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

Ruling on those who do not make takfeer of democrats

Question:

Salaam alaekun warahmatullah wabarakatuhu.
Some Muslims believe democracy as Kufru but disapprove calling Democrats kuffar.
Are they correct?

Answer:

Wa alaikumus salaam wa rahmatu llaah wa barakaatuh

They are explicitly wrong!

It should be known with certainty that democracy and democratic elections are shirk. This is because democracy involves neglecting the Sharee’ah of Allah; making legislation the sole right of the people. And democratic elections involves nominating a person who will stand as rival with Allah in legislation.

Moreover, we have made it known that, as regard shirk Akbar, there is no excuse for ignorance. Whoever commits shirk Akbar takes the name of shirk, i.e. he is a Mushrik with immediate effect. The only excuse is الإكراه (coercion), which Allah ﷻ mentioned in Suuratu Nahl. This is the only category of people the Qur’an has given excuse from amongst those who commit Kufr or shirk.

Shaykhul Islam, Ibn Taimiyyah رحمه الله said:

ولهذا كان التكلّم بالكفر من غير إكراه كفراً في نفس الأمر، عند الجماعة، وأئمة الفقهاء، حتى المرجئة خلافا للجهمية ومن اتبعهم».

شرح الأصفهانية (668)، الصارم المسلول (3/ 976)

“That is why speaking statement of Kufr without coercion is Kufr with immediate effect according to the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah and the Scholars of Fiqh, and even the Murji’ah, contrary to the Jahmiyyah and those who followed them.”

Sharh al-Isfahaniyyah (668), as-Saarim al-Masluul (3/976)

Shaykhul Islam, Imaam Da’wah an-Najdiyyah, al-Mujaddid, Muhammad bn AbdilWahhaab said in his book, (Kashfu Shubuhaat):

(كشف الشبهات): «أن الإنسان يكفر بكلمة يخرجها من لسانه، وقد يقولها وهو جاهل فلا يعذر بالجهل، وقد يقولها وهو يظن أنها تقربه إلى الله تعالى كما ظن المشركون».

“A person becomes Kaafir due to a statement he utters with his tongue; although, he might have uttered it out of ignorance, but he is not given excuse for his ignorance. He might also say it thinking that such would bring him closer to Allah, the Exalted just as the idol worshippers [of Makkah] thought.”

His grandson, AbdurRahman bn Hasan – may Allah have mercy on all of them – said:
«والعلماء رحمهم الله تعالى سلكوا منهج الاستقامة ، وذكروا باب الردة ، ولم يقل أحد منهم إنه إذا قال كفراً أو فعل كفراً وهو لا يعلم أنه يضاد الشهادتين : أنه لا يكفر بجهله، وقد بيّن الله في كتابه أن بعض المشركين جهال مقلّدون ، فلم يرفع عنهم عقاب الله بجهلهم.» [الدرر:١١/ ٤٧٨-٤٧٩]

“The scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, followed the path of steadfastness, they mentioned the chapter of apostasy, and none of them said: if [a person] utters Kufr or performs Kufr not knowing that it contradicts the Shahaadatain (the two testimony), that he doesn’t become a Kaafir due to his ignorance. And Allah has explained in His Book that some idol worshippers were ignorant blind-followers yet, the punishment of Allah wasn’t lifted off them because of their ignorance.” [ad-Durar as-Sanniyyah]

Secondly, whoever acknowledges that democracy is Kufr but refrains from making Takfeer of the democrats, he is one of the two:

[1] Those who do not know the reality of democracy but see that democracy is bad involving squandering of money and the likes; thus they say it is Kufr, meaning that it is bad, it’s sinful. This category of people need explanation and clarification.

[2] Those who do not make takfeer of Kuffaar and Mushrikuun with the Shub’ha that they proclaim the shahaaadah and performs Salaat; or the Shub’ha that they didn’t make the Kufr permissible on their tongues or in their hearts. This category are Kuffaar; their kufr is worse than that of the Jahmiyyah.

Al-Imaam Muhammad bn AbdilWahhaab رحمه الله تعالى said:

«إن هؤلاء الطواغيت الذين يعتقد الناس فيهم وجوب الطاعة من دون الله كلهم كفار مرتدون عن الإسلام، كيف لا وهم يحلّون ما حرّم الله، ويحرّمون ما أحلّ الله، ويسعون في الأرض فساداً بقولهم وفعلهم وتأييدهم، ومن جادل عنهم، أو أنكر على من كفّرهم، أو زعم أن فعلهم هذا لو كان باطلاً لا ينقلهم إلى الكفر، فأقل أحوال هذا المجادل أنه فاسق، لأنه لا يصح دين الإسلام إلا بالبراءة من هؤلاء وتكفيرهم …» [الرسائل الشخصية: ص: 188]
“The Tawagheet, whom the people consider obligatory to obey besides Allah, are all Kuffaar, who have apostatised from Islam. Why not? They permit what Allah forbids, and forbid what Allah permits, and they make mischief on earth by their utterance, deeds and support. Whoever argues in support of them, or opposes those who make takfeer upon them, or holds that even if their action is evil, it doesn’t take them to Kufr; the least situation of this arguer is that he is sinful, that is because the religion of Islam is invalid without boycotting the Tawagheet and making Takfeer of them.”

In accordance with the statement of the Shaykh, we see that those who accept democracy and/or the participants in democratic elections must be informed; we must make clear to them the reality of democracy and democratic elections before making Takfeer of them or calling them idol worshippers. Yes, this is imperative, because majority of them are ignorant of the reality; majority of them did not intend the shirk action or believe rather, they intend to appoint people who will cater for their livelihood. Majority do not know the reality of democracy.

It is pertinent to differentiate between:

* being ignorant of the reality; and

* being ignorant of the hukm (ruling).

These two are not the same. A person can perform a Kufr action while he is oblivious of the reality, in this case, explaining is necessary, rather it is obligatory before making Takfeer. After explanation, if he insists and proceeds, he becomes a Mushrik whether he understood the evidence or he did not.

However, if a person performs a Kufr action, and he is conscious of the reality, but ignorant of the ruling on such action, this person is not excused, ((except for one who is forced while his heart is secure in faith.)) [an-Nahl: 106]

For instance, a person walking on the road and a flyer falls from him. A Muslim sees the fallen flyer and alarmed the person that a flyer has fallen from him. Another Muslim sees the fallen flyer clearly that it is a Christianic flyer. Now, the earlier has aided the Christian in his Kufr and shirk (in the ordinary sense) but, he is ignorant….

Ignorant of what?

He is ignorant of the reality. He doesn’t know the flyer is Christianic, not that he is ignorant of the ruling on helping a person propagate kufr.

