Dawlah Riddah: Alshabaab’s Takfeeri Undertones.

[xiinfaniin]

Jinku wuxuu galaa meel insigu gooyey waa hore e

Gafka Faarax Shire baa tolkay gacala moodaayye'e

 

 

It’s obligatory, Ibnu Taymiyya opined, to be wary making takfeer of Muslims due to their sins and mistakes… people made takfeer of the Muslims and they made permissible to take their blood and wealth . On this page we will show the erroneous ways armed religious groups in Somalia made that of which Allah made haraam halaal.

 

Topics we will tackle include

 

1- Ruling with Other than What Allah Revealed [Muslim Scholars’ take on the often-cited Quranic verse]

2- Allying with non Believers

3- Takfeer Due to Sins [Alshabaab Hasty Verdicts vs. Salafi Exegesis]

4- Spilling Muslim Blood without Proper Authority [the killing spree in the name of Jihaad]

 

 

A theologically inclined online dual with academic flavor

 

 

Shafka hays dareen rag ay cadyiin shaarubaha sare'e

[Laba-X]

You initiate what you call a 'theologically inclined duel' and you start from the conclusion - with the accusation.

 

First give us the proof, then put the label. not the other way round Sheekhow. After detailing the statements of the scholars and the evidence from the Quran and Sunnah, you can reach a conclusion that based on the above evidence the Islamists are Takfiris.

 

Sidey doontaba, soo afuuf!

[xiinfaniin]

1- Ruling with Other than What Allah Revealed [Muslim Scholars’ take on the often-cited Quranic verse]

 

 

The issue of takfeer for ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed is one wherein there are different issues. The two Imaams, Bin Baaz and al-Albaanee (raheemahumallaah), viewed that it is minor kufr not major (it does not take one out of the Islamic fold). The newspaper ash-Sharq al-Awsat(no.6156, dated 12/5/1416 AH) published an article wherein the Muftee ‘Abdul’Azeez Bin

Baaz stated:

I came across a beneficial answer from the noble Shaykh Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee, may Allaah grant him success, which was printed in the newspapers ash- Sharq al-Awsat and al-Muslimoon wherein the noble Shaykh answered a question that was put to him regarding takfeer due to not ruling by what Allaah has revealed without explanation. He made it clear, may Allaah grant him success, that it is not permissible for anyone to make takfeer of whoever does not rule by other than what Allaah has revealed due to the mere action without knowing if he considered it lawful to do that in his heart. He made use of what is found from Ibn ‘Abbaas (radi Allaahu ‘anhuma), and others from the salaf of the ummah. There is no doubt that what he mentioned in his answer in the tafseer of the verse

 

“Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, then they are the disbelievers.”

{al-Maa’idah: 44}

 

“Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed then they are the sinful.”

{al-Maa’idah: 47}

 

 

Is correct, and he, may Allaah grant him success, made it clear that kufr is of two types, major and minor, just as transgression is two, and likewise sin is major or minor. So whoever makes it lawful to rule by other than what Allaah has revealed or makes it lawful to make zinaa or to legalise interest or legalises anything else from the prohibited acts, which are agreed upon as being impermissible, has disbelieved due to major kufr. Whoever does such actions however, without making them lawful, then his kufr is minor kufr and his transgression is minor transgression and likewise is his sin.

 

Bin Baaz opined that whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed does not escape from four issues:

1. The one who says “I rule by this (i.e. man-made laws) because they are better that the

Divine Legislation of Islaam (i.e. Sharee’ah)” then such a person is a disbeliever, who has committed major kufr.

 

2. The one who says “I rule by these man-made laws as they are like the Divine Legislation of Islaam, and ruling by it is permitted, just as ruling by the Divine legislation of Islaam is also permitted” such a person is a disbeliever who has committed major kufr.

 

3. The one who says “I rule by these laws, but the Divine Legislation of Islaam is better,but ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed is permitted.” Such a person is ad isbeliever who has committed major kufr.

 

4. The one who says “I rule by these man-made laws” yet believes that it is not permissible to rule by other than what Allaah has revealed and says “Ruling by the Divine Legislation of Islaam is better and it is not permissible to rule by other than it” yet is weak or does this out of what his rulers have originated before him, such a

person is a disbeliever who has committed minor kufr which does not expel him from the religion and the action is considered to be from the major sins.

 

 

**Miskiin xiin's compilation continues...

[Laba-X]

Xiin, I don’t believe you have researched into the matter in detail for you to be coming up with the above excerpt from the Sheikh. This is the same which has been used by the likes of Khalid Anbari and Cali Xalabi, whose books were both banned by the Lajnah Daa’imah. They made Anbari’s book (Xukm bighayri ma Anzala-llah wa Usul At-takfir) even Haram to publish, distribute or sell. All the evidence is available but I don’t think it would be of much use to you.

