So, what’s left from this book we’re going through, is the third and fourth part. The third part of this book is the author mentioning the evidences that the mushrikin use to try to prove their shirk, or try to prove that the shirk that they perform is permissible.
So, he says,
“The people who commit shirk in our times employ another argument similar to the one that has gone before, which they use to refute the opponents.”
So, here when he says opponents, this is talking about Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah, or the Muslimin in general. So, it’s talking about when the Muslimin try to prevent shirk, the kuffar or the mushrikin try to use these evidences to say that it’s allowed or that calling them non-Muslims isn’t allowed.
So, he says that,
“They say the Prophet (saws) reprimanded ‘Usama ibn Zayd when he killed the person who said La ilaha ila Allah, and he told him, “Did you kill him after he said La ilaha ila Allah?”
And the author says,
“They’ve also used the hadith in which the Prophet (saws) said, “I was commanded to fight the people until they say La ilaha ila Allah.” And similar hadith that prohibit harming someone who says La ilaha ila Allah. The point is that these ignorant people, they try to prove all of these ahadith that, someone cannot be a disbeliever, can’t leave Islam, or they can’t be killed no matter what they do. It is said to these ignorant people, it is well-known that the Prophet (saws) fought the Jews and he took them as Kafirs, even though they say La ilaha ila Allah. And also the Companions fought Banu’ Hanifah…”
And we talked about Banu’ Hanifah before, they’re the ones who fought alongside Musaylamah al-Khadab. And they would say La ilaha ila Allah, but despite this, the Sahabah considered them to be disbelievers and fought them as such.
And then he continues and says,
“Also, the Companions fought the tribe of Banu’ Hanifah, even though they testified to La ilaha ila Allah, Muhammdur Rasulullah, and they used to pray, and they claimed to be Muslims, likewise the people whom ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib burnt, used to testify to the same matter.”
And this is going back to what we talked about a few weeks ago, when ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib the Rafidah came up to him, or the beginning of the Rafidah came to him and said, “You are him” meaning you are Allah, so he commanded for a ditch to be dug, and he light the fire in it, and he burnt them all, and that was his punishment for them. So, despite the fact that they claimed to be Muslimin, and said La ilaha ila Allah, and they were praying, and they were from the students of the Sahabah even, despite this, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib not only did he kill them, but he killed them in a way that even other Sahabah made ‘Inkar, or they rebuked him for doing so.
And then he continues, the author, he says,
“And these ignorant people agree that a person who denies the Day of Judgement, becomes a disbeliever and should be executed, even if he says La ilaha ila Allah, as does the one who denies any of the pillars of Islam, he also becomes a disbeliever and should be executed, even if he testifies.”
So, he’s saying here, even ignorant people would agree that if someone says La ilaha ila Allah but says there’s no Yawm al-Qiyamah, that this person wouldn’t be Muslim. And likewise, if someone said La ilaha ila Allah, but said there’s no Salat, and no Zakat, and no Hajj, and no fasting, this person wouldn’t be a Muslim.
So, he says, or he continues and says,
“So, how is it possible that the testimony (saying La ilaha ila Allah), is of no more benefit, to the one who denies something like this. But if the one denies Tawhid itself, that it would benefit him.”
So, how can we say that someone who rejects something from the pillars of Islam, wouldn’t be benefitted by La ilaha ila Allah, but someone who rejects the basis of Islam, which is to worship Allah Alone, that somehow saying La ilaha ila Allah, gives him a benefit. When someone who does something lesser than that, isn’t benefitted by it, and even these people agree to these types of things.
And he continues and he says,
“But
the enemies of Allah did not understand the proper meaning of these
ahadith. As for the hadith of ‘Usama, then it must be understood, that
the reason he killed the man (‘Usama ibn Zayd) who was the Companion of
the Prophet (saws), who professed Islam was he presumed that he only
pretended to accept Islam in order to protect his life or his wealth.
However, when a person outwardly accepts Islam, it becomes obligatory to
hold back from fighting him, unless some other matters appear to
contradict his profession.”
So,
he’s saying here that, when ‘Usama bin Zayd killed this person who said
La ilaha ila Allah, ‘Usama’s arugment was, he was only doing it because
he wanted to protect himself. So, the Prophet (saws), he said, “Did you open his hear to know that?”
