التوحيد at-Tawhid

Author Topic: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE  (Read 2209 times)

Fahm'us Salaf

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 244
  • 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
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 244
  • أنصار المل الحنيفية وحماة الشرع المحمديةť
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #1 on: 06.08.2018, 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
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 244
  • أنصار المل الحنيفية وحماة الشرع المحمديةť
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #2 on: 14.08.2018, 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
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 244
  • أنصار المل الحنيفية وحماة الشرع المحمديةť
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #3 on: 17.08.2018, 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
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 244
  • أنصار المل الحنيفية وحماة الشرع المحمديةť
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #4 on: 02.09.2018, 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
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 244
  • أنصار المل الحنيفية وحماة الشرع المحمديةť
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #5 on: 16.09.2018, 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
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 244
  • أنصار المل الحنيفية وحماة الشرع المحمديةť
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #6 on: 22.09.2018, 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)

Izhâr'ud Dîn

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 236
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #7 on: 07.04.2019, 12:57:46 AM »


THE REASON THE ULAMÂ (SCHOLARS) ACCOUNTED THE SALÂH (DAILY PRAYERS) AS AN ALÂMAH OF ISLÂM

Quote
My question is regarding those who accept prayer as alamah of Islam or those who do not accept it as alamah but do not make takfeer of the one who accepts it as alamah. Their doubt is as follows: If you accept prayer as something peculiar to Muslims and make takfeer then Imam Ahmad must be kaafir for you. If you say that prayer was alamah of being Muslim after kufr during the time of Imam Ahmad and only Muslims pray it we say: During the time of Imam Ahmad even before him there were zanadiqah. So both the Muslims and the kafir were praying. (Jahmiyyah, Hululiyyah etc) If I am not wrong, they bring evidence from Ibn Muflih that he accepted prayer as alamah of Islam when kufr and shirk was wide spread. What is the response to these? I hope with your response they will find guidance.

Bismillâh’ir Rahmân’ir Rahîm,

In fact, the matter you directed us is related with how a person may be given the Hukm (ruling) of Muslim. When it is pondered upon, it becomes evident that it is actually related with the following questions “What is Islâm?”, “What is the Haqîqah (true reality) and its Mâhiyyah (context)?”

This and similar doubts arise with the people who do not know and do not comprehend the fact that “Islâm is being distant from Shirk and the Mushrikîn” and hold the position that “Islâm is not being a Jew or a Christian and having names such as Muhammad and Ahmad”.

Their statements you narrate expose the fact that they do not know Tawhîd, they do not have any foreordination, and any share from Tawhîd, not even a speck. As they claim that Salâh (daily prayers) is not an Alâmah of transition from Kufr to Islâm, however, it is sufficient for giving one the Hukm of Islâm. According to them, it is as if Islâm is not being distant from the Kufr and the Shirk. We could rightly say, we do not know how they describe Islâm. It is because regardless of what the Salât of a person indicates, it is accepted by them as an absolute Alâmah of Islâm.

Consequently, according to them; -Hâshâ- there is a matter which is Islâm; however its limits and context is unknown, the Shâri (lawgiver) only determined some signs, symbols, and slogans as Alamât of Islâm, and the doer of the Shi’ar (signs) are accounted as entering Islâm as if uttering a password/secret code of entrance. In their presence, even if the Kalimah Shahâdah or Salâh and their likes carry no meaning for them, they still are accounted as Alâmât of Islâm per se. Therefore, they abstracted the Nusűs (pl. Nâss; textual proofs) from their Illah (reason) and applied disconnected and independent rulings. Upon that, they ascribed this understanding that is shallow and incoherent from the Asl (fundamental) of Dîn to the scholars by the way of slandering them.

Earlier, we have dealt with the matter of what the context/reality of Islâm is and how the Hukm of Muslim can be given to a person in the light of the book by al-Farrâj “al-Udhr bi’l Jahli Tahta Majhar’ish Shar’î (Excuse of Ignorance Under The Light of Evidences of Sharî’ah)”. We will continue to add more information to the above-mentioned topic Inshâllâh (with the will and permit of Allâh). Refer back to the topic for detailed explanation regarding the matter.

How can the Hukm of Muslim be Given to a Person (The Reality of Islâm)

As it was mentioned in the above mentioned topic; those who accept Salâh etc. as an Alâmah of Islâm and also those who claim that Takfîr can not be declared upon those who accept it as Alâmah of Islâm add to their affairs that there is Ikhtilâf (disagreement) regarding it, surely they know nothing about the reality of Islâm. If they had understood that Islâm is intentional withdrawal from Shirk, they would not give Hukm to those who perform particular Ibâdah (worship) that is not Alâmah for abandoning Shirk today.

These people also propose the view of the Hanbalî Madhhab to be that the Salâh is an absolute Alâmah of Islâm (whether in Dâr’ul Islâm or Dâr’ul Harb; whether praying alone or with the Jamâ’ah) in a manner that as if these scholars accounted the act of Salât per se as Alâmah of Islâm while abstracting all Illah regarding it. Whereas such claim is a slander to the Hanbalî scholars and in general a slander to Islâm.

At this point –with the Idhn (permit) of Allâh- by quoting the views of the Fuqâha of the Hanbalî Madhhab regarding the matter in order to depict the reasons behind their account of Salâh as Alâmah of Islâm. We would like to quote a few lines from respected Hanbalî Fiqh books. In example, Ibnu Qudâmah al-Maqdisî (Rahimahullâh) in “al-Mughnî” stated the following regarding the reasons behind accounting the Salâh as an Alâmah:


وَلِأَنَّ الصَّلَاةَ رُكْنٌ يَخْتَصُّ بِهِ الْإِسْلَامُ، فَحُكِمَ بِإِسْلَامِهِ بِهِ كَالشَّهَادَتَيْنِ

“It is because the Salâh is a Rukn (principle) that is peculiar to Islâm. So Hukm (ruling) with Islâm is given with it as with the Shahâdatayn.”

Shaykh Műwaffaq’ud Dîn Ibnu Qudâmah (Rahimahullâh) then explains reasons for Zakâh, Hajj etc. not being accounted as Alâmah. So he says:


وَأَمَّا سَائِرُ الْأَرْكَانِ، مِنْ الزَّكَاةِ وَالصِّيَامِ وَالْحَجِّ، فَلَا يُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ بِهِ، فَإِنَّ الْمُشْرِكِينَ كَانُوا يَحُجُّونَ فِي عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - حَتَّى مَنَعَهُمْ النَّبِيُّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - فَقَالَ: «لَا يَحُجُّ بَعْدَ الْعَامِ مُشْرِكٌ.» وَالزَّكَاةُ صَدَقَةٌ، وَهُمْ يَتَصَدَّقُونَ

“As for other Arkân (pl. Rukn; principles) among them is the Zakât (obligatory charity), the Siyâm (fasting), and the Hajj (pilgrimage to Ka’bah): the Hukm would not be given with them. Indeed the Mushrikîn were performing Hajj during the era of Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) until the Nabî (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) prohibited them, so he said,

لَا يَحُجُّ بَعْدَ الْعَامِ مُشْرِكٌ
“After this year, no Mushrik may perform (will be allowed to perform) Hajj…” (Bukhârî, Hadîth no: 3177; Muslim, Hadîth no: 1347)

The Zakâh is a Sadaqah (charity) and they (Kuffâr of Makkah) were giving Sadaqah...” (Ibnu Qudâmah, al-Mughnî, 9/22, no: 7114)

As it is clearly seen, the reason for Salâh being accounted as an Alâmah of Islâm is because it is something peculiar to the Muslimîn. Owing to not having this Illah, other types of Ibadâh were not taken into account as Alâmah. Some amongst the Hanbalî Ulamâ accounted other types of Ibâdah other than the Salât as Alâmah. Mardâwî in his book “al-Insâf” stated the following regarding other types of Ibâdah to be accounted as Alâmah and mentioned the views concerning it:


وَاخْتَارَ الْقَاضِي: يُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ بِالْحَجِّ فَقَطْ. وَالْتَزَمَهُ الْمَجْدُ، وَابْنُ عُبَيْدَانَ. وَقِيلَ: يُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ بِبَقِيَّةِ الشَّرَائِعِ وَالْأَقْوَالِ الْمُخْتَصَّةِ بِنَا، كَجِنَازَةٍ وَسَجْدَةِ تِلَاوَةٍ

“al-Qâdhî preferred that with the Hajj alone the Hukm of Islâm can be given. Al-Majd and Ibnu Ubaydân also share this view. It was also stated that the Hukm of Islâm is given with the remaining Shi’ar and views that are peculiar to us such as Janâzah (the funeral prayer) and Sajdatu Tilâwah (prostration of recitation).” (Mardâwî, al-Insâf, 1/395)

Consequently, the discussion is related with the Ibadâh peculiar to the Muslimîn and its determination. This is the Illah for specifying some acts as Alâmât of Islâm. The Ikhtilâf amongst the Ulamâ is regarding the designation of acts. The fact that should be understood here is: the Ulamâ take the Illah of the Hukm in consideration and it is its being an Alamât’i Fâriqah between Islâm and the Kuffâr namely the distinguishing mark. However once the Illah disappears, than the Hukm disappears as well. The Salâh not being an Alâmah in our era is due to it not being something peculiar to the Muslimîn.

At this point, we are going to bring a citation from Ibnu Muflih –to whom the doubters harp on the same string- to end this section Inshâllâh. Ibnu Muflih (Rahimahullâh) explains the Salâh being an Alâmah in the same manner:


قَالَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -: «نُهِيتُ عَنْ قَتْلِ الْمُصَلِّينَ» وَظَاهِرُهُ أَنَّ الْعِصْمَةَ تَثْبُتُ بِالصَّلَاةِ، وَهِيَ لَا تَكُونُ بِدُونِ الْإِسْلَامِ، وَلِأَنَّهَا عِبَادَةٌ تَخْتَصُّ شَرْعَنَا

“Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) stated,

نُهِيتُ عَنْ قَتْلِ الْمُصَلِّينَ
“I have been prohibited from killing people who pray (perform Salâh).” (Abű Dâwűd, Hadîth no: 4928)

Its Dhâhir (apparent) is the protection/infallibility becomes established with the Salâh. Salâh does not exist in (any religion) other than Islâm since it is an Ibâdah that is peculiar to our Sharî’ah.” (Ibnu Muflih, al-Mubdî, 1/267)

Ibnu Muflih (Rahimahullâh) clearly stated that the Salâh is something peculiar to the Islâmic Sharî’ah and to the Muslimîn and –in the same manner- it does not exist in other religions. For this reason, he accounted it as an Alâmah of Islâm. Ibnu Muflih (Rahimahullâh) was amongst the students of Shaykh’ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah (Rahimahullâh) and lived in an era where various Shirk and Bid’ah had befallen the society.

This is the reason the opponents especially mention his name. They emerged with the doubt, stating, “Even though Salâh was not something peculiar to the Muslimîn during the era of these scholars, they still continued to account the Salâh as an Alâmah of Islâm.” Before responding to this let us mention the following:

In this doubt, there is condemnation of the scholars and imputation of the scholars. Since it is established that the reason Salâh is accepted as an Alâmah because it is peculiar to the Muslimîn. According to their doubt, the scholars had accounted the Salâh as an Alâmah of Islâm even after it was something not peculiar to Islâm and the Muslimîn any more. In this case, it is as if the scholars said and did something that contradicts their own statements and acts, furthermore they had not applied/acted upon what they believe. The scholars of Islâm are far distant from such claims and doubts.

When the person who has Basîrah (insight) investigates the statements of the doubters, he would easily know that there is frequent accusation of the scholars or accusation of the Dîn itself in the proclamations of the doubters. He would also easily understand that the doubters are in a state always doubting also that they present to the people their doubts in which they are suffering from as the Dîn!

When it comes to the response of the doubt: Making Qiyâs (analogy) between the conditions of the era of these scholars and today equating both eras to be the same shows the concealed thoughts of the doubter or at the least his lack of Fiqh. First of all, even if all these sects of Dalâlah (misguidance) and Kufr had appeared in the society, they were never the majority. In an environment where the majority is Muslim, the occurrence of some sects that are in minority who attribute themselves to Islâm would not harm the reality of Salâh being an Alâmah of Islâm. In example, when a Christian wanted to be Muslim in those days, he would directly go to the Ahl’ul Qiblah which was the majority and not to the people of Wahdati Wujűd, the Bâtinîs or the Nusayrîs and he would manifest the Islâmic Alâmât such as the Salâh and the Shahâdah as a sign for his desire to enter the Dîn.

Where as today; -among both those who attribute themselves to Islâm and those who attribute themselves to other than Islâm- when one states he is a Muslim and prays Salâh, almost no one intends the Aqîdah of Tawhîd with his statement and action. Rather he understands Islâm in a manner that is the Dîn of today’s Mushrikîn, therefore, when he accepts Islâm as a Dîn for himself this is what he accepts. In most cases, if Islâm in its reality is presented to them they would run away as the wild donkey would dread from a lion and run away from it.

The second perspective to the matter is as follows: Primarily these scholars were living in Dâr’ul Islâm (Abode of Islâm). Even though there were some problems regarding the application and implementation of the Sharî’ah, Islâmic Sharî’ah was valid and in force. The Islâmic Sharî’ah does not allow people who attribute themselves to Islâm but not Muslims in reality to reside in Dâr’ul Islâm. Such people will be accounted as either Murtad (apostate) or Zanâdiqah (pl. Zindîq; heretics) and if they do not make Tawbah (repentance) from it they are to be killed.

In those days, it was not possible for the sects of Kufr to openly and freely perform activities. If it was the case that some among the Zanâdiqah continued their activities, then it is due to either; them concealing their Kufr, making Tawbah from their views when they were caught, negligence of the governors, or for other reasons. People who have such characteristics do not oppose the general principles.

In short, during the era these scholars issued their Fatâwâ (pl. Fatwâ, religious verdicts), they were in the abode of Islâm; even people in other countries who pray Salâh were accounted in Dhâhir amongst the Ahl’ul Qiblah, in the Dîn of the Muslimîn who were the majority, and they were not permitted to manifest Kufr openly. Those who did manifest Kufr would only survive with various Ta’wîl. In such environment, it is normal to accept the Salâh, the Shahâdah etc. as Alâmât of Islâm. Since this was their circumstance, it is not useful to compare the era of the scholars with today.

No doubt, today actions such as the Salâh and the Shahâdah do not carry the meaning of entering into Islâm in reality and withdrawing from Shirk. Even though the doubters knew this fact, but are still persisting on the Salâh being an Alâmah of Islâm and giving the Hukm of Muslim to those who have not proven to withdraw from Shirk indicates that they do not know the Haqîqah of Islâm. Since they do not know/believe that in order for an individual to be Muslim he must withdraw from the Shirk. This is Jahl with regards to the Asl of the Dîn. Hence they themselves do not know the reality of Islâm and they do not know how to give the Hukm of Muslim to others. Wallâhu A’lam!
Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah (Rahimahullâh) stated,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

"The Âlim (scholar) recognizes the Jâhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jâhil. The Jâhil does not recognize the Âlim since he has never been an Âlim." (Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmű'ul Fatâwâ, 13/235)

Izhâr'ud Dîn

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 236
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #8 on: 13.05.2019, 04:51:16 AM »


IN CONCLUSION; VIEWS OF TWO SCHOLARS CONCERNING THE MATTER

THE VIEW OF ABD’UR RAHMÂN BIN HASAN (RAHIMAHULLÂH)

We believe that after all of these explanations, the reality of Islâm has become crystal-clear for everyone, furthermore, the fact that without proving people have intentionally made Tawbah from Shirk, they will not be given the ruling of Islâm even if they utter it many times and display the Shiar of Islâm is clarified in the presence of those who seek the truth.

