Taken from “Adwa ‘ala qadiyyah at-tahakum”
(The fifth mistake) Not differentiating between the one who worships Taghout and the one who rejects it.
“Some of the people say: ”Al-Hukm is worship. And the gathering of Taghout is a gathering of worship. So anyone who answers his call and enters into his gathering he is a Kaafir and engaging in the worship of Taghout, even if he was a Muslim before he showed up.”
I say: This generalization is a mistake and also dangerous. The Tughyan (oppression, trespassing, tyranny) of the Taghout is not only in the short time where he judges between the disputing parties. Verily he is Taghout at every point of time, as long as he is upon his falsehood and his legalization of ruling the people with his desires. And likewise his followers, they are not only Kuffaar during the gathering only, instead they are Kuffaar as long as they are pleased with following his law.
And the Muslim rejects Taghout and he is not a Kaafir just by entering upon the Taghout since entering upon him is allowed in the law of Allah. And by looking at the following examples it becomes clear to you that this generalization is a mistake and also the mistake of accusing every single person who enters upon the Taghout of Kuffr, or everyone who speaks a word in the gathering of his Hukm:
(The first) An arrogant Taghout sent for two Muslim men saying to them: “Complaints have reached me that you reject our religion and the worship of our statue and I want from you to come to us early in the morning for both of you to worship our statue with us. And if you do not attend then I will make an example out of you for others (by punishing you).”
So the two men disagreed. One of them said:
“I will go to them and tell them the truth.” And the other one
said: “I will not enter a gathering of worship for others than
Allah. Instead I flee with my religion.”
So when the first man went to them and enter upon the place of the meeting, they demanded from him that he should worship the statue. But he rejected this and called them towards Tawheed and the Baraa (disassociation) towards Shirk. So either they accepted Islam or they got angry with him and killed him. So which one of these two men are the highest in status in terms of Aqeedah?
I think there is not disagreement regarding the fact that the first one is higher in status and higher in rank than the second. Because he stood in the position of those who speak the truth and he established the argument upon the falsedoers. And therefore not every entering upon a gathering of worship of others than Allah is Kuffr that takes a person out of the fold of Islam. Verily is the entering according to the intention of the one who enters.
(The second) Two men were spreading the Aqeedah of Islam and this angered the people of jahiliyyah, so they plotted against the two men and they accused them of falsehood and fabricated lots of lies about them. Then they presented this to the tyrannical leader so he sent for them and demanded them to come in a specific time. So the two men disagreed So the two men disagreed. The first one said: “I will go to them and clarify the truth for them.” And the other one said: “I will not enter a gathering of worship; instead I flee with my religion and leave the country.”
So when the first one went to them and he came to the gathering they mentioned the accusations for him. So he refuted them and made clear the falsehood (of the accusations). Then they learned that he was innocent so they left him and his companion alone. So which one of the two men are highest in status in terms of Aqeedah?
I say: ”The first one is higher in rank and status than the second one, because he relieved those who calls towards Islam from the fake accusations while he did not say anything but the truth.”
So if it is said: He committed Kuffr by answering the invitation and entering the gathering. Then I say: If this person commits Kuffr then verily has the one who was invited to worship the statue also committed Kuffr in the first example.
So if it is said: This person is Mutahakim (a person who seeks judgment).
Then I say: The Mutahakim seeks (the judgment) himself while this person was sought and did not do what he was ordered to do. And his intention is put before the intention of the Kaafir. And verily did he take the position of Yusuf and Ja’far ibn abi Talib and his companions.
So if it is said: He is Mutahakim in the ‘urf (custom, habit, tradition). Then I say: He is not Mutahakim in the Shar’ (Law of Allah). And the Shar’ is more entitled to be followed while the ‘urf of the jahiliyyah not is a source of religious verdicts and judgments.
So if it is said: The issue of the Sahabah was a dispute regarding religion and in the likes of these it is allowed to appear in front of Taghout in order to fulfill the truth and abolishing the falsehood.
I say: The dispute in religion and the dispute in belongings and blood all of it is disputes between two parties and the Taghout wants to give a verdict/judgment in order to resolve all of the disputes. So whoever found a dalil for differentiating between the types of disputes then let him come with it. And whoever does not find a dalil then let him fear Allah and not differentiate between the types of disputes according to his own opinion and not add judgments in the book of Allah that Allah has not sent down any authority for.
