Benefit from the Class of Abbas Abu Yahya: The Misunderstanding of Takfeer

Abbas Abu Yahya (hafidahullah) mentioned in his class on 40 Hadeeth (summarized and paraphrased):

From the speech of Ibn Taymiyyah, the Khawarij do not reflect that takfeer (declaring a Muslim to be a disbeliever) has conditions and preventions. A general takfeer does not necessitate a specific takfeer, except if conditions for takfeer are applicable and preventions for takfeer are negated.

Imaam Ahmed and the ulemah of his time did not make takfeer on most of the people who specifically said the Qur’aan is created.

Making takfeer upon someone, is declaring that they are to enter the Fire for eternity.

So as Ibn Kathir has mentioned, one of the most difficult things to do is to make takfeer of an individual.

Likewise, eeman is from the Kitab and the Sunnah. So whoever has eeman by way of certainty, it cannot be taken away from him as a result of doubt.

Such as we find today, many of those Khawarijj make takfeer upon rulers and individuals based upon matters of doubt, providing [the Khawarijj] with excuses to then fight the Muslim rulers, ultimately leading to chaos and bloodshed within the land.

Written by Omar Abu Summayah Al Britaani

The Doubts of Ahlul Bid’ah by Abu Khadeejah Abdul Waahid

A short, clear and concise refutation of the doubts held and propagated by those individuals and groups who innovate and attempt to manipulate & alter the Religion.

Highly recommended.

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen on the Arab Rulers: A Lesson in Methodology for the Hasty

A very important lesson in methodology. As we see today, many hasty and foolish youths promote rebellion against Muslim rulers, causing a devastating backlash that causes more harm and suffering to the Ummah than what was present initially. This short clip is a very important advice from Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, regarding the methodology that a Muslim is to adhere to in such circumstances. It is upon the Muslim that he refers his disputes to Allaah and His Messenger (sal Allaahu alayhi wa salam), yet today we find many of the people feel that their own solution in their pocket is more worthy than that which came from Allaah and His Messenger (sal Allaahu alayhi wa salam).

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymîn: A factor that hinders from Takfîr shouldn’t exist when a person performs a disbelieving deed [I.e. if we are to do Takfîr]. It is therefore mentioned in the authentic Hadîth when the prophet (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was asked if they should fight against the rulers that he said:

“Except if you see clear and explicit disbelief of which you have proof from Allaah.”

The disbelief has to be clear and known and it shouldn’t be possible to misunderstand it. If one can misunderstand it, then one doesn’t do Takfîr on the person who falls into it (this deed) EVEN IF THE DEED IS DISBELIEF. There is a difference between the speech and the speaker and (between) the deed and the doer. The deed can be a defiant sin without the person (whom performs it) being a defiant sinner because there is an obstacle that hinders him from being it. It can also be disbelief without the person being a disbeliever because there is an obstacle that hinders him from being it (i.e. a disbeliever).

It was nothing other than this unsound misinterpretation that made the rebellion of the Khawârij harm the Islâmic Ummah. Khawârij get the idea that the deed is disbelief and (thusly) they revolt, which they said to ‘Alî bin Abî Tâlib. They were together with ‘Alî bin Abî Tâlib against the army of Shâm. After the peace treaty between ‘Alî bin Abî Tâlib and Shâm, Khawârij revolted against him after having been with him. He fought against them and killed them and all praise is due to Allaah. The point lies in the fact that they revolted against him and said:

“You have judged by something other than the law of Allaah. You have let the human judge.”

As a result thereof, they revolted against him. Thus, the catastrophe of the Ummah is because of this misinterpretation. A person can mistakenly get the idea that something is clear and explicit disbelief and revolt (due to it). It is possible that the deed really is disbelief without its doer being a disbeliever because of an obstacle (i.e. ignorance, compulsion etc). The rebel believes that this person is free from excuses and (thus) does the likes of these revolts.

Therefore, a person has to make sure not to be in a hurry with making Takfîr or Tafsîq upon the humans. There is a risk that a person falls into a clear, defiant sin without knowing about it. When he finds out that it is forbidden, he thanks you (Jazâk Allaahu khayr) and leaves it. Does this exist? Yes, beyond the shadow of a doubt [it does]. How can I then judge a person to be a defiant sinner while he hasn’t received the truth?

Those you accuse among the Arab and Muslim rulers can be excused. They have perhaps not received the truth. They maybe have received it while at the same time somebody made them misunderstand the matter. Thus, one has to be sensible when it comes to this matter.

Let us say that all of the conditions have been met for us to be allowed to revolt in the way that we have seen clear and explicit disbelief of which we have proof from Allaah. It is a condition to have seen it. The disbelief is a condition. That it is clear and explicit is a condition. That we have proof of it from Allaah is a condition. These are four conditions. His (sallâ Allâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) words “except if you see…” are there so that one doesn’t fall victim to baseless rumours. It means that one should be convinced. The word “disbelief” (Kufr) is there so that one doesn’t get hung up on a defiant sin. If the ruler is a sinning alcoholic without having fallen into disbelief, then it is not allowed to revolt against him. The words “clear and explicit” mean that it is definite and that it (the Kufr) can’t be misinterpreted. The fourth is “of which you have proof from Allaah”. It should thusly not only be definite according to us. Rather, we should base ourselves on clear and definite evidence. These four conditions are the conditions for it to be allowed to revolt.