We would like to end this article by quoting two articles of two-respected Shuyűkh. The first being the Risâlah in which Abd’ur Rahmân bin Hasan Âl’ush Shaykh Rahimahullâh explained the conditions of Tawhîd. Abd’ur Rahmân bin Hasan Âl’ush Shaykh Rahimahullâh, said the following in his book Fath’ul Majîd Sharh Kitâb’ut Tawhîd,


Quote from: Abd’ur Rahmân bin Hasan Âl’ush Shaykh Rahimahullâh
لاَ بُدَّ فِي شَهَادَةِ أنْ لاَ إلَهَ إِلاَّ اللهُ مِنْ سَبْعَةِ شُرُوطٍ لاَ تَنْفَعُ قَائِلَهَا إِلَّا بِاجْتِمَاعِهَا: أَحَدُهَا: اَلْعِلْمُ الْمُنَافيِ لِلْجَهْلِ. اَلثَّانيِ: اَلْيَقِينُ اَلْمُنَافيِ لِلشَّكِّ. اَلثَّالِثُ: اَلْقَبُولُ الْمُنَافيَ لِلرَّدَّ. اَلرَّابِعُ: اَلْاِنْقِيَادُ الْمُنَافيِ لِلتَّرْكِ. اَلْخَامِسُ: اَلْإِخْلاَصُ الْمُنَافيِ لِلشِّرْكِ.اَلسَّادِسُ: اَلصِّدْقُ الْمُنَافيِ لِلْكَذِبِ. اَلسَّابِعُ: الْمَحَبَّةُ الْمُنَافِيَةُ لِضِدِّهَا

“Surely, Shahâdah (the testimony) of لاَ إلَهَ إِلاَّ اللهُ La ilaha Illallâh (there is no true deity –worthy of worship- except Allâh) has seven conditions and it does not benefit the one (who utters it) unless all of these seven conditions are simultaneously fulfilled:

The First:
اَلْعِلْمُ al-Ilm (knowledge) that eliminates الْجَهْل al-Jahl (ignorance).

The Second:
اَلْيَقِينُ al-Yaqîn (certainty) that eliminates اَلشَّكِّ ash-Shakk (doubt).

The Third:
اَلْقَبُولُ al-Qabűl (acceptance) that eliminates اَلرَّدَّ ar-Radd (rejection and denial).

The Fourth:
اَلْاِنْقِيَادُ al-Inqiyâd (compliance, submission) that eliminates اَلتَّرْكِ at-Tark (neglection).

The Fifth:
اَلْإِخْلاَصُ al-Ikhlâs (sincerity) that eliminates اَلشِّرْك ash-Shirk (associating partners with Allâh).

The Sixth:
اَلصِّدْقُ as-Sidq (truthfulness) that eliminates اَلكَذِبِ al-Kadhib (lying).

The Seventh:
الْمَحَبَّةُ al-Muhabbah (love) that eliminates its opposite.1

These conditions are required for the Kalimah of Shahâdah to benefit (with the permit of Allâh) the person both in the Dunyâ (worldly life) and in the Âkhirah (Hereafter). Some people raise objections regarding these conditions. They claim the following, “These conditions are related to the heart (belief)” meaning “these are conditions and required for one being a Mu’min in the presence of Allâhu Taâlâ. As for the Ahkâm of Dunyâ, then mere utterance of the Kalimah of Shahâdah is sufficient for one to be given the ruling of Islâm in the Dunyâ.”

Then, they try to endorse their theory with the following issues by delivering evidences such as, “Even though the Munâfiqîn do not fulfill some of these conditions such as al-Yaqîn (certainty) that eliminates Shakk (doubt) and as-Sidq (truthfulness) that eliminates Kadhib (lying), they are yet treated as Muslim because of uttering the Kalimah of Shahâdah.” They also bring forth some incidents from Islâmic history, they say, “Usâmah bin Zayd Radiyallâhu Anhumâ was condemned due to killing a person -who already uttered Kalimah of Shahâdah- deeming that he uttered the Kalimah of Shahâdah out of fear.”

May Allâh have mercy on Abd’ur Rahmân bin Hasan Âl’ush Shaykh, elsewhere he explains (these Shurűt) in detail and he clarified the above mentioned doubts of the opponents,


Quote from: Abd’ur Rahmân bin Hasan Âl’ush Shaykh Rahimahullâh
وَأَمَّا قَوْلُهُ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فيِ الْحَدِيثِ الصَّحِيحِ: " وَكَفَرَ بِمَا يُعْبَدُ مِنْ دُونِ اللهِ " فَهَذَا: شَرْطٌ عَظِيمٌ , لَا يَصِحُّ قَوْلُ: لَا إلَهَ إِلاَّ اللهُ إِلاَّ بِوُجُودِهِ , وَإِنْ لَمْ يُوجَدْ , لَمْ يَكُنْ مَنْ قَالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ, مَعْصُومَ الدَّمِ , وَالْمَالِ؛ لِأنَّ هَذَا هُوَ مَعْنَى لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ؛ فَلَمْ يَنْفَعْهُ الْقَوْلُ , بِدُونِ الْإِتْيَانِ بِالْمَعْنَى؛ اَلَّذِي دَلَّتْ عَلَيْهِ , مِنْ تَرْكِ الشِّرْكِ , وَالْبَرَاءَةِ مِنْهُ وَمِمَّنْ فَعَلَهُ ,فَإِذَا أَنْكَرَ عِبَادَةَ كُلِّ مَا يُعْبَدُ مِنْ دُونِ اللهِ، وَتَبَرَّأَ مِنْهُ وَعَادَى مَنْ فَعَلَ ذَلِكَ: صَارَ مُسْلِمًا , مَعْصُومَ الدَّمِ , وَالْمَالِ؛ وَهَذَا مَعْنَى , قَوْلِ اللهِ تَعَالَى: {فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِنْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَى لَا انْفِصَامَ لَهَا وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ} [الْبَقَرَةِ: 256]]

وَقَدْ قُيِّدَتْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ , فِي الْأَحَادِيثِ الصَّحِيحَةِ بِقُيُودٍ ثِقَالٍ , لَابُدَّ مِنَ الْإِتْيَانِ بِجَمِيعِهَا , قَوْلاً , وَاعْتِقَادًا, وَعَمَلًا , فَمِنْ ذَلِكَ: حَدِيثُ عِتْبَانَ ,اَلَّذِي فيِ الصَّحِيحِ " فإِنَّ اللَّهَ حَرَّمَ عَلَى النَّارِ مَنْ قَالَ: لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ يَبْتَغِي بِذَلِكَ وَجْهَ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ " وِفيِ حَدِيثٍ آخَرَ: " صِدْقًا مِنْ قَلْبِهِ "، " خَالِصًا مِنْ قَلْبِهِ " مُسْتَيْقِنًا بِهَا قَلْبُهُ، غَيْرَ شَاكٍّ، فَلَا تَنْفَعُ هَذِهِ الْكَلِمَةُ قَائِلَهَا إِلَّا بِهَذِهِ الْقُيُودِ، إِذَا اجْتَمَعَتْ لَهُ، مَعَ الْعِلْمِ بِمَعْنَاهَا، وَمَضْمُونِهَا كَمَا قَالَ تَعَالَى: {وَلَا يَمْلِكُ الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِنْ دُونِهِ الشَّفَاعَةَ إِلَّا مَنْ شَهِدَ بِالْحَقِّ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ} [الزُّخْرُفِ: 86] وَقَالَ تَعَالَى لِنَبِيِّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ({فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّهُ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ}[مُحَمَّدٍ: 19] فَمَعْنَاهَا يَقْبَلُ الزِّيَادَةَ، لِقُوَّةِ الْعِلْمِ، وَصَلَاحِ الْعَمَلِ.

فَلَابُدَّ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ بِحَقِيقَةِ مَعْنَى هَذِهِ الْكَلِمَةِ، عِلْمًا يُنَافيِ الْجَهْلَ، بِخِلَافِ مَنْ يَقُولُهَا، وَهُوَ لَا يَعْرِفُ مَعْنَاهَا، وَلَابُدَّ مِنَ الْيَقِينِ، اُلْمُنَافِي لِلشَّكِّ، فِيمَا دَلَّتْ عَلَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْحِيدِ؛ وَلَابُدَّ مِنَ الْإِخْلَاصِ، اُلْمُنَافِي لِلشَّرْكِ، فَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ النَّاسِ يَقُولُهَا، وَهُوَ يُشْرِكُ فِي الْعِبَادَةِ، وَيُنْكِرُ مَعْنَاهَا، وَيُعَادِي مَنِ اعْتَقَدَهُ، وَعَمِلَ بِهِ، وَلاَبُدَّ مِنَ الصِّدْقِ، اَلْمُنَافِي لِلْكَذِبَ، بِخِلَافِ حَالِ الْمُنَافِقِ، الَّذِي يَقُولُهَا مِنْ غَيْرِ صِدْقٍ، كَمَا قَالَ تَعَالَى: (يَقُولُونَ بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ مَا لَيْسَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ) [اَلْفَتْحِ: 11] وَلَابُدَّ مِنَ الْقَبُولِ، اَلْمُنَافِي لِلرَّدِّ؛ بِخِلَافِ مَنْ يَقُولُهَا، وَلَايَعْمَلُ بِهَا، وَلَابُدَّ مِنَ الْمُحَبَّةِ، لِمَا دَلَّتْ عَلَيْهِ، مِنَ التَّوْحِيدِ، وَالْإِخْلَاصِ، وَغَيْرِ ذَلِكَ؛ وَالْفَرْحُ بِذَلِكَ، اَلْمُنَافِي لِخِلَافِ هَذَيْنِ الْأَمْرَيْنِ، وَلَابُدَّ مِنَ الْاِنْقِيَادِ بِالْعَمَلِ بِهَا، وَمَادَلَّتْ عَلَيْهِ مُطَابَقَةً، وَتَضَمُّنًا، وَالْتِزَامًا؛ وَهَذَا هُوَ دِينُ الْإِسْلَامِ، اَلَّذِي لَا يَقْبَلُ اللهُ دِينًا سِوَاه.

As for the following statement of Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam, (recorded) in the Sahîh (authentic) Hadîth,

وَكَفَرَ بِمَا يُعْبَدُ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ
“... and denies everything that is worshiped (by the people) besides Allâh...” (Muslim, Hadîth no: 37)

This (i.e. rejecting the Tawâghît) is a tremendous condition. Without this present, the statement of La ilaha Illallâh will not be Sahâh (valid). When it is not present, the blood (i.e. life) and wealth of the person who says La ilaha Illallâh will not become innocent (to shed). Since this is the meaning of La ilaha Illallâh. The utterance does not benefit without that which these two indicate meaning; abandoning Shirk, Barâ’ah (turning away and keeping distant) from Shirk and Barâ’ah (withdrawal) from the doers of Shirk, without fulfilling these does not benefit the one who (merely) utters it. Once one rejects all of those that are worshiped besides Allâhu Taâlâ, keeps distant from them and becomes an enemy of those who worship others besides Allâhu Taâlâ (which is Shirk) becomes Muslim and his blood and wealth becomes innocent (to shed). And this is the meaning of the statement of Allâhu Taâlâ,

فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِنْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَى لَا انْفِصَامَ لَهَا وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ
“...whoever rejects the Tâghűt and believes in Allâh hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allâh is Samî (Hearer), Alîm (Knower).” (al-Baqarah 2/256)

In the Sahîh Ahâdîth, the statement of La ilaha Illallâh is restricted with severe conditions. Both of these need to be fulfilled altogether by Qawl (utterance), I’tiqâd (belief), and Amal (action). As it was stated in the Sahîh Hâdîth from Itbân Radiyallâhu Anh,

فإِنَّ اللَّهَ حَرَّمَ عَلَى النَّارِ مَنْ قَالَ: لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ يَبْتَغِي بِذَلِكَ وَجْهَ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ
“Verily, Allâh has forbidden an-Nâr (the Fire i.e. Hell) for the one who says: La ilaha Illallâh, thereby seeking Allâh Azza wa Jalla’s Wajh (face).” (Muslim, Hadîth no: 263)

It was narrated in another Hadîth:

صِدْقًا مِنْ قَلْبِهِ
“affirming by his heart...”;

خَالِصًا مِنْ قَلْبِهِ
“sincerely by his heart...”

(Meaning,) “with his heart with certainty and without doubt.”

Unless these conditions are fulfilled with its meaning and knowledge of what it includes (affirms and what it negates), saying La ilaha Illallâh will not benefit one who utters it.

Thus Allâhu Taâlâ stated,


وَلَا يَمْلِكُ الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِنْ دُونِهِ الشَّفَاعَةَ إِلَّا مَنْ شَهِدَ بِالْحَقِّ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ
”And those whom they invoke besides Allâh have no power of intercession; only he who bears witness to the Truth, and with full knowledge.” (az-Zukhruf 43/86)

Allâhu Taâlâ said to His Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam,

فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّهُ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ
”Know, therefore, that there is no -true- god -deserving to be worshiped- but Allâh.” (Muhammad 47/19)

The meaning of this Kalimah will increase according to the strength of Ilm which one has and the Salâh (soundness) of his Amal (actions).

In opposition to those who utter it without recognizing its meaning; it is unavoidable to know the true meaning of this Kalimah, with an Ilm that eliminates
الْجَهْلَ al-Jahl (ignorance).

It is a must to have
اَلْيَقِينُ al-Yaqîn (certainty) that eliminates اَلشَّكِّ ash-Shakk (doubt) which indicates Tawhîd.

It is a must to have
اَلإِخْلاَصُ al-Ikhlâs (sincerity) that eliminates اَلشِّرْكِ ash-Shirk (associating partners with Allâh). Although many people utter this Kalimah and (then) commit Shirk (to Allâh) in Ibâdah (worship) and reject its meaning, they antagonize those who believes in it and acts upon it.

It is a must to have
اَلصِّدْقُ as-Sidq (truthfulness) that eliminates الْكَذِبَ al-Kadhib (lying) in opposition to the condition of the Munâfiq (hypocrite); who utters the Kalimah of Tawhîd affirmation (by the heart) just as Allâhu Taâlâ states,

يَقُولُونَ بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ مَا لَيْسَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ
”They say with their tongues what is not in their hearts.” (al-Fath 48/11)

It is a must to have اَلْقَبُولُ al-Qabűl (acceptance) that eliminates الرَّدِّ ar-Radd (rejection and denial) in the opposition to those who utter the Kalimah of Tawhîd without acting upon it.

It is a must to have
الْمَحَبَّةُ al-Muhabbah (love) for what the Kalimah indicates (denotes and signifies); such as Tawhîd (monotheism), and Ikhlâs (worshiping sincerely Allâh alone) and being delighted with it, in opposition to those who opposes to these two commands (to love Tawhîd and being not happy with it).

It is a must to have
اَلْاِنْقِيَادُ al-Inqiyâd (compliance, submission), by acting upon whatever it refers to, includes, and necessitates.

So all of this is the Dîn of Islâm that Allâhu Taâlâ does not accept any Dîn other than it.”2

Ponder upon the fact that Shaykh Abd’ur Rahmân bin Hasan Rahimahullâh mentioned these conditions –which are based on the clear Nass (textual proof) from the Kitâb (Book; Qur’ân) and the Sunnah (of Rasűlullâh)- as a general condition for the Islâm of the person to be Sahîh (valid).

Also, ponder upon the fact that Abd’ur Rahmân bin Hasan Rahimahullâh mentioned these conditions in explanation to the following Hadîth,


مَنْ قَالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَكَفَرَ بِمَا يُعْبَدُ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ حَرُمَ مَالُهُ وَدَمُهُ وَحِسَابُهُ عَلَى اللَّهِ
“He who professed that there is no -true- god –deserving to be worshipped- but Allâh and denied everything the people worship beside Allâh, his property, and blood became inviolable, and their affairs rest with Allâh.” (Muslim, Hadith no: 37)

Ponder upon the fact that Abd’ur Rahmân bin Hasan Rahimahullâh declared that whoever does not fulfill the necessities and requirements of these conditions, then neither his blood would be Haraam to be shed nor would his wealth be Haraam to be taken.

Shaykh Abd’ur Rahmân bin Hasan Âl’ush Shaykh Rahimahullâh clearly mentioned that, these conditions needs to be fulfilled in order to be given the ruling of Islâm both in the presence of Allâhu Taâlâ and in the presence of the people as a Dhâhir Hukm. His mentioning of the protection of the blood and the wealth of an individual also points out this fact.

Determining the Dhâhir of some of these conditions is difficult just as in the case of Sidq which is the opposite of Nifâq. Whereas, determining the Dhâhir of some of these conditions is easier just as in the case of Ilm which is the opposite of Jahl. Whether or not one has Ilm of Tawhîd, it is easy to determine.

Stating that Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam and his Ashâb did not investigate whether or not these conditions were grasped by a person who uttered Kalimah of Shahâdah is a baseless and inappropriate statement. Rather, they actually did the investigation whenever there was the need for it.

Statements quoted above from the Ulamâ, especially the statements related with communities like the Ahl’ul Kitâb who affirm Tawhîd without having the Ilm regarding it indicates that the investigation was done and these conditions were looked for; in example, whether or not the the condition of Ilm is realized or whether or not abandoning Shirk is actualized.

Once any other condition, even the condition of Sidq which is completly heart related is determined with Yaqîn Ilm that it is not actualized in the society then the mere utterance of the Kalimah of Shahâdah will not be accepted from them as an Alâmah of Islâm. For this reason, the Ulamâ had Ijmâ upon killing the Munâfiqîn who exposed their Kufr. Furthermore, the majority of the Ulamâ stated that until it becomes clear that the Zanâdiqah (pl. Zindîq; heretics) perform sincere Tawbah, their Tawbah will not be accepted from them.

As for condemning Usâmah Radiyallâhu Anhu and those who share the same state with him, it is because they passed judgment with Dhann (non-convincing) views while not having Yaqîn Ilm. There is no doubt Usâmah Radiyallâhu Anhu and his likes would have never been condemned if they killed the one who repeatedly utters the Kalimah of Shahâdah while stating, “I am uttering La ilaha Illallâh because of fear and I do not believe in it!”

Occurrences as such are found in history. For instance,  the Fâtimid State; their Dhâhir was Râfidhah (Shiite) and their Bâtin was pure Kufr. Once their situation was exposed, the utterance of the Kalimah was not accepted from the people of the Fâtimid State until they abandoned their Kufr and performed Nasuh Tawbah openly. The Fâtimî State was accepted as Dâr’ul Harb and treated with the Ahkâm of Dâr’ul Harb until Salâh’ud Dîn’s conquering of Egypt and demolished their state.

Likewise, during the era of Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam there were many people such as Abű Tâlib the uncle of Rasűlullâh or others among the scholars of the Jews and the Christians who attested with their tongues that Islâm is the Haqq Dîn, but they had not entered Islâm and they had not adhered to the Sharî’ah because of various reasons such as fear from their tribes, being abashed by their tribes etc. Therefore, they were not treated as Muslim since they failed to fulfill the condition of Inqiyâd (compliance, submission) among the conditions of Lailaha Illallâh.

These examples prove the claim “whether or not the conditions of La ilaha Illallâh are actualized by the people was not investigated during the era of Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam and his Ashâb” is Bâtil.     

In short, as thoroughly explained above; an individual from a certain tribe will not be treated as Muslim until it is proved that he fulfills the condition of La ilaha Illallâh, transgressed openly and widespread by his tribe. Claiming otherwise is going against the Nass; it is also opposing the Sunnah of Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam and the Ijmâ of the Ummah. Wa’l Hamdulillâh!


Quote
Footnotes:

1- Abd’ur Rahmân bin Hasan Âl’ush Shaykh, Fath’ul Majîd Sharh Kitâb’ut Tawhîd, 83.

2- Ad-Durar’us Saniyyah, 2/243-244.
Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah (Rahimahullâh) stated,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

"The Âlim (scholar) recognizes the Jâhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jâhil. The Jâhil does not recognize the Âlim since he has never been an Âlim." (Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmű'ul Fatâwâ, 13/235)

Izhâr'ud Dîn

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 236
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #9 on: 21.05.2019, 04:10:38 AM »


THE VIEW OF HAMAD BIN ATÎQ RAHIMAHULLÂH

The second Risalah we will post concerning the matter is also belongs to a scholar among the Ulamâ of Najd, Hamad bin Atîq Rahimahullâh. Shaykh Hamad bin Atîq Rahimahullâh wrote the following addressing one of his brothers,

Quote from: Hamad bin Atîq Rahimahullâh
What Is Dâr'ul Harb And How Are The Ahl’ul Harb (The People Of Dâr’ul Harb) To Be Treated

Imâm Hamad bin Atîq an-Najdî (1227H-1301H)

ad-Durar’us Saniyyah, 9/256-259

Shaykh Hamad bin Atîq (Rahimahullâhu Taâlâ), stated the following to some of his brothers (in Dîn):

“What you mentioned regarding the Ikhwân (brothers) is a loss upon the Dîn (religion i.e. Islâm) and Imân (faith). It indicates that what Sâdiq’ul Masdűq (Sâdiq: the truthful and Masdűq: the one who is to be trusted i.e. Prophet Muhammad) had informed already happened. Since the Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam had already stated:


إن الله لا يقبض العلم انتزاعا ينتزعه من الناس، وإنما يقبض العلم بقبض العلماء، حتى إذا لم يبق عالم، اتخذ الناس رؤساء جهالا، فسئلوا فأفتوا بغير علم، فضلوا وأضلوا
“Surely Allâh does not take away the Ilm (sacred knowledge), by taking it away from (the hearts of) the people, but takes it away by the death of the Ulamâ (pl. Âlim; scholars) until no Âlim (scholar) remains, people will take ignorant ones as leaders who will give verdict without knowledge when consulted. So they will go astray and will lead the people astray.” (al-Bukhârî, Hadîth no: 100; Muslim, Hadîth no: 2673)

The Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam also stated,

لا تقوم الساعة حتى يرفع العلم، ويوضع الجهل
“The Sâ’ah (Last Hour) will not arrive until Ilm is taken away, and Jahl (ignorance) prevails...” (al-Bukhârî, Hadîth no: 80; Muslim, Hadîth no: 2671)

In many Ahadîth (pl. Hadîth), there is this meaning. It has already happened just as Sâdiq’ul Masdűq Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam had informed us.

Proceeding after that; what made me sad and is possibly a lie, reached me, it is: You rejected those who purchased the goods of Ahl’ul Ahsâ (the People of the city Ahsâ) which were taken from them by force (i.e. you do not find it suitable to take anything as booty from the goods of Ahsâ). If it is true then I do not know what befalls you? Since in our presence no one but those similar to these reject it: None except those who hold the I’tiqâd of Ahl’ud Dalâlah (People of Misguidance) as I’tiqâd (creed)  and the saying ‘whoever says La ilaha illallâh (there is no -true- deity wothy of worship except Allâh) can not be declared Takfîr, committing what the majority of the people is upon; from Shirk and matters related with it, showing compliance to it, the lack of rejecting it, does not take one out from the fold of Islam.’

With it they opposed Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb Rahimahullâh and those whom joined him in the beginning of the Da’wah (call), by decision of the Muhaqqiqűn (pl. Muhaqqiq; verifiers), that the city will be observed; if Shirk became apparent in it, if prohibitions displayed openly in it, if distinguishing signs of Dîn are disrupted in it, then it becomes Bilâd (cities) of Kufr. The wealth of its people will be taken as Ghanîmah (war booty) and their blood becomes Halâl (to shed). People of these cities already engrossed by displaying ill speech of Allâhu Taâlâ and His Dîn. They made laws to implement on the subjects that are in opposition to Kitâbullah (the Book of Allâh; Qur’ân) and the Sunnah of His Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam. As you already know, even one of it is sufficient for taking the one who performs it, out from the fold of Islâm.


This and we say: In it (that place) could be those who are not ruled with Kufr in the Bâtin (inwards) among the Musta’dhaf (oppressed) and their likes. When it comes to the Dhâhir (apparent), all praise be to Allâh, it is clear. It is sufficient for you, what the Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam did to the Ahl (people of the city of) Makkah even though the Musta’dhafîn (pl, Musta’dhaf) were in it, likewise what His Ashâb did to many of those who committed Irtidâd (apostasy) from Islâm by making their blood, wealth and chastity Halâl (permissible to shed and to take). Every intelligent person and Âlim (scholar) would know, what they commit from Kufr and Riddat is uglier and more obscene than many of those who did it or these (during the era of the Ashâb).

When you turn your observation towards the Nusűs (pl. Nass; textual proofs) of the Kitâb (the book i.e. Qur’ân) and the Sunnah (of the Prophet Muhammad) and also to the life of Rasűl Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam and His Ashâb (companions), you will find it pure and crystal clear, none would deviate from it except the one who is perished. Then (turn your view) to what the Ulamâ mentioned and perform Raghbah (aspiration) to Allâhu Taâlâ regarding Hidâyah (guidance) of the heart and removing the Shubhah (doubt). I would not have deemed that this would occur from someone like you and that you would be deceived by what the Juhhâl (pl. Jâhil; ignorant) are upon, what the Ahl’ush Shubuhât (the people of doubts) say.

According to what reached me: Some people say: “In Ahsâ there are those who manifest their Dîn. They are not prohibited from praying Salâh (daily prayers) in the Masâjid (pl, Masjid; mosques)!” This in their presence is what manifesting Dîn is! This is an obscene slip and the peak of it is: The people of Baghdâd, the people of Manbij and the people of Misr (Egypt); those who live in them manifest their Dîn since they are neither prohibited from praying nor prohibited from the Masâjid.

O slaves of Allâh! Where are your intellects? The conflict between us and between them is not regarding Salâh!.. The conflict is regarding the affirmation of the Tawhîd and commanding it (i.e. Tawhîd); and dispraising the Shirk and prohibiting it (i.e. Shirk) and publicizing it. As Imâm of the Da’wah (call) of Najdiyyah (i.e. Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb) said,


أصل دين الإسلام وقاعدته أمران
الأول: الأمر بعبادة الله وحده لا شريك له، والتحريض على ذلك، والموالاة فيه، وتكفير من تركه
الأمر الثاني: الإنذار عن الشرك في عبادة الله وحده لا شريك له، والتغليظ في ذلك، والمعاداة فيه، وتكفير من فعله

Aslu Dîn’il Islâm (The essence of the Religion of Islâm) and its Qâ’idah (principles) consist of two directives:

The first directive: The order of worshiping Allâhu Taâlâ 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.”

So this is what manifesting the Dîn is, O Abdullâh bin Husayn!..


So ponder -may Allâh direct you to His obedience- like the statement of Allâhu Taâlâ in a Makkî Sűrah (sent down during the Makkan period):


قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ لا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ
“Say: O ye who reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship.” (al-Kâfirűn 109/1-2)

Until the end of the Sűrah (al-Kâfirűn). Did it reach your heart that Allâhu Taâlâ commanded to address them as Kâfirűn (pl. Kâfir; disbelievers) and informed that Rasűlullah (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) would not have worshipped what they worshipped meaning he is distant from their Dîn, also informed that they would have not worshipped what Rasűlullah Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam worships meaning they are distant from Tawhîd. For this reason, Allâhu Taâlâ ended this Sűrah with His statement:

لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ
“To you be your Way, and to me mine.” (al-Kâfirűn 109/6)

Therefore including Rasűlullah Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam is distant from their Dîn and they are distant from the Dîn of Rasűlullah Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam. So ponder upon the statement of Allâhu Taâlâ:

قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ فِي شَكٍّ مِنْ دِينِي فَلا أَعْبُدُ الَّذِينَ تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَلَكِنْ أَعْبُدُ اللَّهَ الَّذِي يَتَوَفَّاكُمْ وَأُمِرْتُ أَنْ أَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَأَنْ أَقِمْ وَجْهَكَ لِلدِّينِ
“Say: “O ye men! If ye are in doubt as to my religion, (behold!) I worship not what ye worship, other than Allâh! But I worship Allâh; Who will take your souls (at death): I am commanded to be (in the ranks) of the Believers, and further (thus): Set thy face towards Religion with true piety, and never in any wise be of the Unbelievers.”” (Yűnus 10/104-105)

Have you heard that Allâhu Taâlâ commanded His Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam to tell the Mushrikîn: “Indeed I am distant from your Dîn.”? (Have you heard), indeed Allâhu Taâlâ commanded the Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam to be among the Mu’minîn (pl. Mu’min; believers) whom are their enemies? (Have you also heard that) Allâhu Taâlâ prohibited the Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam to be among the Mushrikîn (pl. Mushrik; idol worshippers) whom are the Awliyâ (pl. Walî; friends) and Hizb (party) of each other?

In the Qur’ân, Âyât (pl. Âyah; verses of the Qur’ân) are countless. Just like what Allâhu Taâlâ mentioned regarding His Khalîl (intimate friend i.e. Prophet Ibrâhîm) and those with him:


إِذْ قَالُوا لِقَوْمِهِمْ إِنَّا بُرَآءُ مِنْكُمْ وَمِمَّا تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ
“When they said to their people: We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allâh...” (al-Mumtahinah 60/4)

Allâhu Taâlâ commanded to take Ibrâhîm Alayh’is Salâm)and those with him as examples in both statement and action. My intention is to warn you while fearing from brotherhood that is no avail for the Dîn. May Allâhu Taâlâ provide refuge to us and you from deviating Fitnah (trial).”

Shaykh Hamad bin Atiq Rahimahullâh in this Risâlah –which compromises many lessons and benefits- summarized the matter we’ve intended to explain from the very beginning of this article. The Shaykh Rahimahullâh started by describing Dâr’ul Kufr and declared that if Shirk overpowered in a country in which Harâm is performed openly furthermore people turn away from Dîn of Allâhu Taâlâ and legislate with man-made laws...  once such Bâtil becomes apparent then it is an abode of Kufr, Shirk, Harb and not an abode of Islâm anymore.

Make note, Shaykh Hamad bin Atiq (rahimahullah) died in 1301H and wrote this Risâlah during the end of the Ottoman Empire. It is evident in the presence of the intellect that the condition of the so-called Islâmic countries of today are much severe and worse than the condition of his era.

Shaykh Rahimahullâh then declares that the wealth of the people of Dâr’ul Harb is Halâl to be taken, likewise the blood of people of Dâr’ul Harb are Halâl to be shed. Shaykh Rahimahullâh also mentioned clearly that only the one who manifests his Din and declares that he is distant from the Kufr of his tribe, will be exempted from this ruling. By this, it is understood that Shaykh Hamad bin Atîq Rahimahullâh ruled everyone who lives in Dâr’ul Kufr as Kâfir in the Dhâhir, moreover, he based this on the Shar’î evidences and the application of the Ummah.

