> al-Boriqee Issue of making Takfir of Muslim Rulers

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Idris

I don´t like to label someone as a Takfiri because as we all know Takfir is from our Deen and if we begin to label some groups of being Takfiris maybe then other muslims (with not strong `Ilm) would stay away from making Takfir at all.

We see it here in germany that some young muslims do not even make Takfir on the christians, jews and atheists etc. ...

This people that we call "Takfiri" are in reality Ghulaatu t-Takfir.

wa Allahu a`lam.


sorry for my bad english, it´s not my native language.

EXACTLY, you have just agreed with Abdul-Muhsin al-Hindy and me as well. except that we do not agree to use the term takfiri. In this regard I abandoned to use the term takfiri and began to call it what it is. Kharijiyyah (kharijism). Thats because at least with the issue of takfir, kufr and emaan, spubs and others were correctly on the right side of the isle, and the khariji charlatans like Hawalaai are on the wrong side of the isle.

If we ostricize the term takfeeri we are sending a message that there is no takfir in Islam at all, and this is baatil. Rather we need to articulate that the heresy in this issue is in the extremism (ghuloo) in making takfir, and this is what the khawaarij are known with, hence khawaarij.

I am glad those brothers created these new sites, but I would have labelled it khawaarij.com instead of takfeeri.com

[salman]

^akhee, regardless of the names and groups, the spubs and rest of that crew got imaan wrong and I don't know how you can say their asl is correct when the work Shaykh Ibrahim (rahimahullah) contradicts what these guys have been parroting for so long. They operate on the math-hab of murjis. and Allah knows best

May Allah guide us all and keep us on haqq, ameen

Originally Posted by Abd al-Muhsin al Hindy

AsSalaamu alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barkaatuhu,

Visit :
************* | The Origins of the Takfiris and Takfir Movements

Also, visit :
Answering-Extremism

Learn about the Takfiris their false claims and read their refutations...etc. InshaAllah they will benefit .
AsSalaamu alaykum.

wa'alaykum as-salam

brother, please don't ruin this thread and spare us from these guys who themselves are extremists and operate on the math-hab of murjis. Are they going to tell us who is extreme and who is not when they are the one who are extreme? Their problems and mistakes are just too well known and you cannot defend them...PERIOD

I don't want to turn this board into IA; so, it would be better if we stop here. Otherwise, I will have to delete these posts since they can confuse other members and benefit is out weighted by harm.

[Sampharo]

Brother Al-boriqee,

There is an issue here that I need to clarify to understand the implications, because this is where many muslims get confused and adopt thoughts otherwise held by Khawarij:

You made the attachment from Sheikh Mohammed Ibn Ibrahim:

فمن فعل ذلك فهو كافرٌ يجب قتاله حتى يرجعَ إلى حكم الله ورسوله، فلا يُحَكِّم سواه في قليل ولا كثير.

and on this matter I also read the following in "Al-Mokhtasar Al-Mofeed fee AAaqaed a'emat el-tawheed":

المبحث الخامس
أيما طائفة امتنعت عن شريعة من شرائع الإسلام الظاهرة
المتواترة، فإنها تقاتل عليها: قتال كفر وردة عن الإسلام
وإن كانت مقرة بها، وناطقة بالشهادتين، وملتزمة لغيرها
من الشرائع. وبهذا نعلم: أن مجرد الاعتصام بالإسلام مع
عدم التزام شرائعه ليس بمسقط للقتال، بل القتال واجب،
حتى يكون الدين كله لله

That was also from Sheikh Ibn Ibrahim.

Both that part and the one before is based on Sheikh Abdul Wahab's articles that is built on the actions of Abu Bakr Assiddiq's battling for the Zakat after the passing of the prophet -s.a.a.w.- even though they didn't deny Zakat as an obligation, they just refused paying it. So disbelief was not necessary to consider the fight legit.

However the extension of it like this to ANY RULING OF ISLAM "أيما طائفة امتنعت عن شريعة من شرائع الإسلام الظاهرة" seems to me contradicting to Salaf's actions as well as the prophet's hadith:

"I was ordered to fight the people until they declare Islam, hold the prayers, and pay the zakat, and if they do then they have sealed (protected) their blood and property from me."

