Nullifiers of Islam

[Kashafa]

Salaams, all

 

I've been reading the Nullifiers of Islam (Nawaa'gid al-Ashara) by Shaykh Mohamed Ibn Abdulwahaab. in the form of a e-book(posted by bint abee saaed, good lookin' out, sis) Mashallah, both the Explanation and the Translation are excellent.

 

At the end of the explanantion, There's a Q-A session where people ask about various real life applications of the Nullifiers. And That's where I had a few reservation on the Questions on page 26.

 

It seemed to me that the Shaykh was somewhat ambivalent when it came to "Xukm bi ghayr maa anzallaah" Ruling by other than what Allah has revealed (rough translation). I think it had something to due with the way the questions were posed. He wasn't as hard in condeming Rulers(Xukaam) as he was in regular matters like consulting a sorcerer, or beliveing in horoscopes

 

Example: Kemal Attaturk, The man responisble for dismantling the Caliphate, abolishing shar'ah rule, and pretty much doing his best to eradicate Islam from Turkish life.

 

I think we can all agree that this man is not Muslim, or if he was in the begining, by his actions(Xukm bi ghayri ma anzallahu), became a Kaafir.

 

Now, do we have to wait for a Scholar to issue an ruling on him..or is it as clear as daylight ? The man is fighting all signs of Islam, He is not ruling by what Allah has revealed, how can he be Muslim ? I don't have to go diggin into his heart to find out. I can see it by his actions. I could care less if he has a "Islamic" name and pedigree. We care and judge by the exterior and Allah(SWT) takes care of the Interior.

 

I wish, Shaykh Rajihi was more explicit and clear on "Xukm bi ghayr ma Anzallah".

[Kafka on the Shore]

May the Peace and Mercy of Allah SWT be upon us all,

 

Bismillaah,

 

Brother, I totally agree with your sentiments towards M. Kemal (I personally believe no sane Muslim who had an atom's worth of love for Islam would ever take such concrete steps to eliminate Islam like that). But we must try to be as objective as possible. We all know that the Ottomans, as well as the Ummayads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Safavids were all dynasties (i.e. they made the "caliphate" hereditary as opposed to appointing a righteous personality that is fit to lead the Muslims). It is also true that the Ottoman Empire was on a lengthy period of decline after Suleiman the magnificent (due to increased internal corruption). As a Muslim, I love the sharia with all my heart, and I would consider living in a nation where sharia is fairly implemented no less than a dream come true.

 

But brother (assuming that you despise the Saudis just as many Muslims do, including myself), why would we speak so highly of the Ottomans as though they were the caretakers of the faith when in fact they were in fact a dynasty that saw much internal corruption? How do we know that they (the Ottomans) were just rulers that were saintly, and tried their best to live and rule by the sharia? How do we know that they were no different the present-day Saudi regime? My view of the Ottomans may be totally erroneous, but with the little history I know, and the little knowledge I have about the contemporary Saudi regime, I really see no significant difference between the two (notwithstanding the conspiracy theories about the existence and functions of the today's Saudis, because conspiracy theories aren't always reliable).

 

I believe we'll all agree that the best example of an Islamic community was existent at the time of the Prophet (SAW) and the his (SAW) four successors.

 

If my view is historically incorrect, you're most welcome to correct me inshaa Allaah (in an Islamically and scholarly fashion, of course).

 

Wassalaamu calaa manit-tabacal hudaa

[bint abee saeed]

one particular explanation i heard from a scholar regarding those who do not rule by what Allaah revealed and those who think another legislation is better than Allaah's is:

 

The shaykh said, that there is a difference between the one who rules by other than what Allaah revealed and he thinks it is permissible to do so, and the one who rules knowing that it is not permissible (but does it due to desires.) the latter has not apostated but the former has disbelieved.

some people may rule with a different legislation but they do not think it is better than Allah's legislation, and they know its not permissible, and that it is a sin. those who believe that other legislations are better and more appropriate than Islam, they have apostated. This is also mentioned and explained in the ebook in the 4th nullifier.