Moreover, Imâm al-Mâwardî Rahimahullâh among the Shâfi’î Fuqahâ (pl. Faqîh; jurists) mentioned the following Hadîth –without providing any information regarding its source and Sanad (chain of narration)-,


مَنَعَتْ دَارُ الْإِسْلَامِ مَا فِيهَا، وَأَبَاحَتْ دَارُ الشِّرْكِ مَا فِيهَا
“Dâr’ul Islâm prohibits whatever is in it and Dâr’ush Shirk permits whatever is in it.”

Imâm al-Mâwardî Rahimahullâh mentioned this Hadîth in his renowned book “Ahkâm’us Sultâniyyah (p. 102)” also in various pages of “al-Haw’il Kabîr”. As the verifier of the book “Ahkâm’us Sultâniyyah” mentioned, the source of the Hadîth could not be determined. However, al-Mâwardî Rahimahullâh mentioned it in various places. As he performed Ihtijâj (deriving ruling/bringing evidence) with it he also stated that the likes of Abű Hanîfah Rahimahullâh accepted it as a proof for various topics (as an example refer back to; al-Haw’il Kabir, 13/65, 157 etc.).

Even if the source of the Hadîth is unknown, its content is correct and the Hadîth points out the fact that the Asl in Dâr’ul Islâm regarding wealth and blood is Harâm and Asl in Dâr’ul Harb regarding wealth and blood is Halâl. For this reason, Shaykh Hamad bin Atîq Rahimahullâh explained that the Dhâhir Hukm of the people of Dâr’ul Harb is Kâfir therefore they will be treated as Kâfir and that the ruling is not effected if there are unknown Muslims -whose Îmân is not known by the Muslimîn who reside in Dâr’ul Harb. Moreover, countries that the Shaykh Rahimahullâh spoke about used to be Dâr’ul Islâm and the Shi’ar (signs) of Islâm such as the daily prayers etc. could continuously be seen in it.

As Shaykh Hamad bin Atiq Rahimahullâh explained here and in other places, one can only be prevented from the general ruling that is based upon the Dâr one lives in, by manifesting his Dîn. Manifesting Îmân is not just being able to pray Salâh or going to the Masâjid (pl. Masjid; Mosques)! –just as the Shaykh Rahimahullâh declared. The reason which caused this abode to be accounted as Dâr’ul Harb is certainly not the Muslimîn being prevented from praying Salâh, the Muslimîn being prevented from going to the Masâjid or the Masâjid being destroyed by the Kuffâr. Rather, it is that Tawhîd was abandoned by the masses in the land. This actual fact is where we have disagreement with the people.

Whoever declares his view correctly regarding these matters of disagreement and defines his stance beyond practicing Salâh or uttering the Kalimah of Shahâdah, he will have manifested his Dîn clearly then he will be treated freestanding from  those who reside in Dâr’ul Harb. Whereas, the one who does not manifest his Dîn in a manner that differentiates his Dîn from the Dîn of the Mushrikîn he will continuously be treated as Kâfir in ruling according to his Dhâhir –even if he is a believer in the presence of Allâhu Taâlâ.

Especially –as it is the case of some today- if an individual intentionally does not manifest his Aqîdah clearly, he becomes uncomfortable when he is asked about his/others Aqîdah meanwhile expecting to be treated as Muslim, then he is one who has not comprehended Islâm at all, he is one who has no Aqîdah regarding the matters of the Haqîqah (reality) of Islâm and how the ruling of Muslim is to be given to a person.

May Allâhu Taâlâ have mercy upon the Shaykh, he successfully dealt with the subject and described the true color of the topic. For this reason, we do not desire to lengthen it and hope that it is sufficient for those who comprehend the matter. Wa’l Hamdulillâhi Rabb’il Âlamîn!
Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah (Rahimahullâh) stated,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

"The Âlim (scholar) recognizes the Jâhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jâhil. The Jâhil does not recognize the Âlim since he has never been an Âlim." (Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmű'ul Fatâwâ, 13/235)

Izhâr'ud Dîn

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 236
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #10 on: 09.06.2019, 07:54:41 AM »


THE RULING OF THE DIYÂR OF KUFR WHICH THE MUSLIMÎN RESIDE IN

Bismillâh’ir Rahmân’ir Rahîm,

Recently, we received the following assertion of a claimant through our e-mail account. According to the e-mail we received, the claimant shared only the beginning of a Fatwâ of Ibnu Qudâmah Rahimahullâh -we will quote and translate the entire text of it in this article Inshâllâh- then said,


Quote
Attention to those who declare general Takfir according to Daar! Ibnu Qudamah (rahimahullah) stated that this ruling can not be applied in an abode which Muslims live in. READ! (Note: Do not forget these rulings were given only regarding goods that are found and funerals. Meaning; there is no need to pass ruling concerning the alive whether negative or positive!)

The claimant then quoted the Fatwâ of Ibnu Qudâmah Rahimahullâh in the following manner,

Quote
“As for the second type of Daar, they are just like lands of Shaam which the Muslims conquered. Even if there is only one Muslim in these lands, then what is found (goods, child, or dead body) will be given the Hukm of Muslim. Since Islam is triumphant, the Hukm of Muslim is to be given. If there is no Muslim in these lands, however, the people of such lands are entirely from the Ahl’udh Dhimmah then, the Hukm of Kufr is to be given. This is because the ruling of Islam being triumphant is given according to the possibility even if it is very little. (Whereas, in these lands there are no Muslim to cause the ruling to be based upon the possibilities).”

Then the claimant declared the following,

Quote
Explanation: If rulings that are given according to Daar through Tabiyyah was due to the Daar itself, then the ruling for the lands that were conquered by the Muslims which are considered as Daar’ul Islam should be Islam even if there is no Muslim residing in it. This shows that what affects the ruling that is given according to the Daar is not the Daar itself but its people.

These are the assertions of the claimant. We will quote and translate the entire Fatwa of Ibnu Qudâmah Rahimahullâh and explain it –by the permit of Allâhu Taâlâ- within our capacity and capability of Ilm (knowledge) and Fahm (comprehension). In investigating the Asl for the ruling of Islâm or Kufr and treatment that is given to a found child in the chapter of Laqît (foundling), Ibnu Qudâmah Rahimahullâh stated,


الثَّانِي دَارٌ فَتَحَهَا الْمُسْلِمُونَ، كَمَدَائِنِ الشَّامِ، فَهَذِهِ إنْ كَانَ فِيهَا مُسْلِمٌ وَاحِدٌ حُكِمَ بِإِسْلَامِ لَقِيطِهَا؛ لِأَنَّهُ يُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ لِذَلِكَ الْمُسْلِمِ، تَغْلِيبًا لِلْإِسْلَامِ

وَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهَا مُسْلِمٌ، بَلْ كُلُّ أَهْلِهَا ذِمَّةٌ حُكِمَ بِكُفْرِهِ؛ لِأَنَّ تَغْلِيبَ حُكْمِ الْإِسْلَامِ إنَّمَا يَكُونُ مَعَ الِاحْتِمَالِ. وَأَمَّا بَلَدُ الْكُفَّارِ فَضَرْبَانِ أَيْضًا أَحَدُهُمَا بَلَدٌ كَانَ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ، فَغَلَبَ الْكُفَّارُ عَلَيْهِ، كَالسَّاحِلِ، فَهَذَا كَالْقِسْمِ الَّذِي قَبْلَهُ، إنْ كَانَ فِيهِ مُسْلِمٌ وَاحِدٌ حُكِمَ بِإِسْلَامِ لَقِيطِهِ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهِ مُسْلِمٌ فَهُوَ كَافِرٌ. وَقَالَ الْقَاضِي: يُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ أَيْضًا؛ لِأَنَّهُ يُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ فِيهِ مُؤْمِنٌ يَكْتُمُ إيمَانَهُ، بِخِلَافِ الَّذِي قَبْلَهُ، فَإِنَّهُ لَا حَاجَةَ بِهِ إلَى كَتْمِ إيمَانِهِ فِي دَارِ الْإِسْلَامِ

وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي بَلَدٍ كَانَ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ، ثُمَّ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهِ الْمُشْرِكُونَ، ثُمَّ ظَهَرَ عَلَيْهِ الْمُسْلِمُونَ، وَأَقَرُّوا فِيهِ أَهْلَهُ بِالْجِزْيَةِ، فَهَذَا كَالْقِسْمِ الثَّانِي مِنْ دَارِ الْإِسْلَامِ

الثَّانِي دَارٌ لَمْ تَكُنْ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ أَصْلًا. كَبِلَادِ الْهِنْدِ وَالرُّومِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهَا مُسْلِمٌ، فَلَقِيطُهَا كَافِرٌ؛ لِأَنَّ الدَّارَ لَهُمْ وَأَهْلُهَا مِنْهُمْ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِيهَا مُسْلِمُونَ كَالتُّجَّارِ وَغَيْرِهِمْ، احْتَمَلَ أَنْ يُحْكَمَ بِإِسْلَامِهِ، تَغْلِيبًا لِلْإِسْلَامِ، وَاحْتَمَلَ أَنْ يُحْكَمَ بِكُفْرِهِ، تَغْلِيبًا لِلدَّارِ وَالْأَكْثَرِ

وَهَذَا التَّفْصِيلُ كُلُّهُ مَذْهَبُ الشَّافِعِيِّ. قَالَ ابْنُ الْمُنْذِرِ: أَجْمَعَ عَوَامُّ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ، عَلَى أَنَّ الطِّفْلَ إذَا وُجِدَ فِي بِلَادِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، مَيِّتًا فِي أَيِّ مَكَان وُجِدَ، أَنَّ غُسْلَهُ وَدَفْنَهُ فِي مَقَابِرِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يَجِبُ، وَقَدْ مَنَعُوا أَنْ يُدْفَنَ أَطْفَالُ الْمُشْرِكِينَ فِي مَقَابِرِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ. قَالَ: وَإِذَا وُجِدَ لَقِيطٌ فِي قَرْيَةٍ لَيْسَ فِيهَا إلَّا مُشْرِكٌ، فَهُوَ عَلَى ظَاهِرِ مَا حَكَمُوا بِهِ أَنَّهُ كَافِرٌ. هَذَا قَوْلُ الشَّافِعِيِّ وَأَصْحَابِ الرَّأْيِ

“The second: A Dâr (Abode) that is conquered by the Muslimîn like the cities of ash-Shâm (Greater Syria, modern-day; Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan). So, if it happens that there is even only one Muslim in it, its foundling child will be ruled upon Islâm, because the (foundling) child possibly belongs to the Muslim, prevailing Islâm.

If it happens that there is no Muslim, rather all its people are Dhimmî, he (the foundling) will be ruled with Kufr. Since the Hukm (ruling) of Islâm prevailing occurs with possibility (however there is no such possibility in this case).

As for lands of the Kuffâr; this also consists of two parts. The first of them is: A Land which used to belong to the Muslimîn, then the Kuffâr prevailed over it, such as the (lands of) Sâhil (region). This is also like the part preceding it. If it happens that there is even only one Muslim in it, Its foundling child is ruled with Islâm. If it happens that there is no Muslim in it, then he (the foundling child) is Kâfir (in Hukm). Al-Qadhî (Abű Ya’lâ) said, “(this) foundling child would be ruled with Islâm as well, since there is possibility that there is a Mu’min in it who hides his Îmân (faith).” This is in opposition to what preceded it. This is because there is no need to hide Îmân in Dâr’ul Islâm.

If the foundling child is in a land that used to belong to the Muslimîn, then the Mushrikűn prevailed over it then the Musliműn overpowered it and its people affirmed to pay the Jizyah: then this is like the second part of Dâr’ul Islâm.

The second is: A Dâr which never never belonged to the Muslimîn, like the lands of Hind (India) and Rűm (Europe). If it happens that there is not a single Muslim in it, then its foundling children are Kâfir (in Hukm). This is because the abode is their abode and its people are from them. If it happens that there are Musliműn in it like merchants and other than them, there is possibility that he (the foundling child) is ruled with Islâm, since Islâm prevails. There is possibility that he (the foundling child) is ruled with Kufr because the Kuffâr prevail by the abode and/or the majority (belonging them).

All these are details of the Madhhab of ash-Shâfi’î Rahimahullâh. Ibn’ul Mundhir Rahimahullâh said, “The general Ahl’ul Ilm had Ijmâ that when a child is found dead -wherever it is found- in the lands of the Muslimîn, it is Wâjib (obligatory) to wash him and bury him in the Muslim cemetery, whereas they prohibited from burying children of the Mushrikîn to be buried in the Muslim cemetery.” Ibn’ul Mundhir Rahimahullâh also said, “If a foundling child is found in a place where there is none other than Mushrikîn, then he is upon the Dhâhir: they (the scholars) ruled that he is a Kâfir. This is the opinion of ash-Shâfi’î and Ashâb’ur Ra’y (i.e. the Hanafîs).”
(Ibnu Qudâmah, al-Mughnî, 6/113 no: 4557)

As seen, Ibnu Qudâmah Rahimahullâh ruled the foundling child as Muslim when there is a possibility that he belongs to the Muslimîn even if he was found in a land in which the Kuffâr are the majority. It is as such in the Shâfi’î Madhhab as well (ash-Shirbînî, Mughn’il Muhtâj, 3/605). Likewise, the ruling in the Mâlikî Madhhab (Khirashi, Sharhu Mukhtasar’il Khalîl, 7/132). According to the Hanafî view, the state of such foundling child depends on the person who found him and not the Dâr that he was found in. Therefore, if a Muslim found him then the foundling child will be ruled as Muslim and in the case that a Kâfir found him then the foundling child will be ruled as Kâfir. Some among the Hanafî scholars mentioned that the clothing and other Alâmât will be checked before the ruling is given. Possibly, due to the differences of Usűl (methodology) or other reasons, the detailed rulings in other Madhhabs is not found in the sources of the Hanafî Madhhab (as-Sarakshî, al-Mabsűt, 10/214+).

In short; the majority of the scholars held the opinion that both the foundling child and other items found -in an abode which the Muslimîn live in- are considered to belong to the Muslimîn even if the majority is Kuffâr.

The claimant mentioned –in parenthesis- that this ruling is the same for the Janâzah (funeral), as some scholars included the ruling of the Janâzah in this,


Quote
(Note: Do not forget these rulings were given only regarding goods that are found and funerals. Meaning; there is no need to pass ruling concerning the alive whether negative or positive!)

However, the matter of the funeral is not as clear/open as the matter of the foundling child. For this reason, the author of “an-Najm’ul Wahhâj” from amongst the Shâfi’î scholars stated,

لو وجد ميت أو بعضه ولم يعلم أنه مسلم أو كافر .. فهو كاللقيط، إن وجد في دار الإسلام .. عومل معاملة المسلم، أو في دار الشرك ولا مسلم فيها .. فكالكافر، وإن كان فيها مسلم .. فعلى الخلاف

“If a dead body or some parts of it is found and it is not known whether he is a Muslim or a Kâfir, then he is like the Laqît (foundling) in ruling. If he is found in Dâr’ul Islâm then he will be treated as Muslim. If he found in Dâr’ush Shirk in which there are no Muslims, then (he will be treated) like the Kâfir. If there is a Muslim in it, then there is Ikhtilâf (disagreement) upon it.” (an-Najm’ul Wahhâj, 3/66)

Al-Bujayramî stated that in the presence of the Shâfi’î scholars regarding a dead body found in Dâr’ul Kufr in which the Muslims reside in, the Sahîh view is treating it as Muslim. (Hâshiyat’ul Bujayramî, 1/485)

We would like to mention that this ruling is not going against the principle regarding the Asl of people in Dâr’ul Harb being Kâfir in Dhâhir. Rather, this is the exception of the principle. The reason for the exception is the residing of Muslims in the mentioned land. Once the possibility that Muslims residing in the land is lifted, then the exception is lifted as well and the Hukm returns to the Asl, meaning; the principle “the Asl (origin) of the people in Dâr’ul Harb (Abode of War) is considered to be Kâfir in Dhâhir”. The statement of Ibn’ul Mundhir Rahimahullâh quoted above by Ibnu Qudâmah Rahimahullâh also an indication to this,

“If a foundling child is found in a place where there is none other than Mushrikîn , then he is upon the Dhâhir: they (the scholars) ruled that he is a Kâfir.”