 

You have used the fatwa of Sh. Ibn Baaz (the same which Khalid Anbari used in his book by the way to illustrate the same Xukm you are trying to illustrate here) that ruling besides what Allah has revealed is Kufr of the lesser category – meaning it is not Kufr that takes one out of the fold of Islam.

 

The condition is Istixlaal right? Well let’s look at the other words of the Sheikh, May Allah have mercy on him:

 

Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Raximahullah, said:

• ‘There is no Eeman for the one who believes the laws of the people and their opinions are superior to the Xukm of Allah and His messenger or that they are equal to it or that they resemble it or who leaves it or replaces it with fabricated laws and institutions invented by people, even if he believes that the laws of Allah are more encompassing and more just.’

 

Refer to ‘Risaalat Wujuub Taxkim Sharca-llah wa nabth ma Khaalafah’ p. 39

 

 

I guess this is self-explanatory and needs no much interpretation. Or maybe you did not come across this during your search?

 

But this is only one Sheikh, why don’t we have a look at what some of the scholars have said about the issue to save us the trouble of dispute altogether. Let’s examine the plethora of clear statements that explain the ruling besides what Allah has revealed and which you have somehow overlooked or failed to spot:

 

1. Sheikh Albani:

 

When Mustafa Ataturk changed the Hanafi code Shariah of his country to man-made laws, this is what Sh. Albani said about him:

 

‘I made clear to him (i.e his opponent whom he had a debate with about the Takfir of Attaturk) that the Muslims did not make Takfir on Ataturk who was a Muslim. No (they did so) when he freed himself from Islam when he implemented upon the Muslims an institution other than the institution of Islam. And from that was the example of his equalizing the inheritance of the male and the female.’

 

Fatawa Ash-Shaykh Al-Albani Wa maqara’natihah bi fatawa Al-ulamaa, p 263 and cassette #171

 

2. Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn taymiyyah:

 

‘And it is known by necessity in the Deen of the Muslims and by the agreement of all the Muslims that whoever permits the following of a Shari’ah other than Shari’ah of Muhammad, then he is a Kaafir and it is like the Kufr of the one who believes in some of the Book and disbelieves in some of the Book.

 

‘Al Fatawa’ Vol 28/524

 

3. Al Hafidh Ibn Kathir

 

‘So whoever leaves the clear Shari’ah, which was revealed to Muhammad Ibn Abdillah, the Seal of the prophets, and takes the Xukm to other than it from the laws of the Kufr which are abrogated, he has disbelieved. So what about the one who takes the Xukm to the Yasiq and puts it before it? Whoever does that, he has disbelieved by the Ijma (i.e consensus) of the Muslims.’

 

‘Albidayah wan-Nihayah’ Vol 13/119

 

4. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Saalix Al Cuthaymeen:

‘…the first type ios when the Xukm of Allah is removed and replaced with another Taghuti xukm, so that the Xukm of the Shari’ah is eliminated between the people and he puts in its place another Xukm from the fabrication of humans and they remove the laws of the Shari’ah concerning the Mucaamalaat (general actions between people) and they put in its place fabricated laws and this, without doubt, is Istibdal (i.e replacement) of the Shri’ah of Allah with other than it. And this is Kufr which removes one from the Millah because this person put himself at the level of the creator because he legislated for the slaves of Allah that which Allah did not give permission for and that is Shirk in His (Allah tacaala) saying: Am lahum Shurakaa’u sharacuu lahum…Ash-Shura 21)

 

‘Fiqh Al-Cibaadaat’ #60

 

5. Shaykh Mahamuud Shakir:

‘…So this action is turning away from the Xukm of Allah and His deen and putting the laws of the kuffar above the law of Allah, Subxanahu wa tacaala. And this is Kufr. No one from the people of the Qibla, with their differences, doubts the Kufr of the one who says or calls to this.’