(The sixth mistake) Not differentiating between the gatherings of Kuffr:
Some of the people say: ”The gathering of Taghout is a gathering of Kuffr, and especially the courtroom, so whoever sits in it is Kaafir just like them.” And in this they do not differentiate between the different gatherings of Kuffr. And the gatherings of Kuffr are not all on the same level from the Islamic perspective. So the result of this general saying is that they declare Takfeer upon the one who does not deserve Takfeer. The gatherings of Kuffr are of two types:
(The first) A gathering that it is not allowed for a Muslim to sit in, and that is the gathering where the Ayaat (signs, verses, etc.) of Allah is rejected and made fun of. So whoever sits without ikrah (compulsion) or nisyaan (forgetting), and without answering the disbelievers back, and without any lawful benefit that allows for him to sit therein then he with Allah has become just like them. Regarding the judgments of this life then he becomes a persistent Murtad (apostate) due to this. Or perhaps he is a Munafiq (hypocrite) such as the one who this reoccurs from but every time he excuses himself with good intention or other than this from that which the Munafiqun excuses themselves with.
“They swear by Allah (saying): ‘All we wanted was goodwill and conciliation.’” [4:62]
And verily did the prohibition against these kinds of gathering come in the following verses:
“And when you (Muhammad) see those who engage in a false conversation about Our Verses (of the Qur'ān) by mocking at them, stay away from them till they turn to another topic. And if Shaitān (Satan) causes you to forget, then after the remembrance sit not you in the company of those people who are the dhālimûn (polytheists and wrongdoers, etc.). Those who fear Allāh, keep their duty to Him and avoid evil are not responsible for them (the disbelievers) in any case, but (their duty) is to remind them, that they may avoid that (mockery at the Qur'ān).” [6:68-69]
And He said:
”And it has already been revealed to you in the Book (this Qur'ān) that when you hear the Verses of Allāh being denied and mocked at, then sit not with them, until they engage in a talk other than that; (but if you stayed with them) certainly in that case you would be like them. Surely, Allāh will collect the hypocrites and disbelievers all together in Hell.” [4:140]
(The second) A gathering where Allah is rejected and despite of that it is allowed for a Muslim to sit in it even if it is for some time. And some of the examples of this are the following:
1) A gathering of da’wah and debate: In the Quran a lot is mentioned about what happened between the messengers and the Mushrikeen, when the Mushrikeen rejected Allah, His messengers and the Last Day while the messengers advised them and answered them back with goodness.
His messengers and the Last Day while the messengers advised them and answered them back with goodness.
2) A gathering of negotiations: Verily was it allowed for the Prophet (saws) and his companions to negotiate with the Kuffaar and to agree with them on some issues. All this while they witnessed for themselves that they were upon Kuffr and they clarified that they did not believe in the message of Allah. Just like what happened at Sulh Al-Hudaybiyah. Because verily did they refuse to write “Ar-Rahman” and to write “Messenger of Allah”.
And the negotiations would be completed while the Muslims not were besieged nor under compulsion. Rather the superior benefits for them made them reach agreement in the negotiations, such as achieving a time of safety in which they would perform the ‘Umrah or a chance for making Da’wah or preparing for a final battle.
So when the first man went to them and enter upon the place of the meeting, they demanded from him that he should worship the statue. But he rejected this and called them towards Tawheed and the Baraa (disassociation) towards Shirk. So either they accepted Islam or they got angry with him and killed him. So which one of these two men are the highest in status in terms of Aqeedah?
I think there is not disagreement regarding the fact that the first one is higher in status and higher in rank than the second. Because he stood in the position of those who speak the truth and he established the argument upon the falsedoers. And therefore not every entering upon a gathering of worship of others than Allah is Kuffr that takes a person out of the fold of Islam. Verily is the entering according to the intention of the one who enters.
(The second) Two men were spreading the Aqeedah of Islam and this angered the people of jahiliyyah, so they plotted against the two men and they accused them of falsehood and fabricated lots of lies about them. Then they presented this to the tyrannical leader so he sent for them and demanded them to come in a specific time. So the two men disagreed So the two men disagreed. The first one said: “I will go to them and clarify the truth for them.” And the other one said: “I will not enter a gathering of worship; instead I flee with my religion and leave the country.”