Surely, the scholars do not express statements that are in opposition to each other, since they are the ones who expressed the principle concerning the Asl of the people in Dâr’ul Harb being considered as Kâfir in Dhâhir. Furthermore, we quoted (“The Diyaar we Live in, its Rulings & the Matter of Takfir According to the Daar”) -a while ago- the following statement of Imâm Ahmad bin Hanbal Rahimahullâh wherein he manifests his opinion concerning this matter, which was mentioned by Ibnu Qudâmah Rahimahullâh,



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 is found and if it is not known whether the person was Muslim or a Kâfir, the Alâmât (pl., Alâmah; the signs of Islâm) such as the Khitân (circumcision), the clothing, the Hidhâb (die) will be examined. If no Alâmah (sign) is present, then if the deceased is in Dâr’ul Islâm, he will be washed and he will be prayed (the funeral prayer) over. However, if the deceased is in Dâr’ul Kufr, it will not be washed nor be prayed (the funeral prayer) over. Regarding this, Imâm Ahmad states, “This is due to the Asl (origin) for such case is; when a person lives in a Dâr (state), he is from its Ahlihâ (community/society), their ruling will be given to him until a means of Dalîl (evidence) is found proving otherwise.” (al-Mughnî, 2/400, point 1638)

It is clear that the principle of attributing things and persons to the Dâr that it is found in comes under the scope of Majhűl’ul Hâl (unknown) as a general ruling. Whereas, attributing things and persons found in a land that the Muslims reside in which belong to the Kuffâr even if they are minority –according to the benefits we will explain soon Inshâllâh- is a Khass (specified) principle. The following statement quoted above from Ibnu Qudâmah Rahimahullâh, “until a means of Dalîl is found proving otherwise.” also indicates this principle. The Dalîl for an exception of the principle is Muslims residing in Dâr’ul Kufr wherein the Laqît is found. Accordingly, a different ruling other than the general principle is applied in that land.

To the extent of our understanding, the reason the scholars apply a different ruling other than the general principle is due to their taking a Hadîth as Dalîl in this regards, which is as follows,


الْإِسْلَامُ يَعْلُو وَلَا يُعْلَى عَلَيْهِ
“Islam is always superior and should never be surpassed.”
(at-Tabarânî narrated a similair statement as Marfű in al-Mu’jam’us Saghîr, no: 948; at-Tahâwî narrates this in Sharhu Ma’ân’il Asr, no: 5267 as Ibnu Abbâs Radiyallâhu Anhumâ’s statement)

By giving such ruling, the scholars intended to prevent loss of rights belonging to the Muslimîn. In example, entrusting a foundling child to the Kuffâr while there is the possibility that he is Muslim may cause the child of a Muslim entering the Dîn of the Kuffâr because he was entrusted to a Kâfir and/or the Kuffâr/Kufr gaining strength over the Muslimîn/Islâm... Verily, for this reason, once such possibility appears, the ruling must be given in the favor of the Muslim as much as possible.

However, if there is no Muslim who resides in the mentioned land, the previous ruling i.e. the ruling that “everything found in Dâr’ul Harb is to be considered as the property of the Kuffâr” will return since there is no such possibility. If the statements of  Ibnu Qudâmah are well investigated, all of these issues will clearly be seen.

In addition, this does not mean that this exceptional ruling is to be implemented for every matter in every land the Muslims reside in it. Evidences for the principle regarding the people of Dâr’ul Kufr and the application of the Ummah prevent implementing this exceptional ruling to every matter. In example, when the Muslims attacked the lands of the Kuffâr, they never hindered from fighting against the Kuffâr, killing the warriors who come to fight them, taking their womenfolk and children as captives due to thinking there are Muslims or there is a possibility that there are Muslims in the land. Many examples of this exists in the life of Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam. Throughout history, armies of the Muslim Ummah attacked the lands of the Kuffâr and later they realized that there were Muslims who reside in it hiding their Îmân. This does not prevent the Muslims considering taking the wealth and shedding the blood of the people of Dâr’ul Harb Mubâh (permissible). However, Muslims must pay Kaffârah (ransom) for killing a Muslim whose Îmân is unknown while deeming he is Kâfir, when it becomes evident that he is Muslim.

Shawkani stated the following regarding this,

“Regarding the matter, the Mu’min (believer) killed by the Musliműn in Bilâd’ul Kuffâr while deeming that he is one of them (i.e. Kuffâr), who became Muslim but did not migrate and was deemed to be non-Muslim and to have remained upon the Dîn of his tribe; then there is no Diyah (blood-money) upon he who killed him rather upon him is to free a Mu’minah (female believer) slave. The scholars made Ikhtilâf regarding the view (whether or not) Diyah being invalid. It is said, according to a view; the Walî of the victim (of murder) are Kuffâr and he has no right of Diyah (as compensation). It is said, according to a view; this person who –is killed as a Muslim- believed but did not migrate has lesser respect (in comparison to a Muslim who believed and migrated). This is due to the statement of Allâhu Taâlâ.


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

Some amongst the Ahl’ul Ilm (People of Sacred-Knowledge; scholars) said, the Diyah of such person is a Wâjib (sacred duty) upon Bayt’ul Mâl (public treasury of the Muslim state or community).”

Quotation from ash-Shawkânî ends here. (ash-Shawkânî, Fath’ul Qadîr, 1/575)

Ash-Shawkânî mentioned this in the Tafsîr of the Âyah,


فَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَّكُمْ وَهُوَ مْؤْمِنٌ فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةٍ
“If he (the victim) be of a people hostile unto you, and he is a believer, then (the penance is) to set free a believing slave.” (an-Nisa 4/92)

However, there is Ikhtilâf about whether or not it is permissible to attack them when it is definitely known that there are Muslims in the land of the enemy. Scholars had Ikhtilâf upon this and some of them said, attack can be performed against the enemy by aiming/targeting the Kuffâr while not aiming/targeting the Muslims in the land such as those Muslims who are kept captive by the Kuffâr.

What is the base for invalidating the Hukm in regards to the Asl of the people in Dâr’ul Harb being Kufr which is established with Ijmâ by such exceptional matters? The presence of the Muslim in Dâr’ul Kufr is taken in consideration in order to prevent invalidation of the rights of those Muslim whose residency in Dâr’ul Kufr is known. Nevertheless, this is no doubt that it is very different from passing the ruling of Muslim to everyone, treating them as Muslim without having any proof or performing Tawaqquf (pausing the Hukm) and not giving any ruling to the general masses living in Dâr’ul Kufr!

The claimant asserts, the ruling of Muslim will be applied to the Laqît (foundling child) etc. which he found reference for. As for other matters, he can’t find reference for, the claimant asserts there is no need to pass ruling for those unknown, thus this how he goes against the Sharî’ah (Islâmic law). With it, he innovated something that none of the scholars ever mentioned –including the Salaf (predecessors) and the Khalaf (latter-day scholars)- which is stating that no rule –neither Islâm/Muslim nor Kufr/Kâfir- will be applied to people whose state are unknown. This is how he opposes the Nass (textual proof), Ijmâ (consensus) of the Ummah (nation of Islâm) and Sarîh Aql (evident intellect). The outcome of his innovation is innovating a third status other than Muslim and Kâfir! The Bâtil of such claim is apparent. We move on from this since we had mentioned it before.

It is correct that the condition of the people who reside in the land is taken in consideration in such matters and not the condition of the Dâr when considering Islâm or Kufr. Even if a land is under the domination of Islâm while the general masses consist of only Kuffâr, then people of such land will be treated as Kâfir, they will be given the ruling of Kâfir and judgment that is implemented to the Muslim will not be applied to them unless what necessitates otherwise becomes apparent.

The presence of the Muslim will be taken in consideration –as it is in the case of Laqît- in a land that is under the dominion of the Kuffâr and the majority is Kâfir. How does this matter benefit and support the claimant? Some rulings may differ when the presence of the Muslim is known and as we previously mentioned, these rulings compromise limited issues that are in favor of the Musliműn. However, it is not correct to claim that Salâh (daily prayers) can be prayed behind those who pray, that their slaughter can be eaten, and that they will be greeted with Salâm.

If this is accepted, then there will be no difference between Dâr’ul Kufr and Dâr’ul Islâm in regards to the rulings of their inhabitants; in this case, all the boundaries drawn by the Sharî’ah will be violated.

In addition, the expression that “the presence of Muslims in it, Muslims residing in it or inhabitants of Dâr’ul Harb among Muslims...” needs to be described and defined well.

According to the mentality of those who declare Takfîr upon the Taghűt states but consider the general masses as Muslim, they already do not see any harm in treating everyone as Muslim in Asl i.e. everyone who utters the Kalimah of Shahâdah is Muslim (according to their opinion) and the majority is like this.

If they claim that they do not intend such Bâtil Usűl but intend the Ahl’ut Tawhîd who reject the Tâghűt, then they should know that this ruling is only valid and implemented in the lands, cities, villages, and towns the Musliműn and Muwahhidűn reside in. It is not correct to implement this ruling to one end of a the country while the Musliműn reside in the other end.

It should be noted that it is not the geographical borders drawn by the Kuffâr that is taken in consideration, but it is the city wherein the Musliműn reside in.

As for the lands of the Kuffâr the Musliműn reside in, then attention must be paid to such details and rulings. If there is a possibility, even if it is the slightest, treatments regarding the foundling or goods taken as Ghanîmah (war booty) etc. should be done in caution in order not to harm the Musliműn. 

In summary, what Ibnu Qudâmah Rahimahullâh mentioned is the exceptional Hukm to protect the rights of the Muslimv such as safeguarding the Dîn and the progeny, and general Takfîr of the masses of Dâr’ul Harb can not be denied by this Hukm. Besides, the affirmation of the principle “the Asl of people in Dâr’ul Kufr is Kufr” is prevalent in the statement of Ibnu Qudâmah Rahimahullâh. Wallâhu A’lam!
Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah (Rahimahullâh) stated,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

"The Âlim (scholar) recognizes the Jâhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jâhil. The Jâhil does not recognize the Âlim since he has never been an Âlim." (Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmű'ul Fatâwâ, 13/235)

Izhâr'ud Dîn

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 236
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #11 on: 19.06.2019, 04:31:24 AM »



Quote from: Question
Question regarding the word "ummah"

Peace upon the believers,

I begin with a request to keep me anonymous.

When I see the world and so called "Ummah" of today I realise they are not muslim as a whole( I make general takfir on them), though there are muslims known or unknown to me living in it.

Also as far as I understand this mass kufr was present in this "Ummah" for a while now. I don't take  this so called ummah as "muslim ummah". If both of us agree on this (which seems you do from your website) then my question is below.

I want to know how to understand the word Ummah or "My ummah" found in the ahadith, specially in those ahadith describing what the ummah will/will not do it later days. Do only the muslims are refered to in the word ummah or there are more to that?

may Allah guide us all.

Bismillâh’ir Rahmân’ir Rahîm,

With the term “Ummah (community, people)” -which is commonly is used in the Ahâdîth (pl. Hadîth) in the following manner “my Ummah”, “this Ummah”, “in this Ummah” or “from this Ummah” etc.- various meanings are referred. With the “Ummah”, Ummat’i Da’wah which compromises everyone whether a Muslim or a Kâfir whom are addressed by the Islâmic Da’wah (call),. Likewise, with the “Ummah”, Ummat’i Ijâbah which refers to only the Muslimîn who responded to the call of Islâm. Similarly with the “Ummah”, the Kuffâr (pl. Kâfir; disbelievers) those who came out of the Ummah of Islam or those Munâfiqűn (pl. Munâfiq; hypocrites) and the Mulhidîn (pl. Mulhid; atheists) who attribute themselves to Islâm while they are –no doubt- not Muslim in reality. As it was mentioned in the following Hadîth,


وَإِنَّمَا أَخَافُ عَلَى أُمَّتِي الْأَئِمَّةَ الْمُضِلِّينَ، وَإِذَا وُضِعَ السَّيْفُ فِي أُمَّتِي لَمْ يُرْفَعْ عَنْهَا إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ، وَلَا تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى تَلْحَقَ قَبَائِلُ مِنْ أُمَّتِي بِالْمُشْرِكِينَ، وَحَتَّى تَعْبُدَ قَبَائِلُ مِنْ أُمَّتِي الْأَوْثَانَ، وَإِنَّهُ سَيَكُونُ فِي أُمَّتِي كَذَّابُونَ ثَلَاثُونَ، كُلُّهُمْ يَزْعُمُ أَنَّهُ نَبِيٌّ، وَأَنَا خَاتَمُ النَّبِيِّينَ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدِي، وَلَا تَزَالُ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أُمَّتِي عَلَى الْحَقِّ - قَالَ ابْنُ عِيسَى: ظَاهِرِينَ. ثُمَّ اتَّفَقَا - لَا يَضُرُّهُمْ مَنْ خَالَفَهُمْ، حَتَّى يَأْتِيَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ
“I am afraid about my Ummah of those leaders who will lead astray. When the sword is used among my people, it will not be withdrawn from them till  Yawm’ul Qiyâmah (the Day of Judgment), and the Sâ’ah (Last Hour) will not come before the tribes of my Ummah attach themselves to the Mushrikîn (idol worshiper pagans; polytheists) even worse tribes of my Ummah worship idols. There will be thirty Kadhdhâb (great liars) -among my Ummah- each of them asserting that he is (Allâh’s) Nabî (prophet), where as I am the seal of the Prophets after whom (me) there will be no Nabî; and a section of my Ummah will continue to hold to the Haqq (truth) -(according to the Ibnu Îsâ’s version: (will continue to dominate)- the agreed version goes: and will not be injured by those who oppose them, till Allâh’s command comes.” (Abű Dâwűd, Hadîth no: 4252; Ibnu Mâjah, Hadîth no: 3952)

As it was mentioned in the Hadîth, the liar prophets that will emerged from the Islâmic Ummah are Kâfir. Likewise, those who will attach themselves to the Mushrikîn and worship to the idols are surely Kâfir. Those who referred in the Hadîth that they will continue to hold the Haqq are the Muslimîn. As for the A’immah (leaders) who will lead people astray could be Kâfir or people among Ahl’ul Qiblah who call people to the Bid’ah (innovation)  and Fisq (corruption) since the term presented in the Hadîth “Dalâlah (deviation)” used for every types of deviation and astray.

We started quoting this Hadîth so that it becomes clear for everyone, in order to determine what exactly meant with the term “Ummah” used in the Ahâdîth stating “this and that will happen in this Ummah...” can only be understood by the way of looking for the Siyâq and Sibâq (the whole context of a word by evaluating along with their previous and following statements) of the Hadîth and explanations/comments of the Salaf for the related Hadîth.