 

From his commentary on Tafsir At-tabari (Tafsir at-Tabari’ vol 10/348)

 

6. Umar Al-Ashghar:

‘And from this explanation it becomes clear to us that there are two types of people who have fallen into Kufr about which there is no doubt. The first, the one who legislates that which Allah did not reveal, and those are the ones who fabricate the laws that oppose the legislation of Allah – they implement it upon the people and the Ijma (consensus) is upon their Kufr without doubt’

 

‘Ash-Shari’ah Al Ilaahiyyah’ P 179

 

7. Al-Allamah Muhammad Al-Amin Ash-Shanqiti:

‘And with these heavenly texts we have mentioned, it becomes quiet clear that the ones who follow fabricated laws, which they Shaytan has legislated upon the tongues of his Awliya and which oppose that which Allah has legislated upon the tongues of His messengers, peace be upon them, that no one doubts their Kufr and their Shirk except him whom Allah has removed his sight and has blinded them to the light of the revelation as they are’

 

’Adhwa Al-Bayan’ Vol 4/82-85

 

8. Imaam Axmad Shaakir:

‘The matter in these fabricated laws is clear like the clearness of the sun. It is clear Kufr and there is nothing hidden about it and there is no excuse for anyone who attributes themselves to Islam, whoever they may be, to acto according to it or to submit to it or to approve of it. So each person should beware and every person is responsible for himself. So the ulama should make the truth clear and tell what they have been ordered to tell without concealing anything’

 

‘Umdat at-tafsir Mukhtasar tafsir Ibn Kathir of Ahmad Shakir’ Vol 4/173 – 174

 

9. Al-Allaamah Muhammad ibn Ibraahim Aal-Ash-Shaykh:

‘So just like in the courts of Shariah there are references, all of them returning back to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His messenger like that, these courts have references, which laws that are assembled from many legislations and laws like the laws of France and America and England and other laws from the mathaahib of some of the innovators who claim to be under Shariah. And these courts are niow fully operational in the settlements of Islam people entering them one after another, their rulers judge upon them with what opposes the Sunnah and the Book with the rules of the law and they impose that on them and approve it for them. So what Kufr is beyond this Kufr and what nullification of Shahaada of Muhammadu-r-rasuulullaah is beyond this nullification!’

 

‘Taxkim al-Qawaanin’

 

10. Imam Ash-shawkani:

‘And there is no doubt that this is Kufr in Allah, Subxanahu wa tacaala, and his Shariah, which He ordered with upon the tongue of His Messenger and chose for His slaves in His Book and upon the tongue of His messenger. They even disbelieved in all of the laws from the time of Adam (calayhi salaam) until now and Jihad against them and fighting them is Waajib until they accept the laws of Islam and submit to them and rule with the pure Shari’ah and they leave what they were upon of Tawaghit Shaytaniyyah’

 

‘Ad-dacwah Al-caajil fi Dafcil caduwu Saa’il’ which came within ‘Ar-rasaa’il As-Salafiyyah’ P 67 – 69

 

11. Imam Abdullah Ibn Humayd:

‘And whoever makes a general legislation (At-Tashriic Al-caam) and implements it upon the people which opposes the Xukm of Allah, then this one leaves the Millah as a kaafir.’

 

‘Ahmiyyat Al-Jihad’ P 196

 

12. Shaykh Muhammad Hamid Al-Fiqqi:

‘…so he is without a doubt a Murtad if he continues upon that and does not return to the ruling with what Allah revealed and he will not be benefited by any name which he labels himself with and neither by any outward action that he does from the outward actions from Slat or Siyaam or anything else.’

 

From the commentary of ‘Fathul Majid’ P406

 

 

…I can give you more proofs from many more scholars, but if a person is interested in finding out the truth and adhering to the Quran and Sunnaha and the Salft, then these should be adequate.

 

The reason you are arguing for the fact that ruling besides what Allah has revealed to be only a minor Kufr is because you have not understood the fundamental concept within the ruling – the concept of ruling without the laws of Allah in private and an instance yet fully being aware that what one is doing is prohibited verses the applying of this rule to the general masses. The two are different and on opposite poles.

 

And this is where you are having trouble comprehending. And if you have researched using Ibn Abbas’s concept of Kufr Duna Kufr, then know that it is the instance which is in question and not the general application of the rule. The concept of Kufr Duna Kufr of Ibn Abbas has been discussed and dissected at length by many scholars and requires no much attention, but if you are still not satisfied with their proofs, it is upon you to bring your!

 

Shaykh Muhammad Shakir Ash-Sharif explains the matter to you in his ‘Chapter concerning making clear when the one who rules by othern than what Allah revealed is a Kaafir; with the Kufr that does not take one outside the Millah,’

 

The Shaykh says:

‘He does not disbelieve with three conditions:

 

• That he is Multazim (i.e religiously committed) and accepts upon the outside and the inside every Xukm or Tashriic which has come from Allah or His messenger

• That he accepts and confesses that he has left the Xukm with what Allah has revealed in that matter or that specific instance that he judges in that he is sinful and that his Xukm is a mistake and that the Xukm of Allah is correct.

