The Mubtadi’ Ahmad ibn ‘Umar al-Hazimi

For Educational purpose only and to raise Intellectual and Political awareness!

After the working ‘Ulama and students of knowledge in the Arabian Peninsula were either killed or imprisoned like Sultan al-‘Utaybi, Nasir al-Fahd, ‘Abdul-‘Aziz at-Tuwayli’i, Faris az-Zahrani, ‘Ali al-Khudayr and many others, or managed to make Hjrah like Abu Malik at-Tamimi, ‘Abdullah ar-Rashud, Abu Anas ash-Shami, and Abu Sufyan al-Azdi; to fill that missing void many misguided heads suddenly became role models in knowledge being propped up as followers of the Salaf with some even taking those sitting back with no excuse as leaders and role models in Jihaad, like at-Tarifi and al-Hazimi. What will conspire in some of the following paragraphs and in some of the points mentioned is from the article written by Shaykh Abu Maysarah ash-Shami entitled, “Al-Hazimi; between the major sin of sitting behind and the misguidance of the Jamiyyah”, as well as other articles written by seekers of knowledge.

Ahmad Ibn ‘Umar al-Hazimi is from one of the heads of the newly formed Jamiyyah that emerged after the old Jamiyyah fell out. The Jamiyyah is the school that is pro-Saudi “Salafi” and they are named after Muhammad Aman al-Jami, who is renowned for his defending the Saudi government when they brought the kuffar armies into the Arabian Peninsula. This school, the older one more so, has also been referred to as and are similar to the Madkhaliyyah, and this is the most popular term since Rabi’ al-Madkhali is more well-known than the former. Though, most from the Madkhaliyyah would not consider those from the Jamiyyah “Salafi” enough, as is known from that soap opera of dramas. This school, the newer one that al-Hazimi belongs to, brought together some statements from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah in iman and Tawheed such as making Takfeer on the one who leaves the category of actions and on the jahil mushrik but follows the old path of the Jamiyyah in arguing in defense of al Salul, hardly speaking about the reality of tawalli to the Crusaders and the hukm on ruling by other than what Allah has revealed. For example, if al-Hazimi was to speak with regards to these rulings it would be from a theoretical angle with no ties to our realities and with no implementation. So one could say the Jamiyyah are more general in that they are those who ascribe themselves to Salafiyyah while inclining towards the Saudi government, not inciting or speaking about Jihaad or the modern day Crusade and keeping the hukm on those who rule by other than what Allah revealed in theory only.

Unlike some other heads of misguidance such as at-Tarifi, al-Maqdisi and Abu Qatadah he was one of the furthest away when it came to the topic of Jihaad, like the another head of misguidance al-Fawzan, let alone calling people to undertake this obligation or he himself waging it. Instead, he ridiculed the zealous youth who want to wage Jihaad for the sake of their Lord; al-Hazimi said, “How many people today do not perfect their Salaah? Even from the youth who raise the banner of Jihaad, some of them have not perfected their Salaah and have not perfected their Wudhu’. Where are you? Where are you in learning what is Fard ‘Ayn?” [Sharh Lum’ah al-‘Itiqad]. The Mujahid Shaykhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said, “There is no more important obligation after Imaan itself than resisting the invading enemy who threatens the Deen and dunya.” [Majmu’ al-Fatawa]. So where was al-Hazimi for all these years in carrying out the most important obligation after Imaan or inciting towards it or calling for its preparation? Where was he in explaining to the youth that Jihaad is Fard ‘Ayn? Instead of fulfilling his trust he fulfilled the objectives of the Tawagheet in being a barrier in the face of Bani Adam to Jihaad. Some of the Salaf mentioned, “Those who do not wage Jihaad for the sake of Allah are plagued with Jihaad for the sake of the Shaytaan.” [ad-Durar as-Saniyyah] 