It is obvious that Abu Bakr's battles were based on the ruling of this hadith, that zakat is a pillar upon which fighting can be ensued (even if there is no disbelief in zakat, just the lack of payment is sufficient). To extend it beyond it, I could not see the indication or action. As a matter of fact we see opposite:

- Ibn Abbas treated the Khariji's as muslims and used to respond to their queries on Islamic issues as long as there is no fighting from them.

- What you mentioned about the first AshAAarees and their changing of Islamic rulings, they were regarded as muslims and not fought.

- Ali Ibn Abi Talib not attacking or killing the non-extreme Shia (other than those who called him God) and other deviants.

Can you help shed some light on what the Sheikh Ibn Ibrahim meant and what is his opinion regarding the Salaf not doing that?

[salman]

akhee, it was I who attached the book of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraheem (rahimahullah) unless you are talking about the Arabic version

Abu Bakr (radiAllahu anho) did declare those people apostate, that is why it is known as war on apostasy. The latter salaf agreed that if someone doesn't pay zakah then he is not a kafir unless he rejects the ruling itself. And they said that the actions of Abu Bakr (radiAllahu anho) was his ijtihad.

The beliefs of the groups you are mentioning does not take them out of fold of Islam so I don't understand how you can build your argument upon that.

and Allah knows best

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Sampharo

Brother Al-boriqee,

There is an issue here that I need to clarify to understand the implications, because this is where many muslims get confused and adopt thoughts otherwise held by Khawarij:

You made the attachment from Sheikh Mohammed Ibn Ibrahim:

فمن فعل ذلك فهو كافرٌ يجب قتاله حتى يرجعَ إلى حكم الله ورسوله، فلا يُحَكِّم سواه في قليل ولا كثير.

and on this matter I also read the following in "Al-Mokhtasar Al-Mofeed fee AAaqaed a'emat el-tawheed":

المبحث الخامس
أيما طائفة امتنعت عن شريعة من شرائع الإسلام الظاهرة
المتواترة، فإنها تقاتل عليها: قتال كفر وردة عن الإسلام
وإن كانت مقرة بها، وناطقة بالشهادتين، وملتزمة لغيرها
من الشرائع. وبهذا نعلم: أن مجرد الاعتصام بالإسلام مع
عدم التزام شرائعه ليس بمسقط للقتال، بل القتال واجب،
حتى يكون الدين كله لله

That was also from Sheikh Ibn Ibrahim.

Both that part and the one before is based on Sheikh Abdul Wahab's articles that is built on the actions of Abu Bakr Assiddiq's battling for the Zakat after the passing of the prophet -s.a.a.w.- even though they didn't deny Zakat as an obligation, they just refused paying it. So disbelief was not necessary to consider the fight legit.

However the extension of it like this to ANY RULING OF ISLAM "أيما طائفة امتنعت عن شريعة من شرائع الإسلام الظاهرة" seems to me contradicting to Salaf's actions as well as the prophet's hadith:

"I was ordered to fight the people until they declare Islam, hold the prayers, and pay the zakat, and if they do then they have sealed (protected) their blood and property from me."

It is obvious that Abu Bakr's battles were based on the ruling of this hadith, that zakat is a pillar upon which fighting can be ensued (even if there is no disbelief in zakat, just the lack of payment is sufficient). To extend it beyond it, I could not see the indication or action. As a matter of fact we see opposite:

- Ibn Abbas treated the Khariji's as muslims and used to respond to their queries on Islamic issues as long as there is no fighting from them.

- What you mentioned about the first AshAAarees and their changing of Islamic rulings, they were regarded as muslims and not fought.

- Ali Ibn Abi Talib not attacking or killing the non-extreme Shia (other than those who called him God) and other deviants.

Can you help shed some light on what the Sheikh Ibn Ibrahim meant and what is his opinion regarding the Salaf not doing that?

that is indeed a complicated or deep question

1. firstly, there was a minor difference in approach between Bin Baz and Abdul-Muhsin and our Shaykh Ibn Ibraheem. for example, Ibn Ibraheem held that if a ruler rules by other than Allah once or twice, he's cool, but more than that he is a kaafir. Abdul-Muhsin clarified the correct stance when asked the following

Was asked during a lesson of his on Sharh Sunan Abi Dawood the following

“Is Istibdaal (replacing) the Islamic Sharee’ah with the secular laws (qawaneen al-wad’iyyah) kufr in and of itself or does it require Istihlaal (making halaal) of the heart of belief (itiqaad) in its permissibility? And is there is a difference between ruling by other than what Allah has revealed in one instance, and between making the secular laws as general legislation (tashree’an aamaan), while one believes that this is not permitted?”

