CONTENTS
0. People will have leaders/rulers they deserve Ibn Qayyum
1.Is it permissible to openly criticise the Muslim ruler in front of a gathering and the people?
2.What is your advice to the one who says that this dawlah (state) wages a war against the religion and causes repression against the du'at (callers)?
3.What is your reply to who says that the most evils present in the land of Tawheed (referring to Saudi Arabia) come from the government itself, and that the leaders are not Salafi
4.Shaykh Ibn 'uthaymien (raheemallaah) About the Saudi Arabian Government!
5.Making Takfir on the Muslim Rulers
6.We support EVERYONE who calls for the refutation of the one who comes out in opposition against the Rulers
7.Sayings of the salaf Regarding this issue
8. Fighting a Corrupt Muslim Ruler
9.Uthaymeen on the Manhaj of Correcting Ruler
10.The Ruling upon the One Who Judges by Other Than What Allaah Has Revealed
11.Let’s take a look at what the Saudi Arabia’s Permanent Council of Senior Scholars, have to say about the Issue of Takfir
13.The importance of obeying the Rulers from the Salaf
People will recieve leaders which they deserve
Ibn Qayyim (ra), Miftaah Daarus-Sa'aadah, 1/177-178
“Ponder upon the Hikmah (Wisdom) of Allah (awj) where He has made people's kings, leaders, and those of authority over them, of the same kind as their own deeds. It is as if the people's deeds appeared in the forms of their kings and leaders.If the people are upright, then their kings and rulers will be upright, and if they turn away (from uprightness), then their leaders will turn against them. And if they oppress and tyrannize, then their kings and rulers will tyrannize and oppress. And if deception and treachery becomes manifest amongst them, then the same will appear in their rulers.If the people refrain from fulfilling the rights of Allah upon them and become niggardly (regarding their execution), then their kings and rulers will refuse to give them their rights and will become niggardly (withhold their rights from them). And if they take away from those whom they oppress that which they deserve not to take, then the kings will take away from the people that which they deserve not to take and will levy taxes and impose tasks upon them. And whatever the people unjustly take from the oppressed, their kings take the same by force from them. So those in charge of the people appear in the forms of their (the ruled) deeds. And it befits not the Divine Wisdom that the evil and wicked be ruled except by those of the same kind. And since the early [Muslims] were the best and most righteous of generations, their rulers were of the same standing. But when the people turned weak, their rulers turned to be of their own rank.
So it befits not the Hikmah (Wisdom) of Allah in these times that rulers the like of Mu’aawiyah and Umar bin Abdulaziz, be in charge over us, and even less the like of Abu Bakr and Umar. Rather, our rulers are in accordance with our own rank and standing, and the ones who ruled those before us were (also) in accordance with these people own rank and standing. And both matters (the status of the former rulers and those of this time) are as necessitated and entailed by [Allah's] Hikmah.”
1.Is it permissible to openly criticise the Muslim ruler in front of a gathering and the people?
he replied:
We have spoken about this issue many times before! It is not permissible to speak about the rulers because this brings about evil and differing in the society and it splits the unity of the Muslims and cause hatred between the ruler and the ruled. And this splitting and evil leads to rebellion against the ruler and the shedding of blood and matters which have blameworthy consequences. So if you have a comment about them, take it to the ruler secretly by visiting him, if possible, or by writing to him or by informing someone who can convey it to the ruler as a sincere advice to him, and it should be done secretly not openly and this has been mentioned in the hadeeth, “Whoever wishes to advise the ruler, then let him not mention it in public, rather let him take the ruler by his hand. So if he listens then that is that, and if not then he has fulfilled that which was upon him.” And this meaning has been reported from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahualaihi wasallam)
Al-Ijaabaat al-Muhimmah fee Mashaakil il-Mudlahimmah” by Muhammad bin Fahad al-Husayn
Translated by Abul-Irbaad Abid Zargar
The Messenger of Allaah (Sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said: ((The best of your leaders are those whom you love and they love you, and you send prayers upon them and they send prayers upon you. And the worst of your leaders are those whom you hate and they hate you, and you curse them and they curse you.)) It was said: ‘O Messenger of Allaah! Should we not then remove them with the sword?’ So he said: ((No; for as long as they establish the prayer amongst you, and if you see something from your leader that you dislike – then dislike his action; and do not take away the hand from obedience.)) Reported by Muslim as Hadeeth no.4781.
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan was asked,
2.What is your advice to the one who says that this dawlah (state) wages a war against the religion and causes repression against the du'at (callers)?
He replied, as found in Al-Ajwibah al-Mufeedah (p.117, 1st edition)
The Saudi state ever since it began has always aided the religion and its adherents. And it was not founded except upon this basis. And whatever it does at the moment in spending material wealth to support Muslims in every place, setting up centres and mosques, sending du'at (to other countries), printing books - at the forefront of which is the Noble Qur'an -, opening centres of learning and faculties of knowledge, and its judging by the Islamic Sharee'ah (Tahkeemuhaa lish-Sharee'ah al-Islaamiyyah), and also setting up a separate body for enjoining the good and forbidding the evil in every city ý then all of this is a clear and evident proof of itýs aid to Islam and its adherents. And this is thorn (shajiyyun, lit. grievance, distress) in the throats of the people of hypocrisy (Ahl un-Nifaq) and the people of evil and dissension (Shiqaq). And Allaah is the Aider of His religion even if the pagans and the biased partisans may detest it.
And we do not say that this state is perfect from every single aspect and that it does not have any mistakes. Mistakes occur by every single person and we ask Allaah that he helps this state in correcting its mistakes. But if this person (who makes such a claim) was to look at his own self, he would find mistakes that would prevent his tongue from speaking about others and make him feel ashamed of looking at others.
3.A question was asked about a similar statement to Shaykh Ibn 'uthaymien (raheemallaah):
Question:
What is your reply to who says that the most evils present in the land of Tawheed (referring to Saudi Arabia) come from the government itself, and that the leaders are not Salafi?b>
Rulers
Answer:
Concerning the KSA:
4.Shaykh Ibn 'uthaymien (raheemallaah) About the Saudi Arabian Government!
"Our reply to that is that this is just like those people who used to say the prophet (peace be upon you) was insane or a poet. And as it says [in a famous Arabic:]
"No harm will come to the clouds from the barking of the hounds."
There does not exist today a country like ours with regards to Tawheed and rulings by the Islamic legislation.
Of course, it is not free from evil just like every other country in the world. Even in Medinah during the time of the prophet (peace be upon him), there were some people who used to commit crimes such as stealing and adultery. Ay na'aam."
From the cassette: al-Radd 'ala Ahmad Salaam.
.Taken From: Answering Extremism on openly criticizing the Muslim ruler
5.One of the students of knowledge from Algeria asked the noble Shaikh, Muhammad bin Saalih al-Uthaimeen about some groups of people who make takfir of the rulers without any guidelines and conditions.
The Shaikh replied: "Those who make takfir, they are the inheritors of the Khawaarij, those who rebelled against Ali bin Abi Taalib (radiallahu anhu). The kaafir is the one whom Allaah and His Messenger have declared a kaafir, and takfir itself has conditions, amongst them, ilm (knowledge) and amongst them iraadah (will, intent). So we ought to know that this ruler opposed the truth, and he knew the truth, and he intended deliberate opposition, and that he did not have any faulty interpretation (in the matter), such as when a person prostrates to an idol, and he knows that prostrating to an idol is Shirk and he does not have any faulty understanding either.
5.One of the students of knowledge from Algeria asked the noble Shaikh, Muhammad bin Saalih al-Uthaimeen about some groups of people who make takfir of the rulers without any guidelines and conditions.
The Shaikh replied: "Those who make takfir, they are the inheritors of the Khawaarij, those who rebelled against Ali bin Abi Taalib (radiallahu anhu). The kaafir is the one whom Allaah and His Messenger have declared a kaafir, and takfir itself has conditions, amongst them, ilm (knowledge) and amongst them iraadah (will, intent). So we ought to know that this ruler opposed the truth, and he knew the truth, and he intended deliberate opposition, and that he did not have any faulty interpretation (in the matter), such as when a person prostrates to an idol, and he knows that prostrating to an idol is Shirk and he does not have any faulty understanding either.
What is important is that this affair has conditions, and it is not permissible to rush into takfir, just as it is not permissible to rush into the saying, "This is halaal (lawful) and this is haraam (unlawful)."
Also the shaykh was asked:
They, O Shaikh, do not make takfir of one who commits major sin, except the Rulers, they come with the verse, "Whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, they are the Disbelievers", and they make takfir of the Rulers only?!!
Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen: "There is an athar (narration) from Ibn Abbaas concerning this verse, which explains that the intent is the kufr which does not expel from the religion, as occurs in the saying of the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), "Reviling Muslim is sin (fusooq) and fighting him is kufr (disbelief). And in the view of the some of Mufassiroon, it was actually revealed for the People of the Book, this is because the actual context of the passage is what occurs before, "Verily, We did send down the Taurât (Torah) [to Mûsa (Moses)], therein was guidance and light, by which the Prophets, who submitted themselves to Allâh's Will, judged the Jews. And the rabbis and the priests [too judged the Jews by the Taurât (Torah) after those Prophets] for to them was entrusted the protection of Allâh's Book, and they were witnesses thereto. Therefore fear not men but fear Me (O Jews) and sell not My Verses for a miserable price. And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the Kâfirûn (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allâh's Laws)." (5:44)".
Source: Cassette Recording (provided online by Ismael al-Omari)
6."We support EVERYONE who calls for the refutation of the one who comes out in opposition against the Rulers, and those who encourage the Muslims to come out [in opposition] against the Rulers." Sheikh Albani
(Fataawaa al-'Ulamaa'il-Akaabir p.97)
As you know those who call for rebellion and taking up arms against the Rulers, who then go into takfir of the rulers and many ordinary Muslims may work for them, are incorrect and are following in the footsteps of the Khawarij. It is what has led to the fitnah in places like Algeria (where women and kids were killed in villages.) and the extremism we seen in Yemen, Saudia and in Iraq where our Muslim brothers and sisters are being attacked more by the takfiris then by the Kuffar soldiers..