The Prophet (saws) said, “A man is upon the deen of his close companion, so let one of you look to whom you befriend.” [Abu Dawud; an-Nawawi said its isnad is sahih and at-Tirmidhi said Hadith hasan]. The shaykh of al-Hazimi who taught him and he befriended for 20 years was Muhammad ‘Ali Adam al-Ithiyyawbi, who is from the Mashaikh of the Jamiyyah. He was also the shaykh and defender of Rabi’ al-Madkhali, ‘Ali al-Halabi and other heads of misguidance. To give one a better idea of who the close companion of al-Hazimi “Muhammad ‘Ali Adam al-Ithiyyawbi” is, who was also a staunch supporter of al Salul, he was asked about Rabi’ al-Madkhali and said, “You think I will dispraise him?” Then he said, “Shaykh Rabi’ came to me and said, ‘O Muhammad ‘Ali Adam, I love you because you explain the books of the Sunnah. And this was enough for him to love me. He loves me, and I love him. How’s that? He is a Salafi, and he is one of the scholars of al-Jarh wat-Ta’dil. And those who dispraise him for his harshness, then he was preceded by the Salaf in that.” And when Rabi’ al-Madkhali was asked about him he said, “I have seen no one better than him in presenting and explaining the creed.” So look to whom you befriend, ya Muslim. 

Al-Hazimi in the same Dars mentioned earlier, after calling Sa’d al-Faqih a Khariji and those who go out against al Salul (al Sa’ud) as Khawarij, said, “We have here, for example, a kingdom (i.e., “Saudi Arabia”), there is no country, there is no country like this country, we ask Allah to protect it, and these plots are set in order to disrupt the security of this country and they cling to the open munkarat (evils). Yes, we are not pleased with the munkarat (happening in the country), none if it is pleasing but how do we deal with these evils? Do we come out and protest and curse? This is not correct, we strive to correct the creation and this is the call of the Messengers.” 

Shaykh al-Mujaddid Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhab said, “Verily those Tawagheet, whom people believe, that it is obligatory to obey besides Allah – they are all Kuffaar Murtaddun from Islam. How can you say no? When they make halal what Allah made Haraam, and made Hraam what Allah has made halal, and they seek to corrupt the land with their words, and actions and support? And whoever argues for them, or is critical of the one who does Takfeer of them, or claims that this act of theirs – although wrong – still doesn’t take them out of Islam to Kuffr, then the least that one can say of this arguer is that he is a fasiq, because the Deen of Islam cannot be upright except by bara’ah from those people, and doing Takfeer of them.” So look to whom you take knowledge from, ya Muwahhid. 

This is brought because some do not know this about him and if one was to object and say he has retracted, made tawbah, from his support and defense of al Salul then the lessons in which he defended the Taghout are not old and occured well after the announced crusade in Afghanistan, ‘Iraq and after the Taghout in Hijaz went on a hunt in killing and imprisoning the working ‘Ulama, the students of knowledge and openly assisted the crusade. One can still find it on his official website so where is the retraction? It is strange that the Hazimiyyah Mu’tazilah will make Takfeer on people on issues less than that but for al-Hazimi it is excuses after excuses; because he conforms to the bida’ of chain Takfeer and the bida’ statement of ‘the asl of people is Kuffr’. Which is also strange since according to their innovated principles they are kuffar themselves because they make Takfeer on anyone who gives an excuse and make Takfeer on the one who excuses the one who excuses and so on. 

Allah said, “Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences and the guidance, which We have have sent down, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by the cursers. Except those who repent and do righteous deeds, and openly declare. These, I will accept their repentance. And I am the One Who accepts repentance, the Most Merciful.” Imam Ibn Kathir said, “This Ayah refers to those who regret what they have been doing and correct their behavior and, thus, explain to the people what they have been hiding.” So a condition of repentance from his previous words (and this is not to suggest one should make Takfeer on him) would be to show people his innocence of al Salul after he argued for them and came to their defense. It is not enough to speak about issues generally when his support and defense was explicit and specific. Some use words in which he mentions the general Kuffr of those who substitute the Shari’ah but his words are no better than the official ‘scholars’ of al Salul such as al-Fawzan, Salih al ash-Shaykh and others who make general Takfeer on the ones who rule by the Taghout and substitute the Shari’ah. What is certain about al-Hazimi is his coming to the defense of the Taghout al Salul and his retraction is doubtful and doubt does not remove certainty and what is certain here is his praise and defense of the Taghout al Salul. 