So the shaykh replied

“It is clear that there is no difference between ruling in a (single) matter, or ten or a hundred, or a thousand, or less, or greater than that. There is no difference as long as a person considers himself to be in error, that he is doing what is evil (munkar), and that he is committing disobedience, and that he is fearful of sin, so this is the minor kufr (kufr doona kufr or Kufr al-Asghar). And as for the Istihlaal, even if it was only in one matter, so he makes it lawful to judge by other than what Allah has revealed, and considers it to be lawful, then this is kufr (kufr al-akbaar, that which expels from the religion)”

this was because there is nothing in the shariah that puts a limit or scope of how many times somebody is to perform the action of ruling by other than Allah's law whereby if you do it 3 times, your okay, but a forth time, then your a kaafir.

2. As for Ibn Ibraheem on your particular inquiry, Ibn Ibraheem is talking on fundamental aspects of the shariah, like the stuff that is happening in front of us today like people banning the hijaab.

From this aspect, we understand that what Ibn Ibraheem and many others were advocating was that the kufr they were speaking of was about abolishing the shariah altogether. As for ruling on a particular issue that is in opposition to the will of Allah, then their pronouncement of kufr was with regards to core aspects of our law like the hijaab, and other issues that are so entrenched in our religion that only a kaafir can deny it or an unadulterated jahl.

3. Ash'aris have not altered or changed the shariah. what they did was made tahreef of its doctrine, particularly to sifaat. So on the outset, they did perform a type of tabdeel. Maybe later I can highlight the aspect of tabdeel and the three types ellaborated by both Shaykhul-Islam and his student Haafidh ibnul-Qayyim

secondly, your deduction was based on how you viewed the hadeeth, for some might view or stress the first portion of it which is "until the may declare Islam" and that may be viewed by some as the whole of Islam and holding contrary beliefs would nullify the testimony.

example, the sahaba use to kill the magicians. But not only did they use to kill them, they wouldnt even allow them to repent.
im sorry if my answers were weak

[salman]

akhee, if we go with what you are saying then you will have to say tons of scholars are wrong and not just shaykh ibn Ibraheem (rahimahullah). You cannot possibly say that the defenders of position of Ahl al-hadith and champion of that position, Shaykh ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyyah (rahimahullah), got it wrong. Please read what I brought from the words of Shaykh al-Fawzaan; post #17.

Shaykh Uthaymeen (rahimahullah) had contradictory statements on this issue and there is nothing from shaykh ibn Bazz (rahimahullah) against this position and even if there is it doesn't mean that he cannot be wrong. And we know the incorrect stance of Shaykh Al-Albani (rahimahullah) on this issue.

The argument is that if you do something once or few times then that is specifically done only few times; however, if you do it time after time then it becomes a general case. Judging individuals in specific cases with laws other than Allah's is a complete different story than ruling the general masses by laws other than Allah's.

and Allah knows best

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by salman

akhee, if we go with what you are saying then you will have to say tons of scholars are wrong and not just shaykh ibn Ibraheem (rahimahullah). You cannot possibly say that the defenders of position of Ahl al-hadith and champion of that position, Shaykh ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyyah (rahimahullah), got it wrong. Please read what I brought from the words of Shaykh al-Fawzaan; post #17.

Shaykh Uthaymeen (rahimahullah) had contradictory statements on this issue and there is nothing from shaykh ibn Bazz (rahimahullah) against this position and even if there is it doesn't mean that he cannot be wrong. And we know the incorrect stance of Shaykh Al-Albani (rahimahullah) on this issue.

The argument is that if you do something once or few times then that is specifically done only few times; however, if you do it time after time then it becomes a general case. Judging individuals in specific cases with laws other than Allah's is a complete different story than ruling the general masses by laws other than Allah's.

and Allah knows best

I don't understand the post. I agree with the position of Fawzaan and Ibn Ibraheem. What I was talking about was with regard to ruling on instances or "occurence" and not tashree al-amm (general legislation)

This is where I think samphoro may have gotton confused because Ibn Ibraheem and others, their main concern was in targeting the complete alterization of the shariah altogether.

everything stated by Fawzaan was 1000 true. If you noticed that the words of Abdul-Muhsin, his answer, is specifically on ruling with particular instances, and not general legislation

[Sampharo]

^ Thank you brother Al-Boriqee, but I think I caused a confusion because that is not what I was asking about.

