What is this satanic devilish concept?!

What is this satanic devilish concept?!

The concept of the deviant in the like of Ibrāheem Abu Naasir (Oshogbo), stating that Ibn Taymiyyah never made takfeer on an-Najashi (the Negus) even though he ruled by other than the Sharee’ah of the Lord of the world?

Shaikh Abu Salman as-Soomali – May Allah preserve him – was asked: “As you have mentioned that Ibn Taymiyyah is from the league of scholars who do not excuse one who is victim of a major Kufr, but there is a text relating that he endorsed the ruling by other than what has been revealed by Allah in cases of incapacity of ruling by the Book (Al-Qur’an), without coercion, as he has said in ‘Manhaj Sunnah’:
“And the Negus, it was not possible for him to rule by the Qur’an; and his people did not affirm that. And often would a man assume the position of a judge amongst the Muslims and the Tatars or even as an Imaam – and in his heart are things of justice he would want to act with, but not able to do so rather, there were those who prevent him from doing so, and Allah does not charge a soul except with that within its capacity. And Umar bn Abdul’azeez was taken as enemy and harmed for what he established of Justice and it was said that he was even poisoined for doing that! So, an-Najashi and his likes are righteous people of Jannah, even though they could not adhere to some of the laws of Islam over which they possessed no power, but they ruled by what was in their capacity. For that, Allah makes them amongst the Ahlul-Kitaab… ” End quote. And the defenders of the Tawagheet (Kufr rulers) who rule by other than what Allah reveals today have taken this statement as a stand. So, what is your view on this statement [of Ibn Taimiyyah] which contradicts what your affirmed?

Answer:
The statement of the questioner contains some errors that we need to review in simplicity:

🔴 First Error: His statement that Ibn Taymiyyah – May Allah be pleased with him) – “endorsed the ruling with other than what Allah has revealed in cases of incapability to rule by the book, and without coercion”, because this is a false statement which none from the people of Islam has ever said, neither Ibn Taymiyyah nor others from the righteous scholars of the Ummah, and the statement of the Shaikh doesn’t point to this neither from near perspective nor far!
Indeed, whoever says this acclaimed endorsement is a kaafir by necessity.

🔴 Second Error: an-Najashi, Ibn Abdul’azeez and judges under the dominion of the disbelievers did not rule by other than what Allah reveals, they rather ruled by what Allah reveals from what was within their capacity, and Allah does not charge a soul except with that within its capacity; and also the feasible in ruling by the Sharee’ah is not forsaken due to the infeasible of rulings of Allah. This is why the Sheikh – May Allah be pleased with him – said: “And the Negus, it was not possible for him to rule by the Qur’an; and his people did not affirm that. And often would a man assume the position of a judge amongst the Muslims and the Tatars or even as an Imaam – and in his heart are things of justice he would want to act with, but not able to do so rather, there were those who prevent him from doing so, and Allah does not charge a soul except with that within its capacity. And Umar bn Abdul’azeez was taken as enemy and harmed for what he established of Justice and it was said that he was even poisoined for doing that! So, an-Najashi and his like are righteous people of Jannah, even though they could not adhere to the some of the laws of Islam over which they possessed no power, but they ruled by what was in their capacity. For that, Allah makes them amongst the Ahlul-Kitaab… “

🔴 Third Error: The concept of the questioner regarding the statement of the Shaikh: “but they ruled by what was in their capacity” as endorsing the ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, setting upon it symbols of celebration, and points of interest; while he is deluded in every aspect, supplicating in wrong context. This is because the statement of the Shaikh is crystal clear that those who are weak on some aspects of the Sharee’ah have surely ruled by what was within their capacity; because what is not within a person’s capacity by perception is just like what is not contained in the Sharee’ah initially. And what is within a person’s capacity by perception is obligatory in the Sharee’ah.

🔴 Fourth Error: The statement, “And the defenders of the Tawagheet (Kufr rulers) who rule by other than what Allah reveals today have taken this statement as a stand. So, what is your view on this statement [of Ibn Taimiyyah] which contradicts what your affirmed?”

This is an error composed upon erroneous understanding or erroneous intention and Allah’s aid is sought!
The statement of the Shaikh is not in need of clarification and interpretation because it is explicit in its meaning, clear in its context: Whosoever is weak upon an aspect of the laws of Allah having no power to execute it should fear Allah as much as he can; ((So, fear Allah as much as you are able)) [64:16]
“If I command you of something, do it as much as you can”!

Can we say to someone who cannot slaughter to Allah the Lord of the world that it is permissible for him to slaughter to other than Allah?

Or one who possesses no ability of marriage that it is permissible for him to fornicate?

Or one who has no access to that which is pure, that it is permissible for him to eat from non-kosher meat?

And one who possess no power to rule by the Book of Allah, that it is permissible for him to rule by laws of Jaahiliyyah?

Or one who has no ability to fight the disbelievers, that it is permissible for him to fight the Muslims?

What is this Satanic devilish concept?!!!

Indeed, Shaikhul Islam does not excuse for ignorance or dubious interpretation in a clear Kufr. And so the generality of his statement is excuse of ignorance and wrong interpretation in actions which are not explicitly kufr and Sharee’ah matters that are not Kufr by being ignorance of it, except by rejection and belying, and each of these does not become kufr except after having its knowledge.
And nothing is found from the Shaykh contradicting what we affirmed in the correspondence and others.

📚✍️Shaykh Abu Salmaan as-Soomali (Telegram)

Translated by Abu Hikmah