So when the first one went to them and he came to the gathering they mentioned the accusations for him. So he refuted them and made clear the falsehood (of the accusations). Then they learned that he was innocent so they left him and his companion alone. So which one of the two men are highest in status in terms of Aqeedah?
I say: ”The first one is higher in rank and status than the second one, because he relieved those who calls towards Islam from the fake accusations while he did not say anything but the truth.”
So if it is said: He committed Kuffr by answering the invitation and entering the gathering. Then I say: If this person commits Kuffr then verily has the one who was invited to worship the statue also committed Kuffr in the first example.
So if it is said: This person is Mutahakim (a person who seeks judgment).
Then I say: The Mutahakim seeks (the judgment) himself while this person was sought and did not do what he was ordered to do. And his intention is put before the intention of the Kaafir. And verily did he take the position of Yusuf and Ja’far ibn abi Talib and his companions.
So if it is said: He is Mutahakim in the ‘urf (custom, habit, tradition). Then I say: He is not Mutahakim in the Shar’ (Law of Allah). And the Shar’ is more entitled to be followed while the ‘urf of the jahiliyyah not is a source of religious verdicts and judgments.
So if it is said: The issue of the Sahabah was a dispute regarding religion and in the likes of these it is allowed to appear in front of Taghout in order to fulfill the truth and abolishing the falsehood.
I say: The dispute in religion and the dispute in belongings and blood all of it is disputes between two parties and the Taghout wants to give a verdict/judgment in order to resolve all of the disputes. So whoever found a dalil for differentiating between the types of disputes then let him come with it. And whoever does not find a dalil then let him fear Allah and not differentiate between the types of disputes according to his own opinion and not add judgments in the book of Allah that Allah has not sent down any authority for.
(The sixth mistake) Not differentiating between the gatherings of Kuffr:
Some of the people say: ”The gathering of Taghout is a gathering of Kuffr, and especially the courtroom, so whoever sits in it is Kaafir just like them.” And in this they do not differentiate between the different gatherings of Kuffr. And the gatherings of Kuffr are not all on the same level from the Islamic perspective. So the result of this general saying is that they declare Takfeer upon the one who does not deserve Takfeer. The gatherings of Kuffr are of two types:
(The first) A gathering that it is not allowed for a Muslim to sit in, and that is the gathering where the Ayaat (signs, verses, etc.) of Allah is rejected and made fun of. So whoever sits without ikrah (compulsion) or nisyaan (forgetting), and without answering the disbelievers back, and without any lawful benefit that allows for him to sit therein then he with Allah has become just like them. Regarding the judgments of this life then he becomes a persistent Murtad (apostate) due to this. Or perhaps he is a Munafiq (hypocrite) such as the one who this reoccurs from but every time he excuses himself with good intention or other than this from that which the Munafiqun excuses themselves with.
“They swear by Allah (saying): ‘All we wanted was goodwill and conciliation.’” [4:62]
And verily did the prohibition against these kinds of gathering come in the following verses:
“And when you (Muhammad) see those who engage in a false conversation about Our Verses (of the Qur'ān) by mocking at them, stay away from them till they turn to another topic. And if Shaitān (Satan) causes you to forget, then after the remembrance sit not you in the company of those people who are the dhālimûn (polytheists and wrongdoers, etc.). Those who fear Allāh, keep their duty to Him and avoid evil are not responsible for them (the disbelievers) in any case, but (their duty) is to remind them, that they may avoid that (mockery at the Qur'ān).” [6:68-69]
And He said:
”And it has already been revealed to you in the Book (this Qur'ān) that when you hear the Verses of Allāh being denied and mocked at, then sit not with them, until they engage in a talk other than that; (but if you stayed with them) certainly in that case you would be like them. Surely, Allāh will collect the hypocrites and disbelievers all together in Hell.” [4:140]
(The second) A gathering where Allah is rejected and despite of that it is allowed for a Muslim to sit in it even if it is for some time. And some of the examples of this are the following:
1) A gathering of da’wah and debate: In the Quran a lot is mentioned about what happened between the messengers and the Mushrikeen, when the Mushrikeen rejected Allah, His messengers and the Last Day while the messengers advised them and answered them back with goodness.
