Shayk Dr. Abdullaah al-Jarboo on Somalia

[unknown01]

As salam 3alaykum Fabregas.

Will it help Hatu if he/she reads it?

After all Salih Munajjid is not a follower of salafus saalih according to salafitalk.

[Resistance]

Hatu brother/sister i urge u never to alighn yourself with any particular group or thinking, the Sunnah is not found in one mosque or two in London nor should knowledge be seeked in one place only ( Damaj ).

 

The Salafi movement in UK had attracted many Somali Youth, while its instilling the Islamic way of life in them it is alos making very rebelious and narrow mindness in what they deemed to the right Sunnah.

[xiinfaniin]

Thierry fired some divine bullets there

[Captain Warya]

In defense of Imam Awlaki (from phone call allegations)

 

 

http://www.anwar-alawlaki.com/?p=222

 

The below is written by Sh Abu Adnan, in response to a translated transcription of a phone call between Sa’eed Rhana Al-Maghribee (of Masjid Ibad-ur-Rahman USA) with the shayk Dr. Abdullaah bin Abdur- Rahmaan al-Jarboo, Professor from the College of Dawah Usool ud-Deen -- Former head of Dept. of Aqeedah at Medinah University.

 

.

.

.Response by Abu Adnan

 

Wa`alaykum as-salamu wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear brother in Islam, your concerns and inquisitiveness are well founded. They reflect your care to have a clear view of the teachings of Islam. Allah commands Muslims to refer to knowledgeable people to learn more about the teachings of Islam.

 

The Sheikh answering the questions digressed from the topic and never rebuked the Dalail of Sheikh Anwar. I am certain that Sheikh Anwar never claimed that anyone can establish the hadd without first standing in front of a legitimate Islamic court.

 

Hudood, like cutting the hand or stoning or whipping, require a ruler (Amir) who has the authority to implement his rule. This is called the shawkah and involves three authorities: 1- legislative (in our case the sharee’ah), 2- judicial and 3- law enforcement.

 

As for cursing the prophet, there are two incidents that Sheikh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah used as proof in his book, The Slicing Sword (Assarim Al-Maslul) to defend his argument.

 

Both hadiths are clear in their evidence, which is that the blind man did not take permission from the Prophet (saws) but acted on his own judgement. After the Prophet (saws) interrogated the blind man and investigated the situation, the women’s blood was announced lawful, meaning that her killer did not face prosecution and was set free.

 

If we examine the hadith according to the principles of jurisprudence Usool el-Fiqh we find the rule:

لايجوز تأخير البيان عن وقت الحاجة

It is not permissible to delay the clarification of an issue when it is necessary.

 

Therefore, if the action of the blind man was forbidden, the Prophet (saws) would have made it clear as it is not allowed to delay this clarification according to the aforementioned rule. On the contrary, when the Prophet (saws) proved that the killing was legitimized, he let the blind man free.

 

الحديث الأول: ما رواه الشَّعبيُّ عن علي أن يهوديةً كانت تَشْتُم النبي e وتَقَع فيه، فخنقها رجل حتى ماتت فأَبْطَل رسول الله e دمها، هكذا رواه أبو داود في “سننه” و ابن بطة في “سننه” وهو من جملة ما استدلَّ به الإمامُ أحمد في رواية ابنه عبدالله، وقال: ثنا جرير عن مغيرة عن الشعبي قال: كان رجل من المسلمين ـ أعني/ أعمى ـ يَأْوِي إلى امرأة يهودية، فكانت تُطْعِمه وتحسن إليه، فكانت لا تزال تشتم النبي e وتؤذيه، فلما كان ليلة من الليالي خَنَقَها فماتت، [فلما] أصبح ذُكِر ذلك للنبي e، فنشد الناس في أمرها، فقام الأعمى فذكر له أمرها، فأبطل رسول الله e دمها.