None of the Kibaar Ulema', the Great Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah allowed suicide bombing, acts of terrorism or any sort of unjust Revenge attacks that were aimed at civillians. Also, none of the Scholars of the Salaf (Muslim predecessors) said such things. "Martydom" operations are something new, these first appeared by the Communists in places like Sri Lanka and LEBANON. Yes, Lebanon and Palestine had many ATHEIST Communists such as the PLO AND the PFLP. Also, the Zionist Jews used to commit acts of terrorism such as Car bombings. There is absolutely no doubt Historically who came up with these ideas and agendas. There are many other things that are even more damaging to some of the more popular Islamic groups in the Middle East, which however we wont say as a lot of people just wont understand.. Such as they being funded and initially being setup by Israel!
We wish for the Palestinians and many of our Other Muslim brothers and sisters around the world, to be victorious against the oppressors and enemies and regain all their lands. But it must be done in the correct way. The Muslims have been in much worse situations than we are in today. There is nothing unique about this situation. However, without real Islamic education and adherance to the Quran and Sunnah, respect for the Shari'ah and doing things according to the original teachings we will never succeed. - Who is better at making us succeed than our Lord - Allah? Nobody. Even if we we continue to have the worst and poorly equiped armies and our enemies have greater armies, as long as we stick to our Deen properly, i.e. believe in Tawheed and worship Allah alone without associating any partners with him, and adhere to the Sunnah of his beloved Messenger , we will succeed. This is the Promise of Allah.
Those who say otherwise, simply lack this Iman and continue to think based on emotions and on the philosophies and rhetorics of the ignorant Callers. Not based upon the Quran and Sunnah with the understanding and wisdom of the Salaf-us Salih (Pious Predecessors
Shaykh Albani's students are alive today, Shaykh Salim Hilali, Shaykh Ali Al Halabi, Shaykh Mashur Hassan, Shaykh Muhammad Musa Nasr, Shaykh Hussein al Awaysha... - None of them are with this.
SECOND. Which of the Ulema' spoke out and critisised Shaykh Albani on this thing. Where are the refutations ? for they would NEVER remain silent. This is the characteristic of the Saved Sect. The Prophet said, "My ummah will never unite upon falsehood". The meaning of Ummah here means the ULEMA.
"The master of martyrs (sayyid al-shuhada) is Hamza, and a man who stands up to a tyrant ruler and gives him nasiha (advice). And so the ruler kills him"
The Prophet (SAW) continued to say : 'By Allah you have to enjoin good (Maroof) and forbid evil (Munkar), and hold against the hand of the unjust ruler (Zalim), and force him on the truth strongly, or you have to limit him to the truth'. By this evidence, which is the hadith commenting on the verse, Allah (SWT) has prohibited us from remaining silent against the evil (Munkar), and He commanded us to remove it. Allah (SWT) commanded the Muslims to enjoin Maroof and deny Munkar, and made it a duty upon them to do so. Allah (SWT) said; 'Let it be from among you a group who call to the good, enjoin Maroof and deny Munkar'. Allah (SWT) also said: 'You have been the best nation (Ummah) brought to the people, because you enjoin Maroof and deny Munkar'. Musnad of Ahmad]
7.Saying of the Salaf
'Abdullah ibn Mas'ood (radiallaahu 'anhu) used to say:
"Whoever aids an oppressor or taught him an argument to nullify the right of an ordinary Muslims, has drawn upon himself the anger of Allaah".
The Noble Qur'an 33:60-61
If the HYPOCRITES, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for ADULTERY, etc.), and those who spread FALSE NEWS among the people in Al Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you OVERPOWER them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbours but a little while. Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter.
Hadith - Al-Tirmidhi 3741, Narrated Abdullah ibn Abu Awfa
Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, "Allah is with the qadi as long as he is not tyrannical, but when he is, He departs from him and the Devil attaches himself to him." [Tirmidhi
The Noble Qur'an - Al-Ma'idah 5:8
O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allâh and be just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allâh. Verily, Allâh is WellAcquainted with what you do.
Shaykh Abdul-Azeez ibn Baaz, hafidahullah was asked, "Is it from the manhaj (methodology) of the Salaf to criticise the Rulers from the minbar (the pulpit)? And what is the manhaj of the Salaf with respect to advising the Rulers?" He responded:
It is not from the manhaj of the Salaf to publicise the faults of the Rulers and to mention such things from the pulpit because that leads to confusion/disorder and the absence of hearing and obeying the ruler in what is good. it also results in (the people) becoming engrossed (with these matters, arguing and debating) which causes harm and produces no benefit. The followed path with the Salaf, however is to give naseehah (advice) with respect to the matters which are between themselves and the leader, writing to him or by reaching him through the scholars who keep in touch with him (to advise him) until the ruler is directed towards the good. Repelling the evil occurs without mentioning the doer of the evil. So fornication, drinking of intoxicants and the taking of usury are curbed without mentioning the one who does such things. Warding off the evil and warning and the people against it is sufficient without it being mentioned that such and such a person does it, whether he is a ruler or other than the ruler.
And when the fitnah occurred in the time of 'Uthmaan , some of the people said to Usaamah ibn Zaid , "Will you not speak to "'Uthmaan?" So he replied, "You think that I will not talk to him without letting you know about it (also). Indeed, I will certainly talk to him regarding that which concerns me and him without initiating a matter which I do not love to be the first to initiate."
Hadith - Reported by Ahmad (3/403) and Ibn Abee 'Aasim (2/521) with a saheeh isnaad.
It is authentically reported from the Messenger in the hadeeth of 'Iyaad ibn Ghunum who said, "The Messenger of Allaah (saaws) said, 'Whoever desires to advise the one with authority then he should not do so openly, rather he should take him by the hand and take him into seclusion (and then advise him). And if he accepts (the advice) from him then (he has achieved his objective) and if not, then he has fulfilled that which was a duty upon him.' "
Hadith - Al-Bukhari and Muslim, and other narration by at-Tirmidhee (no. 2867) and Ahmad (4/130).
Allaah’s Messenger (SAAWS) said, "He who sees from his ruler something he dislikes, let him be patient with him, for he who splits away from the Jamaa’ah by a handspan and then dies, dies a death of Jaahiliyyah" and in a narration, "then he has thrown off the yoke of Islaam from his neck."
The Prophet (sallallahu aleihi wa sallam) said:
"Allah does not punish the individuals for the sins of the community until they see the evil spreading among themselves, and while they have the power to stop it, do not do so." (Ahmad)
Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said:
"This is why those who are in authority are of two groups: the scholars and the rulers. If they are upright, the people will be upright; if they are corrupt, the people will be corrupt."
The Noble Qur'an - Hud 11:85
"And O my people! Give full measure and weight in justice and reduce not the things that are due to the people, and do not commit mischief in the land, causing corruption.
The Noble Qur'an - Hud 11:113
And incline not toward those who do wrong, lest the Fire should touch you, and you have no protectors other than Allâh, nor you would then be helped.
8.Fighting a corrupt Muslim Ruler
If an Imam (leader) or Amir (ruler) becomes corrupt he should first be given a call to Islam (submission) in private, or possibly in public if his evil deeds were done in public. If he does not turn away from his evil deeds, he should be overthrown or removed from position. However, in the process of removing him from position, he should not be physically fought, such as waging war with weapons. This is because the ruler is still muslim, and the muslims are not to attack or kill another muslim. If, however, the Muslim leader or ruler completely abandons his salat, he nullifies his Islam and can be fought if necessary. (However, to prove this, it would take an Islamic court or similar situation in which the person could defend themselves against all accusations
Hadith - Sahih Muslim 4569, Narrated Umm Salamah, r.a.
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: In the near future there will be Amir(rulers) and you will like their good deeds and dislike their bad deeds. One who sees through their bad deeds (and tries to prevent their repetition by his hand or through his speech), is absolved from blame, but one who hates their bad deeds (in the heart of his heart, being unable to prevent their recurrence by his hand or his tongue), is (also) safe (so far as God"s wrath is concerned). But one who approves of their bad deeds and imitates them is spiritually ruined. People asked (the Prophet): Shouldn't we fight against them? He replied: No, as long as they say their prayers.
Hadith - Related by Ahmad, Dawud, at-Tirmidhi, anNasa'i and Ibn Maja Buraidah reported that the Prophet said "The pact between us and them is prayer. Whoever abandons it is a disbeliever."
9.Uthaymeen on the Manhaj of Correcting Rulers Author: Imaam Ibn Uthaymeen Source: Liqaa al-Baab al-Maftooh 62/39 (Trans. Spubs.Com)
Question: Esteemed Shaykh, there is one who says, To make rejection of the rulers openly is from the manhaj of the Salaf, and then he uses as evidence the hadeeth of Abu Saeed al-Khudree, in his rejection of Marwaan bin al-Hakam, when he gave the khutbah before prayer, on the day of Eed, and also by his (alaihis salaatu was salaam) saying, There will be leaders (Umaraa), and so you will see both good in them and bad in them. So whoever hated (that which was bad), then he will be freed (of blame), and whoever rejected (the bad), then he will be safe. And also by the hadeeth, The chief of the martyrs is the one who stands in front of a tyrannical leader and then commands and forbids him, and so he (the ruler) kills him.
So is this speech correct? And how can we combine between these authentic narrations and between his (alaihis salaatu was salaam) saying, Whoever wishes to give advice to the one in authority, then let him not make it open…?
Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen: This is an important question, but the answer to it is more important in reality, and there is not doubt that showing rejection to evil is obligatory upon everyone who is able to do it, due to the saying of Allaah, the Blessed and Exalted, 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. (Aali Imran 3:104) , and the laam in His saying, wal-takun, is the laam of command.
And the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, You shall certainly command with good and forbid the evil, and you shall take the hand of the oppressor and you shall make him return to the truth, otherwise Allaah will strike some of you with the hearts of others, then He will curse you, as He cursed them. Meaning, as He cursed Banee Israaeel, about whom Allaah said, Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of Dawûd (David) and 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). That was because they disobeyed (Allâh and the Messengers) and were ever transgressing beyond bounds. They used not to forbid one another from the Munkar (wrong, evildoing, sins, polytheism, disbelief, etc.) which they committed. Vile indeed was what they used to do. (Al-Maaidah 5:78-79)
However, it is obligatory that we know that the Shareeah commands in the likes of these affairs have a place, and it is vital that wisdom is adopted. So when we see that rejection (of the evil) openly will put an end to the evil, and that goodness will arise on account of it, then we reject it openly. And when we see that open rejection does not end the evil, and that goodness does not arise on account of it, rather the hatred of the rulers for those who desire goodness and who reject the evil only increases, then the goodness is that we show rejection to this evil in private. And in this manner, are the evidences combined.