If he says, “I know, but I alerted him out of righteousness, civility, kindness”, he is a Kaafir. But, if he says, “I only saw a flyer dropping and I didn’t know it’s content, then he has not committed any Kufr in essence.

Thus, majority of the people do not understand the reality of democracy and democratic elections, hence it is obligatory to explain.

This doesn’t justify the misguidance of the Madkhalis for in their own religion, a person remains a Muslim no matter the amount of shirk he commits as long as he doesn’t renounce Islam upon his tongue. Besides, in their religion, leaders and scholars can never apostatise. The Madkhaliyyuun precisely are idol worshippers. Their kufr is crystal clear due to several reasons one of which is their belief in Taaghuut, and their affirming of the Islam of idol worshippers. Apart from democracy, they do not make takfeer of “Muslims” who attend church service. In fact, making Takfeer is a crime in the religion of the Madaakhilah.
Whoever the evidence has reached but refuses to make takfeer of the democratic rulers, such is a Mushrik, a believer in Taaghuut.

In a nutshell, I implore the Muslims to be sincere in their religion,

فَتَبَيَّنُواْ وَلَا تَقُولُواْ لِمَنۡ أَلۡقَىٰٓ إِلَيۡڪُمُ ٱلسَّلَـٰمَ لَسۡتَ مُؤۡمِنًا
((…Investigate; and do not say to one who gives you [a greeting of] peace “You are not a believer,”)) [4:94]

كَذَٲلِكَ ڪُنتُم مِّن قَبۡلُ فَمَنَّ ٱللَّهُ عَلَيۡڪُمۡ فَتَبَيَّنُوٓاْ ۚ
You [yourselves] were like that before; then Allah conferred His favor upon you, so investigate. [4:94]

Kudos to the poet who wrote:

ﻭﺭﻏﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻗﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺬﻳﺮ ***** ﻻ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻑ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮ
Despite what I said of warnings;
It is forbidden to withdraw from takfeer.

ﺇﺫﺍ ﺑﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺮ ﺟﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﻇﻬﺮ ***** ﻣﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﻛﺎﻓﺮﺍ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﻔﺮ
When the Kufr becomes glaring and vivid;
Who doesn’t make takfeer of a Kaafir becomes a Kaafir.

وصلى الله وسلم على نبينا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين

~ Ustaadh Abu Ubaidah Ayinla

06/May/2020

What is the ruling on POS?

What is the ruling on POS?

QUESTION:

Salaam alaykum warahmatullah wabarokatuh

Please, I intend to know whether it’s allowed in Islam to have a POS-pay-center, either as an agent of paga, opay, firstmoni, etc. Note, sir: valid proofs from Qur’an and Hadeeth for its permissibility (or otherwise) will be appreciated.

While anticipating your response, I pray to Allaah (SWT) to increase us and you in knowledge and Iman.

ANSWER:
Wa alaikumus salaam wa rahmatu llaah wa barakaatuh.

First, may Allah, accept your du’aa, guide us and make us firm upon the path of tawheed and Sunnah.

Secondly, it is pertinent to note that some rulings are too explicit to be proven right or wrong just as the apostasy of a ‘Muslim’ invoking Shango or Obataala is too explicit and clear to be proven right.

Ribaa’ is one of the Kabaair, thus, it is basically haraam to have dealings with banks that deal with ribaa’, and this comes from the general ruling that it is prohibited to help in promoting mischief on earth. Rather, in an Islamic State, such banks must not exist. Rather any organisation dealing with ribaa’ must be fought until they desist.

“And if you do not do it, then take a notice of war from Allaah and His Messenger”

[al-Baqarah 2:278-279]

Whoever understands this would know that it is haram by default to have a POS. Does a Muslim need an Aayah for that?

The answer is “No”!

Perhaps, we’ve forgotten that we “deposit”[1] money in those banks with the excuse of Doruurah (necessity). Subhaana llaah! This is one of the fitnah we encounter living in a Kufr State. Imaan becomes strange; haraam are done under necessity until it becomes a norm. Then we think of institutionalising it forgetting it wasn’t basically permissible.

We’ve all forgotten! We’ve lost our Dīn! This is why you see ‘Muslims’, rather ‘Salafis’ placing like on the Facebook pages of Ribaa’ banks and following them on Social Media; Alas, this is because we’ve forgotten the fundamental. When you deal with haraam under doruurah for a long time, with time it appears to you as Mubaah (permissible), then as Waajib (obligatory).

A Muslim cannot own a POS as a Muslim cannot help in promoting ribaa banks.

We ask Allah for safety and guidance.

Abu ‘Ubaidah al-Athari

September 6, 2019

——————————–
[1] The word “deposit” in the context of ribaa banks is a misplacement, this is because if it is truly a deposit, the money should not be used by the banks. In reality, you are lending them the money you save into your account, and you get interest in return. This is haram by the consensus of the Muslims!

Shaykh Uthaimeen said:

It should also be noted that depositing this money in the banks is not regarded as depositing it in the shar’i sense, because depositing something in sharee’ah means leaving it with someone for safekeeping, which means that the owner cannot use it; but when money is deposited in the bank, the bank uses the money, so it is a form of lending, not depositing for safekeeping. The fuqaha’ have explained this point, that if the depositor gives the keeper permission to use his money, it is no longer a deposit for safekeeping, rather it is a loan. (Therefore anything added to the principle is riba).

[Fataawa Manaar al-Islam, 2/433-440 by Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen]

See Ruling on Depositing Money in A Riba-based Bank

See also Where should he deposit his money in these times when riba is so widespread?

See also Ruling on depositing money in the bank, and interest

Giving money for Zakatul Fitr

Giving money for Zakatul Fitr

Explained by Shaykh Al Albani

The following is a summary translation

Questioner: At the end of the month of Ramadan there arises a difference of opinion concerning the payment of Zakat Al Fitr. Some of the people say it’s more beneficial to pay it with cash, and some of the Imaams say it is a must to pay it with the food known to the people. Thus what is your view on this?

 

Shaykh Al Albani: Some of the Imaams say what?

 

Questioner: They say it should be paid from the food known to the people of that country; such as wheat, and dates, etc…

 

Shaykh Al Albani: There is no doubt that those who hold the first view are incorrect. Those who say it is permissible to pay Zakatul Fitr with cash are incorrect because they have opposed the text. The hadith of the Messenger of Allah عليه السلام which has been collected in the two books of Al-Bukhari and Muslim, from the hadith of Abdullah bn Umar bn Al-Khattaab رضي الله عنهما. He said:

 

فرض رسول الله صدقة الفطر صاعا من تمر أو صاعا من شعير أو صاعا من أقط

 

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم enjoined Zakatul Fitr, a saa’ of dates, or a saa’ of barley, or a saa’ of wheat.

 

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم specified that this obligation which has been obligated by the Messenger عليه السلام in accordance with the command of his Lord given to him; is not in cash rather it is only from food which feeds the people of that country during that time period.