 

amongst the examples the shaykh gave is the one who believes that there is a better way of wearing the thobe and growing the beard than the way the prophet legislated.

 

i hope this helps. but you have to remember that this nullifer applies to ALL muslims, as well as the governments. May Allaah protect us, and make the shari'ah firmly established in the lands. ameen.

 

the q and a in the ebook are very clear and beneficial mashallah. but again they are q and a's and not a treaties dedicated to the topic in its entirty. so in this particular book you will only get the answers to the questions posed in the book. and not everything on the subject.

 

i dont know much about Kemal Attaturk. but what have the scholars said regarding his affair. did they declare him to be a disbeliever? some issues have to be returned to the people of knowledge so they can study and reflect and guide the ummah. look into the question "is it upon everyone to unrestrictedly apply these rulings (i.e. ruling by other than what Allaah revealed)..."

[Umm al_khair]

Sayings of the Ulamaa' Regarding Ruling by Other than What Allaah has Revealed and the Two Types of Kufr

 

Allaamah Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751H) said: "And it is correct that judging by other than what Allaah has revealed is both types of kufr (disbelief) - kufr asghar (the minor disbelief) and kufr akbar (the major disbelief) - and [which of the two it is] depends on the condition of the ruler. If he believes in the obligation of judging by what Allaah has revealed in this situation but turned away from it - out of disobedience - and while acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment then this is kufr asghar. And if he believes that it is not obligatory and that he has a choice in the matter - along with his firm belief that it is the judgement of Allaah - then this is kufr akbar - and if was ignorant in the matter or made an error then he is one who errs (mukhtee’) and his ruling is as the same for those who err. [Madaarij us-Saalikeen 1/337]

 

Shaikh Abdur-Rahmaan as-Sa’dee (d. 1376H) said: "Judging by other than what Allaah has revealed is among the actions of the People of Disbelief - and it can also take one outside of the religion. And that is when he believes in its legality and its permissibility. And it can sometimes be one of the major sins and from the actions of disbelief - the one who is guilty of it will receive a heavy punishment - and He said: "And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, then they are the wrongdoers (dhaalimoon)." Ibn Abbaas said: "Kufr less than kufr and dhulm less than dhulm and fisq less than fisq. It is dhulm akbar when it is declared permissible but it is a great sin when it is done without declaring it permissible." [Tayseer al-Kareem ar-Rahmaan 2/296-297]

 

Imaam Ibn al-Jawzee (d. 596H) said: "And the decisive speech in this regard is that whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed - while rejecting it [in belief] {jahahda) and he knows that it is Allaah who revealed it - as the Jews did - then he is a disbeliever. And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed - inclining to his desires without rejecting it [in belief] then he is a dhaalim, faasiq and it has been reported from Alee bin Abu Talhah from Ibn Abbaas that he said: "Whoever rejects (jahada) what Allaah has revealed then he has disbelieved, and whoever affirms it (aqarra bihi) but does not judge by it - then he is a dhaalim, a faasiq." [Zaad al-Maysir 2/366]

 

Shaikh Muhammad Ameen ash-Shanqeetee (d. 1393H) said: "Know that the liberating stance in this topic is that kufr, dhulm and fisq, all of them can be used in the legislation with the intent of ‘disobedience’ at one time and with the intent of ‘kufr that ejects from the religion another time’. And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, turning away and contradicting the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and nullifying the rulings (ahkaam) of Allaah, then his dhulm, fisq, and kufr - all of them are disbelief that eject from the religion. And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, whilst believing that he is committing a forbidden action and doing a reprehensible action, then his kufr, dhulm and fisq does not eject him from the religion. [Adwaa al-Bayaan 2/104]

 