His messengers and the Last Day while the messengers advised them and answered them back with goodness.
2) A gathering of negotiations: Verily was it allowed for the Prophet (saws) and his companions to negotiate with the Kuffaar and to agree with them on some issues. All this while they witnessed for themselves that they were upon Kuffr and they clarified that they did not believe in the message of Allah. Just like what happened at Sulh Al-Hudaybiyah. Because verily did they refuse to write “Ar-Rahman” and to write “Messenger of Allah”.
And the negotiations would be completed while the Muslims not were besieged nor under compulsion. Rather the superior benefits for them made them reach agreement in the negotiations, such as achieving a time of safety in which they would perform the ‘Umrah or a chance for making Da’wah or preparing for a final battle.
3) A gathering of allowed transactions: A Muslim may enter into transactions with a disbelieving people such as selling, buying, renting and contracts and he may marry a woman of the people of the book and he may take a Mushrikah as his concubine. And Islam has not made it a condition for the validity of these agreements that the Kaafir does not say anything about his religion of Kuffr during the agreement or after it.
So the one who marries a christian woman will hear from her that she calls upon a created being besides Allah and she will say: ”My lord is ’Isa”, and she believes in the crucification, the redemption and other than this, but it is not allowed for him to beat her or flee from his house because of her Kuffr. But instead he should try to discuss with her with that which is better so she may accept Islam in complete freedom. And he should not dispute with her continuously every day because he married her while he knew about her Kuffr. Instead he should bide his time for a suitable chance for making Da’wah towards Allah.
So what is it that prevents a Muslim from sitting with the Kuffaar to free himself from dangerous accusations which will perhaps cause the end of his life be the reason for him fleeing his country in which his family is in, and he can live there while making Da’wah towards Allah.
When a gathering includes disbelievers and a Muslim and everytime they speak words of falsehood he speaks words of truth, clarifies what is correct, rejects their falsehood and do not accept any law or judgment from them, then he has verily fulfilled what is obligatory upon him and then they can choose between wronging and trespassing against him or leaving him alone.
Verily the Kuffaar claim that they are in a holy lawful courtroom while the Muslim believes that he is in front of a worthless Taghout who has written his desires or the desires of his followers in some papers and named it a law. So he doesn’t acknowledge neither the judge nor his judgments and he speaks and acts according to the limits of the Shari’ah.
And from principles of usul is: “That whatever is forbidden in itself is allowed in necessity and whatever is forbidden in itself is allowed in necessity and whatever is forbidden due to something else is allowed only in need.” And sitting in the gatherings of Kuffr has been prohibited so the Muslim is not affected by their falsehood so that he inclines towards them and follows them in their false religion. And this is proved by the fact that the sitting is not forbidden for the one who debates and disputes and clarifies the invalidity of their religion for them.”
(End of translation)
Translated by: Abu Hajar
Commentary:
We say: This is a short explanation about this issue, even though there are many other arguments which show us that this is not an issue where Takfeer is declared upon a Muwwahhid and even less Takfeer on the one who does not make Takfeer, as some ignorant people do.
Many Mufassirun explain that the ayah 140 of Surah An-Nisa was revealed later, and that the Muslims used to be present in gatherings where Kuffr was done, but no one ever claimed that they were Kuffaar due to this. Also, none ever claimed that it was allowed before the ayah was revealed and then later it would become Kuffr in aslud-deen to be in gatherings where Kuffr or Shirk is done. What is Shirk after the risalah, is also Shirk prior the risalah.
Also, the Muslims in Madinah before the hijrah used to worship Allah the Most High at the Ka’bah, whilst the Mushrikun had more than 300 statues that were worshipped at the same place. The Muslims did not openly reject it, because they were not openly declaring their religion in the beginning. No ‘aaqil (Muslim of sound mind) will say the Sahabah did Kuffr because they were present in a place where Kuffr is done (worship of statues) and did not reject it. The Muslims went there by free will - not under ikrah - to worship Allah alone, whilst the Mushrikun were also present there and practiced their Shirk. So, it is not an issue that is to be considered from the nullifiers of Tawheed.