 

So the meaning of this hadith, the intent behind it is not entertaining the people—the poor and less fortunate—so they can wear new clothes, clean clothes etc. Rather the intent is only to suffice them of food and drink on that day and the days that follow the Eid. And when I say after the Eid I intend to say the day of Al-Fitr is the Eid, as for the second day and the third day; then they have nothing to do with the Eid at all. Eid Al-Fitr is only one day and Eid Al-Adha is four days. Thus the intent behind the obligatory of Zakatul Fitr being from the customary food during these days is to suffice the poor and less fortunate on the first day of Eid Al Fitr; and whatever days come after that, whether they are many or a few.

 

When a person comes and says: No, giving the value of the food (money) is more beneficial for the poor; this person has erred twice.

The first error: He opposed the text and the religious issue. And this is the least of what can be said. But the second point is very dangerous. Because this means that the Wise Legislator—and He is the Lord of all that exists—when He revealed to His noble Prophet to obligate upon his Ummah feeding with a saa’ from food, He was not aware and He did not know what would be a benefit for the poor and less fortunate, like it is known by those who claim paying it in money is better.

 

If paying Zakatul Fitr in money was better it would be the foundation and food would be the alternative. Because the one who has money knows how to spend it according to his needs. If he is in need of food he buys food, if he is in need of drink he buys drink, if he is in need of clothes he buys clothes. Therefore why did the Legislator refrain from obligating the value, or Dirham, or Dinar and He obligated food? Therefore, He has a purpose. Therefore, He defined this obligation—which is food from the categories of food stated in the text of this hadith and others.

 

The deviance of some people from applying this text and exchanging it for paying in money is an accusation against the Legislator that He is not suitable to legislate; because their legislation is better and more beneficial for the poor. If this is the person’s intent, he disbelieves by this. But they do not intend this; but they speak with words which are the epitome of error. Therefore, it is only permissible to pay it according to how the Wise Legislator prescribed it, and it is food under every circumstance.

 

And here is a point that must be mentioned. The legislator has obligated these various types of foods because they were known during the era of Prophethood and the message, but today there are foods which take the place of those foods. Today you do not find those who eat barley, rather you do not find those who eat wheat and grain. Because grain requires something else it requires a bread mill and it requires an oven, small or large, as it continues to exist in some villages.

 

When this food became abandoned and discarded it became obligatory to pay it with another type of food; not cash. This is because when we pay it with an alternative food we are in agreement with the legislation in what it has legislated from the various types of food known during that time. As for if we say we will pay it with a substitute which is cash, then we are saying the Wise Legislator was not accurate in the legislation. Because we can all say with certainty that money has a broader use than food, but when we see that the Wise Legislator has obligated food, and we find that this particular food is not in use today, then it becomes a must to settle on an alternative food. Using as a substitute, rice—for example—which home is not in need of eating rice? No one; not the poor or the rich; therefore we alternate wheat for rice, or we substitute sugar for example, or similar foods.

 

It is found in some narrations dried yogurt, here it is called Jameed. It is possible that people are familiar with this food, but in reality as it relates to us in Syria, in the metropolitan areas Jameed is not known; but in many of the villages it is known. Thus if a person pays Zakatul Fitr with Jameed to some of the poor and less fortunate it will be completely suitable for them; but this requires some knowledge if the person uses Jameed or not. From what I see it is not predominantly used. It also appears in some of the texts of the hadiths, dates. But I believe in this country dates are not widely used as they are used in Saudi for example. Therefore, there its food is nutritious and perhaps it will be used as food for them and suffice them from many other types of food.

 

The important point: It is obligatory to begin, and the origin is to pay the Zakatul Fitr with the types of food mentioned in the texts of the hadtihs, and to not use others food as an alternative; except if the poor and less fortunate do not eat this type of food, such as the foods we mentioned, like dried yogurt and dates.

Likewise raisins for example; raisins are eaten among us, but what is it? It is not food today which is stored and used as a food. Thus it is better—we believe and Allah knows best—to pay it with rice and similar foods like we mentioned; or Freekeh (a cereal food made from green wheat). These foods are eaten by all classes of people.

 

This is the answer to your question my brother.

 

Translated by Rasheed ibn Estes Barbee

 

 

 

 

 

The poor don’t want food for Zakaatul Fitr

The poor don’t want food for Zakaatul Fitr

Doubt answered by Shaykh Fawzaan

 

Question:

السلام عليكم. في بلادنا زكاة الفطر تدفع مالا بحجة أن المساكين لا يريدون حبوبا وغيرها فماذا نفعل؟

As salaam alaykum. In our country, Zakaatul Fitr is given out in form of money, based on the argument that the poor don’t need food grain, cereal or the like, so what should we do?

 

Shaykh Fawzaan:

ليس الأمر للمساكين، هذه عبادة، تنفذ كما جاءت عن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم ، والذي لا يريد الطعام هذا ليس بمحتاج ، أعطه للمحتاج الذي يأخذ الطعام.

The affair is not for the poor to decide, this is an act of worship. It should be done as narrated from the Messenger – salla llaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The person who does not need food is not a needy. Give it to the needy, those who will accept food.

 

Transcribed by: Abu ‘Ubaydah

 

January 7, 2018

 

 

Is Every Taaghuut A Kaafir? (A Refutation of Abu Khabītha of UK)

Taaghuut

Is Every Taaghuut A Kaafir? (A Refutation of Abu Khabītha of UK)

All praise and adoration is due to Allah, Lord of the universes, the end is for the pious, and let there be no aggression but against the evildoers.

This is a refutation of one the preachers, who undertake the task of distorting the Sharee’ah in order to please the Tawagheet.

Abu Khabītha (Khadeejah), a Jahmi/Jaahisi preacher, all of recent, came up with the idea of that not all Tawagheet are Kuffaar. Abu Khabītha, in his article entitled, “The Meaning of Taghut and it’s Relation to Kufr, Judgment and the Rulers,” stated,

The word taghut is mentioned in several places throughout the Quran and its meaning is distorted by the radical preachers to refer to the disbelievers or to major idolatry, and since some of the great scholars mentioned in their writings that ‘the one who does not rule by that which Allah has revealed’ is a taghut, then they conclude that all of the rulers are therefore disbelievers.

His insinuation and false attribution to the Salaf has been heavily refuted by a brother, Abu ‘Abdillah al-Athari, we ask Allah to reward him for this tremendous effort in refuting the evil preachers, who sell their Aakhirah for worldly gains.

Click here to download the book. May Allah make it a source of guidance for you and the Ummah at large.