In the following Hadîth, the term “Ummah” is used for pointing out to the “Ummat’i Ijâbah” meaning everyone who is addressed with the call of Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam),


وَالَّذِي نَفْسُ مُحَمَّدٍ بِيَدِهِ، لَا يَسْمَعُ بِي أَحَدٌ مِنْ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ يَهُودِيٌّ، وَلَا نَصْرَانِيٌّ، ثُمَّ يَمُوتُ وَلَمْ يُؤْمِنْ بِالَّذِي أُرْسِلْتُ بِهِ، إِلَّا كَانَ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّارِ
“By Him (i.e. Allâh) in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad, he who amongst the Ummah of Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that with which I have been sent and dies in this state (of disbelief), he shall be but one of the denizens of Nâr (Fire i.e. Hell-Fire).” (Muslim, Hadîth no: 153)

We believe what you asked for is regarding the Ahâdîth in which informed that Fitnah (trial), Fisq and Bid’ah would occur in the Ummah. The above-mentioned Hadîth is an example of it. Similarly, at-Tirmidhî Rahimahullâh in his “Sunan” related from Imrân bin Husayn Radiyallâhu Anhumâ, Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam stated,

فِي هَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ خَسْفٌ وَمَسْخٌ وَقَذْفٌ، فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ، وَمَتَى ذَاكَ؟ قَالَ: إِذَا ظَهَرَتِ القَيْنَاتُ وَالمَعَازِفُ وَشُرِبَتِ الخُمُورُ
"In this Ummah there shall be collapsing of the earth, transformation and Qadhf. A man among the Muslims said, O Messenger of Allâh! When is that? He Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) said, When singing slave-girls, music, and drinking intoxicants spread." (at-Tirmidhî, Hadîth no: 2212)

وَقَدْ رُوِيَ هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ سَابِطٍ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم مُرْسَلاً وَهَذَا حَدِيثٌ غَرِيبٌ

Abű Îsâ (i.e. at-Tirmidhî) said after narrating the Hadîth: “This Hadîth was narrated on the authority of A’mash, from Abd’ur Rahmân bin Sâbit from the Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam as a Mursal (with broken chain) report. This Hadîth is Gharîb (unfamiliar).”

Those whom referred in the Ahâdîth in this regards are –mostly- the Muslimîn. In a different wording of the Hadîth it is narrated that Â’ishah Radiyallâhu Anhâ asked,


وَهُمْ يَقُولُونَ: لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ
“(Will they be punished even though) they say, La ilaha Illallâh (there is no –true- deity worthy of worship except Allâh)!” (Ibnu Abi’d Dunyâ, Zamm’ul Malâhî, no: 4)

Likewise in the Hadîth which is commonly known as “73 Sects in My Ummah”,

وَتَفْتَرِقُ أُمَّتِي عَلَى ثَلاَثٍ وَسَبْعِينَ مِلَّةً، كُلُّهُمْ فِي النَّارِ إِلاَّ مِلَّةً وَاحِدَةً، قَالُوا: وَمَنْ هِيَ يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ؟ قَالَ: مَا أَنَا عَلَيْهِ وَأَصْحَابِي
“...my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects. All of them are in the Nâr except one sect. He said: And which is it O Rasűl (Messenger) of Allâh? He Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam said: What I am upon and my Ashâb (Companions).” (Tirmidhi, Hadith no: 2641)

As seen in the above-mentioned Hadîth, Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam said, “my Ummah” for those sects that dispute with another. For this reason, the majority of the scholars performed Istidlâl (conviction) with this Hadîth that sects among the Ahl’ul Bid’ah are not Kâfir therefore they cannot be declared Takfîr upon.

In the narration that Ibnu Battah related from Abdullâh Ibn’ul Mubârak Rahimahullâh, he accounted both the Khawârij and the Râfidhî (Shiites) among the Muslimîn while he was accounting the Jahmiyyah among the seventy-two sects due to him not considering them as Muslim. (Ibnu Battah, al-Ibânah, 1/380, no: 278) This fact is also referring to the same meaning.

In short; meaning of the term “Ummah” which is commonly is used in the Ahâdîth (pl. Hadîth) in the form of “my Ummah”, “in this Ummah” and “from this Ummah” etc. should be determined while referring back to the Sharh books of the related Hadîth, investigating the Siyâq and Sibâq of the Hadîth by those who are competent to do so. Stating, “All of the Ahâdîth that were recorded concerning this matter means this or that” is incorrect.

Even though we are not sure for what reason, you directed to us this question concerning the state of the Ummah (in the ends of the times); we know people here and there today, who try to prove that people of our era are Muslim in Asl (origin) by bringing the Ahâdîth that were narrated concerning this matter.

As you mentioned, some people among the Ahl’ul Bâtil (People of Falsehood) of today –can only be able to- bring forth these Ahâdîth as a Nass for their view regarding the matter of declaration of Takfîr to the so-called Islâmic Ummah when it is proved with evident proofs from the Kitâb (Book; Qur’ân), the Sunnah, and the reality of the fact of today and that when they are unable to respond with a valid response concerning the majority of the people of our era are upon Shirk and nowadays the Asl for those who attribute themselves to Islâm is Kufr and not Islâm.

They say, “Since you say that the majority of the Ummah became Kâfir, whereas Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam informed us regarding various Bid’ah and Fisq will occur between his Ummah. You already declare Takfîr upon the majority of the Ummah and that among those who you call Muslim, the doer of Bid’ah, the doer of Fisq and these traits are not found frequently. Then if everyone is Kâfir, who are the doers of Bid’ah and the doers of Fisq. By stating this, they intend to prove being Bâtil of declaring Takfîr upon the Mushrikîn!

Their attempt to prove their view by bringing forth these Ahâdîth are among the unsound Hujjah (proof) in the presence of Ahl’ul Ilm and Farâsah (People of Sacred-Knowledge and Wisdom) and those who use the intellect that they have. Whereas, these proofs are among the strongest Hujjah in the presence of those who ignorant ones and fools who do not use their intellect, inclining to the deviation and have no Ilm.

So much that even if they are the majority and already knew the evident Nusűs regarding the matter of declaration of Takfîr upon the Mushrikîn, when such Mutashâbih brought to their attention –since it is easier for them- they deviate. Primarily, the following should be said to them, “Respond the apparent evidences that proves Shirk of the people of our era. Before bringing us the Mutashâbih and problematic (including possibilities) evidences, you must explain the Muhkam Nass that we mention.”

As for the Ahâdîth they mentioned, there is nothing in the Ahâdîth indicates their view. It is because many of the Alâmah of Âkhir Zamân (end of the times before the Qiyâmah) that was mentioned in the Ahâdîth came true right after the death of Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam. As for the Bid’ah, Dhulm (oppression) and Fisq, seen among the era of Salaf –even though the majority of the people were Muslim- it continuously increased. Furthermore, it cannot be claimed that such traits had not and would not occur between the Ahl’ut Tawhîd of our era.

Besides is there a proof that, in every era of Islâm there occurs the doer of Bid’ah, Fisq and that there is era that the doers of Bid’ah, Fisq are not found? Is such claim has a base from the Salaf? Who were the doer of Bid’ah and Bid’ah of Fisq during the era of Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam? As it is known, until the end of the era Uthmân Radiyallâhu Anh there were no Bid’ah occurred between the Islâmic Ummah. Khawârij and other Bid’ah took place at the end of the era Uthmân Radiyallâhu Anh.

As it will be mentioned below, the affairs would turn into the same, of those days during the end of times, meaning very close to Qiyâmah and except the Muslimîn whom are Ahl’ul Istiqâmah (People of Steadfastness), everyone will submit to the Dajjâl (Anti-Christ). There were narrations recorded in terms of the Qadariyyah sect and it likes being submitted to the Dajjâl. No one who has intellect would have doubts regarding his Aqîdah after realizing that there are no doers of Bid’ah and Fisq in his environment among those who call them as Muslim. Such a testing and such a style of thinking cannot be narrated from anyone of the Ulamâ. This is nothing but task of the lay people of our era!

In short, there is nothing in these Ahâdîth that indicates people of our era being Muslim and that –as we mentioned previously- such a proving style is only for befooling the ignorant ones among the lay people.

Who among the Ulamâ convicted such a result from these Ahâdîth, “We were informed that the Fitnah will be occurred in the Âkhir Zamân in the Ummah therefore the Ummah of Muhammad Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam will continue –as it was in the past- as a masses”? Who stated that “Ummah will always continue as masses who are upon Tawhîd”? What is the Dalîl (evidence) for it?

Rather, there is neither such a Nass -neither in the Kitâb nor in the Sunnah- nor such an Ijmâ indicates -that is taken in consideration as an obstacle for- being Kâfir of the majority those who attribute to Islâm moreover the Asl for these societies being Kufr and not Islâm. Even though this is the state, many people here and there accuse as being Khawârij and Mubtadi (doer of Bid’ah) and severely reject those who believe that the Asl in these societies is Kufr.

The following should be asked to them; Where is the Dalîl that which prevents being Mushrik of those who utter La ilaha Illallâh. The solely information that is provided by the Ahâdîth is, there will always be a Tâ’ifah among the Ummah who are upon Tawhîd and that Muslimîn –whether they are crowd or few in number- would have never disappeared until Yawm’il Qiyâmah. Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam stated the following Hadîth which takes place in the Sahîhayn (two Sahîh books; Sahîh of al-Bukhârî and Sahîh of Muslim).


لاَ يَزَالُ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أُمَّتِي ظَاهِرِينَ، حَتَّى يَأْتِيَهُمْ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ وَهُمْ ظَاهِرُونَ
“A Tâ’ifah (group) of my Ummah will remain predominant (victorious) till Allâh’s Order (the Hour) comes upon them while they are still predominant (victorious).” (al-Bukhârî, Hadîth no: 3640, 7311; Muslim, Hadîth no: 1921)

If anyone claims that the entire Ummah became Kâfir and that there is no Muslim left on the earth then he will be objected and accused for opposing to the Nass. However, one who says that the Muslim is minority on the earth cannot be accused of opposing to the Nass. Furthermore, majority of those who attribute themselves to Islâm during the Âkhir Zamân falling into Kufr, and the Muslim will be decreases gradually are the requisition of the Ahâdîth regarding the Âkhir Zamân. If they are trying to prove that the majority of people of today are Muslim with bringing these Ahâdîth forth then they should know that there are narrations recorded concerning the majority of those who attribute themselves will deviated to Kufr and that they are Kâfir in reality during the Âkhir Zamân. As it was narrated by Abű Hurayrah Radiyallâhu Anh, Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam stated the following,

بَادِرُوا بِالْأَعْمَالِ فِتَنًا كَقِطَعِ اللَّيْلِ الْمُظْلِمِ، يُصْبِحُ الرَّجُلُ مُؤْمِنًا وَيُمْسِي كَافِرًا، أَوْ يُمْسِي مُؤْمِنًا وَيُصْبِحُ كَافِرًا، يَبِيعُ دِينَهُ بِعَرَضٍ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا
“Be prompt in doing good deeds (before you are overtaken) by turbulence which would be like a part of the dark night. During (that stormy period), a man would be a Muslim in the morning and a Kâfir in the evening or he would be a Mu’min (believer) in the evening and a Kâfir in the morning, and would sell his faith for worldly goods.” (Muslim, Hadîth no: 118; at-Tirmidhî, Hadîth no: 2195; Abű Dâwűd, Hadîth no: 4291)

Anas bin Mâlik Radiyallâhu Anh narrated that Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam said,

يَأْتِي عَلَى النَّاسِ زَمَانٌ الصَّابِرُ فِيهِمْ عَلَى دِينِهِ كَالقَابِضِ عَلَى الجَمْرِ
“There shall come upon the people a time in which the one who is patient upon his religion will be like the one holding onto a burning ember.” (at-Tirmidhî, Hadîth no: 2260)

As it was narrated by Hâkim in his “Mustadrak” that Abdullâh bin Amr Radiyallâhu Anhumâ said,

يَأْتِي عَلَى النَّاسِ زَمَانٌ يَجْتَمِعُونَ فِي الْمَسَاجِدِ لَيْسَ فِيهِمْ مُؤْمِنٌ

“Time will come such a time to the people; they gather in Masâjid (pl. Masjid; mosque) there will be no Mu’min in them.” (Hâkim, Mustadrak, no: 8365)

Hâkim recorded in Mustadrak and stated that it is Sahîh Hadîth and adh-Dhahabî also agreed with him. Ibnu Abî Shaybah also narrated its similar from Abdullâh bin Amr Radiyallâhu Anhumâ. (Ibnu Abî Shaybah, Musannaf, no: 37586) Hallal narrated it with the following addition in its wording, “All the Mu’minîn will go to Shâm.” (al-Hallal, as-Sunnah, no: 1308)

It was narrated from Hudhayfah Radiyallâhu Anh that he said,


يَأْتِي عَلَى النَّاسِ زَمَانٌ لَوِ اعْتَرَضَتْهُمْ فِي الْجُمُعَةِ نُبَيْلٌ مَا أَصَابَتْ إِلَّا كَافِرًا

“Time will come such a time to the people, if you target arrow to them on Jumu’ah (Friday) it will hit none but a Kâfir.” (Ibnu Abî Shaybah, al-Musannaf, no: 37344)

Ibnu Battah narrated it with the following addition in its wording “or a Munâfiq” (Ibnu Battah, al-Ibânah, no: 9)

Abű Nu’aym in his Hilya narrated from Awzâ’î from Hasan bin Atiyya that he said,


لَا يَنْجُو مِنْ فِتْنَةِ الدَّجَّالِ إِلَّا اثْنَا عَشَرَ أَلْفِ رَجُلٍ وَسَبْعَةَ آلَافِ امْرَأَةٍ

“None will be saved from the Fitnah of Dajjâl except twelve thousand men and seven thousand women.” (Abu Nu’aym, al-Hilya, 6/77)

Ibnu Hajar in Fath’ul Bârî stated the following after declaring that Hasan bin Atiyya Rahimahullâh was among the Sîka (reliable) narrators of the Tâbi’în era and that this report is Sahîh. Then Ibnu Hajar said,


وَهَذَا لَا يُقَالُ مِنْ قِبَلِ الرَّأْيِ فَيَحْتَمِلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَرْفُوعًا أَرْسَلَهُ وَيَحْتَمِلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ أَخَذَهُ عَنْ بَعْضِ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ

“This information (that was given in this report) is not something that can be said by relying upon personal view. There is possibility that this is a Marfű (narrated from Rasűlullâh) but narrated as Mursal. There is also possibility that it was taken from Ahl’ul Kitâb.” (Ibnu Hajar, Fath’ul Bârî, 13/92)

As seen, this person among the Ulamâ of Salaf informed that only 19000 people will protect their Îmân and will be saved from the Fitnah of Dajjâl. Today there is over two billion so-called Islâmic Ummah and 19000 will be saved... It is also informed that the Mu’minîn will be gathered in Shâm– this has been not occurred, in opposition to some people who deem it’s occurring- during the Fitnah of Dajjâl in Âkhir Zamân. Then how could billions of Muslim (!) fit into Shâm? How about the so-called Islâmic Ummah from Maghrib (Morocco, Algeria and Tunis) to Indonesia? Again, it is informed in the Ahâdîth that the majority of the people will submit to the Dajjâl.