Imaam ibn Abee Izz al-Hanafee (d. 792H) said: "And there is a matter which it is necessary to comprehend well - that ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed can sometimes be kufr that ejects from the religion and sometimes a major or minor sin - or it can be ‘metaphorical kufr’ (kufran majaaziyyan) or ‘minor kufr’ - and this is in accordance with the state of the ruler. If he believes that ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed is not waajib and that he has a choice in the matter - or if he disdains/despises it - while having conviction that it is the rule of Allaah, then this is the major kufr. And if he believes in the obligation to rule by what Allaah has revealed and in this [particular] incident [he knows it to be the rule of Allaah] but he turns away from it - whilst acknowledging that he deserves punishment then he is a disobedient person and he is termed a disbeliever with the metaphorical type of kufr or the minor type of kufr. [sharh Aqeedat it-Tahaawiyyah p. 363]

 

And the Imaam and Mujaddid, Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhaab (d. 1206H) said: "Know that those things which eject from the religion (nawaaqid) are then in number: …Whoever believes (i’taqada 0that a guidance other than that of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is more perfect or that the judgement other than his is better - such as the one who gives preference to the hukm of the tawaagheet - then such a one is a disbeliever…" [Mu’allifaat Ash-Shaikh al-Imaam Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhaab - al-Qismul-Awwal]

 

Shaikh Abdul-Azeez bin Baaz said: "And whoever ruled by other than what Allaah has revealed then he will not be in other than one of four situations: "

 

1. The one who says: ‘I rule by this because it is superior to the Sharee’ah of Islaam.’ Such a one is disbeliever in the sense of the major disbelief.

 

2. The one who says: ‘I rule by this because it is like the Sharee’ah of Islaam, so ruling by it is permissible and ruling by the Sharee’ah is permissible’. Such a one is a disbeliever in the sense of the major disbelief.

 

3. The one who says: ‘I rule by this and ruling by the Sharee’ah of Islaam is superior but ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed is permissible.’ Such a one is a disbeliever in the sense of major disbelief.

 

4. The one who says: ‘I rule by this’ while he believes that ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed is not permissible and who says that ‘the Sharee’ah of Islaam is superior and it is not permissible to ruler by other than it’ but he is neglectful, or treats matters lightly, or does this action due to a reason which proceeds from his rulers, then he is a disbeliever in the sense of minor disbelief which does not eject from the religion - and it is considered one of the greatest of major sins." [Al-Hukmu bi-Ghairi Maa Anzalallaahu wa Usool ut-Takfeer p. 71/72]

[Kashafa]

Thank you all for the replies,

 

Akh Aristote,

 

Thanks for the correction. It did slip my mind that the Ottaman Empire was, in fact, a hereditary dynasty. Very similar, as you pointed out, to the Ummayads and Abbasids.That said, with all their corruption and oppression, they were the closest thing to a Pan-Islamic State. The point I was making related to Attaturk's changing the form of goverment from a semblance of an Islamic state to Western-style democracy where legislation is derived from the people.

 

 

Bint Abee Saeed,

 

The shaykh said, that there is a difference between the one who rules by other than what Allaah revealed and he thinks it is permissible to do so, and the one who rules knowing that it is not permissible (but does it due to desires.) the latter has not apostated but the former has disbelieved.

some people may rule with a different legislation but they do not think it is better than Allah's legislation, and they know its not permissible, and that it is a sin. those who believe that other legislations are better and more appropriate than Islam, they have apostated. This is also mentioned and explained in the ebook in the 4th nullifier.

As human beings, we don't have access to peoples intentions and hearts. So how can we tell whether a ruler doesn't belive in Shar'ah law, or whether he's just following his hearts desires ? We simply can't. That's why we have to look at his actions. Again, take Attaturk as an example. He obviously does not believe in Islamic Law (Shari'ah) by virtue of his actions. If one orders the hijaab to be banned, closes down Quraan Schools, and turns Mosques into Museums, are we to say: "wait, we don't know his hearts intention therefore we can't judge him" ??