Hence, the evidences that indicate that rejection is to be shown openly, then it is only in that in which we anticipate some benefit, which is the bringing about of good and ending what is evil. And the evidences that indicate that rejection is to be shown secretly, in private, then that is when open rejection will only lead to an increase in evil, and goodness is not attained by it.
So it is obligatory that we advise the rulers, exactly as has come in the text which the questioner has mentioned [Whoever wishes to give advice to the one in authority, then let him not make it open…].
And we say that the texts do not falsify each other and nor do they contradict each other. Hence, the rejection is made openly, when there is benefit, and the benefit is that the evil actually ends and that goodness replaces it, and it is done privately, when open rejection does not serve a good purpose, meaning the evil will not stop by it, and nor will goodness replace it. And we know that the rulers cannot ever please all of the people, until even the Imaam of a mosque, he is not able to please all of those who pray behind him.
And so some of them will say that he makes the prayer too long, and others will say that he shortens it too much, and others prefer making the prayer earlier, and others prefer for it to be delayed slightly. So this is in reference to the Imaam of a mosque, so how then will it be for the rulers, whose authority is much greater than his (i.e. the Imaam of a mosque). So when he makes his rejection open against the rulers, then those who hate the unity of the Muslims will actually use him [i.e. to reach their goals].
Hence, is obligatory upon the youth that they look at the texts from all angles, and that they do not give precedence to anything until they look at its results, for the Prophet (alaihis salaatu was salaam) said, Whoever believes in Allaah and the Last Day, let him speak good or remain silent”. Hence, make this the scales of balance for yourself in all of your statements, and likewise in all of your actions, and Allaah is the one who gives success.
Questioner: O Noble Shaykh, do your previous words concerning the rejection against the rulers mean that it is not permissible to openly reject the evils that are present in the society?
Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen: No. But we are talking about rejection against the rulers, and not about the common evils that are present.
So for example, we have common evils amongst us, such as usury, gambling, and insurance (policies) that are found amongst us, then the majority of them amount to gambling. And it is strange that the people have adopted them with acceptance, and you will not find anyone show rejection against them, alongside the fact that Allaah has placed them with intoxicants, and al-Ansaab (idols, statues around which animal sacrifices are made), and al-Azlaam (arrows for seeking luck or a decision). However, the people do not show rejection towards the likes of these things nowadays. Hence, you will not find anyone show rejection towards the likes of these dealings, so you get insurance on your car, or your house, you submit your wealth, and then you do not know whether you will lose most of it, or only a part of it, and this is gambling.
So I say, that showing rejection to the common evils present is required and there is no harm in that. However, our words are concerning rejection against the ruler. Such as when a person stands in a mosque and says, the state (i.e. government) is unjust, and the state did such and such, and then he speaks about the rulers in this manner, openly, despite the fact that the ones about whom he is speaking are not even present in that gathering.
And there is a great difference between the ameer or the haakim about which you desire to speak out against is actually in front of you and between him being absent. Since, all of the rejections that have been reported from the Salaf, all of them took place in front of the ameer or the haakim himself. Hence, the difference is that when he is present he is able to defend himself, and explain his viewpoint, and he could actually be right and we (the ones who criticise) could actually be wrong. Hence, if you are eager for goodness, then go to him, and face him, and advise him in that which is between you and him.
(Fataawaaa Lil-Aaamireen bil-Maroof wan-Naaheen anil-Munkar, and also in Liqaa al-Baab al-Maftooh, 62/39).
(Fataawaa al-'Ulamaa'il-Akaabir p.97)
As you know those who call for rebellion and taking up arms against the Rulers, who then go into takfir of the rulers and many ordinary Muslims may work for them, are incorrect and are following in the footsteps of the Khawarij. It is what has led to the fitnah in places like Algeria (where women and kids were killed in villages.) and the extremism we seen in Yemen, Saudia and in Iraq where our Muslim brothers and sisters are being attacked more by the takfiris then by the Kuffar soldiers..
None of the Kibaar Ulema', the Great Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah allowed suicide bombing, acts of terrorism or any sort of unjust Revenge attacks that were aimed at civillians. Also, none of the Scholars of the Salaf (Muslim predecessors) said such things. "Martydom" operations are something new, these first appeared by the Communists in places like Sri Lanka and LEBANON. Yes, Lebanon and Palestine had many ATHEIST Communists such as the PLO AND the PFLP. Also, the Zionist Jews used to commit acts of terrorism such as Car bombings. There is absolutely no doubt Historically who came up with these ideas and agendas. There are many other things that are even more damaging to some of the more popular Islamic groups in the Middle East, which however we wont say as a lot of people just wont understand.. Such as they being funded and initially being setup by Israel!
We wish for the Palestinians and many of our Other Muslim brothers and sisters around the world, to be victorious against the oppressors and enemies and regain all their lands. But it must be done in the correct way. The Muslims have been in much worse situations than we are in today. There is nothing unique about this situation. However, without real Islamic education and adherance to the Quran and Sunnah, respect for the Shari'ah and doing things according to the original teachings we will never succeed. - Who is better at making us succeed than our Lord - Allah? Nobody. Even if we we continue to have the worst and poorly equiped armies and our enemies have greater armies, as long as we stick to our Deen properly, i.e. believe in Tawheed and worship Allah alone without associating any partners with him, and adhere to the Sunnah of his beloved Messenger , we will succeed. This is the Promise of Allah.
Those who say otherwise, simply lack this Iman and continue to think based on emotions and on the philosophies and rhetorics of the ignorant Callers. Not based upon the Quran and Sunnah with the understanding and wisdom of the Salaf-us Salih (Pious Predecessors
Shaykh Albani's students are alive today, Shaykh Salim Hilali, Shaykh Ali Al Halabi, Shaykh Mashur Hassan, Shaykh Muhammad Musa Nasr, Shaykh Hussein al Awaysha... - None of them are with this.
SECOND. Which of the Ulema' spoke out and critisised Shaykh Albani on this thing. Where are the refutations ? for they would NEVER remain silent. This is the characteristic of the Saved Sect. The Prophet said, "My ummah will never unite upon falsehood". The meaning of Ummah here means the ULEMA.
The Duty of the Muslim to Give Sincere Advice to the Corrupt Ruler
"The master of martyrs (sayyid al-shuhada) is Hamza, and a man who stands up to a tyrant ruler and gives him nasiha (advice). And so the ruler kills him"
The Prophet (SAW) continued to say : 'By Allah you have to enjoin good (Maroof) and forbid evil (Munkar), and hold against the hand of the unjust ruler (Zalim), and force him on the truth strongly, or you have to limit him to the truth'. By this evidence, which is the hadith commenting on the verse, Allah (SWT) has prohibited us from remaining silent against the evil (Munkar), and He commanded us to remove it. Allah (SWT) commanded the Muslims to enjoin Maroof and deny Munkar, and made it a duty upon them to do so. Allah (SWT) said; 'Let it be from among you a group who call to the good, enjoin Maroof and deny Munkar'. Allah (SWT) also said: 'You have been the best nation (Ummah) brought to the people, because you enjoin Maroof and deny Munkar'. Musnad of Ahmad]
7.Saying of the Salaf
'Abdullah ibn Mas'ood (radiallaahu 'anhu) used to say:
"Whoever aids an oppressor or taught him an argument to nullify the right of an ordinary Muslims, has drawn upon himself the anger of Allaah".
The Noble Qur'an 33:60-61
If the HYPOCRITES, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for ADULTERY, etc.), and those who spread FALSE NEWS among the people in Al Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you OVERPOWER them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbours but a little while. Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter.
Hadith - Al-Tirmidhi 3741, Narrated Abdullah ibn Abu Awfa
Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said, "Allah is with the qadi as long as he is not tyrannical, but when he is, He departs from him and the Devil attaches himself to him." [Tirmidhi
Be Firm yet Just with a Corrupt Muslim
The Noble Qur'an - Al-Ma'idah 5:8
O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allâh and be just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allâh. Verily, Allâh is WellAcquainted with what you do.
Shaykh Abdul-Azeez ibn Baaz, hafidahullah was asked, "Is it from the manhaj (methodology) of the Salaf to criticise the Rulers from the minbar (the pulpit)? And what is the manhaj of the Salaf with respect to advising the Rulers?" He responded:
It is not from the manhaj of the Salaf to publicise the faults of the Rulers and to mention such things from the pulpit because that leads to confusion/disorder and the absence of hearing and obeying the ruler in what is good. it also results in (the people) becoming engrossed (with these matters, arguing and debating) which causes harm and produces no benefit. The followed path with the Salaf, however is to give naseehah (advice) with respect to the matters which are between themselves and the leader, writing to him or by reaching him through the scholars who keep in touch with him (to advise him) until the ruler is directed towards the good. Repelling the evil occurs without mentioning the doer of the evil. So fornication, drinking of intoxicants and the taking of usury are curbed without mentioning the one who does such things. Warding off the evil and warning and the people against it is sufficient without it being mentioned that such and such a person does it, whether he is a ruler or other than the ruler.
And when the fitnah occurred in the time of 'Uthmaan , some of the people said to Usaamah ibn Zaid , "Will you not speak to "'Uthmaan?" So he replied, "You think that I will not talk to him without letting you know about it (also). Indeed, I will certainly talk to him regarding that which concerns me and him without initiating a matter which I do not love to be the first to initiate."
Hadith - Reported by Ahmad (3/403) and Ibn Abee 'Aasim (2/521) with a saheeh isnaad.