الحديث الثاني: ما رَوَى إسماعيل بن جعفر عن إسرائيل عن عثمان الشحَّام عن عِكْرِمَة عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما أن أعْمَى كانت له أمُّ ولدٍ تَشْتُمُ النبي e وتَقَعُ فيه؛ فَيَنْهَاها فلا تَنْتَهِي، و يزجرها فلا تنزجر فلما كان ذات ليلة جَعَلَت تقعُ في النبي e وتشتمه؛ فأخَذَ المِغْول فوضَعَه في بطنها واتَّكَأَ عليها فقتلها، فلما أصْبَحَ ذُكِرَ ذلك للنبي e، فجمع الناسَ فقال: “أنْشدُ الله رَجُلاً فَعَلَ مَا فَعَلَ لِي عَلَيْهِ حَقٌ إِلاَّ قَامَ”، فقام الأعْمَى يتخطَّى الناسَ وهو يتدلدل، حتى قَعَدَ بين يَدَي النبيِّ e، فقال: يا رسول الله أنا صَاحِبُهَا، كانت تشتمك و تَقَعُ فيك فأنهاها فلا تنتهي وأزجُرُها فلا تَنزَجر، ولي منها ابْنَانِ مِثْلُ اللؤلؤتين، وكانت بي رفيقة، فلما كان البارحة جعلت تشتمك وتقعُ فيك، فأخذت المِغْول فوضعته في بطنها واتَّكَأْتُ عليه حتى قتلتُهَا، فقال النبي e: “ألا اشْهَدُوا أنَّ دَمَهَا هَدَرٌ” رواه أبو داود والنسائي.

 

The first hadith and the second hadith have similar meanings. A blind Muslim man had a Jewish wife (or slave-girl in a different narration). She fed him and looked after him; however, she would continuously curse the Prophet (saws). One night, because of this continuous cursing, he strangled her to death. The next morning when the news spread, the people became frustrated about her matter, and the story reached the Prophet (saws). At this, the Prophet (saws) demanded the one guilty to confess. The blind man stood up and narrated what happened to the Prophet (saws) and the man was not found guilty of murder. On the contrary, the Prophet (saws) clearly stated that her blood was lawful, which in turn means that no blood money should be paid nor should the killer be prosecuted. It also means that the man was rightful in what he did.

 

Further, there is a great confusion between the issue of establishing the hadd and forbidding evil with one’s hand. The hadd is clearly clarified in the abovementioned paragraph. Prohibiting evil, on the other hand, does not need the permission of the ruler, and the proof is as follows:

يقول الله عز وجل: {وَلْتَكُنْ مِّنكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلى الخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ اْلمُنكَرِ وَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ المُفْلِحُونَ} (آل عمران: 104(

Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islâm), enjoining Al-Ma’rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm orders one to do) and forbidding Al-Munkar (polytheism and disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden). And it is they who are the successful. (Al-Quran (2:104)

 

وقال الحافظ ابن كثير: ( (والمقصود من هذه الآية أن تكون فرقة من هذه الأمة متصدية لهذا الشأن، وإن كان ذلك واجباً على كل فرد من الأمة بحسبه، كما ثبت في صحيح مسلم عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: (من رأى منكم منكراً فليغيره بيده، فإن لم يستطع فبلسانه، فإن لم يستطع فبقلبه وذلك أضعف الإيمان)))

Ibn kathir may Allah have mercy on his soul said : “The meaning behind this verse is that a group from amongst this Ummah should stand up for this matter, and this is also an obligation on every individual from this Ummah according to his ability. As was mentioned in Sahih Muslim on the authority of Abu Saeed Al-Khudaree the Messenger said: “Whomsoever from amongst you sees evil let him change it with his hand; if he is not able, let him do so with his tongue; if he is not able to, let him change it with his heart, and this is the weakest of imaan”.

As we see, the hadith permits every individual, each according to his ability, to enjoin good and forbid evil. It is important to remember here that the lady killed was the responsibility of the blind man, which makes it even more obligatory upon him to prohibit evil when he sees it from her.

قال الإمام النووي -- في شرح مسلم -: ((قال العلماء ولا يختص الأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر بأصحاب الولايات بل ذلك جائز لآحاد المسلمين، قال إمام الحرمين: والدليل عليه إجماع المسلمين، فإن غير الولاة في الصدر الأول والعصر الذي يليه كانوا يأمرون بالمعروف وينهون عن المنكر مع تقرير المسلمين إياهم وترك توبيخهم على التشاغل بالأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر من غير ولاية))

Imam al-Nawawee said in his commentary on Sahih Muslim “The scholars mention that the issue of enjoining good and forbidding evil is not specified to the (ashab al wilyaat) rulers. On the contrary, it is allowed for the individual to do so. Imam al haramin (Al Juwaynee) said “The proof for this is the consensus of the Muslims for in the first 100 years after the Prophet (saws) and the 100 years after that, the general masses would enjoin good and prohibit evil while the Muslims affirmed their action without any type of reprehension because of their forbidding of evil and enjoining good without being rulers themselves.”