However, there is a fifth condition for the revolt to be obligatory. Is it obligatory for us to revolt against the ruler just because it is allowed? One has to consider the advantage. Are we able to overthrow him? [If yes] then in this case we revolt. If we are unable, then we do not revolt. All religious duties are only [duties] if they are doable.

Moreover, if we are able to revolt, then there is a risk that the disadvantage is greater and worse than if this leader were to keep his (position as a) leader. If we revolt against him and he wins, we become more humiliated while he becomes even worse in his transgression and disbelief.

These matters require common sense and that it is tethered with the Sharî’ah and that it isn’t led by emotions. We are in need of emotions in order to have enthusiasm and we are in need of the Sharî’ah to curb us. We have to have brakes. A car without brakes will crash and a car without power doesn’t drive.

Source: http://afatwa.com/shaykh-ibn-uthaymeen-about-the-arab-rulers-exclusive-detailed-fatwa/

Ibn Abbas Debates The Khawarijj

﷽

And from the evil understanding of this Religion is that which was attained by the Khawaarij[6] who revolted and fought against ‘Alee (radiyallaahu ‘anhu). This was because they understood the texts of the Sharee’ah with an erroneous understanding, which contradicted the understanding of the Companions (radiyallaahu ‘anhum). Due to this, when Ibn ‘Abbaas (radiyallaahu ‘anhumaa) debated them, he clarified to them the correct understanding of the texts. So there returned from amongst them those who returned, and the remainder of them did not return back from their misguidance. And the story of his debate with them has been recorded in the Mustadrak (2/150-152) of al-Haakim (d.405H), and the isnaad is saheeh upon the condition of Muslim (d.261H). In it is the statement of Ibn ‘Abbaas, “I have come to you from the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), from the Muhaajireen and the Ansaar, so that I may inform you of what they say. They are well aware of what they say, as the Qur’aan was sent down upon them. And they are more knowledgeable concerning the revelation than you, and it was revealed amongst them. And none of them are amongst you.” So some of them said, ‘Do not argue with the Quraysh (i.e. since Ibn ‘Abbaas is from the Quraysh), since Allaah says,

{Rather, they are a quarrelsome people.}, [Sooratuz-Zukhruf, Aayah 58].’

Stated Ibn ‘Abbaas, “And I have come to a people whom I have not seen anyone more severe in striving hard than them. Their faces have become pale from staying up late at night, it is as if their hands and feet do not deter them.” So there remained those who remained. So some of them said, ‘Let us speak with him and let us see what he says.’ ‘I said, ‘Inform me of that which you harbour against the son of the uncle of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and his son-in-law, the Muhaajireen and the Ansaar.’ They said, ‘Three issues.’ I said, ‘What are they?’ They said, ‘As for the first of them, then he (‘Alee) has allowed men to judge in the affair of Allaah, yet Allaah the Exalted says,

{The judgement is for none but Allaah.}, [Soorah Yoosuf, Aayah 40]

So it is not for men and it is not for judges.’ So I said, ‘This is only one issue.’ They said, ‘As for the other issues, then he fought his enemies, yet he did not take any prisoners or war booty. So if those whom he fought were disbelievers, then their imprisonment and war booty has been made lawful. And if they were believers, then fighting them is not permissible.’ I said, ‘These are only two issues, so what is the third?’ They said, ‘Indeed, he erased the title, ‘Leader of the Believers’ from himself, so therefore he is the leader of the disbelievers.’ I said, ‘Do you have anything besides this?’ They said, ‘This is sufficient for us.’ So I said to them, ‘Do you hold that if I recite to you from the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), that which refutes your statement, that you will obey?’ They said, ‘Yes!’ So I said, ‘As for your statement that he has allowed men to judge concerning from the affair of Allaah, then I shall recite to you that which shows that Allaah relegated His judgement to men concerning the price of four dirhams, concerning a rabbit and its like from game. So Allaah said,

{O you who believe! Do not kill game whilst you are in a state of ihraam.}, [Sooratul-Maa’idah, Aayah 95]

Up until He said,

{…as judged by two just men from amongst you.}, [Sooratul-Maa’idah, Aayah 95]

So I implore you by Allaah: Is the judgement of men with regards to a rabbit and its like from game better, or their judgement concerning their blood and reconciliation between them?! And you must know that if Allaah had wished, He would have judged and not relegated that to the men. And Allaah the Mighty and Majestic has said concerning the woman and her husband,

{And if you fear a breach amongst the two of them, then appoint two arbitrators, one from his family and one from hers. And if they both wish for peace, then Allaah will bring about their reconciliation.}, [Sooratun-Nisaa’, Aayah 35]