So, the point was that ‘Usama ibn Zayd claimed to understand something that was in the heart, because we don’t know what’s in his heart. All we know is in the outside, he’s saying La ilaha ila Allah. So, at this point, it was upon the Sahabi, to only look at the outward appearance of this person and to say, he said La ilaha ila Allah, then we accept it based upon this. And then he says,
“So, Allah revealed because of this, “O who you believe, if you go out in the way of Allah, then verify.” [4:94]
So, Allah revealed this verse to say that, if you are fighting in the way of Allah, verify things before you do something that you might regret.
And then he says,
“Meaning, make sure the person you are fighting is not a Muslim. This verse shows that it is obligatory to refrain from fighting a person who declares himself to be a Muslim, and that verification is needed. So, if after this declaration, something becomes apparent from him that contradicts his Islam, he is to be executed.”
So, the point here is that the author’s saying, if all we have from a person is that they weren’t Muslim, and then now they’re saying La ilaha ila Allah, we take it as them being Muslim, then after that, if we see them as for example worshipping ‘Isa, or making du’a to other than Allah, then we say that claim that he made was false and we don’t accept it anymore, but until we have something else to show us that it was wrong, then we accept it. So, this was the correct understanding of this hadith.
And then he continues and he says,
“Proof for this, is the condition “verify”.
So, meaning that, Allah didn’t say in this verse to never look into the matter again or to accept it unrestrictedly, regardless of what the person does. So, Allah didn’t say, as soon as someone says La ilaha ila Allah, never accept anything that contradicts it from him. So, if you see him worshipping other than Allah, it doesn’t matter, if you see him swearing at Allah, it doesn’t matter, if he rejects the Qur’an, it doesn’t matter. He said, “then verify”. So, if you see something, look into it further, verify, is this the whole story or is there something else going on.
And then he says,
“And, if he were not killed after he professes Islam, no matter what he did, then there would be no point in verifying this claim.”
So, meaning that, if regardless of what he said, it never affected him again, then why did Allah tell us to verify. If we say that, anyone who says La ilaha ila Allah, no matter what he does, he is protected unrestrictedly and will always be Muslim, then Allah told us to verify something pointlessly, so then if we say that, we’re saying that Allah told us to do something that is pointless and that doesn’t make sense, and obviously, no Muslim would accept that.
And then he continues, he says,
“And likewise, all of these other ahadith, that were mentioned, must be understood in the same light. Whoever professes Islam, and claims to be following Tawhid, then it is obligatory to stop harming in except if some matter becomes apparent which contradicts his claim. And another proof for this is the statement of the Prophet (saws) who is the same person who said, “Did you kill him after he said La ilaha ila Allah?”, he said about the Khawarij, “Anywhere that you find them, then kill them.”
So, the Prophet (saws) was the one who said, “Did you kill him after he said La ilaha ila Allah?”, he’s also telling us in other instances, there’s going to be people who say La ilaha ila Allah, anywhere you find them, kill them. So, do we then say that the Prophet (saws) said things that don’t make sense, and they’re contradictory, and we can’t reconcile them, so do we say that, this applies in some instances and this applies in some instances. Obviously, we can’t attribute to the Prophet (saws) that what he said doesn’t make sense, or that it contradicts each other, because this obviously would go against our beliefs as Muslimin.
And then he continues, and he says,
“And he also said (meaning the Prophet (saws)), “If I was to meet them (meaning these Khawarij), I would kill them in the way that ‘Ad was killed.”
So, the people of ‘Ad, the way Allah killed them, meaning that none were left. The Prophet (saws), had the same intention to deal with the Khawarij in that way.
So, then he says, the author,
“This verdict, was given even though they were of those who worshipped Allah fervently and used to praise Allah frequently.”
So, meaning that, these people not only were they Muslimin, but the Prophet (saws) said in some ahadith that you’ll despise your Salat, when you compare it to their Salat, and you’ll despise their ‘Ibadah, when you compared it to your ‘Ibadah. And there’s narrations where, when people would enter the military camps and the armies of the Khawarij, they would hear a noise that sounded like it was bees buzzing, and they would say, “this is from the people, they’re making their Tasbih.” So, the people were so extreme or so strict in their worship of Allah, but despite this, the Prophet (saws) said, “If I meet them, I’ll kill them, the same way that ‘Ad was killed.”
And then he continues and he says,
So, the point was that ‘Usama ibn Zayd claimed to understand something that was in the heart, because we don’t know what’s in his heart. All we know is in the outside, he’s saying La ilaha ila Allah. So, at this point, it was upon the Sahabi, to only look at the outward appearance of this person and to say, he said La ilaha ila Allah, then we accept it based upon this. And then he says,
“So, Allah revealed because of this, “O who you believe, if you go out in the way of Allah, then verify.” [4:94]
So, Allah revealed this verse to say that, if you are fighting in the way of Allah, verify things before you do something that you might regret.