• That the opposing Xukm is a Xukm in specific instances and not in full general matters and this third condition is the one which many of the contemporary people have not understood and paid attention to.’

 

Read ‘Inna-llaaha huwal Xaakim’ P 88 – 91

 

 

Point of note: we cannot state that any particular ruler to be a Kaafir because of his ruling by other than what Allah has revealed before all the conditions of the Xukm of Takfir are present and all the preventative factors of the Xukm are eliminated.

 

 

Wa_Salaam

[xiinfaniin]

^^I know you are resolved to defend certain views of yours, but please at least try to ponder on scenario number 4 and see to it if the leaders of TFG fall in there or not?

 

4. The one who says “I rule by these man-made laws” yet believes that it is not permissible to rule by other than what Allaah has revealed and says “Ruling by the Divine Legislation of Islaam is better and it is not permissible to rule by other than it” yet is weak or does this out of what his rulers have originated before him, such a

person is a disbeliever who has committed minor kufr which does not expel him from the religion and the action is considered to be from the major sins.

 

 

I shall continue to share the views of Muslim scholars o this issue

[Laba-X]

Xiin,

 

Akhi fillah, horta Ilaahay labadeenaba Xaqa hayna waafajiyo Insh-Allah. Intaa ka dib, walaal, I have stated that the case you are referring to (4) cannot be applied to the TFG as the ruling is not sound according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. And I have stated ample evidences for this (after the Ayah’s in the Qur’an) with all the scholars from my previous post and if you want more then there are many more scholars who can confirm the same thing Akhi. I have even given you the source to Sheikh Ibn baaz’s, Raximahullah, take on it! What is not clear to you from all the above excerpts?

 

The ruling, whereby one rules besides what Allah has revealed and does not become a kaafir is also explained in my previous post by Sheikh Muxamad Shaakir.

 

The Kufr (whereby the ruler does not leave Islam) is when he rules in one specific instance by not applying the Shari’ah, (overcome by desire or through bribery) whilst fully aware that it is against the Shari’ah and does not rule like that regarding the general matters upon the public. This is Kufr - but this does not take him out of Islam. But if he takes this rule, which is besides what Allah has revealed, upon the general population or legislates it upon them (as they do in the parliaments with their penal codes etc) then this is Kufr which takes him out of the Millah. Do you see the difference? And the TFG falls into the latter, hence its apostasy!

 

 

It is two different rulings for two different rules...

[xiinfaniin]

^^Apparently you are not reading what you are posting. The fatwas you posted (especially Uthaymayn's) is against eliminating axkaamul shareecah and replacing it with man made law. In Somalia the situation is far from that depiction. There is a security and lack of stability issue in Somalia, and even in that context the tenets of Shariicah Islamiyah are not contradicted. Even where there is relative stability, there is a capacity issue as there is no adequate infrastructure in place.

 

Before I continue with the rest of the points I was trying to discuss, I must note that one needs to understand the difference between citing generic verses from the holly book and the knowledge and understanding required for its just implementation. One also needs to understand the objectives of the shariicah lest his hasty invalidation of others’ faith contradicts the very divine objectives fro which Islam was put in place to safeguard, namely the diin itself. You have shown a peculiar bravery to deny the Islamic identity for a large number of Somalis who publicly affirm their identity by undertaking visible, daily Islamic rituals such prayers, fasting, hajj, and claiming that they are indeed in favor of Islamic laws inline with Islamic jurisprudence as the situation improves. That sort of bravery is a result of little knowledge, ya LX, and you need to be extremely cautious (if you are a man of religion) about these issues.

[xiinfaniin]

Another useful compilation:

 

 

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-Uthaymeen (raheemahullaah) also transmitted that takfeer is not an issue which is disputed, in issues which came up during open sessions with the Shaykh stated this and also in his explanation to al-Qawaa’id al-Muthla wherein he said:

 