Allah(SWT) will judge his intention, as for us, his actions speak to us.

 

I agree that we should refer to the scholars on complicated issues. This case, however, is as clear as daylight.

[bint abee saeed]

barakallaahu feek

 

i wasnt agreeing or disagreeing. i really don't know what the scholars have said regarding his affair. i'm sure they have spoken about it. inshallah if you have a fatwa from ahlul ilm, then perhaps you can post or type it for our benefit when you find time, bi-itnillah.

 

i am just acting upon the advises contained in the answers to the questions and trying to ackhnowledge my level. the more i learn the more i realise how much i do not know. so i'm better off keeping quiet. (i am speaking for myself)

so this is the angle i was addressing from inshallah.

jazakallaahu khairun

 

ukhtie muslimah jakillaahu khairun for the beneficial post. may Allaah have mercy on our ullema. ameen.

 

assalaamu 'alaykum

[Warrior of Light]

Apart from Mustafa Kamals (whom we call Ataturk) adverse effect on his community , in person he was more western than muslim.He was born in Selenika, a part of greece and froma young age exposed to western ideas. And unfortunately all of the athiest turks I know relate to him and his ideology of a secular country.with a slogan we are following his path.As the idea of Kemalism is supposed to be purely secular.

 

Allah knows better.

[Salafi_Online]

Kashasa,

 

My dear Fellow, i believe u fail to grasp the concept of takfir. One may Close down the mosque and turn it into a museim, ban hijab..ect, and still maintain his iman. Imagine if he was asked, do u think what ur doing is Halal? he retorts"NO, its against islam,this isharam"! and from the aqeeda of Ahlul Sunnah walJama'ca is that he does not leave the fold of islam. There is kufr in action, and kufr in belief.

[Jacpher]

What about the likes of Mustafa Kamal Ataturk! There are lots of them even in Somalia.

[Kashafa]

Akh Salafi da'wa,

 

. One may Close down the mosque and turn it into a museim, ban hijab..ect, and still maintain his iman.if he was asked, do u think what ur doing is Halal? he retorts"NO, its against islam,this isharam

This man's actions clearly contradicts his words. What if in one breath he proclaims the Shahaada, and turns around and commits acts that completly negate it. Are you saying his actions have no bearing on his Islam ? Explain to me how you can have a shred of Iman left, if you ban the hijab, or legalise alcohol, or wage war on Islam. What difference does it make if he keeps on insisting that he's a muslim, and those actions he's commiting are haraam. ?

 

See, there's a differnce between a regular person commiting a sin, and between a person in power legislating laws contradictory to Islam. be it taxleel or taxreem.

 

 

and from the aqeeda of Ahlul Sunnah walJama'ca is that he does not leave the fold of islam.

No it's not bro, Refer to the Nullifier E-book.

 

As for Ibn Abbas's "Kufr doona Kufr", he was referring to the Ummayads ,then in power. There's a vast difference between them and today's despots, Attaturk being a prime example.

 

 

Lastly, I'm not sure if ur familiar with Attaturk, but if you are, do u consider him Muslim ?

[Salafi_Online]

Bro,^^

Am afraid you misunderstood. This is rather a complex and vast subject that can not be addressed with few paraghraphs. I'll draw you few points and inshallah highly encourage you to do a succint research

 

1. Not everyone who falls into kufr is a kafir

 

2 one might oppose the commandments of Allah while believing that his actions are haram, thus still retains his iman. he recognizes and acknoweldges that his actions are wrong but pursues his desires do to low iman.

 

3. there are certains acts/speech that remove someone from islam completely

 

4. There two types of Kufr, Kufar al Camali(in action) such as reviling ur lineage,Kiling another muslim..ect, and Kufar Al I'tiqad(in creed) believe that Pork is halal, Believing that The Sunnah is not divine...things that relate to (creed)

 

5. takfir(declaring someone non-muslim) has conditions,such as ignorance, compulsion,fear, mistake...ect

[Kashafa]

Thanks for the points, bro. I will look it up.