And then he says,
“Meaning, make sure the person you are fighting is not a Muslim. This verse shows that it is obligatory to refrain from fighting a person who declares himself to be a Muslim, and that verification is needed. So, if after this declaration, something becomes apparent from him that contradicts his Islam, he is to be executed.”
So, the point here is that the author’s saying, if all we have from a person is that they weren’t Muslim, and then now they’re saying La ilaha ila Allah, we take it as them being Muslim, then after that, if we see them as for example worshipping ‘Isa, or making du’a to other than Allah, then we say that claim that he made was false and we don’t accept it anymore, but until we have something else to show us that it was wrong, then we accept it. So, this was the correct understanding of this hadith.
And then he continues and he says,
“Proof for this, is the condition “verify”.
So, meaning that, Allah didn’t say in this verse to never look into the matter again or to accept it unrestrictedly, regardless of what the person does. So, Allah didn’t say, as soon as someone says La ilaha ila Allah, never accept anything that contradicts it from him. So, if you see him worshipping other than Allah, it doesn’t matter, if you see him swearing at Allah, it doesn’t matter, if he rejects the Qur’an, it doesn’t matter. He said, “then verify”. So, if you see something, look into it further, verify, is this the whole story or is there something else going on.
And then he says,
“And, if he were not killed after he professes Islam, no matter what he did, then there would be no point in verifying this claim.”
So, meaning that, if regardless of what he said, it never affected him again, then why did Allah tell us to verify. If we say that, anyone who says La ilaha ila Allah, no matter what he does, he is protected unrestrictedly and will always be Muslim, then Allah told us to verify something pointlessly, so then if we say that, we’re saying that Allah told us to do something that is pointless and that doesn’t make sense, and obviously, no Muslim would accept that.
And then he continues, he says,
“And likewise, all of these other ahadith, that were mentioned, must be understood in the same light. Whoever professes Islam, and claims to be following Tawhid, then it is obligatory to stop harming in except if some matter becomes apparent which contradicts his claim. And another proof for this is the statement of the Prophet (saws) who is the same person who said, “Did you kill him after he said La ilaha ila Allah?”, he said about the Khawarij, “Anywhere that you find them, then kill them.”
So, the Prophet (saws) was the one who said, “Did you kill him after he said La ilaha ila Allah?”, he’s also telling us in other instances, there’s going to be people who say La ilaha ila Allah, anywhere you find them, kill them. So, do we then say that the Prophet (saws) said things that don’t make sense, and they’re contradictory, and we can’t reconcile them, so do we say that, this applies in some instances and this applies in some instances. Obviously, we can’t attribute to the Prophet (saws) that what he said doesn’t make sense, or that it contradicts each other, because this obviously would go against our beliefs as Muslimin.
And then he continues, and he says,
“And he also said (meaning the Prophet (saws)), “If I was to meet them (meaning these Khawarij), I would kill them in the way that ‘Ad was killed.”
So, the people of ‘Ad, the way Allah killed them, meaning that none were left. The Prophet (saws), had the same intention to deal with the Khawarij in that way.
So, then he says, the author,
“This verdict, was given even though they were of those who worshipped Allah fervently and used to praise Allah frequently.”
So, meaning that, these people not only were they Muslimin, but the Prophet (saws) said in some ahadith that you’ll despise your Salat, when you compare it to their Salat, and you’ll despise their ‘Ibadah, when you compared it to your ‘Ibadah. And there’s narrations where, when people would enter the military camps and the armies of the Khawarij, they would hear a noise that sounded like it was bees buzzing, and they would say, “this is from the people, they’re making their Tasbih.” So, the people were so extreme or so strict in their worship of Allah, but despite this, the Prophet (saws) said, “If I meet them, I’ll kill them, the same way that ‘Ad was killed.”
And then he continues and he says,
“In
fact, the Companions would feel humbled in front of them due to their
extreme worship, even though the Khawarij learnt from the Sahabah. Their
profession of La ilaha ila Allah did not benefit them, and neither did
their worship and their claim to be Muslims, because they openly showed
to other matters, their rejection of Islamic law.”
So,
he’s saying here that, just because someone says La ilaha ila Allah,
and worships Allah, there’s going to be other things, or there could be
other things that would show that, what they’re doing is invalid, or
it’s not accepted from them.