It is authentically reported from the Messenger in the hadeeth of 'Iyaad ibn Ghunum who said, "The Messenger of Allaah (saaws) said, 'Whoever desires to advise the one with authority then he should not do so openly, rather he should take him by the hand and take him into seclusion (and then advise him). And if he accepts (the advice) from him then (he has achieved his objective) and if not, then he has fulfilled that which was a duty upon him.' "
Do not split from the Jamaa'ah as a result of a corrupt leader
Hadith - Al-Bukhari and Muslim, and other narration by at-Tirmidhee (no. 2867) and Ahmad (4/130).
Allaah’s Messenger (SAAWS) said, "He who sees from his ruler something he dislikes, let him be patient with him, for he who splits away from the Jamaa’ah by a handspan and then dies, dies a death of Jaahiliyyah" and in a narration, "then he has thrown off the yoke of Islaam from his neck."
About corruption and what to do about Muslim leaders whose methodology or teaching is to commit the haram (prohibited)
The Prophet (sallallahu aleihi wa sallam) said:
"Allah does not punish the individuals for the sins of the community until they see the evil spreading among themselves, and while they have the power to stop it, do not do so." (Ahmad)
Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said:
"This is why those who are in authority are of two groups: the scholars and the rulers. If they are upright, the people will be upright; if they are corrupt, the people will be corrupt."
The Noble Qur'an - Hud 11:85
"And O my people! Give full measure and weight in justice and reduce not the things that are due to the people, and do not commit mischief in the land, causing corruption.
The Noble Qur'an - Hud 11:113
And incline not toward those who do wrong, lest the Fire should touch you, and you have no protectors other than Allâh, nor you would then be helped.
8.Fighting a corrupt Muslim Ruler
If an Imam (leader) or Amir (ruler) becomes corrupt he should first be given a call to Islam (submission) in private, or possibly in public if his evil deeds were done in public. If he does not turn away from his evil deeds, he should be overthrown or removed from position. However, in the process of removing him from position, he should not be physically fought, such as waging war with weapons. This is because the ruler is still muslim, and the muslims are not to attack or kill another muslim. If, however, the Muslim leader or ruler completely abandons his salat, he nullifies his Islam and can be fought if necessary. (However, to prove this, it would take an Islamic court or similar situation in which the person could defend themselves against all accusations
Hadith - Sahih Muslim 4569, Narrated Umm Salamah, r.a.
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: In the near future there will be Amir(rulers) and you will like their good deeds and dislike their bad deeds. One who sees through their bad deeds (and tries to prevent their repetition by his hand or through his speech), is absolved from blame, but one who hates their bad deeds (in the heart of his heart, being unable to prevent their recurrence by his hand or his tongue), is (also) safe (so far as God"s wrath is concerned). But one who approves of their bad deeds and imitates them is spiritually ruined. People asked (the Prophet): Shouldn't we fight against them? He replied: No, as long as they say their prayers.
Hadith - Related by Ahmad, Dawud, at-Tirmidhi, anNasa'i and Ibn Maja Buraidah reported that the Prophet said "The pact between us and them is prayer. Whoever abandons it is a disbeliever."
9.Uthaymeen on the Manhaj of Correcting Rulers Author: Imaam Ibn Uthaymeen Source: Liqaa al-Baab al-Maftooh 62/39 (Trans. Spubs.Com)
Question: Esteemed Shaykh, there is one who says, To make rejection of the rulers openly is from the manhaj of the Salaf, and then he uses as evidence the hadeeth of Abu Saeed al-Khudree, in his rejection of Marwaan bin al-Hakam, when he gave the khutbah before prayer, on the day of Eed, and also by his (alaihis salaatu was salaam) saying, There will be leaders (Umaraa), and so you will see both good in them and bad in them. So whoever hated (that which was bad), then he will be freed (of blame), and whoever rejected (the bad), then he will be safe. And also by the hadeeth, The chief of the martyrs is the one who stands in front of a tyrannical leader and then commands and forbids him, and so he (the ruler) kills him.
So is this speech correct? And how can we combine between these authentic narrations and between his (alaihis salaatu was salaam) saying, Whoever wishes to give advice to the one in authority, then let him not make it open…?
Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen: This is an important question, but the answer to it is more important in reality, and there is not doubt that showing rejection to evil is obligatory upon everyone who is able to do it, due to the saying of Allaah, the Blessed and Exalted, 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. (Aali Imran 3:104) , and the laam in His saying, wal-takun, is the laam of command.
And the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, You shall certainly command with good and forbid the evil, and you shall take the hand of the oppressor and you shall make him return to the truth, otherwise Allaah will strike some of you with the hearts of others, then He will curse you, as He cursed them. Meaning, as He cursed Banee Israaeel, about whom Allaah said, Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of Dawûd (David) and 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). That was because they disobeyed (Allâh and the Messengers) and were ever transgressing beyond bounds. They used not to forbid one another from the Munkar (wrong, evildoing, sins, polytheism, disbelief, etc.) which they committed. Vile indeed was what they used to do. (Al-Maaidah 5:78-79)
However, it is obligatory that we know that the Shareeah commands in the likes of these affairs have a place, and it is vital that wisdom is adopted. So when we see that rejection (of the evil) openly will put an end to the evil, and that goodness will arise on account of it, then we reject it openly. And when we see that open rejection does not end the evil, and that goodness does not arise on account of it, rather the hatred of the rulers for those who desire goodness and who reject the evil only increases, then the goodness is that we show rejection to this evil in private. And in this manner, are the evidences combined.
Hence, the evidences that indicate that rejection is to be shown openly, then it is only in that in which we anticipate some benefit, which is the bringing about of good and ending what is evil. And the evidences that indicate that rejection is to be shown secretly, in private, then that is when open rejection will only lead to an increase in evil, and goodness is not attained by it.
So it is obligatory that we advise the rulers, exactly as has come in the text which the questioner has mentioned [Whoever wishes to give advice to the one in authority, then let him not make it open…].
And we say that the texts do not falsify each other and nor do they contradict each other. Hence, the rejection is made openly, when there is benefit, and the benefit is that the evil actually ends and that goodness replaces it, and it is done privately, when open rejection does not serve a good purpose, meaning the evil will not stop by it, and nor will goodness replace it. And we know that the rulers cannot ever please all of the people, until even the Imaam of a mosque, he is not able to please all of those who pray behind him.
And so some of them will say that he makes the prayer too long, and others will say that he shortens it too much, and others prefer making the prayer earlier, and others prefer for it to be delayed slightly. So this is in reference to the Imaam of a mosque, so how then will it be for the rulers, whose authority is much greater than his (i.e. the Imaam of a mosque). So when he makes his rejection open against the rulers, then those who hate the unity of the Muslims will actually use him [i.e. to reach their goals].
Hence, is obligatory upon the youth that they look at the texts from all angles, and that they do not give precedence to anything until they look at its results, for the Prophet (alaihis salaatu was salaam) said, Whoever believes in Allaah and the Last Day, let him speak good or remain silent”. Hence, make this the scales of balance for yourself in all of your statements, and likewise in all of your actions, and Allaah is the one who gives success.
Questioner: O Noble Shaykh, do your previous words concerning the rejection against the rulers mean that it is not permissible to openly reject the evils that are present in the society?
Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen: No. But we are talking about rejection against the rulers, and not about the common evils that are present.
So for example, we have common evils amongst us, such as usury, gambling, and insurance (policies) that are found amongst us, then the majority of them amount to gambling. And it is strange that the people have adopted them with acceptance, and you will not find anyone show rejection against them, alongside the fact that Allaah has placed them with intoxicants, and al-Ansaab (idols, statues around which animal sacrifices are made), and al-Azlaam (arrows for seeking luck or a decision). However, the people do not show rejection towards the likes of these things nowadays. Hence, you will not find anyone show rejection towards the likes of these dealings, so you get insurance on your car, or your house, you submit your wealth, and then you do not know whether you will lose most of it, or only a part of it, and this is gambling.
So I say, that showing rejection to the common evils present is required and there is no harm in that. However, our words are concerning rejection against the ruler. Such as when a person stands in a mosque and says, the state (i.e. government) is unjust, and the state did such and such, and then he speaks about the rulers in this manner, openly, despite the fact that the ones about whom he is speaking are not even present in that gathering.
And there is a great difference between the ameer or the haakim about which you desire to speak out against is actually in front of you and between him being absent. Since, all of the rejections that have been reported from the Salaf, all of them took place in front of the ameer or the haakim himself. Hence, the difference is that when he is present he is able to defend himself, and explain his viewpoint, and he could actually be right and we (the ones who criticise) could actually be wrong. Hence, if you are eager for goodness, then go to him, and face him, and advise him in that which is between you and him.
(Fataawaaa Lil-Aaamireen bil-Maroof wan-Naaheen anil-Munkar, and also in Liqaa al-Baab al-Maftooh, 62/39).
Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan writes in his book, "Kitaab ut-Tawheed", (pp. 49-50):
10.Chapter: The Ruling upon the One Who Judges by Other Than What Allaah Has Revealed
Allaah the Most High said, "And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the Kafirun" (Al-Ma'idah 5:44). This noble verse shows that ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed is kufr (disbelief). This kufr can sometimes be the major disbelief which expels from the religion and sometimes it can be the minor disbelief which does not expel from the religion. And this is based upon the state and condition of the ruler.
So if he believes that ruling by what Allaah has revealed is not obligatory and that he has a choice in the matter, or if he belittles the rule of Allaah and believes that the Secular Laws and legislative codes are better than it, and that the it is not suitable for this era, or if he sought to please the disbelievers and the hypocrites by ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed, then all of this is the major disbelief . However, if he believed in the obligation to rule by what Allaah has revealed and knew what the judgement was in this instance, but he turned away from it while acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment, then he is a sinner and is labelled a kaafir with the minor form of disbelief. And if he was ignorant of the judgement of Allaah concerning it while having striven hard and expended efforts in knowing the judgement but erred, then he will receive a reward for his ijtihaad and his error will be forgiven. This is in relation to a particular matter (Sharh at-Tahaawiyyah pp. 363-364.
Shaikh Muhammad bin Ibraaheem said,
As for what has been said regarding it, that it is the lesser disbelief (kufr doona kufr) when he judged to someone other than Allaah (or something other than what Allaah has revealed) while believing that he is disobedient and that the judgement of Allaah is the truth, then this is something that occurs from him once or something like that (i.e. occurs infrequently or intermittently). As for the one who lays down laws in an organised and arranged manner and requests submission and compliance to them, then this is disbelief, even if he says, "We have erred, and the Shari'ah laws are more just", so this is disbelief that expels from the religion.
Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan's Clarification on the above
The people of Takfir and Khurooj utilized the above in order to make Takfir of the rulers and so this was posed to the Shaykh and the following discussion took place
Questioner: Someone has understood from your words in Kitaab ut-Tawheed, which are from your comments, with regards to the issue of al-Haakimiyyah and ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed. So they have understood from them that [by the act alone] you perform specific Takfir of a specific ruler who does not judge by what Allaah has revealed. And then they applied (what they understood from your words) to the rulers of the Gulf States.
Shaikh al-Fawzan replies:
[Laughs], is it due to hawaa (desire)? The words are clear, there is no ambiguity in them, the words are clear. The distinction (tafsil) that is mentioned (i.e. previously in the beginning of the chapter) relates to them. And it was then said after that that the one who banishes the Shariýah entirely and puts another law in its place, that this indicates that he views the [secular] law to be better than the Shareeýah, and whoever holds this opinion, he is the one who is a kaafir [emphasis given]. This is in the same book itself... however they only take [from the book] according to their own understanding of it and what is of benefit to them, yet they abandon the rest of the words. If they had read the words from the beginning, the matter would have become clear [to them].
Questioner: And the statement of Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Ibraheem is [understood] in the same way?
Shaikh al-Fawzan replies:
Yes, it is the same. His words mean that the one who abolishes the Shari'ah and puts in its place another law, and then this indicates that he considers this law to be better than the Shareeýah. And [subsequently] whoever considers this law to be better than the Shareeýah, then such a one is a kaafir in the view of everybody, there is no doubt in this.
Questioner: They mean the rulers of the Gulf States O Shaikh?
Shaikh al-Fawzan replies:
[Words unclear] ... the words [in the book] are general. As for people and specific individuals, then this requires investigation.
Questioner: So there is a difference between [takfir of] a specific individual and a general ruling?
Shaikh al-Fawzan replies:
Yes, between a general rulings.
Questioner: So you intended only a general ruling [not a ruling upon specific individuals]?
Shaikh al-Fawzan replies:
Yes, a general ruling, there is no doubt about this. So he said "the rulers of the Gulf States (was meant)?"
Questioner: Yes, this is it; however al-hawaa (desire) overtook him?
Shaikh al-Fawzan replies:
Yes, hawaa (desire)... [Words unclear]... Is this rectification? Performing Takfir of the rulers of the Gulf states, is this from rectification (of the affairs)?
Questioner: No it is not...
Shaikh al-Fawzan replies:
It is not rectification... it is but kindling of tribulation (fitnah).
Questioner:
May Allaah reward you.
12.Let’s take a look at what the Saudi Arabia’s Permanent Council of Senior Scholars, have to say about the Issue of Takfir:
First, Takfīr is a legislative ruling that is to be referred back to Allāh and His messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam). So, just like saying other things are permissible, forbidden, or obligatory are decisions for only Allāh and His messenger, likewise is the issue of Takfīr. And not everyone who may be described with disbelief, whether in statement or action, is considered to be an absolute disbeliever having left the religion.
Since the issue of Takfīr is a ruling to be made by Allāh or His messenger, it is not permissible for us to declare anyone a disbeliever except someone whom the Quran or Sunnah has clearly and blatantly testified to such a person’s absolute disbelief. It is not sufficient in this matter to act solely upon suspicion and assumption due to the dangerous consequences that could arise. Since the religiously prescribed punishments can be deterred and postponed due to mere doubts or not being absolutely sure and their consequences are even less severe than those of Takfīr, then people should be even more hesitant about the pronouncement of Takfīr due to the presence of any uncertainties. For this, the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) warned against making a ruling of disbelief upon someone who may not actually be an absolute disbeliever; he said:
“Anyone who says to his brother, ‘you disbeliever!’ it (such a judgment of
Disbelief) then falls back upon one of them – he is either as he (the accuser) said
Or it falls back upon himself.”
Recorded by al-Bukhārī (no. 6104) and Muslim (no. 111) from the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Umar.
There have been circumstances reported in the Quran and Sunnah of statements, actions, or beliefs that are understood to be disbelief, yet the person they are associated with was not declared to be an absolute disbeliever because of some excuse preventing this. This (pronouncing a judgment of Takfīr) is like other legal rulings in that they are not applied unless and until all of their conditions have been fulfilled and there exists no reasons preventing such a ruling… Also, a Muslim may utter a statement of disbelief out of extreme joy, anger, etc. yet he is not considered a disbeliever because he did not actually believe and intend what he may have said. This is just like what has been reported in the story of the man who said:
“Oh Allāh, You are my servant and I am Your Lord!”
Recorded by al-Bukhārī (no. 6309) and Muslim (no. 2747) from the ḥadīth of Anas Ibn Mālik.
He made this mistake only after being overcome with extreme happiness.
When such a ruling is made against a Muslim leader or ruler, then the issue is even greater because of the outcomes a ruling like this produces like people rebelling against them, taking up weapons against them, public chaos and bloodshed – all of which corrupt the servants and their nation. Because of such outcomes, the prophet ( sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) prohibited rebelling against leadership, saying:
“…unless you see clear and absolute disbelief from them, for which you have evidence from Allāh to support you in that.”
Recorded by al-Bukhārī (no. 7056) and Muslim (no. 1709) from the ḥadīth of ‘Ubādah Ibn al-Ṣāmit.
His statement, “unless you see” indicates that mere assumptions and rumors are not sufficient.
His statement, “disbelief” indicates that committing evil, crimes, sins, even major sins, is not sufficient, such as if he is oppressive, drinks alcohol, gambles, or commits other forbidden sins.
His statement, “clear and absolute” indicates that an act of disbelief that is not completely apparent and explicit is not sufficient.
His statement, “for which you have evidence from Allāh to support you in that” indicates that there must be an explicit supporting proof that is authentic, clear in its evidence. So, a proof with a weak chain of narration for example is not sufficient, nor is a proof that its evidence isn’t entirely clear and applicable.
His statement, “from Allāh” indicates that regardless of the statement of any scholar – no matter what level he may have achieved in religious knowledge and trustworthiness – if he does not have a clear explicit proof from the Book of Allāh or the Sunnah of His messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) to support his statement, then it is rejected. All of these conditions show the danger and severity of this matter of Takfīr.
To summarize, rushing to pass a ruling against someone as being a disbeliever is a very dangerous issue because of the statement of Allāh:
Say: “Indeed, my Lord has only forbidden immoral sins, whether committed openly or secretly, sinning (of all kinds), transgression without right, that you join partners (in worship) with Allāh for which He has sent right, that you join partners (in worship) with Allāh for which He has sent down no authority, and that you say about Allāh what you do not know.”
[Sūrah al-A’rāf, 7:33]
Second, this incorrect belief (Takfīr) frequently develops into other crimes such as further declaring people’s blood lawful to spill, violating people’s honor, plundering private and public wealth and property, bombing homes and structures, and the devastation of buildings.
These acts and others like them are completely forbidden by Islamic legislation according to the consensus of all Muslims due to what they contain of violating the sanctity of innocent people, the sanctity of wealth, and that of safety and security. They infringe upon people’s rights to live their lives safe and sheltered in their homes, during their work and recreations. They destroy the basic well-being without which no people could live their lives.
Islam has protected the Muslims’ wealth, honor, and lives and has forbidden any form of violation against them. Islam is very strict in this regard and they are from the last things the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) advised his nation with. He said in his Farewell Pilgrimage Sermon:
“Certainly, your blood, wealth, and honor are sacred to each of you just as the sanctity of this day of yours in this month of yours in this city of yours (Mecca).”
He then said:
“Have I not conveyed (the complete message)? Oh Allāh, be witness to this.”
Recorded by al-Bukhārī (no. 1741) and Muslim (no. 1679) from the ḥadīth of Abū Bakrah.
“Every Muslim is sacred to another Muslim – his blood, wealth, and honor.”
Recorded by Muslim (no. 2564) from the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah.
And he said:
“Beware of committing oppression for oppression will be darkness on the Day of Resurrection.”
Recorded by al-Bukhārī (no. 2447) and Muslim (no. 2579) from the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Umar and
Muslim also recorded it from the ḥadīth of Jābir (no. 2578).
Allāh has threatened whoever kills an innocent person with the harshest of threats. He says:
And whoever kills a believer intentionally; his recompense is Hell to abide therein. Allāh is angry with him and curses him and He has prepared a great punishment for him.
[Sūrah al-Nisā’, 4:93]
And He says with regards to a non-Muslim living legally under a Muslim government:
And if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, then compensation (blood-money) must be paid to his family, and a believing slave must be freed.
[Sūrah al-Nisā’, 4:92]
So, if a nonbeliever who has been guaranteed safety is killed even in an accident, yet blood-money and expiation are still required for such an accident, then how about when he’s killed intentionally?! Of course the crime would be worse and the sin greater. It’s also been authentically reported that Allāh’s messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said:
“Whoever kills a Mu’āhid will not even smell the fragrance of paradise.”
Recorded by al-Bukhārī (no. 3166) from the ḥadīth of ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Amr.
Third, after the Permanent Council has clarified the ruling of making Takfīr of people with no supporting evidence from the Book of Allāh or the Sunnah of His messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), the comprehensive dangers of such a ruling, and the sins and evils it causes; the Council then further declares before the world that Islam is free of this corruptive creed. And as for what occurs in some countries of the shedding of innocent blood and bombings of structures, they are criminal acts from which Islam is also free. Likewise, every Muslim who believes in Allāh and the Last Day is free of this. It is only the actions of some people of deviated ideologies and misguided religious beliefs. Those particular individuals bear the burden of such sins and crimes themselves. Their actions should neither be attributed to Islam nor to those common Muslims who guide themselves by the true teachings of Islam – those who collectively adhere to the Quran and Sunnah…
Taken from the magazine: Majallah al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyyah (no. 56, pgs. 357-362).