Shaykh’ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullâh stated the following while explaining the well-known Hadîth
“the Hadith of Ghuraba (Strangers)”

وَقَوْلُهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ {ثُمَّ يَعُودُ غَرِيبًا كَمَا بَدَأَ} يَحْتَمِلُ شَيْئَيْنِ: أَحَدُهُمَا أَنَّهُ فِي أَمْكِنَةٍ وَأَزْمِنَةٍ يَعُودُ غَرِيبًا بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ يَظْهَرُ كَمَا كَانَ فِي أَوَّلِ الْأَمْرِ غَرِيبًا ثُمَّ ظَهَرَ وَلِهَذَا قَالَ {سَيَعُودُ غَرِيبًا كَمَا بَدَأَ} . وَهُوَ لَمَّا بَدَأَ كَانَ غَرِيبًا لَا يُعْرَفُ ثُمَّ ظَهَرَ وَعُرِفَ فَكَذَلِكَ يَعُودُ حَتَّى لَا يُعْرَفَ ثُمَّ يَظْهَرُ وَيُعْرَفُ. فَيَقِلُّ مَنْ يَعْرِفُهُ فِي أَثْنَاءِ الْأَمْرِ كَمَا كَانَ مَنْ يَعْرِفُهُ أَوَّلًا. وَيَحْتَمِلُ أَنَّهُ فِي آخِرِ الدُّنْيَا لَا يَبْقَى مُسْلِمًا إلَّا قَلِيلٌ وَهَذَا إنَّمَا يَكُونُ بَعْدَ الدَّجَّالِ وَيَأْجُوجَ وَمَأْجُوجَ عِنْدَ قُرْبِ السَّاعَةِ

"And the saying of Rasűlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam: ثم يعود غريبا كما بدأ "And it will once again return as something strange", has two possible meanings.

Firstly, that Islâm will, at a particular time or in a particular place return to being something strange at that time or at that place, then it will once again become manifest (and dominant), such as occurred in the beginning of Islâm then it became known (and dominant).

And (Rasűlullâh) Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam said about this:
سيعود غريبا كما بدأ "It will return to being something strange as it was in the beginning!.." meaning that in the beginning of Islâm it was strange and it was something which the people had no knowledge of, and then it became something known and manifest, and like that (the cycle will repeat itself and) it will again become unknown again and then become known and apparent once more. So when it first appears very few people will have knowledge of it, just as it was in the beginning.

The second possible meaning is that, at the end of the world there will be no Muslims remaining, except for a very small amount.

This will happen only after the appearance of the Masîh Dajjâl (Anti-Christ), and Ya’jűj (Gog) and Ma’jűj (Magog) very close to the Hour (i.e. the end of the world). Allâh will send a gentle breeze which will take the souls of every believer, male and female then after this, the Hour will be established.”
(Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmű’ul Fatâwâ, 18/296)

Therefore, these are narrations that indicate the real Muslims being very little in number -even within those who pray Salâh (daily prayers) and claim having attachment to Islâm- in Âkhir Zamân. These Hadîth and Âthâr (reports) indicate that such a time will come. Occurring of such a time is possible by the Aql (intellect) and the Naql (narrations), moreover, there is neither Aqlî nor Naqlî evidence that can be accounted as obstacle for its occurrence. When/if rulings from the Ahâdîth concerning Âkhir Zamân are derived about the matters of Îmân and Kufr then one must take these Ahâdîth in consideration.

Furthermore, in the presence of Ahl’ul Ilm; Ahâdîth regarding the Fitnah are the last thing to be taken in consideration while deriving rules regarding the matters of Îmân and Kufr. It is because there are sufficiently enough Sarîh (evident) evidences. Ahâdîth that are recorded under the Fitan chapters of the Hadîth books can only be evaluated as additional evidences.

Whereas today, everything is reversed. People leave the Muhkam evidences regarding the matter and try to explain the matters of Îmân and Kufr with Mutashâbih evidences that which their meaning is known only by Allâhu Taâlâ. When we display the matters with in the point of view of what La ilaha Illallâh clearly indicates; Nafy (negation) and Ithbât (confirmation) and after verifying the fact that those tribes which are clearly known by not fulfilling the requirements and then prove that they cannot be given the ruling of Islâm with mere utterance of the Kalimah of Tawhîd; then people instead of responding what we provide, bring forth the Ahâdîth regarding the Khawârij or Ahâdîth that object the Najd region in which the Da’wah of Tawhîd by Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb Rahimahullâh arose or the Ahadith in which Shâm is praised! Some of them bring forth the Ahâdîth regarding the state of Ummah –as you mentioned in your question- during the end of the times... Whereas none of these Ahâdîth have the quality of being a Dalîl in the matters of declaration of the Takfîr or disproofing the evidences. Wallâhu A’lam!
Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah (Rahimahullâh) stated,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

"The Âlim (scholar) recognizes the Jâhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jâhil. The Jâhil does not recognize the Âlim since he has never been an Âlim." (Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmű'ul Fatâwâ, 13/235)

Izhâr'ud Dîn

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 236
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #12 on: 26.06.2019, 12:28:31 AM »


A RESPONSE TO THOSE WHO DISTORT THE STATEMENTS OF THE ULAMÂ REGARDING THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE

Bismillâh’ir Rahmân’ir Rahîm. Due to its importance, we are republishing the response we gave in regards to the claims of Ahmad bin Umar al-Hâzimî that the people of today are Muslimîn, under this thread. The original article can be reached here:

(...) We must also emphasize that al-Hâzimî (...) states that the view regarding the "essence of the people of today being Kufr" is Bâtil, thus, this is one of his most apparent Kufr.

Al-Hâzimî says this in the cassette series of his commentary of the Risâlah,
Mu’ayyan Takfîr by Shaykh Ishâq -which we have translated with the help of Allâh. He says,

قال : وأما الكذب والبهتان فمثل قولهم : إنا نكفر بالعموم .

يعني ما نترك أحدًا إلا ماذا ؟ الأصل في الناس كما يقال اليوم الأصل في عموم المجتمعات الإسلامية أنها ماذا ؟ أنها كافرة الأصل فيها الكفر هذا الذي أراد نفيه رحمه الله تعالى .

قال : إنّا نكفر بالعموم ونوجب الهجرة إلينا على من قدر على إظهار دينه ، وإنا نكفر من لم يكفر .

مطلقًا يعني كفر بالعموم ثم بعد ذلك من لم يكفر فهو كافر كما يقول بعض الناس اليوم ، الأصل في المجتمعات في البلاد الإسلامية عمومًا أنهم كفار ومن لم يكفرهم فهو كافر ، هذا لا شك أنه باطل أن يقال في جميع الناس عمومًا كل من كان تحت طاغوتٍ فهو كافر ، هكذا عندهم التلازم بين كفر الحاكم وبين كفر الأفراد هذا باطل . إذا كفر الحاكم لا يلزم منه ماذا ؟ كُفر الأفراد قد يكون على الأصل إلا إذا أظهر كفرًا حينئذٍ يكون كافرًا ، إذا أظهر ناقضًا ظهر لك وأما إذا لم يظهر حينئذٍ يبقى على الأصل وهو ما أظهره من الشهادتين والصلاة ونحو ذلك ، وأما التكفير هكذا بالتلازم ونحو ذلك فهذا لا شك أنه باطل .

“(Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb) stated, “As for the lies and slanders, they are like their statement that we declare Takfîr upon the general masses.”

(…al-Hâzimî says,) “The Asl (fundamental ruling) for the people, as it is said today the Asl for the general Islâmic masses is what? It is that the Asl is Kâfir… This is what the Shaykh Rahimahullâhu Taâlâ intended to negate.”

The Shaykh (Rahimahullâh) said, “(...) that we declare Takfîr upon the general masses and that we consider it obligatory upon (even) those who are able to make Idhâh’ur Dîn (manifestation of the Dîn) to make Hijrah to us. Also that we make Takfîr of those who do not make Takfîr.”

(al-Hâzimî says,) “Absolutely, meaning firstly declaring Takfîr upon the masses, then after this the person who does not make Takfîr is a Kâfir, just like some people say today, “The Asl of the general masses in al-Bilâd’ul Islâmiyyah (Islâmic countries) is that they are Kuffâr and whoever does not declare Takfîr of them is Kâfir.” To say regarding all people in general that whoever is under a Tâghűt is a Kâfir, this with no doubt is Bâtil (falsehood). In addition, according to these people, there is Talâzum (correlation) between the Kufr of the Hâkim (judge/law-giver) and the Kufr of the individuals; this is Bâtil. When the Hâkim becomes a Kâfir, what does it not necessitate? It does not necessitate the Kufr of the individual. This can only be the Asl when the individual openly displays Kufr, then he will be a Kâfir. When he openly displays a nullifier (of the Dîn), then (his Kufr) will be apparent for you. And when he does not openly display (Kufr), then he will remain upon the Asl, which is what the person openly displays of the Shahâdatayn, Salâh, and its like. As for Takfîr like this by Iltizâm (i.e. the Kufr of the Hâkim necessitates the Kufr of the individuals etc.) and its like, then there is no doubt that this is Bâtil.”

(Ahmad bin Umar al-Hâzimî, Sharhu Risâlati Hukmu Takfîr’il Mu’ayyin, 10th cassette, between minutes 21:45-23:00)

As seen, the views of al-Hâzimî regarding the matter of “The Ruling of the People” does not differ from the views of ISIS/DAESH, al-Qaeda, and all the other sects. And he states that the Kalima-i Shahâdah, Salâh and similar signs, even though it is clear that they are not signs of distancing oneself from Shirk, as Alâmât of Islâm, he takes these as Asl for the present masses, and because of this he accepts the present masses to be Muslim, and that the treatment of Muslim should be applied to each individual of these masses until his Kufr becomes apparent. He even states clearly that the opinion of the other aspect meaning that viewing the people of today as Kâfir in Asl is Bâtil.

According to this, most of the people who call al-Hâzimî a scholar, take him into consideration, or ascribe themselves to him are the people of Bâtil since they declare Takfîr of the masses of today. This is just like ISIS/DAESH describing those who believe that the Asl of the masses is Kufr to be Khawârij, even though they have some people who believe in the same from amongst their sympathizers.

Thus, this displays the Barâ’ah (the distance) of the Du’ât (pl. of Dâ’î, callers/invitators) and the Jamâ’ât (pl. of Jamâ’ah; communities, groups, organizations) from the fools who flag and promote them. Verily, this is a situation from which a lesson is to be taken...

As for what al-Hâzimî states while clarifying the matter, is nothing but a demagogy and a distortion of the issue. This is because nobody who possesses an intellect claims that there is necessary Talâzum between the Kufr of the leader and the Kufr of the general masses. This means that nobody says that because the leader became a Kâfir, the subjects instantly take the ruling of Kufr.

Al-Hâzimî tries to intimidate people from the Haqq by encasing the Bâtil with Haqq without taking in consideration the facts of what is happening today, just as some other people do.

It is a fact today that the entirety of the masses who are ascribed to Islâm have adopted Kufr, have took this as their Dîn, and have turned away from the knowledge of Tawhîd to the point that even if there are Ahl’ut Tawhîd amongst them, they are exceptional circumstances which can be pointed out. When the situation is as such, then what other than obscuring the issue is ignoring the facts of today and saying “just because the leader is a Kâfir does not necessitate the masses to be Kâfir”?

Some people may think like this, however, the issue of today is not indexed to the rulers being Kâfir, the people have -generally- turned away from the Dîn, and the rulers ruling by Kufr is only a manifesting fact of the Hadîth, “You will be ruled as you are.”

Him taking the statement of the Shaykh Muhammad Rahimahullâh regarding negating general Takfîr as a foundation is also invalid. The Shaykh Rahimahullâh has negated making general Takfîr, however this is an obscure statement. From this, with what evidence can it be extracted that the Shaykh said the Asl of the people of his era was not Kufr and that the Asl of these people was Muslim? Moreover, are the circumstances of the era that the Shaykh lived in the same as the circumstances of this era? Even if Shirk was common during the era of the Shaykh, was it the primary Asl of the people as it is today, or was it not? If we were to assume that the Shaykh did not make Takfîr of the people of his era, then how can this be a Hujjah (proof) for the masses of today? Other than this, is the statement of a scholar considered as Hujjah regarding a matter of Asl’ud Dîn? Is there anything in the Shar’î Nusűs (textual proofs of Islâmic law) which necessitate these masses constantly being Muslim? Thus, al-Hâzimî and his likes think that they solved the issue by making demagogy on general statements as such. That which is negated in the Nusűs is the entirety of the Islâmic Ummah entering into Kufr, meaning, the Ummah of Islâm will never unanimously agree upon Dalâlah (misguidance) and Kufr and that there will be a small or large group that will live by Tawhîd and the Sunnah in the Dunyâ (world). This is why Shaykh Hamad bin Nâsir -who is the student of Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb- said in the answer to the question, “Do you make Takfîr of everyone on the earth?”,


وأما تكفير أهل الأرض كلهم، فنحن نبرأ إلى الله من هذا، بل نعتقد أن أمة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم لا تجتمع على ضلالة، بل قد أجارها الله عن ذلك، على لسان نبيه محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولا تزال طائفة منها على الحق منصورين،
“As for declaring Takfîr of the entirety of the people of the earth; we seek refuge in Allâh from this. Rather, we believe that the Ummah of Muhammad Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam will not come together upon Dalâlah. Rather, Allâh has saved it from this upon the tongue of His Nabî Muhammad Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam. A group from amongst it will continue upon the Haqq (truth); they are Mansűrîn (the helped ones)... Ilkh (to the end of his speech).” (ad-Durar’us Saniyyah, 10/131)

The individual who compiled ad-Durar’us Saniyyah mentioned these statements by Hamad bin Nâsir under the heading “The Shaykh Ibnu Abd’il Wahhâb Negating that He Declares Takfîr upon the Masses” where his statements which carry a similar meaning are mentioned. It seems that he added this statement of Shaykh Hamad as an explanation to what the Shaykh said and he also mentioned them in the same chapter.

Again, Hamad bin Atîq Rahimahullâh who is from amongst the Ulamâ of Najd says,

“If Shirk became apparent in a city, prohibitions displayed openly in it, distinguishing signs of the Dîn are disrupted in it, then it becomes Bilâd (cities) of Kufr. The wealth of its people will be taken as Ghanîmah (war booty) and their blood becomes Halâl (to shed). The people of these cities already increased by displaying speaking ill of Allâhu Taâlâ and His Dîn. They put/made laws to implement for the subjects that are in opposition to the Kitâbullah (Book of Allâh; the Qur’ân) and the Sunnah of His Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam. As you already know, even one of it is sufficient for taking the one who performs it out of the fold of Islâm.

This and we say: In it (that place) could be those who are not ruled with Kufr in the Bâtin (inwards) among the Mustadh’af (oppressed) and their likes. When it comes to the Dhâhir (apparent), all praise be to Allâh, it is clear. It is sufficient for you, what the Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam did to the Ahl (people of the city) of Makkah even though the Mustadh’afîn (pl, Mustadh’af) were in it, likewise what His Ashâb did to many of those who committed Irtidâd (apostasy) from Islâm by making their blood, wealth and chastity Halâl (permissible to shed and to take). Ilkh...”
(ad-Durar’us Saniyyah, 9/256-259)

As seen, the scholars of Najd who know the meaning of the statements of Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb better than us, al-Hâzimî, and his likes, differ in their explanation of these statements. None of them have stated that in the lands where Kufr is dominant, these lands will not be treated as Dâr’ul Harb, neither will they be attacked, nor will its inhabitants be declared Takfîr of because the masses utter the Kalima-i Shahâdah. On the contrary, they say the opposite. Much more could be said regarding this matter, however, we are content with this much -as sufficient explanation has been given in our Risâlah titled
“The Ruling of the People”.
Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah (Rahimahullâh) stated,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

"The Âlim (scholar) recognizes the Jâhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jâhil. The Jâhil does not recognize the Âlim since he has never been an Âlim." (Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmű'ul Fatâwâ, 13/235)

Izhâr'ud Dîn

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 236
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #13 on: 07.07.2019, 02:22:44 AM »

CAN THE RULING OF MUSLIM BE GIVEN TO A PERSON WHO HAS AN ISLÂMIC ATTIRE?