 

But my question still stands, are there not cases that are clear-cut and needs neither research, nor referring to a Scholar. Something that's "Waadi7 wudoo7 al-shams". I brought up Attaurk as an example only.

[bint abee saeed]

The shaykh answered your question on pg 26 of the e-book.

 

Question: Is it upon everyone to unrestrictedly apply these rulings (i.e. regarding the issue of Ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed) or should this affair be refered back to its people (i.e. the scholars)?

 

Answer:These matters should be returned back to the scholars for they are ones who will study them and reflect on them. The common folk and the students should refer to the scholars in this regard and it is not for them to issue rulings in these matters because they have not completed the time span of their studies. As for the common folk, then they are not qualified for this. And as for the students (of knowledge), then they too must reference the scholars and not issue rulings, making takfeer based on vain desires. Perhaps a person may get little knowledge, memorising the Qur'aan and such, then he stats to issue rulings making takfeer of people. This is not for him - he must return it back to the scholars. This is because he may think something to be disbelief when in fact it is not and this is due to his minimal knowledge, little insight and hastiness in issuing rulings.

 

Question: What if one of the Muslim rulers supports something sinful due to some reason or due to a specific reason then some people come and rule that his supporting these things means that he deems them to be permissible?

 

Answer: This is not correct. Did he extract this belief of him deeming it to be permissible from his heart? Did he tell you that he deems it to be permissible? Supporting something can occur due to several reasons - even the sinners support one another but yet this does not mean they are disbelievers. Furthermore, these things that they defend and support could have a mixture of lawful and unlawful things in them.

 

http://www.al-ibaanah.com/cms/pdf_files/33.pdf

[Abu Yusuf]

As-Salaamu 'Alaykum...

 

Firstly we should not be quick to jump to conclusions in matters of Takfir [Declaring someone to be a Kafir].

 

Secondly for those who want to understand this matter of Emaan, Takfeer, then they can refer to the articles on Salafi Publications[click on I am a Regular Visitor] under the section Manhaj -> Ruling other then by what Allaah has revealed and the articles on our site [ The Reign of Islaamic Da'wah ] under the section Manhaj -> Abandoning Innovation and its People -> The Fitnah of Takfeer

 

Ruling other then by the Laws of Allaah - Shaykh 'Uthaymeen

 

Insha Allaah, by going to these sites, and reading the articles, you might gain a better understanding regarding these issues, Insha Allaah

 

And as Salafee Da'waah said: Kufr is of 2 types [not really there are more then 9 types of Kufr, but they kinda stem from these two types] Kufr 'Amilee [Kufr of Action] and Kufr It'qaad [Kufr of Belief], but something that was said wrong, is is that, you have to commit Kufr of Belief to be a Kafir, and this is incorrect. You will see Shaykh al-Albanee saying that the one who steps on the Quraan or curses Allaah [Kufr of Action], that is enough to point to his Disbelief, because his actions points to what is in his heart, and Shaykh al-Albanee is the one people call Murji'aah, Allaahu Musta'aan. Most of the Scholars agree that if someone replaces the Shariah totally with Man-Made Laws that they are a Kafir. You will find most Scholars agreeing on this, because this points to that in there heart they think what they are Ruling by is Better then the Hukm of Allaah, the Most High, but that is when they completely change the Shariah and implement the Laws of Man

[Kashafa]

Most of the Scholars agree that if someone replaces the Shariah totally with Man-Made Laws that they are a Kafir. You will find most Scholars agreeing on this, because this points to that in there heart they think what they are Ruling by is Better then the Hukm of Allaah, the Most High, but that is when they completely change the Shariah and implement the Laws of Man

As is the case in most Muslim countries. Rulers whose constitution is derived from the French or English legal code. Shariah is a secondary 'source' of legislation, if at all.