Shaykh Ibn Jibreen on What the Majority of the Rulers are Upon Today
It is known that al-kufr al-bawah (manifest, clear kufr) is an open, outward matter, such as when he abolishes the teachings of Islaam, or we see him for example, destroying mosques, or he fights the people of the mosques (i.e. those who frequent them), or he abolishes the [Sharee'ah] law courts, or he abolishes the religious lessons, for example, or we see him burning the copies of the Qur'aan, or that he orders for them to be burnt, and he promotes, assists the books of misguidance, the books of the Christians, and whatever resembles them, and he spreads them and makes reading them to be binding, or we see him erecting those things that are worshipped besides Allaah, such as idols and the likes.
This is considered manifest, clear kufr.
As for the [types of] matters in which ijtihaad can enter into, then we alluded to one of these types last night. And this is what the majority of the rulers (wullaat) are upon, from that which is called "judgement by the secular laws" (hukman bil-qawaaneen), such as these laws, overwhelmingly, the affair pertaining to them is that they consider benefit (maslahah) in them, but they did not abolish the legislation (shar') with a complete abolition, such that they do not judge with anything from it at all.
Since Allaah said, "And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed they are the disbelievers" (al-Maa'idah 5:44), so the likes of these, when they have this angle of approach, then we do not speak of their kufr, but we consider them to be in error, in this ijtihaad which involves changing something from the legislation, even if it was by the path of ijtihaad. So for example, their permitting of zinaa [i.e. in action, not as a matter of belief], when it is with the consent of both parties, and like their abandonment, or the abolition of the hudood, the punishment for stealing, or the punishment for false slander, or the punishment for drinking alcohol, or permitting alcohol [i.e. in action, not as a matter of belief], and announcing the selling of alcohol, and whatever resembles that.
There is no doubt, that this is a great sin, however there could be, for example, excuses for them, those in which they consider themselves to be justified (i.e. excused in that). So for example, they excuse themselves from this by saying that in their land they have those people who are not Muslim, and that being severe upon them will make them flee. So when they have an angle of approach, then Allaah will reckon them, but, in any case, there is no doubt that if we judged by the shar' (legislation), and implemented its teachings, there would be sufficiency in this and much good.
Source: Cassette: Sharh Lum'uat il-I'tiqaad, (No. 7), Tasjeelaat at-Taqwaa, Riyaadh.
13.Let's look at the way salaf on the importants of obeying the rulers.
Imaam bukhari said:
And that we do not contend with or attempt to take away the command from those assigned with it (i.e., the rulers) due to the saying of the Messenger (swallallahu alayhi wasallam) “There are three things towards which the heart of a Muslim never shows hatred or rancor: Making ones action sincerely for the sake of Allaah, giving obedience to the rulers (walaatulamr)and sticking to their group (jamaa’ah) for verily, their supplication encompasses those who are behind them (i.e. those whom they rule over.).”
This hadeeth has been reported from a group among the Companions and see Sunan at-Tirmidhee (no. 2657), al-Musnad (4/80, 82, 183), Jaami’ ul- Usool (1 / 265) and Majma ‘uz-Zawaa‘id (1/137-139).
Then this is confirmed in His saying:
“O you who believe! Obey Allaah and obey the Messenger, and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority.”
an-Nisaa (4):59
And that the sword is not to be raised against (any of) the Ummah of Muhammad (swallallahu alayhi wasallam).
End of quote. Taken from: The Creed of the Imaam of hadeeth Aboo ‘Abdullaah Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel al-Bukahri
Imaam al-Barbahaaree (d. 329H) said, ‘Whoever rebels against a Muslim ruler is one of the Khawaarij, has caused dissent within the Muslims, has contradicted the narrations and has died the death of the days of ignorance.’ Sharlius-Sunnah, (p. 42).
Al-Barbahaaree (d. 329H) also said, ‘It is not permissible to fight the ruler or rebel against him even if he oppresses. This is due to the saying of the Messenger of Allaah to Aboo Dharr al-Ghifaaree, “Have patience even if he is an Abyssinian slave,” (reported by Muslim) and his swallallahu alayhi wasallam) saying to the Ansaar, “Have patience until you meet me at the Pool,” (reported by Bukhaaree from Usayd ibn Hudayr). There is no fighting against the ruler in the Sunnah. It causes destruction of the Religion and the worldly affairs.’ Sharhus-Sunnah, (p.43).
Aboo Bakr al-Aajurree (d. 360H) said in ash-Sharee’ah (p. 28), ‘It is not fitting for the one who sees the uprising of a khaarijee who has revolted against the Imaam, whether he is just or oppressive - so this person has revolted and gathered a group behind him, has pulled out his sword and has made lawful the killing of Muslims - it is not fitting for the one who sees this, that he becomes deceived by this person’s recitation of the Quraan, the length of his standing in the prayer, nor his constant fasting or his good and excellent words in knowledge when (it is clear to him that) this person’s way and methodology (madhdhab) is that of the Khawaarij.’
And Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751H) said in Miftaah Daaris-Sa’aadah (1/119), ‘And as for Imaam Maalik, then Ibn al-Qaasim said, ‘I heard Maalik say, ‘Indeed there are a people who desire worship but squander the knowledge (being deprived of it) so they revolt against the Ummah of Muhammad (swallallahu alayhi wasallam) with their swords. And if they had followed the knowledge, then it would have prevented them from doing that.’
And Shaykh Abdul-Azeez ibn Baaz, was asked, ‘Is it from the manhaj (methodology) of the Salaf to criticize the Rulers from the minbar (the pulpit)? And what is the manhaj of the Salaf with respect to advising the Rulers?’
He responded: ‘It is not from the manhaj of the Salaf to publicize the faults of the Rulers and to mention such things from the pulpit because that leads to confusion/disorder and the absence of hearing and obeying the ruler in what is good. It also results in (the people) becoming engrossed (with these matters, arguing and debating) which causes harm and produces no benefit. The followed path with the Salaf, however is to give naseehah (advice) with respect to the matters which are between themselves and the leader, writing to him, or by reaching him through the scholars who keep in touch with him (to advise him) until the ruler is directed towards the good. Repelling the evil occurs without mentioning the doer of the evil. So fornication, drinking of intoxicants and the taking of usury are curbed without mentioning the one who does such things. Warding off the evil and warning the people against it is sufficient without it being mentioned that such and such a person does it, whether he is a ruler or other than the ruler.
And when the fitnah occurred in the time of ‘Uthmaan radiyallaahu ‘anhu some of the people said to Usaamah ibn Zaid radiyallaahu ‘anhu ‘Will you not speak to ‘Uthmaan?’ So he replied, ‘You think that I will not talk to him without letting you know about it (also). Indeed, I will certainly talk to him regarding that which concerns me and him without initiating a matter which I do not love to be the first to initiate.’
And when they (the Khawaarij) opened up the evil in the time of ‘Uthmaan radiyallaahu ‘anhu, and rejected ‘Uthmaan openly the fitnah, the killing and the mischief, which has not ceased to affect the people to this day, was brought about. And this caused the fitnah to occur between ‘Alee and Mu’aawiyyah and ‘Uthmaan was killed for these reasons.
(Furthermore) a large number of Companions and others besides them were killed due to this open rebellion and the open proclamation of the faults (of the ruler), until the people began to hate the one charged with authority over them and killed him. We ask Allaah for success.’ End of the words of the Shaykh. Taken from Al-Ma’loom min Waajib il- ‘Ilaaqah bain al-Haakim wal-Mahkoom, (pp. 22-23).
It is authentically reported from the Messenger (swallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the hadeeth of ‘lyaad ibn Ghunm who said, “The Messenger of Allaah (swallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, ‘Whoever desires to advise the one with authority then he should not do so openly, rather he should take him by the hand and take him into seclusion (and then advise him). And if he accepts (the advice) from him then (he has achieved his objective) and if not then he has fulfilled that which was a duty upon him.”’ Reported by Ahmad (3/403) and Ibn Abee ‘Aasim (2/521) with a saheeh isnaad.
The way of the salaf on the importance of obeying the rulers
Imaam bukhari said:
And that we do not contend with or attempt to take away the command from those assigned with it (i.e., the rulers) due to the saying of the Messenger (swallallahu alayhi wasallam) “There are three things towards which the heart of a Muslim never shows hatred or rancor: Making ones action sincerely for the sake of Allaah, giving obedience to the rulers (walaatulamr)and sticking to their group (jamaa’ah) for verily, their supplication encompasses those who are behind them (i.e. those whom they rule over.).”
This hadeeth has been reported from a group among the Companions and see Sunan at-Tirmidhee (no. 2657), al-Musnad (4/80, 82, 183), Jaami’ ul- Usool (1 / 265) and Majma ‘uz-Zawaa‘id (1/137-139).
Then this is confirmed in His saying:
“O you who believe! Obey Allaah and obey the Messenger, and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority.”
an-Nisaa (4):59
And that the sword is not to be raised against (any of) the Ummah of Muhammad (swallallahu alayhi wasallam).
End of quote. Taken from: The Creed of the Imaam of hadeeth Aboo ‘Abdullaah Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel al-Bukahri
Imaam al-Barbahaaree (d. 329H) said, ‘Whoever rebels against a Muslim ruler is one of the Khawaarij, has caused dissent within the Muslims, has contradicted the narrations and has died the death of the days of ignorance.’ Sharlius-Sunnah, (p. 42).
Al-Barbahaaree (d. 329H) also said, ‘It is not permissible to fight the ruler or rebel against him even if he oppresses. This is due to the saying of the Messenger of Allaah to Aboo Dharr al-Ghifaaree, “Have patience even if he is an Abyssinian slave,” (reported by Muslim) and his swallallahu alayhi wasallam) saying to the Ansaar, “Have patience until you meet me at the Pool,” (reported by Bukhaaree from Usayd ibn Hudayr). There is no fighting against the ruler in the Sunnah. It causes destruction of the Religion and the worldly affairs.’ Sharhus-Sunnah, (p.43).
Aboo Bakr al-Aajurree (d. 360H) said in ash-Sharee’ah (p. 28), ‘It is not fitting for the one who sees the uprising of a khaarijee who has revolted against the Imaam, whether he is just or oppressive - so this person has revolted and gathered a group behind him, has pulled out his sword and has made lawful the killing of Muslims - it is not fitting for the one who sees this, that he becomes deceived by this person’s recitation of the Quraan, the length of his standing in the prayer, nor his constant fasting or his good and excellent words in knowledge when (it is clear to him that) this person’s way and methodology (madhdhab) is that of the Khawaarij.’
And Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751H) said in Miftaah Daaris-Sa’aadah (1/119), ‘And as for Imaam Maalik, then Ibn al-Qaasim said, ‘I heard Maalik say, ‘Indeed there are a people who desire worship but squander the knowledge (being deprived of it) so they revolt against the Ummah of Muhammad (swallallahu alayhi wasallam) with their swords. And if they had followed the knowledge, then it would have prevented them from doing that.’
And Shaykh Abdul-Azeez ibn Baaz, was asked, ‘Is it from the manhaj (methodology) of the Salaf to criticize the Rulers from the minbar (the pulpit)? And what is the manhaj of the Salaf with respect to advising the Rulers?’
He responded: ‘It is not from the manhaj of the Salaf to publicize the faults of the Rulers and to mention such things from the pulpit because that leads to confusion/disorder and the absence of hearing and obeying the ruler in what is good. It also results in (the people) becoming engrossed (with these matters, arguing and debating) which causes harm and produces no benefit. The followed path with the Salaf, however is to give naseehah (advice) with respect to the matters which are between themselves and the leader, writing to him, or by reaching him through the scholars who keep in touch with him (to advise him) until the ruler is directed towards the good. Repelling the evil occurs without mentioning the doer of the evil. So fornication, drinking of intoxicants and the taking of usury are curbed without mentioning the one who does such things. Warding off the evil and warning the people against it is sufficient without it being mentioned that such and such a person does it, whether he is a ruler or other than the ruler.
And when the fitnah occurred in the time of ‘Uthmaan radiyallaahu ‘anhu some of the people said to Usaamah ibn Zaid radiyallaahu ‘anhu ‘Will you not speak to ‘Uthmaan?’ So he replied, ‘You think that I will not talk to him without letting you know about it (also). Indeed, I will certainly talk to him regarding that which concerns me and him without initiating a matter which I do not love to be the first to initiate.’
And when they (the Khawaarij) opened up the evil in the time of ‘Uthmaan radiyallaahu ‘anhu, and rejected ‘Uthmaan openly the fitnah, the killing and the mischief, which has not ceased to affect the people to this day, was brought about. And this caused the fitnah to occur between ‘Alee and Mu’aawiyyah and ‘Uthmaan was killed for these reasons.
(Furthermore) a large number of Companions and others besides them were killed due to this open rebellion and the open proclamation of the faults (of the ruler), until the people began to hate the one charged with authority over them and killed him. We ask Allaah for success.’ End of the words of the Shaykh. Taken from Al-Ma’loom min Waajib il- ‘Ilaaqah bain al-Haakim wal-Mahkoom, (pp. 22-23).
It is authentically reported from the Messenger (swallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the hadeeth of ‘lyaad ibn Ghunm who said, “The Messenger of Allaah (swallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, ‘Whoever desires to advise the one with authority then he should not do so openly, rather he should take him by the hand and take him into seclusion (and then advise him). And if he accepts (the advice) from him then (he has achieved his objective) and if not then he has fulfilled that which was a duty upon him.”’ Reported by Ahmad (3/403) and Ibn Abee ‘Aasim (2/521) with a saheeh isnaad.
Umar on obeying the Muslim Ruler
Suwayd b. Ghaflah reports that ‘Umar b. Al-Khattâb – Allâh be pleased with him – once took him by the hand and said:
O Abû Umayah, by Allâh, I know not if we will meet again after today. Fear and obey Allâh your Lord until the Day of Resurrection, as if you see Him, and obey the ruler (imâm) even if he is a cut-nosed Abyssinian slave: if he beats you, be patient; if he robs you, be patient and if he belittles you, be patient. And if he tells you [to do something] to the detriment of your religion (to sin), say: “I hear and obey, [but] my blood goes before my religion.” Never leave the Main Muslim Body (Al-Jamâ’ah).
Ibn Zanjawayh, Kitâb Al-Amwâl article 30; Ibn Abî Zamanîn, Usûl Al-Sunnah article 205 with a slight variation in wording. Also recorded in other collections.
Imam Ahmad on Rebelling against Rulers
Abul-Hârith Ahmad b. Muhammad Al-Sâ`igh, the close and respected friend of Imâm Ahmad, reports:
I asked Abû ‘Abdillâh (Imâm Ahmad) about something that had occurred in Baghdâd, and [because of which] some people were considering revolting [against the ruler]. I said, “O Abû ‘Abdillâh, what do you say about taking part in the revolt with these people?” He decried it and started saying, “Subhânallâh! The blood [of the people], the blood [of the people]! I do not believe in this and I do not tell others to do it. For us to suffer our situation in patience is better than the fitnah (tribulation) in which blood is spilt, property is taken, and the prohibited are violated (e.g. the honor of women). Do you not know what happened to the people (in the days of the previous fitnah)?” I said, “And the people today, Abû ‘Abdillâh, are they not in fitnah [because of the ruler]?” He replied, “If so, it is a limited fitnah, but if the sword is raised, the fitnah will engulf everything and there will be no way to escape. To suffer patiently this [current difficulty], where Allâh keeps your religion safe for you is better for you.” I saw him decry revolting against the leaders, and say, “[Do not spill the people's] blood. I do not believe in this and I do not command it.”
Abû Bakr Al-Khallâl, Al-Sunnah article 89.
It is reported that Al-Hasan Al-Basrî – Allâh have mercy on him – said:
If people called on Allâh when put to trial because of their rulers, Allâh would relieve their suffering; but instead they resorted to the sword, so they were left to it. And not one day of good did they bring.
Then he recited (Quran 7: 137):
And the good word of your Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, for the patience and perseverance they had, and We destroyed the works of Pharaoh and his people and what they had erected.
Ibn Abî Hâtim, Al-Tafsîr no. 8897.
It is reported that Al-Fudayl b. ‘Ayyâd – Allâh have mercy on him – said, “If I had one supplication that was going to be answered I would make it for the ruler (imâm), for the wellbeing and righteousness of the imâm means wellbeing for the land and its people.”
Al-Dhahabî, Siyar A’lâm Al-Nubalâ` in his biography of Al-Fudayl b. ‘Ayyâd.
Points to note
Wanting good for the Muslim rulers and supplicating to Allâh for them features as an important aspect of the creed of Ahl Al-Sunnah wa Al-Jamâah, and distinguishes them from the extremist ideology of the Khawârij sect. This has been recorded in the classical works of Sunni ‘aqîdah, for example:
Al-Barbahârî (Sharh Al-Sunnah p113, 114) states, “If you see a man supplicating against the ruler, know that he is a heretic (sahib hawâ), and if you see a man supplicating for the ruler, know that he is a Sunni – inshâ Allâh.”
Al-Imâm Al-Âjurrî (d360H) states (Al-Sharî’ah Vol.1 p371), “I have mentioned warnings against the ways of the Khawârij that convey the message for everyone who Allâh protects against the ways of the Khawârij, and who does not hold the views of the Khawârij, but is [instead] patient over the injustice of the rulers … and who prays for the wellbeing and righteousness of the rulers, and who does Hajj and Jihâd behind the rulers against every enemy of the Muslims, and who prays the Jumu’ah and ‘Eid prayers behind the rulers. Whoever fits this description is upon the Straight Path – inshâ Allâh.”
Another issue is based on the model of a Kingdom with a King as its ruler and not the model of the Khulafah ar-Rashideen. The model of the Khulafah ar-Rashideen would therefore be considered the model of the Salaf us-Saleh.
Let’ take a look at the correct understanding, on a King as a ruler and a Khilaafah as a ruler based upon the Qur’aan and Sunnah.
From the aqidah of a Muslim is that he believes, in accordance with the revealed texts, that the khilaafah lasted for thirty years, that this khilaafah was upon the way of Prophethood, that Allaah raised it, and replaced it with kingship, and that prior to the approach of the hour, Allaah will send down the khilaafah upon the Prophetic methodology once more. And this contains glad tidings for the Muslim who shows concern for his aqidah and strives to purify his belief, returning to that which the Companions were upon in the time of Prophethood and the rightly-guided khilaafah.
The hadeeth narrated by Safeenah (radiallaahu anhu), that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:
The Prophetic khilaafah will last for thirty years. Then Allaah will give the dominion to whomever He wills.
Reported by Abu Dawud and al-Haakim. Saheeh al-Jaami' as-Sagheer (no. 3257) declared Saheeh by Imaam al-Albaani (rahimahullaah).
And in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, there occurs after this hadeeth, what is said by Sa'eed bin Jamhaan, who narrated from Safeenah:
Safeenah said (to me): Hold on (meaning, listen), the khilaafah of Abu Bakr (radiallaahu anhu) was two years, and [that of] Umar (radiallaahu anhu) was ten years, and [that of] Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu) twelve years, and [that of] Alee (radiallaahu anhu) six years.
Abu Dawud, Kitaab us-Sunnah, Chapter on the Khulafaa, (no. 4647).
Also reported by Safeenah, the saying of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam):
The khilaafah after me in my Ummah will last for thirty years. Then there will be kingship after that.
Reported in the Musnad Imaam Ahmad, by at-Tirmidhi, Musnad Abi Ya'laa, and Ibn Hibbaan. Saheeh al-Jaami' as-Sagheer (no. 3341) declared Saheeh by Imaam al-Albaani (rahimahullaah).
From Hudhayfah that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:
The Prophethood will remain amongst you for as long as Allaah wills it to be. Then Allaah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be the khilaafah upon the Prophetic methodology. And it will last for as long as Allaah wills it to last. Then Allaah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be biting kingship, and it will remain for as long as Allaah wills it to remain. Then Allaah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be tyrannical (forceful) kingship and it will remain for as long as Allaah wills it to remain. Then He will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be a khilaafah upon the Prophetic methodology. Then he (the Prophet) was silent.
Reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawud. Silsilah as-Saheehah of Imaam al-Albani (1/34 no. 5) and it is Saheeh. And Shaykh al-Albaani (rahimahullaah) commented upon this hadeeth saying:
And it is remote, in my view, to apply this hadeeth to (the khilaafah) of Umar bin Abdil-Azeez, because his khilaafah was close to the rightly-guided khilaafah, and the two types of kingship, the biting kingship and forced, tyrannical kingship had not occurred after (the rightly-guided khilaafah).