Question and answer on photographs/pictures/videos (detailed)

Question and answer on photographs/pictures/videos (detailed)

As-salaamu a’laykum warohmotullohi wabarokatuhu.
Please sir, it is something everyone knows that picture taking and pictures in general is harām in Islām, however how do we explain the pictures of the Mujāhideen brothers/scholars of haqq that is usually shared among brothers…?
And also, what is the Sharia’h ruling as regards video…?
Jazaakumullohu khoyron sir…

Answer:
Wa’alaykumu salaam warahmatullohi wabarakaatuh.

Just as you rightly said, picture taking and pictures in general are harām in Islām.

It is important to note that this issue is from the مسائل الاجتهادية (Masaail Al-Ijtihaadiyyah) and one in which contemporary scholars have differed heavily.
The actual wording from the various hadith prohibiting the taking of pictures is “صورة” meaning “picture, image, illustrations and so on”. These hadith are authentic, agreed upon and mutawaatir.

The bone of contention however is that scholars differed in interpretation of the meaning of Surah as used in the various hadith, the difference is on the level of generalization of the hadith and what and what constitues the forbidden “surah”.

The issue of pictures is therefore one of the most differed upon subjects among contemporary scholars.

The major opinions are as follows:

1. Those who generalised the hadith and condemned any form of pictures, such as Sheikh Nasir Al-Fahad (may Allah preserve him); this opinion is wrong.

2. Those who permitted all forms of pictures excluding statues and hard copies (whatever has shadow) ; this opinion is also wrong.

3. Those who separate between certain forms of pictures from others while giving different rulings.
These are of various categories, I will only mention the correct opinion adopted by Al-Imam Turki bn Mubarak Al-Benali (may Allah have mercy upon him):

ﺃﻧﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺮﻣﺔ ﺷﺮﻋﺎ ، ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻭﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﻲ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺣﺎﺩﻳﺚ؛ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﻇﻞ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﻟﺼﺎﺣﺒﻬﺎ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺁﺓ ، ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺨﺘﺮﻋﺔ ﻳﻀﺎﻫﻰ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ” . ﺍﻫـ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺃﻋﻠﻢ .
[مجموع فتاوى أبي همام]

I, as regards this (photographic pictures) am on the opinion that it is not part of the forbidden pictures in the Shariah and that which some hadith were narrated to prohibit; rather it (photographic images) is a real image and a complete shadow of the owner just like the image that appears on a mirror, it is therefore not an invented or created image which imitates the creation of Allah.
[Majmu’ fataawa Abi Humam]

The summary of this opinion is that:

1. Statues, moulded images of living things excluding plants are haram.

2. Hand drawn pictures of living things excluding plants be it 2D/3D are also haram.

3. Computer generated pictures of living things excluding plants be it 2D/3D are also haram.

4. Moulding, drawing and computer generation of lifeless objects or plants are generally permissible due to the hadith:

عن عبد الله بن عباس رضي الله عنه قال: ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﻛﻞ ﻣﺼﻮﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻳﺠﻌﻞ ﻟﻪ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺻﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﻧﻔﺴﺎ ﻓﺘﻌﺬﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ‏) وقال: “ﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺖ ﻻﺑﺪ ﻓﺎﻋﻼ ﻓﺎﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺠﺮ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻟﻪ”
[متفق عليه]
On the authority of Abdullah bn Abbass, I heard the messenger of Allah peace and blessings of Allah be upon him saying:
Every image maker shall be in the fire, a soul shall be made from each of the images he created, and these souls will punish him in the Jahanam” and he said: if you will have to do it, create trees and that which has no life.
[Bukhari and Muslim]

5. Photographs (i.e. pictures taken with cameras) are generally permissible as they neither fall under image creation nor do they fall under imitating the creation of Allah as explained by the Imam above.

The pieces of evidence for this are:

A. Evidence 1:
Ijma’ on the permissibility of usage of mirrors.

Photographic pictures do not create images but only display the original images on a substrate just like mirrors, so, the process of photography is to display the original creation of Allah on a surface (substrate) and not to create a similar image just as mirrors do not do that as well.

B. Evidence 2:

عن عائشة رضي الله عنها قالت: … ﻓَﻘﺎﻝَ ﺭَﺳﻮﻝُ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪِ ﺻَﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪُ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠَّﻢَ : ﺇﻥَّ ﺃﺻْﺤَﺎﺏَ ﻫﺬِﻩ ﺍﻟﺼُّﻮَﺭِ ﻳَﻮﻡَ ﺍﻟﻘِﻴَﺎﻣَﺔِ ﻳُﻌَﺬَّﺑُﻮﻥَ، ﻓﻴُﻘَﺎﻝُ ﻟﻬﻢْ ﺃﺣْﻴُﻮﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺧَﻠَﻘْﺘُﻢْ.
[رواه البخاري]
On the authority of Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her): … so, the messenger of Allah peace and blessings be upon him said: Verily, the owners of these pictures would be punished on the day of resurrection and it shall be said to them ‘give life to what you created’.
[Bukhari]

The point of evidence here is that “it shall be said to them ‘give life to what you created”; will this apply to the one who used a mirror? Definitely no, then the one who produced a photographic image did not create a new being but displayed it or caused it to be displayed on a surface.

C. Evidence 3:

عن ﻋﺎﺋﺸﺔ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: (ﺃﺷﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻋﺬﺍﺑﺎً ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻀﺎﻫﺌﻮﻥ ﺑﺨﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ‏)
‏[ﻣﺘﻔﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‏]

On the authority of Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her): the messenger of Allah peace and blessings be upon him said:
The most punished people on the day of resurrection are those who imitate the creation of Allah.
[Bukhari and Muslim].

The point of evidence here is that the reason for punishment is “imitation of the creation of Allah” and this is not present in photographic images.

6. Mutilated images (even from the ones that are haram to make) are permissible to keep and use. The maker commits a major sin but the user can use it after mutilating it, such as cutting the head, smashing the face, cutting the belly while sparing the head etc.

Evidence:
عن ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﺎﺋﺸﺔ ﺭﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ : ﺩﺧﻞ ﻋﻠﻲّ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﺘﺮﺓ ﺑﻘﺮﺍﻡ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ، ﻓﺘﻠﻮﻥ ﻭﺟﻬﻪ ﺛﻢ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺘﺮ ﻓﻬﺘﻜﻪ، ﺛﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ: ‏( ﺇﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻋﺬﺍﺑﺎً ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳُﺸﺒِّﻬﻮﻥ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ‏). ﻗﺎﻟﺖ ﻋﺎﺋﺸﺔ: ﻓﻘﻄﻌﺘﻪ ﻓﺠﻌﻠﺖ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻭﺳﺎﺩﺗﻴﻦ، ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﻳﺮﺗﻔﻖ ﺑﻬﻤﺎ. ‏
[ﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﻣﺴﻠﻢ‏]
On the authority of the mother of the believers, Aishah may Allah be pleased with her she said: the messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) entered upon me while I covered my self with a blanket on which there was a drawing, his face changed and then he collected the blanket and tore it and he said: “verily the most punished people on the day of resurrection are those who imitate the creation of Allah” Aishah said: I therefore made from it two pillows and the messenger of Allah solla llohu alayhi wasallam used to use it (the pillows).
[Sahih Muslim]

7. Photographic pictures become haram when they are edited on computers and given features not present on the being.
It translates to creation of images and imitation of the creation of Allah.