First I need to address your thoughts Brother Salman

Originally Posted by salman

akhee, it was I who attached the book of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraheem (rahimahullah) unless you are talking about the Arabic version

Abu Bakr (radiAllahu anho) did declare those people apostate, that is why it is known as war on apostasy. The latter salaf agreed that if someone doesn't pay zakah then he is not a kafir unless he rejects the ruling itself. And they said that the actions of Abu Bakr (radiAllahu anho) was his ijtihad.

Yes I was indeed talking about the Arabic.

As for Abu Bakr's declaration of apostacy on them, that is not a small matter for Abu Bakr -r.a.a.- to do this decisively and immediately without indication. It is confirmed that he pronounced: "I swear I would wage a war on them if they prevent me a Qintar they used to give the prophet -s.a.a.w.-". He fought them on the prophet's example and statements, and there IS basis in Sunnah that's not only on the Hadith, but also based on the Walid Ibn Oqba story when he claimed the tribe was refusing to pay the money, the prophet sat and discussed going out to fight them with the companions when their delegation arrived.

I also did not read any references somewhere that the salaf considered that Abu Bakr did not take these into consideration and waged the war and pronounced them apostates based on pure ijtihad.

Originally Posted by salman

akhee, if we go with what you are saying then you will have to say tons of scholars are wrong and not just shaykh ibn Ibraheem (rahimahullah).

Akhee that is a subjective opinion of the sheikh, and actually Sheikh Abdul Muhsin and Ibn Uthaiman's opinion matches what I have read from Ibn Taymeyya and Ibn Abbas's references, in that there is no such thing as 1 or 2 times to be ok, but more than that is Kufr Akbar.

So if we do not take this from Sheikh Ibrahim, there is no negation whatsoever of what Ahlu Al-Hadith have agreed on for generations. But please remember brother Salman, I am not here to just read what posters say what the opinion is, I am here to learn it and understand its implications and references in full, and to clarify any contradications that seem to come up.

Anyway, the number of times and Tashree AAam is not really what I was actually referring to in my question:

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

This is where I think samphoro may have gotton confused because Ibn Ibraheem and others, their main concern was in targeting the complete alterization of the shariah altogether.

What I found confusing were the words of Sheikh Ibrahim that followed, the continuation that I published in Arabic is what I needed to understand how he arrived at it:

أيما طائفة امتنعت عن شريعة من شرائع الإسلام الظاهرة
المتواترة، فإنها تقاتل عليها: قتال كفر وردة عن الإسلام
وإن كانت مقرة بها

"Whichever group REFRAINS from ANY apparent ritual or ruling of Islam, is fought upon it: a fight of kufr and apostasy EVEN IF THEY BELIEVED IN IT (did not negate or deny)"

This is an open ended statement that does not match what the salaf did: Apostasy for action, not belief, and fighting for it.

The examples I mentioned along with the hadith shows that the salaf DID NOT fight people or declare them apostates for refraining from a ritual or ruling even if they believed in it, and did not fight them when they broke some shariah law without istihlal.

Hence my question: On what salafi basis did Sheikh Ibrahim say this and what did he mean?

[Sampharo]

Oh I forgot one more thing, just to get it out of the way

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

secondly, your deduction was based on how you viewed the hadeeth, for some might view or stress the first portion of it which is "until the may declare Islam" and that may be viewed by some as the whole of Islam and holding contrary beliefs would nullify the testimony.

Sorry I thought you knew the hadith. Brother I did not make the deduction myself, this is an established interpretation as per Ahlu Sunnah. The "declare Islam" in Arabic it was actually "...Until they pronounce La Ilaha Illa Allah, Wa Anna Mohammadan Rasoul Allah...".