If one was to say he was mukrah (under compulsion) and therefore compelled to hide his Kuffr and animosity towards the Tawagheet then the claim of mukrah falls when one is able to make Hjrah from the lands of Kuffr but chooses instead to stay in darul-Kuffr. Opening this excuse with no proof for al-Hazimi opens the door for everyone. Does one forget his travels to Egypt and Tunisia and then calmly back to “Sa’udiyyah”? Is anyone allowed to travel freely like this in today’s time except to spread poison, corruption and sow doubts such as the likes of ar-‘Ar’ur, al-‘Arifi and al-Madkhali? Some even related that he was called to and invited to make Hjrah but he declined preferring to “teach” under the shade of the Taghout al Salul. Did he and those who make excuses after excuses for al-Hazimi not see where Shaykh Sulayman al ash-Shaykh, Hamad Ibn ‘Atiq, and Ishaq al ash-Shaykh said it is obligatory on the one in darul-Kuffr to make Hjrah if he can not make manifest his Deen and his Kuffr and animosity towards the Tawagheet? 

Shaykh Hamad Ibn ‘Atiq said, “And what is intended (by display of the Deen) is the clear demonstration by continuous hostility and hatred towards the one who does not single out His Lord, so whoever fulfills this with knowledge and action, and clearly demonstrates this until the people of his land are aware of this from him, then Hjrah is not an obligation upon him from whatever land he is in. And as for the one who is not like this – rather, he assumes that if he is left to pray and fast and perform pilgrimage, then he is no longer obligated to migrate – then this is ignorance of the Deen, and heedlessness of the essence of the Message of the Messengers. For the lands, if the judgment in them is for the people of falsehood, the worshipers of graves, the consumers of alcohol and the gamblers, then they are not satisfied except with the rituals of shirk and the judgments of the Tawagheet. And every place where this is the case, then there is no doubt for the one who has the slightest familiarity of the Book and Sunnah that its people are upon other than what the Messenger of Allah (saws) was upon.” [ad-Durar as-Saniyyah] 

His spoiling his knowledge with the fisq of completely abandoning the fard ‘ayn Jihaad, his refraining from making Takfeer on the Taghout of al Salul, his coming to their defense claiming that is the path of the Messengers and Salaf, and his ridiculing the youth for their zeal in raising the banner of Jihaad is clear evidence that al-Hazimi does not have understanding of the Deen nor any understanding of current realities. So look to whom you take your Deen from, ya Mumin. 

Don’t let the prisons fool you, for the prisons have seen the likes of Mursi, al-‘Awdah, and al-‘Arifi. If he was ever sincere he would have left the lands controlled by the Murtaddeen Tawagheet and made Hjrah. So for betraying his trust, his concealing and distorting knowledge, his innovating in the Deen of Allah, for his leaving Hjrah and Jihaad; make Hjrah from him and his ignorant following. 

The Mujahid Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah said, “The multiples of Hjrah is Hjrah from evil and its people. Likewise, it is Hjrah from the callers of bida’, Hjrah from the fussaq, Hjrah from those who mix with them or assist them. Also, Hjrah from whoever leaves Jihaad while they have no overwhelming benefit in doing so. Thus, he is punished by their forsaking him; when he is not assisting them in Birr and Taqwaa (i.e., he is not abanoned in matters such as uniting for Jihaad). So the one who commits adultery, the lutiyyah (homosexual), abandoner of Jihaad, people of bida’, and the drinker of alcohol; every category of these and mixing with them is harmful to the Deen of Islam. There is none among them who provide assistance; neither upon Birr, nor Taqwaa. So, whoever does not make Hjrah from them, then he would be leaving what is commanded and moving towards the forbidden.” [Majmu’ al-Fatawa] 

By al-Akh ‘Isa ibn Abi ‘Abdillah 

TO READ CONTINUATION OF THE TOPIC, CLICK:

• Who but a Fool turns away from Millah of Ibrahim !