You will find from many people today, from those who attach themselves to the religion and to protecting the religion of Allaah, making takfeer of those who neither Allaah made takfeer of or His Messenger. Rather indeed, unfortunately, some people have begun to discuss their rulers and try to impugn them with kufr due to them having merely done something which those people believe is haraam. Yet the matter could be one about which there is a difference of opinion or the ruler could be excused due to his ignorance, as the ruler may sit with good people and may also sit with bad people. All rulers have two sides, either a side which is good or a side which is evil,some ruler for example have good people who do to them and say to them “this is haraam, it is not permissible to do this” yet other will come and say “this is halaal for you to do!” We can put forth an example in the banks, now we do not doubt that the banks today are entrenched in interest which the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) has cursed consuming, receiving, witnessing and signing. It is a must to close down such banks in exchange for halaal transactions. So our deen firstly, and then our economies secondly, can be established. Therefore, being hasty in regards to takfeer of the rulers of the Muslim countries due to these issues is a big mistake. We must be patient as maybe a ruler can be excused! So if the proofs are established upon such a ruler and he says “Yes, this is the Divine Legislation and this interest is indeed haraam, however I see that this ummah will not be rectified at the current time except by interest!” then at this point he would become a disbeliever as he believes that the deen of Allaah in this era is not suitable for the current era. As for a ruler who is confused and there is some doubt in him and thus says “This is halaal” and the Islamic jurists (fuqahaa) have stated this! And Allaah has said this!!” then such a ruler is excused as many of the Muslim rulers today are totally ignorant of the rulings and regulations of the Divine Legislation of Islaam, or at least, most of the Divine Legislation of Islaam. We have put forth these examples in order to make it clear that the issue is dangerous and takfeer is something which has conditions which have to be taken into consideration before anything else.

 

So if a mukaffir (i.e. a person who makes takfeer, in this case out of haste i.e. takfeeree) says “I

have a proof from Allaah’s statement,

 

“By Allaah, they will not believe until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in the

affairs amongst them…”

{an-Nisaa (4): 65}

 

…and that this points to the negation of the origin of eemaan and so from this the ruler by other than what Allaah has revealed, due to his mere ruling by it, becomes a disbeliever who has committed major kufr as eemaan has been negated from him, unless there is an evidence which indicates that the negation here is for the perfection of desired eemaan, such as the saying of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam): “None of you truly believe until I am more beloved to you than his children, father and all the people”, which is a hadeeth that is agreed upon from Anas in the wording of Imaam Muslim. I do not know of any evidence which refers this to being desired perfection (of eemaan).”

Those who do not make takfeer, but tasfeeq (i.e. the Salafee) can say,

“May Allaah increase you in goodness for this strong foundation, yet I have more proof to show that eemaan here that is negated is desired perfected eemaan, not the actual origin of eemaan itself:

 

1. The reason for this verse being revealed is mentioned by Shaykhayn from

‘Abdullaah bin Zubayr that a man from the Ansaar argued with az-Zubayr in the presence of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) about the Camels of Harrah. In this hadeeth the Ansaaree man was not pleased with the judgement of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) and was angry saying “Is it because he (i.e. Zubair) is your aunt's son?” Ibn az-Zubayr said: “By Allaah, I think the following verse was revealed concerning this event,

 

“By Allaah, they will not believe until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in the affairs amongst them…”

{an-Nisaa (4): 65}5

 

THIS PROVES: He found that this man, al-Ansaaree al-Badree, had a problem and he did not fully submit to the judgement of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam), yet he did not make takfeer of him. It is also certain that there was an avoidance of making takfeer of him the man as he was a Badree and the people who fought at Badr are forgiven of their sins as mentioned in the hadeeth of the story of Haatib (radi Allaahu ‘anhu) wherein the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) said “And what do you know, Allaah might have looked at them (warriors of Badr) and said (to them), “Do what you like, for I have forgiven you.”6 Major kufr

is not forgiven, so this indicates that the people of Badr are infallible from being kuffaar, Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned this.7 Also the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) did not ask them to enter into Islaam again.

 

 

2. What has been relayed by Shaykhaan from the hadeeth of Abee Sa’eed al-Khudree who said: ‘Alee ibn Abee Taalib whilst in Yemen sent to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) some gold which was divided into four segments. Then a man stood up while it was being divided up and said “O Messenger of Allaah fear Allaah!” The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) said “Woe to you! Who from the people on earth more deserves to fear Allaah if not me?” Then the man went away. Khaalid ibn Waleed (radi Allaahu ‘anhu) said “O Messenger of Allaah! Shall I not strike his neck (i.e. execute him)?” The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) said “No! Perhaps he prays.” Khaalid said “How many people pray but say with their tongues what is not in their hearts?” The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) said “I have not been instructed to open up people’s hearts or to split open (and see) what is inside them.”