Eg. Those who edit pictures and give beards to Trump or similar actions

8. Using photographic pictures as profile pictures and display pictures on WhatsApp or websites etc. Based on the opinion of Al-Imam Turki Al-Benali, it is also haram as it falls under excessive veneration of personalities or ones self.

This therefore goes to the brothers who use pictures of scholars as DP or those of Mujahidun to take heed and desist from such.

From the above, it becomes clear that videos of the creations of Allah are generally permissible and it will only become haram if it is made of created characters with full face features, or edited pictures of people or living things.

Having said the above from the fiqh of the people of tawheed, I say Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen is among the scholars who consider photographic pictures to be generally permissible in analogy to the mirror just like majority of contemporary scholars.

9. As for Madkhalis who may attack the Mujahideen for producing videos, we say it is part of their major ignorance since their kings are the ones guilty of the forbidden forms of this issue and even the founders of their school of thought permitted videos generally and some permitted photographic pictures as well. Examples are:
1. Rabee Madkhali (video only)
2. Saalih Al-Munajjid (video and pictures)
3. Muhammad bn Saalih Uthaymeen (video and pictures)
4. Al-Albani of Syria (video only)
5. Mashoor Hasan Al-Salman (video and pictures)
6. Saalih Fawzan (video only)

And many others …

Although I personally consider it to be a laughable ignorance for someone to permit shooting of videos while not permitting shooting of pictures because in shooting a video you are actually shooting between 100-1000 pictures per second. The Sheikh of the Mujahideen, Naasir Al-Fahad (may Allah preserve him) said to him pictures and videos are both the same and haram, that points to his in depth fiqh and comprehension.

10. Printing photographic pictures, hanging them on walls and similar things are also haram as they are similar to point 8 above and also a mean to Shirk which must be blocked.
If at all, there is need for photographic images they should be kept in soft copies, fluid, unstable and moving just like mirror images.

Allah knows best.

Abutawheed Custodian of the Qur’an and Sunnah

Islamic Ruling on Celebrating New Year

Islamic Ruling on Celebrating New Year

This question reads: What is the ruling on celebrating New Year and does the ruling differs if it is celebrated with the Christians and if it is celebrated with the Muslims?

Answer:

The Muslims do not have other than Eidul Fitr and Eidul Ad’haa, including the day of Jum’ah – as their eid, according the Sunnah. Thus, introducing a festival and celebrating it or giving compliments and congratulations on such occasion is an innovation whether it is done with the Muslims or with the Kuffaar. But if the festival is one of the festivals of the Kuffaar whether the Christians, the Jews, the Pagans and their likes, the prohibition of participating in it is more pronounced. Rather, some scholars declared the participant a Kaafir – and Allah’s refuge is sought! Allah, the Exalted says:

“And those who do not witness falsehood” [al-Furqaan 25:72] It was narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbaas that this refers to the festivals of the idol worshippers.

Umar bn al-Khattaab may Allah be pleased with him said: Do not enter upon the idolaters in their churches and temples on their festive day, for anger descends upon them. (Reported by al-Baihaqi with a sound chain of narration)

Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (May Allah be pleased with both of them) said: The one who follows the tradition of non-Muslims and observes their Nawrooz and Mahrajaan (festivals), and imitates them until he dies like that, will be gathered with them on the Day of Resurrection. (Reported by al-Baihaqi with a good chain of narration)

Imaam Maalik – May Allah have mercy on him – also said: They should not help them in any part of their festivals, because that is like venerating their shirk and helping them in their kufr. The authorities should forbid the Muslims to do that.

Imaam Ibnul Qayyim – May Allah have mercy upon him – said: And as for congratulating Kuffār on the rituals which are specific to them, then it is Ḥarām by the agreement (of the Muslims), for example congratulating them on their festivals and fasts by saying: ‘A happy festival to you’ or ‘May you enjoy your festival,’ and so on, so if the one who says this is save from Kufr, it is still forbidden, and it is like congratulating someone for prostrating to the cross, rather that is greater of a sin in the sight of Allāh. And it is more hateful (to Allāh) than congratulating someone for drinking wine, or killing an innocent soul, or committing adultery, and the likes of it, and many of those who have no respect for their religion fall into that (error); without realising the offensiveness of their action, so whoever congratulates a person for his disobedience or bid’ah or kufr has exposed himself to the wrath and anger of Allāh. End quote

Abu Hafs al-Hanafi also said: Whoever gives out an egg as a gift to an idol worshipper as a way of venerating the festive day, such as disbelieved in Allah.

Allah’s aid is sought.

~ Shaykh Imaam Turki Ben’ali – May Allah have mercy on him

Transcribed by Abu Ubaidah

Exposing The Ignorance of AbdulGaniyy Jum’ah

البراهين الساطعة في كشف جهالات عبد الغني جمعة

((وكذلك نفصل الآيات ولتستبين سبيل المجرمين))

ﺍﻟﺤﻤﺪ ﻟﻠﻪ ﻣﻌﺰ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﺑﻨﺼﺮﻩ , ﻭﻣﺬﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻙ ﺑﻘﻬﺮﻩ , ﻭﻣﺼﺮﻑ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺑﺄﻣﺮﻩ , ﻭﻣﺴﺘﺪﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻓﺮﻳﻦ ﺑﻤﻜﺮﻩ , ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪﺭ ﺍﻷﻳﺎﻡ ﺩﻭﻻ ﺑﻌﺪﻟﻪ , ﻭﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻗﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺘﻘﻴﻦ ﺑﻔﻀﻠﻪ , ﻭﺃﻓﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﻦ ﻇﻠﻪ , ﻭﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﺩﻳﻨﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻛﻠﻪ , ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﻩ ﻓﻼ ﻳﻤﺎﻧﻊ , ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻠﻴﻘﺘﻪ ﻓﻼ ﻳﻨﺎﺯﻉ , ﻭﺍلآﻣﺮ ﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﺎﺀ ﻓﻼ ﻳﺮﺍﺟﻊ , ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺎﻛﻢ ﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﻓﻼ ﻳﺪﺍﻓﻊ .
ﺃﺣﻤﺪﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻇﻔﺎﺭﻩ ﻭﺇﻇﻬﺎﺭﻩ , ﻭﺇﻋﺰﺍﺯﻩ ﻷﻭﻟﻴﺎﺋﻪ ﻭﻧﺼﺮﻩ ﻷﻧﺼﺎﺭﻩ , نسأله أن يطهر هذا البلد ﻣﻦ ﺃﺩﻧﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻙ ﻭﺃﻭﺿﺎﺭﻩ.
ﻭﺃﺷﻬﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺇﻻ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻻ ﺷﺮﻳﻚ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻷﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﺼﻤﺪ ﻭﺃﺷﻬﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺤﻤﺪﺍ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﻋﺒﺪﻩ ﻭﺭﺳﻮﻟﻪ ﺭﺍﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﻚ , ﻭﺩﺍﺣﺾ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻙ , ﻭﺭﺍﺣﺾ ﺍﻹﻓﻚ , ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺳﺮﻱ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺠﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﺍﻡ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺠﺪ ﺍﻷﻗﺼﻰ , ﻭﻋﺮﺝ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻼ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺳﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﻬﻰ ((ﻋﻨﺪﻫﺎ ﺟﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺄﻭﻯ ﻣﺎ ﺯﺍغ البصر وما طغى))