So, if someone worships Allah and they fast every other day, the fast of Dawud, and they pray in the night and so on, and during the day, you also see them, fighting against Muslimin, or they go to a grave and they worship the person in that grave, or they do something else that would be a nullification of Islam. Then we would say, these actions are correct, except they’re nullified by the other thing, and it doesn’t benefit them whatsoever.
So, just like, in these examples, when the people with ‘Ali, sure they were from the Companions of the Companions or the students of the Companions, and they claimed to be Muslims, but when they said, ‘Ali was Allah, everything else went out the window, it had no benefit, and when Banu’ Hanifah, when they fought alongside Musaylamah, against the Sahabah this nullified everything else that they did, and all of these other examples.
And he says,
“Another proof was the fact that, what was mentioned concerning the fighting against the Jews, and that the Companions fought against Banu’ Hanifah, is that furthermore, the Prophet (saws) intended to attack Bani’ Mustalaq, when a person informed him that they refused to pay Zakat, so Allah revealed, “O you who believe, if an evil person comes to you with news, then verify it.” [49:6]. It was discovered that the person had lied against them. So, all of these evidences show that the Prophet (saws) intended with these ahadith is the explanation that has been given.”
So, we say that, the Prophet (saws) someone came to him and said, this group or this tribe Banu’ Mustalaq, has refused to give the Zakat, and we talked about the Zakat before. Some ‘Ulama’ of Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah say not paying Zakat, takes you out of Islam in and of itself. Others say, if you fight against paying it, it would remove you from Islam. But, in any case, the Prophet (saws) upon hearing this news, had the intention to fight them, even though they claimed Islam, and in the end, Allah revealed this verse to show that, if a action is going to be taken in this type of matter, you need to verify the situation, before you act upon it. So, this is what the author mentioned, for this Shubuha’ or this misconception.
So, just to add a bit about this, first of all, the hadith of ‘Usama ibn Zayd (ra), it’s agreed upon, it’s narrated by Bukhari and Muslim, which is the first evidence that they use. And they try to use it to say that, if someone says La ilaha ila Allah, nothing would ever remove them from Islam, and obviously we know that this is false. And we know from the Prophet (saws) that someone who says La ilaha ila Allah, could be fought at certain times.
So, this is the first thing to mention about this hadith – is to clarify what’s the actual meaning of the hadith of ‘Usama. So, what it means is that, it doesn’t matter that whoever says La ilaha ila Allah, never can leave Islam. What it actually means is, we look on the outside. If someone’s outward appearance happens to be on Islam, then we go with that, until we’re shown otherwise. If someone’s outward appearance appears to be kufr or disbelief, we don’t say, we don’t know what’s in his heart. If he’s a priest, and he dies upon that, we don’t say “We don’t know, maybe he was Muslim inside.” No, we go on…all we saw from him ever was disbelief, we go on that.
If someone was a Muslim, and we don’t know any disbelief from him, we don’t say, “We don’t know what was in his heart, so we can’t bury him with the Muslimin”, or “We can’t pray on him.” We only go on the outside, and this applies both ways. So, this is one thing to mention about the hadith of ‘Usama.
The other thing is that if we look at the way the Prophet (saws) dealt with the Yahud, we know that the Yahud, the majority of them, used to say La ilaha ila Allah, as Allah said in Surah Ali-Imran, which means,
“Say: “O the people of the Book, come to an equal word between us and none of us will take others as Lords.” [3:64]
So, this was referring to the saying of La ilaha ila Allah. So, this is the second thing to mention. So, even the Yahud, we know that they rejected the Prophethood of the Prophet (saws) and before him, ‘Isa (as), and we know that they rejected the Qur’an, and the Injil and so on and so on, but they said La ilaha ila Allah. So, do we then say that, because they say La ilaha ila Allah, they’re Muslimin, or do we say, they say La ilaha ila Allah, but certain beliefs, and actions, and statements that they have, that they do contradict or nullify this testimony. Obviously it’s the second.
So, this is just a few things to add to this, and insha’Allah, we’ll stop there for tonight. Next time, we’ll finish with the rest of the arguments, then after that, we’ll talk about the ending of the book, which is talking about a person who leaves actions, or someone who never does any good deeds and only believes with the heart. Wallahul A’lam.
So, if someone worships Allah and they fast every other day, the fast of Dawud, and they pray in the night and so on, and during the day, you also see them, fighting against Muslimin, or they go to a grave and they worship the person in that grave, or they do something else that would be a nullification of Islam. Then we would say, these actions are correct, except they’re nullified by the other thing, and it doesn’t benefit them whatsoever.