As another example where staying in a gathering where Kuffr is done is not always Kuffr, is the example of a Muslim spy who infiltrates a group of Mushrikun to get some important information that will benefit the Muslims in the war against them. He will be silent and not making baraa from the Kuffr they are doing, otherwise there is no meaning in being a Muslim spy. If this would be Kuffr in aslud-deen, then it is not allowed for maslaha (a benefit).
The principle of Ahlu Sunnah wa-l-Jammah is, that a Muwwahhid, whom we judged with Islam dhahiran (outwardly) based upon yaqeen (full certainty), is not declared Takfeer upon except with yaqeen that he has committed something which takes him out of the fold of Islam, which means that he does a clear act of Kuffr, for which there is not excuse.
- Another mistake by some juhhal (ignorant people) and extreme people is that they take the 17th ayah of Surah Az-Zumar, 17 where Allah says:
“Those who avoid at-tāghût (false deities) by not worshipping them and turn to Allāh in repentance, for them are glad tidings; so announce the good news to My slaves.”[39:17]
They then use this ayah according to their own interpretation and based on hawaa (lust and desire). So they claim, if you deal with a Taghout in any way, then you have not “avoided” him, but what these people do not know is the prohibition here is to worship to Taghout, by directing any act of worship towards him, and not dealing with him in matters that are not permissible in the religion of Ar-Rahman. Then they (often these people are from Egypt, but their poison and bid’ah has even reached some young Muslims who have not much knowledge in Europe) come with incorrect opinions such as:
- If you take a passport or ID-card from Taghout, then you are a worshipper of him because who have not “avoided” him by action.
- If you stop on a red light, then you have not “avoided” the Taghout and his legislation, so you become a Mushrik and worshipper of Taghout.
- If you call the police to help you - without seeking any judgment - then you are still worshipper of Taghout, because you have not “avoided the institutions” of Taghout.
- If you apply for money from the state (social income), then you have not “avoided” Taghout by actions because the Taghout gives this money based on his legislation.
- If you work as a doctor or nurse then you are a Mushrik because the employer is the ministry of health, or if you do any work that is permissible in its essence, then you are still Kaafir if the employer for the ministry of agriculture for example (a work which is not Haraam if there is not elements of Kuffr or Haraam in it), because you have not “avoided” Taghout by actions, as some claim.
- If you are accused for a crime, and tell them you did not do this, and declare your baraa, then you are still worshipper of Taghout.
These and many more views are the result of misunderstanding this ayah. Ar-Rahman has not forbidden us to deal with the Kaafir and Taghout in matters that are permissible, but the prohibition is in worshipping him by directing any act of I'baadah to him.
As a last example for the reader, we can mention this:
If a person is called or invited to make fornication, to consume alcohol and to gamble in a gathering of Kuffaar, and this Muwwahhid goes there by his own will, tells them what they do is wrong, calls them to make Tawbah and to become Muslims, and that he will never do this actions that they do. Is he guilty of the sins that the others are doing, is he judged like them, because he has not “avoided the gathering of Haraam” or will he be rewarded for commanding good and forbidding evil? No sane person will say: ‘His is like them, because he is present where they made a sin’.
The same is for any other gathering where sins are committed: If a Muwwahhid goes there to forbid evil and command good, call them to Islam and explains them their falsehood and mistake, he indeed will be rewarded. Those who claim this is Kuffr, has no idea what the reality of Kuffr is, but their Hawaa and lack of knowledge is causing them to think everything is Kuffr and Shirk. After Hujjah, they are considered as Kuffaar, as the Khawarij who used to declare Takfeer upon the Sahabah for matters that were lesser than Shirk and Kuffr.
If you understand this point well, you will see the mistake of those juhhal and extreme people who declare Takfeer upon Muwwahhidun based on their own weak understanding of the issues.
This is our Aqeedah, and those who declare Takfeer upon Muslims based on their wrong understanding of “being present in gatherings of Kuffr” and the issue of “defending yourself in front of Taghout from the accusation” should make Tawbah openly and accept their misunderstanding in this issue. Their opinion in this leads them - even if they reject it - to declaring Takfeer upon the Sahabah, the Tabi'een and all those who came after them. Even worse - it necessitates them declaring Takfeer upon the Prophets who freed themselves from accusations of the wrongdoers and lairs.
No comments:
Post a Comment