 

 

THIS PROVES: This man objected to the judgement of the Messenger of Allaah

(sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) and was not pleased with it and did not submit to his judgement. The Messenger found that the man had a problem yet did not make takfeer of him and prevented anyone from executing him fearing that the man prayed. Even if he may have fell into an issue of kufr his prayer would not have benefited him at all as major shirk and major kufr nullify actions, and prayer would not benefit. Also this hadeeth indicates that the man did not fall into any issue of kufr according to the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) and even when Khaalid (radi Allaahu ‘anhu) tried to make the issue one of hidden kufr of the heart, the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) was not happy with this. If the man’s statement was kufr Khaalid would have adhered to it and when the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) said “I have not been instructed to open up people’s hearts…” as the saying which is branded as one which necessitates takfeer, emerged from him. What also makes it clear that this statement was not kufr is what is verified in the Saheehayn from ‘A’ishah (radi Allaahu ‘anha) that the wives of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) came to him complaining and asking him to be just with regards to the daughter of Abee Qahaafah (i.e. Aboo Bakr, radi Allaahu ‘anhu). This complaining from them was not kufr.

 

3. What is relayed in the Saheehayn from Anas ibn Maalik (radi Allaahu ‘anhu) that some people from the Ansaar said on the day of Hunayn when Allaah favored His Messenger with the spoils of Hawaazin tribe as Fay’ (booty), he started giving to some Qurayshee men even up to one-hundred camels each, whereupon some Ansaaree men said about Allaah’s Messenger, “May Allaah forgive His Messenger! He is giving to (men of) Quraysh and leaves us, in spite of the fact that our swords are still dripping with blood (of the kuffaar).” In another narration when Makkah was conquered the spoils and booty were distributed among the Quraysh and the Ansaar said “This is strange, in spite of the fact that our swords are still dripping with blood (of the kuffaar).”

 

THIS PROVES: Those rejected what the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi

wassallam) did and had a problem in themselves about the matter, yet the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) did not make takfeer of them on account of it. For this reason, Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Whoever does not adhere to the judgement of Allaah and His Messenger in issues that they dispute over have been divided by Allaah as not believing. As for whoever adheres to the judgement of Allaah and His Messenger internally and externally, yet disobeys and follows his desires then this reaches the status of the likes of disobedience.

 

This verse,

 

“By Allaah, they will not believe until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in the affairs amongst them…”

{an-Nisaa (4): 65}

 

Is what the Khawaarij need to utilise to make takfeer of those in authority who do not rule with what Allaah has revealed. Then they claim that their ‘aqeedah is the rule of Allaah. The people have spoken at length about this point mentioned here, what we have mentioned indicates the context of the verse.”8” If the mukaffir (i.e. the takfeeree in this context) says:

“There is ijmaa’ (consensus) on the kufr of whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed and make it law. Al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer said: “In all of that is opposing the Divine Legislations of Allaah revealed upon his Prophets (alayhim salaam). Whoever leaves the clear revealed Divine Legislation of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullaah, the seal of the Prophets and rules by other than it from abrogated legislations has disbelieved. So how can one rule by Yaasiq and put it forth? Whoever does that has disbelieved by the consensus of the Muslims.

 

The mufassiq (i.e. the Salafee in this context) replies:

 

“Our knowledge of the condition of the Tartars (aka Mongols) and Yaasiq is specific for understanding this relayed consensus and this is as they fell into replacing which at the same time is tahleel (legalising) and tahreem (prohibiting). Ibn Taymiyyah said: “They made the religion of Islaam like the religion of the Jews and Christians and that all of this is the way to Allaah as the same level as the four madhhabs of the Muslims. They are some of them who prefer Judaism, some of them who prefer Christianity and some who prefer Islaam.”

 

Ibn Taymiyyah made clear how they praised Genghis Khaan and compare him to the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam), and then said:

 

It is known by necessity in Islaam and the agreement of the Muslims that whoever formulates (allows) the following of other than Islaam is a disbeliever and has disbelieved like one who believes in some of the Book and disbelieves in some.” What also indicates that the consensus which is relayed from Ibn Katheer refers to tahleel (legalising) and tahreem (outlawing), what Ibn Katheer said himself was: “Allaah denies whoever departs from the rule of Allaah which comprises all that is good and forbids all that is evil, and resorts to what is not similar to it from opinions, vain desires, terms, ignorance all of which is placed according to their opinions and desires. This is what the Mongols ruled by according to the politics of the monarchs taken from their king Genghis Khaan who put in place the rule of Yaasiq which can be considered as a book which compiles all legislations and borrows from different Divine Legislations from the Jews, Christians, Muslims and others. Al-Yaasiq containsmmregulations from merely his own views and desires and became a followed legislationmthat the Mongols have put in place. So whoever of them does this is a disbeliever who must be killed unless he returns to the rule of Allaah and His Messenger; there is nomsimilarity to it whether small or great.”