And Abu Umaamah relates that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:
The handholds of Islaam will be annulled, one by one, and every time a handhold is annulled the people will hold fast to the one that follows it. The first of them to be annulled is the rule (al-hukm), and the last of them is the prayer (as-salaat).
Reported by Ahmad in his Musnad, Ibn Hibbaan and al-Haakim. Saheeh al-Jaami' as-Sagheer (no. 5057) of Shaykh al-Albaanee who declared it Saheeh.
And Shaykh Abdul-Azeez bin Baz (rahimahullaah) commented, upon the previous hadeeth (as occurs in Majmoo' ul-Fataawa wa Maqaalaat al-Mutanawwi'ah):
And the meaning of his saying in the hadeeth: "The first of them to be anulled is the rule (al-hukm)", its meaning is apparent, and it is the absence of ruling by the legislation of Allaah, and this is what is present today in most of the states ascribing to Islaam. And it is known that what is obligatory upon all is to judge by the Sharee'ah of Allaah in all things and to beware of judging by the secular laws, and the customs that oppose the pure legislation.
Some notes concerning the issue of kingship:
In these divinely revealed texts, there is a refutation of the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir, al-Muhajiroon, and all the group-names they go under, "the Ghurubaa", "the Saved Sect" and so on which they use to deceive the Muslims and to conceal their true identity and ideology. The khilaafah lasted thirty years upon the way of Prophethood and from that time kingship entered the Ummah up until this day of ours, with an honourable mention of the rule of mercy of Mu'aawiyah (radiallaahu anhu), who was the first king, and the rule of Umar bin Abdul-Azeez (rahimahullaah). This indicates the ignorance of these people who chant "1924" thinking that the khilaafah was abolished in 1924. The Ottoman State was a hereditary kingship judging with a mixture of Hanafi law and the "Qanun" law based upon localized customs (urf), much of which were remnants of the Yasaa of Genghis Khan. Further, from 1858 to 1875 there was much provision made for secular law and its practice within the Ottoman state. This indicates the intellectual and academic fraud that underlies the ideology of the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir, al-Muhajiroon and others who peddle the false doctrine that establishing the khilafah is the greatest obligation of our times, after what they believe, wrongly, was the removal of the khilaafah in 1924. The greatest obligation is to single out Allaah in worship and give obedience to Him and His Messenger. It is when the Muslims fulfil this obligation, that Allaah Himself grants victory and authority to them - this is the divine law in the creation. Most of these groups are not interested in calling the people to this in a specific detailed sense, rather their aims are purely political.
Affirmation through the divinely revealed text that Mu'aawiyyah was the first king in Islaam, and that from his time, hereditary kingship was the mode of rule, and that Allaah gives the rule to whomever He pleases. And that after the Prophetic khilaafah a biting type of kingship appeared, one in which Islaam was not applied completely in all areas. It was in this midst that the innovations of the Qadariyyah and the Murji'ah also appeared. Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah explains (Majmoo' 10/354):
The kingship of Mu'aawiyah was one of mercy, and when Mu'aawiyah departed - may Allaah's mercy be upon him - and the leadership of Yazeed came, and there occured therein the tribulation of the killing of Husain in Iraq, and the fitnah of the people of Harrah in Madinah, and the siege of Makkah, when Abdullah bin Zubayr made his stand. Then Yazeed passed away and the Ummah split, Ibn az-Zubayr in the Hijaaz, Banu al-Hakam in Shaam, and al-Mukhtaar bin Abee Ubayd seizing power in Iraaq. All of this took place at the end of the period of the Companions, when there only remained the likes of Abdullah ibn 'Abaas, Abdullah ibn Umar, Jaabir ibn 'Abdullah, Abu Saeed al-Khudree and others. The innovations of the Qadariyyah and the Murji'ah then occurred and it was rejected by those Companions who remained, as they had, along with others, refuted the innovations of the Khawaarij and the Raafidah (previously).
And all of this occurred just prior to the emergence of the innovations of the Jahmiyyah and the Mu'tazilah in the early second century hijrah (around 100H-130H).
And regarding what took place of the annulment of the rule (al-hukm), and the splitting and division of power, and the forced, tyrannical kingship (mulk jabariyy) which then took place in the Ummah - then this occurred as the Muslims began to depart and leave the Straight Path of Allaah, that those earlier Muslims had held fast to. When the Muslims split in this manner, and the rulership (al-hukm) was annulled (as per the hadeeth quoted previously) and their became many different regions and areas with their own rulers and leaders, then the Scholars clarified that obedience is due to these rulers in whatever is ma'roof (good), and the fact that there was no khilaafah that united the people as a whole, but rather only regional rulers and leaders, was not an abrogation of what is found in the Book and the Sunnah of the obligation to obey the the one in authority in that which is ma'roof (good). This obligation to obey the rulers in that which is good is based upon the clear texts of the Book, the Sunnah and the ijmaa' (consensus) of the Salaf.
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajr said in al-Fath (7/13):
The Fuqaha, Jurists are in agreement concerning the obligation to give obedience to the Sultan who took over them by force and also to perform Jihaad along with him. [And that] obeying him is better than rebelling against him due to what this would contain of the shedding of blood and subduing of the common masses.
Shaikh Abdul-Lateef bin 'Abdur-Rahmaan bin Hassan Aal Shaikh said as occurs in "Majmu' Rasa'il wal-Masa'il an-Najdiyah" (3/128):
And the People of Knowledge are unanimously agreed concerning giving obedience to the one who took over them by force in whatever constitutes goodness. They see it necessary to fulfil his orders and hold the correctness of his Imaamah, leadership. No two people [amongst them] differ concerning that. They also deem it impermissible to rebel against him with the sword and to divide the Ummah, even if the leaders are sinful, so long as they do not see clear open kufr. The various texts [of these Jurists] from the four Imams and other than them and their likes in this regard are [certainly] present.
Shaikh ul-Islaam Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhaab said as occurs in "Ad-Durar as-Sunniyah fil-Ajwibat un-Najdiyyah" (7/239):
The Imaams from every Madhhab are agreed concerning the one the forcefully took over a region or regions that he has the ruling of "Imaam" in all matters. If this had not been so then the affairs of the world would never have been established. This is because for a very long time, before the era of Imaam Ahmad till this day of ours, the people have never gathered behind a single Imaam. And they do not know anyone from the Scholars who has mentioned that any of the Sharee'ah rulings cannot be correct [effected, implemented] except by the overall Imaam [the Khalifah].
As-San'aanee, in explanation of the hadeeth, "Whoever left obedience [to the Imaam] and separated from the Jamaa'ah and then died, then his is a death of Jaahiliyyah", said, as occurs in Subul us-Salaam "Sharh Bulugh ul-Marýam min Adillat il-Ahkaam" (3/499):
His saying, "...left obedience...", meaning obedience to the Khalifah concerning whom there is agreeement. And it is as if the intent here is the Khalifah of a particular region because the people have never gathered together behind a single Khalifah in all the lands of Islaam since the time of the Abbasi State. Rather, the people of every region were independent with someone presiding over their affairs. If the hadeeth was taken to mean the overall Khalifah which the people of Islam had united behind, there would have been no benefit in it.
Ash-Shawkaani said in "as-Sail al-Jaraar" (4/512):
As for when Islaam spread and its territories expanded and its regions became distant [from each other], then it is known that in all of these regions loyalty was given to an Imaam or Sultaan So there is no harm in the multiplicity of Imaams and Sultaans and it is obligatory for those people in whose land his orders and prohibitions become effective to give obedience to him after having giving bai'ah to him. It is likewise for the people of all the other regions.
s for the shubhah (doubt) of the one who said how can as-San'aanee (or anyone else for that matter) make reference to "khalifahs" after this period of thirty years alongside the hadeeth stating that the "khilaafah" will only last thirty years, then the Permanent Committee for Research and verdicts were asked the question:
The second question from fatwa no. (6363): The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: "The khilaafah after me is thirty years, then there will be biting kingship" and for this reason Mu'aawiyah said, "I am the first of the kings", from the risaalah of Abi Zayd al-Qayrawaanee (1/96). What is the meaning of this hadeeth?
This hadeeth has been related by Imaam Ahmad in al-Musnad, al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak, Abu Ya'laa in al-Musnad, Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh and at-Tirmidhee in as-Sunan. And the meaning of the hadeeth has been explained by al-Haafidh (Ibn Hajar) in al-Fath, he said: "He meant by the khilaafah, the khilaafah of prophethood (i.e. the thirty years), and as for Mu'aawiyah and whoever came after him, then they were upon the way of the kings (i.e. kingship) even if they are named "khalifahs"."
This answers the shubhah (doubt) that may arise when coming across references made by the people of knowledge in the course of historical reference and discussion to some of the rulers who came afterwards as "khalifahs", for even if they are named "khalifahs", it does not change the reality of their mode of rule being kingship. Such "khalifahs" were "successors" in kingship, so calling him a "khalifah" does not change the mode of rule present being through kingship, since the word "khalifah" simply means "successor", and whilst they were "successors" in the mode of rule of kingship, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan and Alee (radiallaahu anhum) were "khalifahs (successors)" in Prophetic khilaafah.
Despite the absence of the khilaafah and the annulment of the rule (al-hukm), it is still, nevertheless, obligatory upon all rulers to strive to abide and judge by the Sharee'ah in all of the affairs, in aqidah, in ibaadah, in mu'aamalah, in the sharee'ah rulings, in trade, commerce, punishments and so on. And as for rectification of the Ummah, then that only comes about fundamentally, if the people return and unite upon the pure religion as it was brought by the Prophet (alayhis salaam) and as it was practiced and transmitted by the Companions to their successors.
Those groups who believe that by changing the political structure, they could return strength to Islam then this is a gross error, since honour, victory, strength and the likes originate in the hearts, not from political structures - and this is a divine rule that is found in the Book, the Sunnah and the understanding of the Companions and those upon their way, and the Qur'an and the Sunnah are replete with elucidation of this principle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)