( أمرت أن أقاتل الناس ، حتى يشهدوا أن لا إله إلا الله ، وأن محمدا رسول الله ، ويقيموا الصلاة ، ويؤتوا الزكاة....ـ )

Here is an extract from an article:

ثم بيّن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في الحديث الذي معنا ، الأمور التي تحصل بها عصمة الدم والنفس ، وهي : النطق بالشهادتين ، وإقامة الصلاة ، وإيتاء الزكاة ، فمن فعل ذلك ، فقد عصم نفسه وماله ، وهذا ما يمكننا أن نطلق عليه العصمة المطلقة ، أو العصمة بالإسلام .

and

أما إقامة الصلاة ، فهي من أعظم مظاهر الانقياد والعبودية، بل إن تاركها ليست له عصمة ، يشهد لذلك قوله تعالى : { فإن تابوا وأقاموا الصلاة وآتوا الزكاة فإخوانكم في الدين } ( التوبة : 11 ) ، فدل على أنهم إن لم يصلوا فلا أخوة لهم ، ولما أراد خالد بن الوليد رضي الله عنه أن يضرب عنق ذي الخويصرة - الذي اعترض على قسمة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم للمال- نهاه عن ذلك قائلا : ( لا ؛ لعله أن يكون يصلي ) رواه البخاري و مسلم ، وهذا يقتضي أنه لو كان تاركا للصلاة لما منع خالدا من قتله .

وإيتاء الزكاة المذكور في قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( ويؤتوا الزكاة ) ، هي من مظاهر الانقياد المالية لله تعالى ، ولا يعني ذكرها في الحديث أن مجرد الامتناع عن أدائها كفر مخرج من الملة ، بل في ذلك تفصيل آخر ليس هذا مجال بسطه.

وإذا تحققت هذه الأمور الثلاثة في شخص أو فئة ، حصلت لهم العصمة التامة ، فتصان دماؤهم وأموالهم وأنفسهم ، إلا بسبب حق من حقوق الإسلام ، وذلك بأن يرتكب الإنسان ما يبيح دمه ، كالقتل بغير حق ، والزنى مع الإحصان ، والردة بعد الإسلام.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Sampharo

Oh I forgot one more thing, just to get it out of the way



Sorry I thought you knew the hadith. Brother I did not make the deduction myself, this is an established interpretation as per Ahlu Sunnah. The "declare Islam" in Arabic it was actually "...Until they pronounce La Ilaha Illa Allah, Wa Anna Mohammadan Rasoul Allah...".

( أمرت أن أقاتل الناس ، حتى يشهدوا أن لا إله إلا الله ، وأن محمدا رسول الله ، ويقيموا الصلاة ، ويؤتوا الزكاة....ـ )

Here is an extract from an article:

ثم بيّن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في الحديث الذي معنا ، الأمور التي تحصل بها عصمة الدم والنفس ، وهي : النطق بالشهادتين ، وإقامة الصلاة ، وإيتاء الزكاة ، فمن فعل ذلك ، فقد عصم نفسه وماله ، وهذا ما يمكننا أن نطلق عليه العصمة المطلقة ، أو العصمة بالإسلام .

and

أما إقامة الصلاة ، فهي من أعظم مظاهر الانقياد والعبودية، بل إن تاركها ليست له عصمة ، يشهد لذلك قوله تعالى : { فإن تابوا وأقاموا الصلاة وآتوا الزكاة فإخوانكم في الدين } ( التوبة : 11 ) ، فدل على أنهم إن لم يصلوا فلا أخوة لهم ، ولما أراد خالد بن الوليد رضي الله عنه أن يضرب عنق ذي الخويصرة - الذي اعترض على قسمة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم للمال- نهاه عن ذلك قائلا : ( لا ؛ لعله أن يكون يصلي ) رواه البخاري و مسلم ، وهذا يقتضي أنه لو كان تاركا للصلاة لما منع خالدا من قتله .

وإيتاء الزكاة المذكور في قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( ويؤتوا الزكاة ) ، هي من مظاهر الانقياد المالية لله تعالى ، ولا يعني ذكرها في الحديث أن مجرد الامتناع عن أدائها كفر مخرج من الملة ، بل في ذلك تفصيل آخر ليس هذا مجال بسطه.

وإذا تحققت هذه الأمور الثلاثة في شخص أو فئة ، حصلت لهم العصمة التامة ، فتصان دماؤهم وأموالهم وأنفسهم ، إلا بسبب حق من حقوق الإسلام ، وذلك بأن يرتكب الإنسان ما يبيح دمه ، كالقتل بغير حق ، والزنى مع الإحصان ، والردة بعد الإسلام.

i know

we all accept the basic meaning of it which is the shahaada. i was talking about whoever stretches it beyond the kalimatu-tawheed.