Response against the Murji’ah on context of the Tatār...

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2a/1c/00/2a1c00d9b4dec11967161a639496c0b1.jpg

Short response against the Murji’ah who take Ibn Taymiyyah’s quote on the Tatār out of context.

CLAIM:
Ibn Taymiyyah did not make Takfeer upon those who allied with the Tatār against the Muslims, as he mentioned in “Majmū’ al-Fatāwā” (28/552):
“Moreover, no one fights with them (i.e. the Tatār) who’s not forced, except a fāsiq or mubtadi’ or zindīq.”

RESPONSE:
• Firstly — You have accused Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah of something he has never said, which is claiming he doesn’t make Takfeer upon whoever allies with the Tatār (or any other type of kuffār) against the muslims, and the quote you provided doesn’t substantiate this claim.

• Secondly — If you refer back to the same page, Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah is talking about those who possess such attributes prior to joining the army of the Tatār, as he said:
❝Moreover, no one fights with them (i.e. the Tatār) who’s not forced, except a fāsiq or mubtadi’ or zindīq, such as the Qarāmitah Bātiniyyah infidels, the Rāfidah who insult the companions, the Jahmiyyah Mu’attilah who negate Allāh’s names and attributes among the Halūliyyah, and there are those who blind-follow them whom ascribe themselves to knowledge and the Dīn, who are infact worse than them.❞

So what’s apparent from the words of Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah is that he’s speaking about the reality of those who join the Tatār, not the ruling on fighting under their banner and flag!

Since he said, no one fights with the Tatār “except a fāsiq or mubtadi’ or zindīq, such as the Qarāmitah Bātiniyyah infidels, the Rāfidah who insult the companions...”
So what he means by ‘Zindīq’ are the Qarāmitah mushrikīn, and what he means by “mubtadi’ and fāsiq” are the Rāfidah and Jahmiyyah. Therefore he’s speaking about the reality of those who join them, and that they are either kuffār, fussāq or mubtadi’ah.
This is similar to saying “no one sacrifices to other than Allāh except a person with weak Īmān or a person that lacks tawakkul” — This doesn’t mean a person who commits this shirk has weak Īmān, but it means that only those with weak Īmān would fall into such shirk.
This is testified by numerous Āyāh and hadīths, such as the famous incident of the companions who mocked the reciters of the Qur’ān, what made them due this was their weak Īmān.

Allāh also says, “And if they had believed in Allah and the Prophet and in what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them as allies; but many of them are fāsiqūn (defiantly disobedient).” [5:81]
The noble ‘Ālim and Mujāhid, Dr. ‘Uthmān Āl-Nāzi comments upon this Āyah by saying:
“This ‘fisq’ is what caused them to ally with the disbelievers.”

For additional benefit, it’s important to note that the “Rāfidah Sabbābah” Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah is referring too are those Rawāfidh who insult several groups among the companions, not referring to the Ghulāt ar-Rāfidah who insulted all companions except a handful and direct acts of worship to ‘Alī, committing clear shirk, Ibn Taymiyyah made Takfeer upon these people and even upon those who refrained from making Takfeer (in general terms, but specific Takfeer returns back to establishing the hujjah).

• Thirdly — How can you base your beliefs upon an unclear quote of Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah while abandoning the clear verses from the Qur’ān and Sunnah, infact even the words of Ibn Taymiyyah himself on the kuffr of those who ally with the Tatār, who said:
إذا وجدتموني في صفوف التتار وفوق رأسي مصحفًا فاقتلوني
“If you find me in the ranks of the Tatār, and there’s a mus’haf on my head, then kill me!”
An individual may refute this quote I brought by saying ‘killing’ doesn’t equate to ‘Takfeer’, and that’s a fair response which I must agree with. Therefore it’s required of me to prove that what he means here is killing in terms of kuffr, as it will be shown below Inshā’Allāh.

To give a few examples to prove that Ibn Taymiyyah ruled upon them with kuffr, Shaykh Nāsir al-Fahd mentions in “At-Tibyān” (page 101):
❝Around the year 700H, the Tatār attacked the lands of Islām in the region of Shām and in other places and some of those who ascribed to Islām assisted them, so Shahkhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah issued a legal verdict declaring whoever assisted them as an apostate from Islām.❞

Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah spoke abundantly about this issue, he mentioned in “Majmū’ al-Fatāwā” (28/530):
❝Everyone who joins up with them — meaning with the Tatār — from the commanders of the armies and other than the commanders, then his ruling is their ruling. There is found in them (the commanders) of apostasy from the legislations of Islām in proportion to what he has apostated from.
If the Salaf called those who withheld the Zakāt apostates, even though thy would fast and pray and they did not fight the Jamā’ah (congregation) of the Muslims, then what about those who ended up with (joined) the enemies of Allāh and His Messenger fighting against the Muslims?!❞

Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah also spoke about whoever is forced to go out with the Tatār, and that they are all fought as mushrikīn without requiring to differentiate between who’s forced or not, as he repeated in several places in “Majmū’ al-Fatāwā” (28/535-538) and (28/546-547), whilst also mentioning that Tatarrus (when some muslims get mixed with kuffār or taken as human shields), it’s permissible to go forth by Ijmā’.

In reference to those fighting with the Tatār, Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in “Majmū’ al-Fatāwā” (28/537):
❝Allāh has destroyed the army that wanted to violate His sanctity (i.e. ka’bah), while He has the ability to differentiate between them, and they are sent out with different intentions, so how could it be obligatory upon the believers to differentiate between the mukrah (one forced) and other than him, while they are unable to know that.
Rather, if a claimer makes a claim that he was sent out under the pretext of Ikrāh, that mere claim wouldn’t benefit him, as it has been narrated that al-‘Abbās Ibn ‘Abdil-Muttalib said to the Prophet (saws) when he was captured by the Muslims on the day of badr: “O messenger of Allāh, I was forced”, so the Prophet (saws) replied, “As for your apparent, that was shown to us, but as for your inner secrets, that’s left to Allāh”.❞

Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah affirms that whoever joins a group of apostates or enemies of Islām, then he takes the hukm of that group (even if there may be some truly excused with Ikrāh in the sight of Allāh), as he stated in “Majmū’ al-Fatāwā” (28/509):
“They are fought like the apostates and abstainers of Zakāt, not the way the Bughāt are fought.”

As for whoever is truly forced and not making a feeble claim, they are not allowed to fight or kill any Muslim whatsoever (but simply drop their weapon), as Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in “Majmū’ al-Fatāwā” (28/539), stating there’s a consensus on this point.

Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah further mentions in “Majmū’ al-Fatāwā” (28/534):
❝Whoever abandons them (i.e. the Muslims) and joins the Tatār, he would be more deserving of being fought than many of the Tatār, for indeed the Tatār have from amongst them the one who is forced and not forced, and the sunnah has affirmed that the ruling upon the apostate is more severe than the original disbeliever.❞

Moreover, numerous scholars have mentioned a consensus on the kufr of whoever allies with the kuffār against the Muslims, and one of the best books written on the topic is “At-Tibyān” by the noble Imām, Shaykh al-‘Allāmah Nāsir al-Fahd which is translated into English, wal-hamdulilāh.

And Allāh knows best.

INSHA'ALLAH TO FURTHER READ SIMILAR ARTICLES, CLICK: