűt and its likes. These are seen in some countries while not seen other countries. However, there is a Kufr in which everyone in our era; the Arabs and the Ajam (non-Arab), Awâm (lay people) and Hawâs (the elite) share. The most common Aqîdah disease in our era is not knowing the differences between Imân and Kufr, the Haqîqah (reality) of Islâm and Shirk, the meanings of Ibadâh (worship) and Ilah (deity) and they are a result of turning away from the Dîn.

Because of this, people utter the Kalimah of Shahâdah with their tongues without knowing what they accept and/or reject and they deem that they (can) become Muslim with mere utterance of the Kalimah. This is the true condition of everyone; including those known as Âlim in the society let alone the Awâm.

The disease of not being aware of the fundamental terms of the Aqîdah is not peculiar to our era rather for a long time; those who call themselves as Muslim become infected with it.


The following is an example of what Fiqh scholars mentioned in their books regarding the matter with what one becomes Muslim. So Ibnu Qudâmah (Rahimahullâh) stated,


ومن ثبتت ردته فأسلم قبل منه، ويكفي في إسلامه أن يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله، إلا أن يكون كفره بجحد نبي أو كتاب أو فريضة أو نحوه، أو يعتقد أن محمدا -صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ- بعث إلى العرب خاصة فلا يقبل منه حتى يقر بما جحده

“If someone’s Riddah (apostasy) is established, then he professes Islâm, it is accepted of him. In his profession of Islâm, it is sufficient for him to bear witness that “there is no -true- god –deserving to be worshiped- but Allâh, and that Muhammad is Allâh’s Rasűl (Messenger)”, unless his belief takes the form of denying a Nabî (Prophet), or a Book, or an obligatory religious duty, or something of the kind, or he is convinced that Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) was sent to the Arabs exclusively, in which case it is not accepted of him until he affirms what he has denied.” (Ibnu Qudâmah, al-Umdah, 139)

Bahâ’ud Dîn al-Maqdisî (Rahimahullâh) stated the following as explanation of the above-mentioned statement of Ibnu Qudâmah (Rahimahullâh),


فإن كان كفره بقوله إن محمدا - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - إنما بعث إلى العرب خاصة احتاج - مع الشهادتين - إلى أن يقر أنه مبعوث إلى الخلق أجمعين، ويتبرأ مع الشهادتين من كل دين يخالف دين الإسلام؛ لأنه إذا اقتصر على الشهادتين احتمل أنه أراد ما اعتقده، وإن ارتد بجحود فرض لم يسلم حتى يقر بما جحده ويعيد الشهادتين؛ لأنه كذب الله ورسوله بما اعتقده، وكذلك إذا استباح محرما

“If his Kufr is his Ikhtijâj (deriving proof) by saying that Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) was sent to the Arabs exclusively –along with Shahâdatayn- his affirmation regarding Muhammad (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) was sent to the entire creation altogether, –along with Shahâdatayn- keeping distant from every Dîn that is in opposition to the Dîn of Islâm. It is because, if he limited (his profession) with the Shahâdatayn, there is the possibility that he intended with it that which is his I’tiqâd (i.e. Muhammad being sent to the Arabs exclusively). If he apostated by denying an obligatory religious duty, then he does not become Islâm (Muslim) until he affirms what he has denied and repeats the Shahâdatayn. It is because he belied Allâh Ta’âlâ and His Rasűl (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) with what he believed. Likewise, if he considers a Harâm (prohibited) as a Mubâh (permissible).” (al-Uddah Sharh’ul Umdah, 2/335)

When Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullâh) was in al-Uyaynah, wrote the following to the people of Riyâdh and Manfűhah,


قاموا يجادلون ويلبسون على الناس، ويقولون: كيف تكفّرون المسلمين؟ كيف تسبون الأموات؟ آل فلان أهل ضيف، آل فلان أهل كذا وكذا؛ ومرادهم بهذا: لئلا يتبين معنى "لا إله إلا الله"، ويتبين أن الاعتقاد في الصالحين النفع والضر ودعاءهم كفر ينقل عن الملة؛ فيقولون الناس لهم: إنكم قبل ذلك جهال لأي شيء لم تأمرونا بهذا.وأنا أخبركم عن نفسي، والله الذي لا إله إلا هو،لقد طلبت العلم، واعتقدَ من عرفني أن لي معرفة، وأنا ذلك الوقت لا أعرف معنى "لا إله إلا الله"، ولا أعرف دين الإسلام قبل هذا الخير الذي مَنَّ الله به، وكذلك مشايخي، ما منهم رجل عرف ذلك. فمن زعم من علماء العارض أنه عرف معنى "لا اله إلا الله"، أو عرف معنى الإسلام قبل هذا الوقت، أو زعم عن مشايخه أن أحداً عرف ذلك، فقد كذب وافترى، ولبس على الناس، ومدح نفسه بما ليس فيه

“They argue and fool the people and say, how could you declare Takfîr upon the Muslimîn? How could you speak ill of the dead? Household of such and such is people of guest (hospitable), household of such and such is like this and like that... Their intent with this is, lest the meaning of La-Ilaha Illallâh is not explained, their I’tiqâd regarding the Sâlihîn (pl. Sâlih; righteous ones) that they benefit and harm and directing Du’â to them is a Kufr that takes one out from the fold of Millah (Islâm) is not explained. Thus, people tell them, “You were ignorant not knowing anything before; you had not commanded us with this.” I inform them myself that –by Allâh there is no other god (worthy of worship) but Him- I sought Ilm. Whoever knows me, believes that I have Ma’rifah (knowledge). At that time –before this Khayr (goodness) that is from Allâh- I did not know the meaning of La-Ilaha Illallâh. I did not know the Dîn of Islâm. Likewise (the state of) my Mashâyikh (pl. Shaykh) there were none among them who knew this. Whoever among the Ulamâ of Âridh (homeland of Shaykh) claims that he knew the meaning of La-Ilaha Illallâh or knew the meaning of Islâm before this time, or claims that one from the Mashâyikh knew that, then he lied and slandered, he fooled the people and he praised himself with which he does not have of himself.” (ad-Durar’us Saniyyah, 10/51; ar-Rasâil’ush Shahsiyyah 28th Letter; Majmű’ Műallafât’ish Shaykh, 7/187)

As seen the Shaykh (Rahimahullâh) who himself was the leader of the Da’wah of Tawhîd in the near past, stated that even he himself did not know the meanings of Tawhîd and Islâm in the beginning while adding that the scholars of that era also did not know the meanings of Tawhîd and Islâm. Shaykh Abâ Butayn (Rahimahullâh) among the Ulamâ of Najd says,


ففرض على المكلف: معرفة حد العبادة وحقيقتها التي خلقنا الله لأجلها، ومعرفة حد الشرك وحقيقته الذي هو أكبر الكبائر. وتجد كثيرا ممن يشتغل بالعلم لا يعرف حقيقة الشرك الأكبر

“The Ma’rifah of the limitation of Ibadâh and its Haqîqah (reality) that Allâh created us for and the Ma’rifah of the limitation of Shirk and its Haqîqah that is the greatest of the Kabâ’ir (Major Sins) is Fardh (obligatory) upon the Mukallaf. You will find those who occupy themselves with Ilm do not know the Haqîqah of Major Shirk…” (Abâ Butayn, al-Intisâr, 56)

These statements were stated a few centuries ago near the end of the Uthmânî State. If this was the state of the Ulamâ let alone the Awâm in such era in which the Sharî’ah (Islâmic law) was implemented in the society in Dhâhir, there were many scholars, Qâdhîs and Muftîs then what would be the state of our era in which Jahl and irreligiousness is seen everywhere; Laicism (Secularism) and Democracy is implemented in the society?

Therefore, the most common Kufr in the society today is Jahl regarding Asl’ud Dîn and Jahl regarding the boundaries of Imân and Kufr. Before giving someone the ruling of Islâm the primary thing to be investigated is; whether or not this person knows Tawhîd the mutual call of the Messengers as little as that which renders him to be Muslim at the least.

The individual who lives in Dâr’ul Harb can only be given the ruling of Islâm when he proves that he knows Tawhîd in opposition to his people. He must display the reality that he knows Tawhîd and he is distant from Shirk. In order to prove he knows all of these, he must learn what Shirk and Kufr are. Another factor is the disease of having no Aqîdah, meaning even if the people know the Dîn they do not take it as an Aqîdah moreover defend things that are in opposition to the Dîn.

In our age, people bring forth some issues and before giving the ruling of Islâm, they ask people regarding these matters. However, the following issues are brought forth by the people of our era among them are; seeking judgment from the Tâghűt, joining the army of Tâghűt, Shirk of Tashrî’ (lawmaking) also matters that are related with consenting to Kufr such as the schools of the Tâghűt and contracts should be taken in hand once it is proved that the person knows Tawhîd in order to see whether or not he takes the Dîn as Aqîdah. These matters should not be taken in hand in a manner that asking him whether or not he sees seeking judgment from Tâghűt as an example as Kufr or whether or not he declares Takfîr upon the one who seeks judgment from the Tâghűt. Rather these matters will be taken in hand in a manner that will allow us to know how good this person comprehends Dîn and whether or not he takes it as an Aqîdah.

If it is seen, he comprehends Tawhîd, takes it as an Aqîdah and there is nothing that indicates he has a statement/act in Dhâhir that opposes to it then he will be given the ruling of Islâm. There is no need to investigate whether or not he is sincere in it. Likewise, there is no need to investigate whether or not he has any deed that opposes his Aqîdah.
On the contrary, such method is against the Sunnah of Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam). It is because even though there were many people around who accepted Islâm by the sword neither Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) nor his Ashâb investigated it and sufficed with the Dhâhir. If there is a need, we will provide more information regarding this matter.

In summary it becomes clear that the essence of giving the ruling of Islâm is determining whether or not the person performed Tawbah from Shirk and transmited to the Aqîdah of Tawhîd. Also it becomes clear that -without taking in consideration the determining of the performance of Tawbah from Shirk and transmitting to the Aqîdah of Tawhîd- those who claim that no matter what state the person or the people the ruling of Islâm will be given by the Alâmat of Islâm; such as the utterance of the Kalimah of Shahâdah, praying Salât, reciting the Adhân, are nothing but ignorant people who do not know Islâm, who do not know the meaning of performing Tawbah from Shirk and are ignorant of the fact that one cannot be a Muslim without performing Tawbah from Shirk.
Whosoever desires الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah (honour, power and glory) then to Allah belong all الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah [and one can get honour, power and glory only by obeying and worshiping Allah (Alone)]. To Him ascend (all) الْكَلِمُ الطَّيِّبُ al-Kalim al-Tayyib (the goodly words), and الْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ al-Amal al-Saalih (the righteous deeds) exalt it (the goodly words i.e., the goodly words are not accepted by Allah unless and until they are followed by good deeds). (Fatir 35/10)