So Allaah made the judgement of the men a tradition to be believed in. So do you leave this?” They said, ‘Yes!’ He said, “As for your statement that he fought and he did not take prisoners, nor did he take war booty, then do you revile your mother, ‘Aa’ishah? Then you must declare her lawful in that which you have declared lawful with regards to other than her! So if you were to do that, then you would become disbelievers, as she is your mother. And if you say, ‘She is not our mother,’ then you have disbelieved. Since, Allaah says,

{The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.}, [Sooratul-Ahzaab, Aayah 6]

So you are revolving around two positions of misguidance. Regardless of which of them you adopt, you have adopted misguidance.” So they began to look at each other.’ ‘I said, ‘Have you left from this?’ They said, ‘Yes!’ ‘And as for your statement, that he erased the title of ‘Leader of the Believers’ from his name, then I shall come to you with one whom you are pleased with and I shall see you. Indeed, you have heard that on the day of al-Hudaybiyyah, the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) made a treaty with Suhayl Ibn ‘Amr and Abaa Sufyaan Ibn Harb. So the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said to the Leader of the Believers (‘Alee), “Write O ‘Alee: These are the terms of peace agreed upon by Muhammad the Messenger of Allaah.” So the pagans said, ‘No, by Allaah! Had we known that you were the Messenger of Allaah, we would not have fought you.’ So the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “O Allaah! You know that I am the Messenger of Allaah. Write O ‘Alee: These are the terms of peace agreed upon by Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdullaah.”[7] So by Allaah, the Messenger of Allaah was better than ‘Alee, yet he was not removed from Prophethood when he erased the title from his name.” Stated ‘Abdullaah Ibn ‘Abbaas (radiyallaahu ‘anhumaa), “So two thousand of those people repented, and the rest were killed upon misguidance.”[8]

So in this story, two thousand from amongst the Khawaarij repented from their falsehood, due to clarification and elucidation which emanated from Ibn ‘Abbaas (radiyallaahu ‘anhumaa). So in that is proof that there is in the referring back to the people of knowledge, security from evils and tribulations. Indeed, Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said,

{So ask the people of remembrance if you do not know.}, [Sooratun-Nahl, Aayah 43]

Source: http://salaf-us-saalih.com/2009/07/28/ibn-abbaas-debates-the-khawaarij/

Imam Al-Albani: The Prophetic Description of ‘Dogs of Hellfire’ and Contemporary Takfiri Kharijites

The late and great hadith Scholar, Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani (rahimahullaah) stated about the contemporary takfiri and revolutionary movements that were spawned in the 1960s onwards, [the head of them being Sayyid Qutb], the following:

والمقصود أنهم سنّوا في الإسلام سنةً سيئة ،وجعلوا الخروج على حكام المسلمين ديناً على مر الزمان والأيام ، رغم تحذير النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم منهم في أحاديث كثيرة ، منها قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم الخوارج كلاب النار.ورغم أنهم لم يروا كفراً بَواحاً منهم ، وإنما ما دون ذلك من ظلم وفجور وفسق . واليوم والتاريخ يعيد نفسه كما يقولون- ؛ فقد نبتت نابتة من الشباب المسلم لم يتفقهوا في الدين إلا قليلا ورأوا أن الحكام لا يحكمون بما أنزل الله إلا قليلا فرأوا الخروج عليهم دون أن يستشيروا أهل العلم والفقه والحكمة منهم بل ركبوا رؤوسهم أثاروا فتناً عمياء وسفكوا الدماء في مصر وسوريا , والجزائر وقبل ذلك فتنة الحرم المكي فخالفوا بذلك هذا الحديث الصحيح الذي جرى عليه عمل المسلمين سلفا وخلفا إلا الخوارج

And the intent here is that they instituted an evil way (sunnah) into Islam and made revolting against the ruler to be an act of devotion (deen) over the passing of time and (passing) of days despite the warning of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) against them in many ahaadeeth, from them, his saying (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), “The Kharijites are the Dogs of Hellfire.” And despite the fact they did not see clear, plain manifest disbelief from them (the rulers), but only what is less than that of oppression, tyranny and sin. And today, history repeats itself as they say, for there has emerged a new band amongst the Muslim youth who did not understand except very little of the religion and they hold that the rulers do not rule by what Allaah has revealed except little, and they held [the obligation] of revolting against them without consulting with the people of knowledge, understanding and wisdom. Rather, they followed their heads, kindled blind tribulations, and shed blood in Egypt, Syria and Algeria, and prior to that (was) the tribulation of the sacred precincts in Makkah. Through (these activities) they opposed the authentic hadeeth upon which all the Muslims, the earlier ones and the later ones abided by, except for the Kharijites.

Refer to al-Silsilah al-Sahihah (7/1240-1241).

Source: http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/hnjsd-imam-al-albani-contemporary-takfiri-kharijites-are-dogs-of-hellfire-upon-the-prophetic-description-of-them.cfm

Ibn Taymiyyah on the Distinction Between the Sinners and the People of Innovation

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) (rahimahullah) said:

“And the Imams of the people of innovation (bid’ah) are more harmful to the Ummah than the people who fall into sins. Due to this, the Prophet (sal Allaahu alayhi wa salam) commanded with fighting the Khawarij, yet he prohibited fighting against the oppressive rulers.”

Majmu al-Fatawa (7/284)