أما بعد:/
فهذه الرسالة نافعة في كشف جهالات عبد الغني جمعة وبيان ما خفي عليه من عقيدة السلف الصالح في طاعة الأمراء وولاة الأمور وما أوجبه الله تعالى على الطغام إزاءَ هؤلاء الحكام الذين بدّلوا شرع رب الأنام ، لعل الله يهديه ومن يتبعه ويشرح صدرهم للإسلام ((فمن يهدي من أضل الله)).

ابتداء، يجب على المسلم السلفي الناصح لنفسه أن يعلم أن الحاكم إذا بدّل شرع الله وأحلّ الحرام أو حرّم ما أحلّ الله أو عزل الشريعة عن الحكم وحكِّم القوانين الوضعية فهو طاغوت مارد وهذا يُدرَك بالفطرة الضرورية من غير النظر في الأدلة أو سؤال أحد من العلماء.

ولكن لغلبة الجهل وغربة العلم وكثرة من يتكلم بهذه المسألة من الدعاة الضُلّال والملحدين، التبس الأمر فيها على بعض العوامّ من المسلمين ولا سيما الشبّان الذين يحبون اتباع الحق والاقتفاء بما مضى عليه السلف الصالح، فلا تُحقّرْها وأمعن النظر في الأدلة التفصيليّة، لعلّ الله يمنّ عليك بالإيمان الراسخ ويجعلك من القائمين بالقسط والمحاربين لعبادة الأوثان والركون إلى الطواغيت، والله وليّ التوفيق.

فمن الثوابت عند السلف الصالح وعند أهل السنة والجماعة كفرُ من بدّل شريعة الرب وجعل محلّها قوانين الأرباب ، فهذا كافر كفرًا مخرجًا عن الملة بلا ريب، لا خلاف عليه، إلا في هذه الأزمان بكثرة الأئمة المضلّين والقاعدة المقررة عند الأصوليين: لا عبرة بخلاف بعد ورود الإجماع. ومصداق ذلك قول الله تعالى في محكم تنزيله:

((أَمۡ لَهُمۡ شُرَڪَـٰٓؤُاْ شَرَعُواْ لَهُم مِّنَ ٱلدِّينِ مَا لَمۡ يَأۡذَنۢ بِهِ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَلَوۡلَا ڪَلِمَةُ ٱلۡفَصۡلِ لَقُضِىَ بَيۡنَہُمۡ ۗ وَإِنَّ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ لَهُمۡ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ))

وقوله تعالى:
((وَلَا يُشۡرِكُ فِى حُكۡمِهِۦۤ أَحَدًا)) كما قال في نفس السورة: ((وَلَا يُشۡرِكۡ بِعِبَادَةِ رَبِّهِۦۤ أَحَدَۢا)) فيُعلم أن الإشراك بالله في الحكم يعني في التشريع، كالإشراك بالله في العبادة تماماً، وتحقيق توحيد العبادة لا يتحقق إلا بتحكيم شرع الله والخضوع له والرد إليه عند التنازع والاختلاف، كما قال الشيخ العلامة مفتي الديار السعودية محمد بن إبراهيم رحمه الله : (إنّ من الكفر الأكبر المستبين، تنزيل القانون اللعين منزلة ما نزل به الروح الأمين على قلب محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ليكون من المنذرين، بلسان عربي مبين والردّ إليه عند تنازع المتنازعين، مناقضة ومعاندة لقول الله عزّ وجلّ : {فإنْ تنازعتُم في شيءٍ فرُدّوه إلى اللهِ والرسولِ إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر ذلك خيرٌ وأحسنُ تأويلاً}.) انتهى كلامه رحمه الله

[انظر: رسالة تحكيم القوانين]

وقال الشيخ العلامة محمد الأمين بن محمد المختار الشنقيطي رحمه الله: ﻭﺑﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺫﻛﺮﻧﺎﻫﺎ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺷﺮﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺃﻭﻟﻴﺎﺋﻪ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﺔ ﻟﻤﺎ ﺷﺮﻋﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﺰ ﻭﺟﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺭﺳﻠﻪ ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺸﻚ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻔﺮﻫﻢ ﻭﺷﺮﻛﻬﻢ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻦ ﻃﻤﺲ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺼﻴﺮﺗﻪ ﻭﺃﻋﻤﺎﻩ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﻣﺜﻠﻬﻢ. انتهى

[انظر: أضواء البيان في إيضاح القرآن بالقرآن]

وقال أيضا: ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺠﺐ ﻣﻤﻦ ﻳﺤﻜِّﻢ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺛﻢ ﻳﺪﻋﻲ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ.

وقال أيضا: ﻭﻟﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺮﻳﻊ ﻭﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ، ﺷﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻭ ﻛﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻗﺪﺭﻳﺔ، ﻣﻦ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﻮﺑﻴﺔ، ﻛﻤﺎ ﺩﻟﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻵﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺗﺒﻊ ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻌﺎً ﻏﻴﺮ ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺗﺨﺬ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮِّﻉ ﺭﺑّﺎً، ﻭﺃﺷﺮﻛﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ. انتهى