Quote from: Quote Question 04.09.2018, 19:28
Assalamu alaykum.

I want to ask a question regarding a matter which I searched for but could not find on your beneficial website.

Some people say and bring statements of the scholars that salaah, the beard, isbaal, and hijaab are signs of Islam in daarul kufr and that one who posesses these should be treated like a Muslim until he openly manifests kufr. Now, is the salaah, the beard, the isbaal, and the hijaab signs of Islam and -if these are the asl- can a person whose ‘aqeedah is unknown in daarul kufr be treated like a Muslim? They say these signs are in their origin of Islam and because of this fact we treat the possessors of such signs like Muslims and that if they had the signs of Kufr, they would have treated them like the kaafir. Inshaallah you will be able to give a detailed explanation to this. May Allah be pleased with you all.

Wa Alaykum.

Before I go onto explaining the matter, I would like to clarify that the answer of your question is already on the website, and that which has been written above is also an answer for your question. What is of importance is the understanding of the Ilal (pl. of Illah; reasons) and Qawâ’id (pl. of Qâ’idah; rulings) the matter is based upon. When a person comprehends fully the Ilal of any Hukm, then he will have comprehended all matters which the issue comprises of. However, if you search for thousands of issues connected to one Asl individually, it is normal for you not to be able to find them per se.

We have tried to explain in length in the Risâlah above the reality of what is known as “the Alâmât of Islâm”. The meaning of “Alâmât of Islâm” is: signs which are specific only to the Muslimîn which are statements, actions, or apparent signs which only emanate from the Muslimîn. The person who examines the statements of the Ulamâ regarding the Alâmat of Islâm can see clearly from all the Ulamâ that they require the Alâmat’i Fâriqah (distinguishing sign) meaning, signs and indications of being able to distinguish between Islâm and Kufr in order to give the Hukm of “Muslim” to a person. Not a single scholar has attempted to fix Salâh, Adhân, the Kalima’i Shahâdah, or by saying that there are Ahâdîth (pl. Hadîth) or narrations concerning the turban or beard as Alâmât of Islâm -like some Zanâdiqah (pl. of Zindîq; heretics) and Juhhâl (pl. of Jâhil; ignorants) do today. This is only a behaviour which merely suits this century wherein the ignorance of the Âkhir Zamân (last days) is apparent and this has no relation with Ilm.

It was mentioned in the above Risâlah when signs such as Salâh and the Kalima-i Shahâdah are Alâmât of Islâm. These can only be evaluated as Alâmât of Islâm only when they are specific to the Ahl’ut Tawhîd. Whenever these become common actions between both the Ahl’ut Tawhîd and the Ahl’ush Shirk -as is today-, giving the Hukm of Muslim by looking at these signs will be abandoned. If these Alâmât become peculiar to the Muwahhidîn sometime in the future, then in this case, they will be evaluated as Alâmât of Islâm once again.

The evidence for this implementation is the abundant narrations mentioned above. We are not going to repeat their mention here. What is stated regarding Salâh, Adhân, the Kalima-i Shahâdah and the like are also valid regarding outward appearance. Scholars have evaluated the Islâmic attire, circumcision, dyeing the beard etc. as Alâmât of Islâm when these Alamât were specific to Islâm.

It is possible to evaluate the veil, turban etc. when they are peculiar to the Muslimîn. However, today these Alâmât have also ceased to specifically distinguish the Ahl’ut Tawhîd like the others. The reason being, as everyone who is concerned with the Aqîdah of Tawhîd will accept, among those men who grow their beard, shorten their trousers or women who wear veils are those whom are more ferocious than Abű Lahab and his wife. Moreover, when the Aqîdah of the groups who apply these Shi’âr, such as the Sűfî’s and the supposed Salafî’s are examined, it would be clearly seen that what we mentioned is not an exception, and that it is a reflection of the situation most people are in. Also, no one will deny this fact other than the ignorant who have nothing to do with Tawhîd or the arrogant who is stubborn.

We ask those who claim that the beard, turban, Isbâl, and the veil are Alâmât of Islâm, which Islâm are they a sign for? How do they define Islâm?

If what they mean is those other than the Christians and the Jews when they say Islâm, this is true, however, according to the Kitâb (Book of Allâh) and Sunnah, the definition of Islâm is not those who are not Jewish and Christian. Islâm means to reject Shirk and the Ahlu’sh Shirk, to distance from the Tâghűt and to make Takfîr of them and their followers.

If someone is to claim that today the long beard, short trousers, and the veil are only peculiar to those who accept Islâm, this would mean making a mockery of the intellect and the religions.

If they identify Islâm with today’s Salafîsm, then millions of Talafî’s who follow the Saudi Balâm carry these Alâmât. Likewise, those who have taken on names such as the “Jihâdî”, the “Takfîrî” etc. who bear many Bâtil carry these Shi’ar. When the condition is as such, according to what are these claimed to be Alâmât of Islâm?

Our advice to you is to read this article from beginning to end and ponder especially over the narrations of the scholars. We are posting below just a few of these narrations as a reminder:




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)

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)

One must ponder upon the fact that the Ulamâ (pl. of Âlim; scholars) have not accepted the Islâm of the Jews of Iraq since they claimed that Muhammad Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam was a prophet sent only to the Arabs, even though there are many apparent Nass (textual proofs) that the one who says the Kalima'i Shahâdah is Muslim. This indicates that even the Kalima'i Shahâdah is not accepted although it is the most strongest proof amongst the Alamât of Islâm. Thus, if the same situation is a point at issue, then actions that are lesser than the Shahâdah not being accepted is more superior.

Ibnu Qudâmah al-Maqdisî (Rahimahullâh) in “al-Mughnî” stated the following regarding the reasons behind the Hanâbilah accounting the Salâh, Kalima'i Shahâdah, and its like as Alâmât of Islâm:


وَلِأَنَّ الصَّلَاةَ رُكْنٌ يَخْتَصُّ بِهِ الْإِسْلَامُ، فَحُكِمَ بِإِسْلَامِهِ بِهِ كَالشَّهَادَتَيْنِ

“It is because the Salâh is a Rukn (principle) that is peculiar to Islâm. So Hukm (ruling) with Islâm is given with it as with the Shahâdatayn.”

Shaykh Műwaffaq’ud Dîn Ibnu Qudâmah (Rahimahullâh) then explains reasons for Zakâh, Hajj etc. not being accounted as Alâmah. So he says:


وَأَمَّا سَائِرُ الْأَرْكَانِ، مِنْ الزَّكَاةِ وَالصِّيَامِ وَالْحَجِّ، فَلَا يُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ بِهِ، فَإِنَّ الْمُشْرِكِينَ كَانُوا يَحُجُّونَ فِي عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - حَتَّى مَنَعَهُمْ النَّبِيُّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - فَقَالَ: «لَا يَحُجُّ بَعْدَ الْعَامِ مُشْرِكٌ.» وَالزَّكَاةُ صَدَقَةٌ، وَهُمْ يَتَصَدَّقُونَ

“As for other Arkân (pl. Rukn; principles) among them is the Zakât (obligatory charity), the Siyâm (fasting), and the Hajj (pilgrimage to Ka’bah): the Hukm would not be given with them. Indeed the Mushrikîn were performing Hajj during the era of Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) until the Nabî (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) prohibited them, so he said,

لَا يَحُجُّ بَعْدَ الْعَامِ مُشْرِكٌ
“After this year, no Mushrik may perform (will be allowed to perform) Hajj…” (Bukhârî, Hadîth no: 3177; Muslim, Hadîth no: 1347)

The Zakâh is a Sadaqah (charity) and they (Kuffâr of Makkah) were giving Sadaqah...” (Ibnu Qudâmah, al-Mughnî, 9/22, no: 7114)

As it is clearly seen, the reason for Salâh being accounted as an Alâmah of Islâm is because it is something peculiar to the Muslimîn. Owing to not having this Illah, other types of Ibadâh were not taken into account as Alâmah. Some amongst the Hanbalî Ulamâ accounted other types of Ibâdah other than the Salât as Alâmah. Mardâwî in his book “al-Insâf” stated the following regarding other types of Ibâdah to be accounted as Alâmah and mentioned the views concerning it:


وَاخْتَارَ الْقَاضِي: يُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ بِالْحَجِّ فَقَطْ. وَالْتَزَمَهُ الْمَجْدُ، وَابْنُ عُبَيْدَانَ. وَقِيلَ: يُحْكَمُ بِإِسْلَامِهِ بِبَقِيَّةِ الشَّرَائِعِ وَالْأَقْوَالِ الْمُخْتَصَّةِ بِنَا، كَجِنَازَةٍ وَسَجْدَةِ تِلَاوَةٍ

“al-Qâdhî preferred that with the Hajj alone the Hukm of Islâm can be given. Al-Majd and Ibnu Ubaydân also share this view. It was also stated that the Hukm of Islâm is given with the remaining Shi’ar and views that are peculiar to us such as Janâzah (the funeral prayer) and Sajdatu Tilâwah (prostration of recitation).” (Mardâwî, al-Insâf, 1/395)

Consequently, the discussion is related with the Ibadâh peculiar to the Muslimîn and its determination. This is the Illah for specifying some acts as Alâmât of Islâm. The Ikhtilâf amongst the Ulamâ is regarding the designation of acts. The fact that should be understood here is: the Ulamâ take the Illah of the Hukm in consideration and it is its being an Alamât’i Fâriqah between Islâm and the Kuffâr namely the distinguishing mark. However once the Illah disappears, than the Hukm disappears as well. The Salâh not being an Alâmah in our era is due to it not being something peculiar to the Muslimîn.

At this point, we are going to bring a citation from Ibnu Muflih –to whom the doubters harp on the same string- to end this section Inshâllâh. Ibnu Muflih (Rahimahullâh) explains the Salâh being an Alâmah in the same manner:


قَالَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -: «نُهِيتُ عَنْ قَتْلِ الْمُصَلِّينَ» وَظَاهِرُهُ أَنَّ الْعِصْمَةَ تَثْبُتُ بِالصَّلَاةِ، وَهِيَ لَا تَكُونُ بِدُونِ الْإِسْلَامِ، وَلِأَنَّهَا عِبَادَةٌ تَخْتَصُّ شَرْعَنَا

“Rasűlullâh (Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam) stated,

نُهِيتُ عَنْ قَتْلِ الْمُصَلِّينَ
“I have been prohibited from killing people who pray (perform Salâh).” (Abű Dâwűd, Hadîth no: 4928)

Its Dhâhir (apparent) is the protection/infallibility becomes established with the Salâh. Salâh does not exist in (any religion) other than Islâm since it is an Ibâdah that is peculiar to our Sharî’ah.” (Ibnu Muflih, al-Mubdî, 1/267)

Âkhiru Da’wânâ an’il Hamdulillâhi Rabb’il Âlamîn...
Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah (Rahimahullâh) stated,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

"The Âlim (scholar) recognizes the Jâhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jâhil. The Jâhil does not recognize the Âlim since he has never been an Âlim." (Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmű'ul Fatâwâ, 13/235)

Izhâr'ud Dîn

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 236
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
Re: THE RULING OF THE PEOPLE
« Reply #14 on: 11.07.2019, 12:00:36 AM »

Quote from: Quote Question 05.09.2018, 14:08
Assalamu alaykum.

Some of them claim they hold the middle course between the two paths and that they view salah and the other shiar as Alamat of Islam. Even though our era consists of abodes of kufr, they still say that they account these as Alâmat. When they say between the two paths, they say that they neither invalidate nor give hukm of Islam with these Alamat. They claim they will treat such person as a muslim and will not pass the judgment of kufr or Islam until they witness their kufr or Islâm.

Is there a thing such as this, not passing judgment of Islam yet treating such person as muslim due to witnessing the Alamat?

Wa Alaykum.

I truly do not know what to say regarding these individuals you have described. These exemplary ignorant utterances are the dead-end of declarations. Just as these individuals will not be able to narrate such views from any eminent scholar, I do not think that they will be able to narrate this from today’s Mushrik Balâm. These are merely statements of ignorant individuals whom have no share of Ilm.

What is this, they treat individuals who pray Salâh as Muslimîn, yet they do not call them Muslim? What type of Fiqh is this? What is the evidence for this? Was there such appliance during the time of the Salaf? Can they bring a single letter as evidence for this from the history of Islâm? All of this consists of rubbish, and rubbish does not heave Ta’wîl.

We will still try to explain this in summary since you asked. What these people claim will never be a point at issue, since it is only the Muslimîn who deserve the treatment of Muslim.

If individuals who apply the Shi’ar such as praying Salâh, uttering the Shahâdah etc. do not receive the Hukm of Muslim, this would mean that they are Kâfir and the slaughter of the Kuffâr cannot be eaten, the Salâh cannot be performed behind the Kâfir etc.

By applying the ruling of Muslim to people they call Kâfir, these individuals are doing something never done throughout history, not even done today by the sects of Dalâlah. Their statement of not giving the Hukm of Kufr nor the Hukm of Islâm will go no further then absurdity.

As mentioned in the beginning portion of Sűrat’ut Taghâbun, people are either Mu’min or Kâfir; there is no third type. This is as such in the sight of Allâh and in the Dhâhir Hukm.

If these people apply the ruling of Muslim to those who they claim to display the Alâmat of Islâm, this would mean they call them Muslim. This time, they would contradict their claim of not giving the Hukm of Islâm to such people.

As we see it, these individuals have concocted such a theory in order to establish a path between Îmân and Kufr, just like the Munafiqűn. This way by treating the Mushrikűn as Muslimîn, they do not react, thus according to their intellect; they also do not invalidate the Nass. However, when they are asked, they respond by saying, “We do no call them Muslimîn”, they supposedly do not call those who do not openly display Tawhîd Muslim!

May our Rabb (Lord) guide them, Âmîn. Truly, ignorance has reached its limits amongst those who attribute themselves to Tawhîd, they even do not know the difference between Îmân and Kufr passed slogans. The only way to break free from this is to attain Ilm according to the Manhaj of the Salaf.

Wallâhu A’lam!
Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah (Rahimahullâh) stated,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

"The Âlim (scholar) recognizes the Jâhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jâhil. The Jâhil does not recognize the Âlim since he has never been an Âlim." (Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmű'ul Fatâwâ, 13/235)

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
564 Views
Last post 09.06.2015, 09:13:09 AM
by Ummah
0 Replies
674 Views
Last post 14.06.2015, 07:46:22 PM
by Fahm'us Salaf
0 Replies
7317 Views
Last post 14.06.2015, 11:08:07 PM
by Fahm'us Salaf
0 Replies
448 Views
Last post 26.04.2017, 05:05:57 PM
by Ummah
2 Replies
931 Views
Last post 14.11.2017, 04:16:56 AM
by Fahm'us Salaf
0 Replies
427 Views
Last post 11.11.2017, 07:08:24 PM
by Ummah
0 Replies
129 Views
Last post 29.03.2019, 03:50:22 AM
by Izhâr'ud Dîn
0 Replies
58 Views
Last post 10.06.2019, 12:03:08 AM
by Izhâr'ud Dîn