So, just like, in these examples, when the people with ‘Ali, sure they were from the Companions of the Companions or the students of the Companions, and they claimed to be Muslims, but when they said, ‘Ali was Allah, everything else went out the window, it had no benefit, and when Banu’ Hanifah, when they fought alongside Musaylamah, against the Sahabah this nullified everything else that they did, and all of these other examples.
And he says,
“Another proof was the fact that, what was mentioned concerning the fighting against the Jews, and that the Companions fought against Banu’ Hanifah, is that furthermore, the Prophet (saws) intended to attack Bani’ Mustalaq, when a person informed him that they refused to pay Zakat, so Allah revealed, “O you who believe, if an evil person comes to you with news, then verify it.” [49:6]. It was discovered that the person had lied against them. So, all of these evidences show that the Prophet (saws) intended with these ahadith is the explanation that has been given.”
So, we say that, the Prophet (saws) someone came to him and said, this group or this tribe Banu’ Mustalaq, has refused to give the Zakat, and we talked about the Zakat before. Some ‘Ulama’ of Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah say not paying Zakat, takes you out of Islam in and of itself. Others say, if you fight against paying it, it would remove you from Islam. But, in any case, the Prophet (saws) upon hearing this news, had the intention to fight them, even though they claimed Islam, and in the end, Allah revealed this verse to show that, if a action is going to be taken in this type of matter, you need to verify the situation, before you act upon it. So, this is what the author mentioned, for this Shubuha’ or this misconception.
So, just to add a bit about this, first of all, the hadith of ‘Usama ibn Zayd (ra), it’s agreed upon, it’s narrated by Bukhari and Muslim, which is the first evidence that they use. And they try to use it to say that, if someone says La ilaha ila Allah, nothing would ever remove them from Islam, and obviously we know that this is false. And we know from the Prophet (saws) that someone who says La ilaha ila Allah, could be fought at certain times.
So, this is the first thing to mention about this hadith – is to clarify what’s the actual meaning of the hadith of ‘Usama. So, what it means is that, it doesn’t matter that whoever says La ilaha ila Allah, never can leave Islam. What it actually means is, we look on the outside. If someone’s outward appearance happens to be on Islam, then we go with that, until we’re shown otherwise. If someone’s outward appearance appears to be kufr or disbelief, we don’t say, we don’t know what’s in his heart. If he’s a priest, and he dies upon that, we don’t say “We don’t know, maybe he was Muslim inside.” No, we go on…all we saw from him ever was disbelief, we go on that.
If someone was a Muslim, and we don’t know any disbelief from him, we don’t say, “We don’t know what was in his heart, so we can’t bury him with the Muslimin”, or “We can’t pray on him.” We only go on the outside, and this applies both ways. So, this is one thing to mention about the hadith of ‘Usama.
The other thing is that if we look at the way the Prophet (saws) dealt with the Yahud, we know that the Yahud, the majority of them, used to say La ilaha ila Allah, as Allah said in Surah Ali-Imran, which means,
“Say: “O the people of the Book, come to an equal word between us and none of us will take others as Lords.” [3:64]
So, this was referring to the saying of La ilaha ila Allah. So, this is the second thing to mention. So, even the Yahud, we know that they rejected the Prophethood of the Prophet (saws) and before him, ‘Isa (as), and we know that they rejected the Qur’an, and the Injil and so on and so on, but they said La ilaha ila Allah. So, do we then say that, because they say La ilaha ila Allah, they’re Muslimin, or do we say, they say La ilaha ila Allah, but certain beliefs, and actions, and statements that they have, that they do contradict or nullify this testimony. Obviously it’s the second.
So, this is just a few things to add to this, and insha’Allah, we’ll stop there for tonight. Next time, we’ll finish with the rest of the arguments, then after that, we’ll talk about the ending of the book, which is talking about a person who leaves actions, or someone who never does any good deeds and only believes with the heart. Wallahul A’lam.
Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid #17 [Transcribed] - By Shaykh Haytham Sayfaddeen
TO BE CONTINUED INSHA'ALLAH...
TO READ MORE, CLICK:
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-1
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-2
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-3
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-4
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-5
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-6
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-7
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-8
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-9
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-10
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-11
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-12
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-13
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-14
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-15
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-16
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-18
- Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-19 (LAST)
2 comments:
Alhamdulillah! Jazak Allah khair, dear Sisters: I found this discussion and treatise to be very informative and enlightening.
BarakAllahu feek, wa i’yaak Alhumdulillah that you found it beneficial brother Gordon.
Post a Comment