وقال أيضا: ﺍﻋﻠﻤﻮﺍ ﺃﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﺧﻮﺍﻥ : ﺃﻥَّ ﺍﻹﺷﺮﺍﻙ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻜﻤﻪ ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺮﺍﻙ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺗﻪ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻻ ﻓﺮﻕ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺃﻟﺒﺘﺔ ﻓﺎﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺒﻊ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﺎً ﻏﻴﺮ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺗﺸﺮﻳﻌﺎً ﻏﻴﺮ ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ – ﺃﻭ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺎ ﺷﺮﻋﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ – ﻭﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﺎً ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﺎً ﻟﺸﺮﻉ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻣُﻌْﺮِﺿَﺎً ﻋﻦ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻧﺰﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﺴﺎﻥ ﺭﺳﻮﻟﻪ … ﻣﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺼﻨﻢ ﻭﻳﺴﺠﺪ ﻟﻠﻮﺛﻦ ﻻ ﻓﺮﻕ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺃﻟﺒﺘﺔ ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﻩ، ﻓﻬﻤﺎ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ، ﻛﻼﻫﻤﺎ ﻣﺸﺮﻙ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻪ، ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﺷﺮﻙ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺗﻪ، ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﺷﺮﻙ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻜﻤﻪ، ﻛﻼﻫﻤﺎ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ. انتهى كلامه رحمه الله

[انظر تفسيره رحمه الله لآية ((اتخذوا أحبارهم ورهبانهم أربابا من دون الله))]

وقال الشيخ العلامة أحمد شاكر رحمه الله: ﺇﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻭﺿﻮﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺲ ، ﻫﻲ ﻛﻔﺮ ﺑﻮﺍﺡ ﻻ ﺧﻔﺎﺀ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻭﻻ ﻣﺪﺍﻭﺭﺓ ﻭﻻ ﻋﺬﺭ ﻷﺣﺪ ﻣﻤﻦ ﻳﻨﺘﺴﺐ ﻟﻺﺳﻼﻡ ـ ﻛﺎﺋﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ـ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺨﻀﻮﻉ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺇﻗﺮﺍﺭﻫﺎ ﻓﻠﻴﺤﺬﺭ ﺍﻣﺮﺅ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺍﻣﺮﺉ ﺣﺴﻴﺐ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ.
[انظر: عمدة التفسير]

ويقول الشيخ الفوزان في شرح رسالة فضل الإسلام: ومن الدخول في الإسلام كافة تحكيم الشريعة ، فهذه من أمور الإسلام ، فالذي يدَّعي أنه مسلم، ولكنه يعزل الشريعة عن الحكم ويحكِّم القوانين ، فهذا ليس مسلما، قال تعالى: ((ألم تر إلى الذين يزعمون…)) إلى قوله: أما الذي يُقصي الحكم بما أنزل الله نهائياً ويجعل محل ذلك القوانين ، هذا ليس بمسلم ولو كان يزعم أنه مسلم، وهذا في القرآن. انتهى كلامه
[شرح فضل الإسلام ، باب وجوب الدخول في الإسلام كله وترك ما سواه: ص ٧٠-٧١]

هذا طرف من كلام أهل العلم ونتف من أقوال السلف الصالح في شرك الحكام المحكّمين للقانون اللعين، ثم بعد هذه الأقوال الواضحة التي لا تحتمل أي شبهة – ولا نجد أحدا من السلف ينكر شيئا من ذلك – تسمع عبد الغني جمعة ومن يسلك منواله من الألارويين الملاعن يقولون: كفر هؤلاء الحكام كفر دون كفر مستدلين جهلًا وغدرًا بقول ابن عباس رضي الله عنه، وما أحسنَ قول الشيخ العلامة المحدّث أحمد شاكر رحمه الله حيث يقول بعد أن ذكر الآثار التي وردت عن ابن عباس:

“ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻭﻏﻴﺮﻩ، ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻌﺐ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﻠﻠﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺮﻧﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ، ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺴﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻢ، ﻭﻣﻦ ﻏﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﺮﺁﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ : ﻳﺠﻌﻠﻮﻧﻬﺎ ﻋﺬﺭًﺍ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺑﺎﺣﺔً ﻟﻠﻘﻮﺍﻧﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﺔ، ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺿﺮﺑﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻼﺩ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ.” انتهى كلام الشيخ رحمه الله

والمقصود أن آثار ابن عباس رضي الله عنه مع صحتها، لا تتناول الحكام المبدّلين لشرع الله والمحكّمين للقوانين المخالفة لشريعة رب السماوات والأرض ، كما قال الشيخ محمد بن إبراهيم آل الشيخ أيضًا:

ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﻴﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻛﻔﺮ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻛﻔﺮ ، ﺇﺫﺍ ﺣﺎﻛﻢ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻋﺎﺹ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺤﻖ ، ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﺪﺭ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺓ ﻭﻧﺤﻮﻫﺎ ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﻌﻞ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻦ ﺑﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻭﺗﺨﻀﻴﻊ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻛﻔﺮ ، ﻭﺇﻥ ﻗﺎﻟﻮﺍ ﺃﺧﻄﺄﻧﺎ ﻭﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻉ ﺃﻋﺪﻝ، ففرّق بين المقرّر ، والمثبّت ، والمرجع ، جعلوه هو المرجع، فهذا كفر ناقل عن الملّة. [مجموع فتاوى الشيخ محمد بن إبراهيم]

والعجب أن هذا الرجل الزائغ الحائر – أعني : عبد الغني جمعة – يقول بكفرية الديمقراطية ويردّ على الدكاتير المغرضين المُشايعين الذين يحثُّون الشباب على المشاركة في الانتخابت الديموقراطية، فلا يُغرّ بذلك مسلمٌ ، فقد اشتبه عليه الأمر – هداه الله – فينكر أشد النكير على من كفّر الحكام الطغاة ، ويصفهم بالخارجية ويحذّر الناس منهم ويوجب على المسلمين طاعةَ الطواغيت ومتابعتهم والدعاء لهم بالخير ، ونسمع رنين صوته دائما أنه يجب على المسلم أن يعتقد وجوب طاعة محمد بخاري وملئه ومع ذلك يقول: الديمقراطية كفر. فإذا كان يُلزم الشبابَ طاعتهم ويصفهم بصفات الإسلام، وأنهم ولاة الأمور ، وأن من تكلم فيهم فهو خارجي، فكيف أيضًا يصفهم بالكفر وأن الديمقراطية كفر وأن انتخابت الديمقراطية وسيلة إلى الكفر ، وما أحسن قول الله تعالى: ((والذين يحاجّون في الله من بعد ما استجيب له حجتهم داحضة)) [الشورى] وقوله تعالى: ((والسماء ذات الحبك• إنكم لفي قول مختلف• يؤفك عنه من أفك)) [الذاريات] وقوله: ((بل كذّبوا بالحق لما جاءهم فهم في أمر مريج)) [ق: ٥]

ورحم الله من قال:
يظنون أن الدين لبيك في الفــــــلا ***

وفعل الصلاة والسكوت عن المــــلا

وسالم وخالط من لذا الدين قد قلا ***

وما الدين إلا الحب والبغض والولا

فرحمه الله امرأ نظر في نفسه، وتدبر فيما جاء من الآيات المحكامات وأقوال أئمة ملة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم في أن من وضع قانوناً مخالفاً لما نزل به الروح الأمين على قلب الرسول الأمين فهو طاغوت مشرك يجب تكفيره وبغضه ومعاداته ومجاهدته حسب القدرة. فإذا ثبت بالنصوص القرآنية وتصاريح علماء السلفية كفر هؤلاء الحكام وردتهم فكيف يتصور لمن له أدنى البصيرة وأقل الإيمان أنه يجب طاعتهم وأن من تكلم فيهم يكون خارجياً مارقاً – إنا لله وإنا إليه راجعون – هذه فضيحة عظيمة ؛ من عرف هذا عرف غربة الإسلام وعرف جهل عبد الغني جمعة وأشياعه بمعنى لا إلـٰه إلا الله، وتبين له بعدهم عن الإسلام والسنة والسلفية.