Further, the issue of using the Makkan period as proof that the Muslims were not allowed to shun the idols is ridiculous. With all due respect to the a Sheikh answering the questions, the Muslims in Makkah were not allowed to curse, shun nor was there any type of resistance allowed. Physical Jihad was not allowed in Makkah and the only thing that the Muslims were allowed to exercise was their Jihad by the tongue. In Medina, however, the situation changed when the prophet ordered Ali (ra) to destroy all idols and levels all graves.

If it is argued that this is a specific order to Ali (ra), we reply by saying the scholars of usool said

العبرة بعموم اللفظ لابخصوص السبب

The ruling is based on the general meaning not on the specific reason.

The order here was directly to Ali (ra), but the meaning is general for the whole Ummah.

عن أبي الهياج الأسدي رضي الله عنه قال : قال لي علي بن أبي طالب : ألا أبعثك عن ما بعثني عليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ” أن لا تدع تمثالاً إلا طمسته ولا قبراً مشرفاً إلا سويته “

On the authority of Abu Al-Hayyaj Al-Azdee (ra): “Ali Ibn Abi Talib said to me: “Should I not order you to carry out what the Prophet (saws) ordered me to carry out. Demolish all idols and clear all raised graves”

 

يقول ابن تيمية رحمه الله تعالى: ( وكل ما كان من العين أو التآليف المحرم فإزالته وتغييره متفق عليها بين المسلمين ) ، ثم ضرب بعض الأمثلة ومنها تغيير الصور المصورة ، ثم نقل إجماع السلف على ذلك. [الفتاوى 28 / 118]

 

Sheikh Al-Islam ibn taymiaah said : There is a consensus regarding the destruction or removal of all things forbidden, be they books or objects. He then gave some examples and he narrated the consensus of the Salaf. (Majmoo’ al-Fataweey 28:118)

 

Further more, using the story of Moosa (as) is completely irrelevant because Moosa (as) killed the man by mistake and the reason is totally different here. Allah says:

 

وَدَخَلَ الْمَدِينَةَ عَلَىٰ حِينِ غَفْلَةٍ مِنْ أَهْلِهَا فَوَجَدَ فِيهَا رَجُلَيْنِ يَقْتَتِلَانِ هَٰذَا مِنْ شِيعَتِهِ وَهَٰذَا مِنْ عَدُوِّهِ ۖ فَاسْتَغَاثَهُ الَّذِي مِنْ شِيعَتِهِ عَلَى الَّذِي مِنْ عَدُوِّهِ فَوَكَزَهُ مُوسَىٰ فَقَضَىٰ عَلَيْهِ ۖ قَالَ هَٰذَا مِنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ ۖ إِنَّهُ عَدُوٌّ مُضِلٌّ مُبِينٌ (15)

 

And he entered the city at a time of unawareness of its people: and he found there two men fighting, -- one of his party (his religion -- from the Children of Israel), and the other of his foes. The man of his (own) party asked him for help against his foe, so Mûsâ (Moses) struck him with his fist and killed him. He said: evil” This is of Shaitân’s (Satan) doing: verily, he is a plain misleading enemy.”(Al-Quran 88:15)

 

It must be remembered here that all Prophet (saws) were given the power of ten men; when Musa (a.s) killed that man it was because he underestimated his own strength and was no way intentional. The most this verse can be used for is that a Muslim should repent from killing someone by mistake.

 

It also must be noted that the scholars have placed some restrictions on forbidding evil. The main two are:

1- Knowledge, as many verses in the Qur’an support this condition.

2- No greater evil is committed

قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية: ((فإن الأمر والنهي وإن كان متضمناً لتحصيل مصلحة ودفع مفسدة، فينظر في المعارض له، فإن كان الذي يفوت من المصالح أو يحصل من المفاسد أكثر، لم يكن مأموراً به، بل يكون محرماً إذا كانت مفسدته أكثر من مصلحته))28/129

Sheikh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Even if enjoining good and forbidding evil includes benefit and removes evil, one must look to what is opposing it. If this action is going to cause loss of benefit or allow a greater evil to be committed, then we are not ordered to do so; it could actually be forbidden if the evil is greater than the benefit

It must be noted here that the measure of Maslahah (benefit) and Mafsadh(evil) is according to Shar’eeah, not whims of the ones with no fear of Allah in their hearts.

 

The sheikh answering the questions must not jump to conclusions when labeling his brothers khawaarij. Doing so is easy especially if one is away from the country that the events are taking place, and especially if his only source of information is what the media portray and corrupted news papers.

 

Wa-Salaam

Abu Adnan Mohamad