 

sources: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, (vol.28, p.523,vol.7, p.490), Uthyamayn, al-Qawaa’id al-Muthla, Ibn Karheer, a-Bidaayah wa-nihaayah, and Nawawi, Al-Minhaaj

[xiinfaniin]

I will come back to comment on the above compilations [insha Allah]. Then we will take up the issue of Allying with non Believers . We will touch whether going through the naturalization process and accepting the allegiance of foreign lands can be basis for takfeer

 

But as you can see above the learned scholars had treaded very carefully on these issues.

[xiinfaniin]

A Disbelief Less Than Disbelief: excerpts of Al-albaani exposition

 

Now we return to this verse:

 

And whosoever does not judge with what Allah has revealed, they are the

disbelievers.

 

[sūrah al-Māi’dah, 5:44]

 

So what is the intent of the word “disbelief” here? Does it take one outside of the Muslim nation or does it mean something else?

 

I say that it is necessary to be very precise in understanding this verse. The verse could mean the disbelief of action which is to leave off some of the actions from the rulings of Islam. In addition, what helps us in this understanding is the famous scholar of the nation and the interpreter of the Quran, ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbās.

 

He was one of those companions that all Muslims are in agreement – except those who are from the deviant sects – that he is an unparalleled leader in Tafsīr, the understanding of the Quran. It is as if he heard in those days the likes of what we hear today exactly – that there are people who will understand the verse on its apparent meaning without its explanation. Ibn ‘Abbās said, “It is not the disbelief which you understand it to mean. Indeed it is not the disbelief which takes you outside the fold of the nation; it is a form of disbelief less than (the absolute) disbelief.” Perhaps he was referring to the Khawārij who rebelled against the Leader of the Believers, ‘Alī , and as a result of that they spilled the blood of the believers and did to them what was not done even by the idol-worshippers. Ibn ‘Abbās said, “The matter is not like what they have said or what they presume, but indeed it is a form of disbelief less than disbelief.” This is a clear, precise answer from the explainer of the Quran. This is the explanation of the verse other than which it is not possible to have any other understanding (i.e. a form of disbelief less than the absolute disbelief) from the texts of the Quran and the Sunnah. This is what we indicated towards previously in the beginning of this speech.

 

Indeed the word “disbelief” which is mentioned in many texts of the Quran and Ḥadīth is

not possible to explain concerning all these texts that the meaning is equal to leaving the

religion. Like this is the example of the well-known Ḥadīth which is in the two authentic

books of Ḥadīth (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim) on the authority of ‘Abdullah Ibn

Mas’ūd who said that the messenger of said:

 

“Cursing a Muslim is sinful and fighting him is disbelief.”

 

So the disbelief mentioned here is sinning and disobedience and the messenger who is regarded as the most eloquent in expression was intense in condemning this sin, saying, “…and killing him is disbelief.” From another angle we can question: Is it possible for us to understand the word “sin” from the first section of this hadīth, “Cursing a Muslim is sinful,” in the same way we understand the word “sin” that is mentioned in the aforementioned verse with the third wording:

 

And whosoever does not judge with what Allah has revealed, they are the

sinners.

[sūrah al-Māi’dah, 5:47]

 

The answer is that it could mean that the word “sin” also corresponds in its meaning to

the word “disbelief” which means to leave the religion. It could also be that the word “sin”

corresponds in meaning to the word “disbelief” which does not mean to leave the religion, but rather means just what the interpreter of the Quran (Ibn ‘Abbās) said, “It is a form of “disbelief” less than “disbelief”. This hadīth emphasizes that the “disbelief” here could be with this meaning (that it is not the total disbelief causing a person to leave the religion) because Allah said:

 

And if two parties among the believers fall into fighting, then make peace

between them both, but if one of them rebels against the other, then fight

against the one that rebels until it complies with the command of Allah.

[al-Ḥujurāt, 49:9]

 

Here, our Lord has mentioned the rebel sect which fights the truthful believing sect and

along with this Allah did not judge upon the rebel sect that they were disbelievers, even

though the Ḥadīth says: “…and fighting him is disbelief.” Therefore fighting him is a type of disbelief less than the absolute disbelief exactly like Ibn Abbās said in the explanation of the previous verse. A Muslim fighting a Muslim is oppression and aggression against him and evil and disbelief, but this meaning of disbelief could be the disbelief of action or perhaps the disbelief in one’s belief.