أما قولهم: يجب طاعة محمد بخاري والحكام المحكمين للقوانين الوثنية، وأنه لا يجوز الكلام فيهم ولا القيام عليهم، فنردّ على دعاواهم الفظيعة وعقائدهم المنحرفة القبيحة بأقوال سلف الأمة وعلماء أهل السنة، فاستمع وتنبّه إن أردتَ الإنصاف وتجرّدتَ من التعصّب والاعتساف.

قال ابن حجر في “الفتح” [13/7]: (إذا وقع من السلطان الكفر الصريح فلا تجوز طاعته في ذلك، بل تجب مجاهدته لمن قدر عليها) اهـ

وقال النووي في شرحه لصحيح مسلم [12/229]: (قال القاضي عياض: أجمع العلماء على أن الإمامة لا تنعقد لكافر، وعلى أنه لو طرأ عليه الكفر انعزل، وقال وكذا لو ترك إقامة الصلاة والدعاء إليها…فلو طرأ عليه الكفر وتغيير الشرع أو البدعة خرج عن حكم الولاية، وسقطت طاعته، ووجب على المسلمين القيام عليه ، وخلعه ونصب إمام عادل إن أمكنهم ذلك ،فإن لم يقع ذلك إلا لطائفة وجب عليهم القيام بخلع الكافر ، ولا يجب في المبتدع إلا إذا ظنوا القدرة عليه ، فإن تحققوا العجز لم يجب القيام ، وليهاجر المسلم عن أرضه إلى غيرها، ويفر بدينه…) اهـ

وقال شيخ الإسلام محمد بن عبد الوهاب:
إن هؤلاء الطواغيت الذين يعتقد الناس فيهم وجوب الطاعة من دون الله كلهم كفار مرتدون عن الإسلام كيف لا ، وهم يحلون ما حرم الله ويحرمون ما أحل الله ويسعون في الأرض فسادا بقولهم وفعلم وتأييدهم ، ومن جادل عنهم أو زعم أن فعلهم هذا لو كان باطلا لا ينقل إلى الكفر فأقل أحوال هذا المجادل أنه فاسق لأنه لا يصح دين الإسلام إلا بالبراءة من هؤلاء و تكفيرهم. [انظر الرسائل الشخصية : ص 188]

وقال الشيخ محمد بن صالح العثيمين: ولو أن وليا من ولاة الأمور قال لشعب: إن الخمر حلال، اشربوا ما شئتم، وإن لواط حلال، تلوطوا بمن شئتم، وإن الزنى حلال، ازنوا بمن شئتم، فهذا كفر بواح، ما فيه إشكال، هذا يجب على الرعية أن يزيلوه بكل وسيلة ولو بالقتل؛ لأن هذا كفر بواح. [شرح رياض الصالحين، دار الآفاق العربية: 1/569]

فتأمّل قول السلف – رحمهم اللهم تعالى كيف صرّحوا بتحريم طاعة حكّام الكفر وحكى القاضي عياض الإجماع على سقوط طاعتهم ووجوب القيام عليهم ومجاهدتهم عند القدرة، وتأمّل قوله: وليهاجر المسلم عن أرضه إلى غيرها، ويفر بدينه. انتهى وتأمّل قول الشيخ ابن عثيمين: فهذا كفر بواح، ما فيه إشكال، هذا يجب على الرعية أن يزيلوه بكل وسيلة ولو بالقتل؛ لأن هذا كفر بواح. انتهى

وأعداء التوحيد يبدّعون من تكلم في حكام الكفر ويتّهمونهم بالخروج من الدين وأنهم قُطبيّون ، بل وقد جعلوا هذا أصلا من أصول السلفية ومن أصول أهل السنة والجماعة مستدلين زُورًا بقول الإمام أحمد والإمام البربهاري وما فهموا قولهما رحمهما الله، وندعوهم أن يأتوا خاضعين متذلّلين مذعنين حتى نبيّن لهم قول الإمامين رحمهما الله وأجزل مثوبتهما. فأهل السنة والجماعة والسلف الصالح قاطبة لا يجوّزون طاعة الطواغيت ومتابعتهم كما لا يجوّزون الخروج على ولاة الأمور من المسلمين وإن كانوا فجارًا فساقًا، بل ولا يرون صحة إمارة لا تقيم التوحيد.

قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله: فأهل السّنّة عندما لا يُجوِّزون الخروج على الأئمّة بمجرّد الظلم والفسوق ، لأنّ الفجور والظلم لا يعني تضييعهم للدّين ، فيقصدون الإمام الذي يحكم بشرع الله ، لأنّ السّلف الصّالح لم يعرفوا إمارة لا تحافظ على الدّين ، فهذه عندهم ليست إمارة ، وإنّما الإمارة هي ما أقامت الدّين ، ثمّ بعد ذلك قد تكون إمارة برّة أو إمارة فاجرة . انتهى كلامه رحمه الله [ منهاج السنة 1/ 146]

فتأمّل هذا تأمّلا جيّدًا لعلك أن تسلم من هذه الهوة الكبيرة الفوهاء والهوتة الفسيحة الفيحاء التي هلك فيها كثير من الأنام، بل كثير من المدّعين للسلفية في هذا الأوان، فما أقلَّ من نجا منها! ما أقلَّه، ما أقلَّه!

نسأل الله السلامة والعافية والهدى والاستقامة على منهج السلفية المبارك. وصلى الله على نبينا محمد وآله وصحبه وسلّم تسليما كثيرا.

أخوكم: أبو عبيدة

٨ رجب ١٤٤٠ هـ

١٥/٣/٢٠١٩

Audio: The Tawheed of Worship (Yoruba)

TrulySalafiyyah ... The Nascent ٍSalafi Da'awah from the Regions of Yoruba Land

The Tawheed of Worship

This is an audio lecture from a two-days seminar organized in 2013.

Delivered by: Abutawheed Aningiriyyi

Download Part 1      7mb

Download Part 2      9mb 

View original post