 

From here comes the precise detailed exposition that was explained in the commentary

by the Imam of truth, the famous scholar of Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah – may Allah have

mercy on him – and then after him, his devoted student Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah who

took on this responsibility. They were blessed in making aware and explaining the

division of disbelief into these two divisions, whose banner was raised by the interpreter

of the Quran (Ibn ‘Abbās) with his concise and complete words. Ibn Taymiyyah and his

student and companion Ibn al-Qayyim always repeatedly mentioned the necessity of

distinguishing between the disbelief of action and disbelief in belief. Otherwise a Muslim

would unknowingly fall into the evil of rebelling against the community of Muslims, into

that which befell the Khawārij of old and some of their adherents of today.

The summary of this point is that his (the prophet’s) saying, “…and fighting him is disbelief,” does not mean he has absolutely left the entire religion. There are many Ḥadīth regarding this point. All these Ḥadīth are irrefutable evidences against those who adhere only to their own deficient understanding of the previous verses and cling to the explanation that this is a disbelief in one’s belief. For now, this Ḥadīth is sufficient for us because it is a definitive proof that a Muslim fighting his brother Muslim is a form of disbelief with the meaning of disbelief of action and not the disbelief in one’s creed and belief. Now, we return to the sect of Takfīr, or to those who branched off from them, and their accusation that the rulers are complete disbelievers as are those who live under their custody and leadership and those appointed by them (to various positions) – all guilty of disbelief and apostasy! This is built upon their evil view that these people have

perpetrated a sin thereby becoming disbelievers because of it.

[xiinfaniin]

For now, this Ḥadīth is sufficient for us because it is a definitive proof that a Muslim fighting his brother Muslim is a form of disbelief with the meaning of disbelief of action and not the disbelief in one’s creed and belief. Now, we return to the sect of Takfīr, or to those who branched off from them, and their accusation that the rulers are complete disbelievers as are those who live under their custody and leadership and those appointed by them (to various positions) – all guilty of disbelief and apostasy!

[xiinfaniin]

The chief benefit in the above compilations should be that observed actions and uttered words cannot be sufficient basis to invalidate one’s faith. Other factors, most important of which is the intent of the person in question, do play a vital role in deciding whether one is murtad or not.

 

Having established that atom of Islamic fiqhi, we shall now turn on the question of dealing with non-believers and aiding them against believers (worst case scenario).

[Nur]

Akhi, Xiin

 

You write:

 

Having established that atom of Islamic fiqhi, we shall now turn on the question of dealing with non-believers and aiding them against believers (worst case scenario).

 

 

Not so quick akhi, this issue deserves 90% of the dialogue, its the pivotal issue over which all actions follow.

 

 

I have missed a great debate. That only happens when I am on the road.

 

Akhi, I have riposted my old Aqeeda thread, it will be beneficial that you go through it slowly, it may clarify some of the confusions that you have on this issue.

 

To guide you how to read that old thread, here are some pointers:

 

1. Kuf and Islam are two entities that manifest through action, Sin is different than Kufr, but istixlaal of sin (Insisting on sinning)can lead to kufr.

 

2. Faith is a set of information and Actions. To be a Muslim, one must believe in the information, the extent of that person's compliance with the actions are a mirror image of his inner belief of the information given.

 

3. Iman increases with good deeds, and decreases with sins and violations, the more a person insists ( Istixlal) on a sin, the closer he gets to Kufr.

 

4. An exception of this rule is the case of the Munaafiq who lives with the Muslims, and the Mukrah who lives with the Kuffar.

 

 

Let us agree on these principles, and gather the Quraan and sunnah Daleels to substantiate it further, so that once we settle these we will comforatably move to your political arena, to see who is who in crowd.

 

 

Nur

[Laba-X]

Xiinow, we have not applied the Xukm to the TFG yet - ha degdegin adeer, lagamana gudbayo arrinkan waa loo fadhiyaaye sug!

[xiinfaniin]

You did awoowe, and found them guilty of apostasy, did you not yaa LX?

 

Nur,

 

The above compilations are NOT my opinion. In fact, I have had almost zero input on the explanations I posted above. It’s the way of the salaf. Read Albaani’s exegesis on kufri duuna kufri notion two pages above.

 

As I told LX before, there is no disagreement on the concept of Iimaan between us. I agree with the parameters of Iimaan you put forth. But we are beyond that now, talking about the applications and fiqh surrounding it is the gist of this discussion.

 

edit:

Instead of discussing on the fringes of the issue of takfeer, it would be beneficial for the gallery to get to the crux of the matter of the takfeer issue as it applies to the current events.

 

 

The stubborn question that refused to go away, which we have been asking for the last few months, is on what basis did alshabaab found an entire segment of Somalia’s political community(including the late ministers of Shamow and Beledweyne terror acts) murtaddiin, that is apostates whom the spill of their blood is permissible?