Saturday, November 10, 2018

Worshippers of Shaytaan are NOT Kuffaar ?!?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/d4/42/f3d442dc1322c7a58a2fce11dfbc7a8b.jpg
Worshippers of shaytaan are NOT Kuffaar and NO judgement of Kuffr is applied upon them according to Ibn Taymiyyah??!?

For those who want to understand why the idol worshippers among Ahlul-fatrah are not considered Kuffaar by Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim and Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhaab must read the following:

1 — Imaam Ibn al-Qayyim said about the mushrikeen idol worshippers among Ahlul-Fatrah who no messenger came to them in “Tarīq al-Hijratayn” (page 387):

❝These people are not judged with Kufr nor Īmān, since Kufr is to deny what the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) came with, so the condition for the actualisation of Kufr is the conveyance of the Risālah (prophetic message).
And what necessitates from negating either one of them (i.e. negating Īmān or Kufr) is the presence of the other after the occurrence of its sabab (cause of it).
So when these people aren’t considered kuffār nor believers in the dunyā, they would have a different hukm (ruling) in the ākhirah which is different to the two parties (believers and kuffār).
But if it’s said, why do you judge upon them (i.e. people of fatrah) with the rulings of the kuffār in the dunyā from inheritance, leadership and marriage.
It would be said in return, we only judge upon them with that in the rulings of the dunyā, not in the rewards and punishments (which relate to the ākhirah) as we have previously clarified.

The second viewpoint: That we agree for argument sake that they are considered kuffār, however the absence of punishment from them is due to the absence of its condition which is the establishment of the hujjah upon them, for indeed Allāh doesn’t punish anyone except whom the hujjah has been established upon.❞ [End Quote].

Let us see this quote from 3 angles Insha’Allah:

1 — The first scholar to use the terminology of “Kuffr” and “Kuffaar” to be only applied after the hujjah has been established was Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah as my Shaykh Hassan Husayn mentioned.
This is similar to how the 3rd category of Tawheed which is Asma’ & Sifaat was invented, it’s simply a terminology, not a bid’ah, since it was explained correctly. Likewise, before we use any quotation of Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah (which the murji’ah love to do), we must understand his terminology correctly and not come with a bid’ah which didn’t exist prior.
Infact, if the murji’ah were correct in their understanding of Ibn Taymiyyah’s terminology, my reply would be how can you rely upon unclear statements by Ibn Taymiyyah which has opposed the Ijma’ of the salaf, and if he agreed with your understanding, then he would be closer to Kuffr than Imaan along with you misguided deviants, due to what it necessitates of clear Kuffr. But this is not the case wal-hamdulillah!

2 — Ibn al-Qayyim wrote, “These people are not judged with Kufr nor Īmān, since Kufr is to deny what the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) came with.”

So here, Imaam Ibn al-Qayyim is saying that Kuffr means to deny, and due to the fact the hujjah hasn’t been established upon these mushrikeen, they can’t be called Kuffaar, this is his reasoning, along with his shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah.

3 — Imaam Ibn al-Qayyim wrote, “The second viewpoint: That we agree for argument sake that they are considered kuffār.”

Right here, Ibn al-Qayyim is pointing towards the terminology used by the vast majority of the scholars in the Ummah, that they are called Kuffaar, irregardless of whether the hujjah was established or not.
And Ibn al-Qayyim didn’t have anything against this view either, except for the fact that he argued no punishment is established upon them in the Akhirah due to the hujjah not being established, and used the Ayah as proof, “We were not punishers until we send a messenger.”  

Since many scholars understood this Āyah as referring to punishment in the duniya, meaning you cannot initiate fighting the Kuffaar until you convey the message to them, and that in the Akhirah they are in the hellfire before the hujjah being established or that they’re under the will of Allah, He may choose to punish or forgive them.

Conclusion:
Therefore, we come to learn that there’s no difference between Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhaab and the rest of the Ummah when it comes to considering whoever commits shirk as a mushrik, even though they disputed whether the terms Kuffr and Kaafir can be applied before the hujjah!

Moreover, when we apply the hujjah upon others, it’s not necessary that they “understand” the hujjah as the murji’ah claim, or “be proven their Kuffr” as the Safsutiyyah sect claims, wherein a person doesn’t have shirk established within him unless he knows it’s shirk, which is a belief worse than the Jahmiyyah!

Rather, the hujjah is established upon others by showing them they’re upon Bātil, but as for major shirk which negates the Tawheed of Allah, then the hujjah regarding this is the ‘Aql, Fitrah and Mithaq, as our mere intellect knows diverting acts of worship to other than Allah is wrong and false, therefore the hujjah is established upon every mushrik in the sense of being a Kaafir mushrik by “ism” (name).

As for being a Kaafir by “hukm” (rulings), then this is what requires the textual evidences according to Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim and the rest of the Ummah, except for the fact that the majority would call him a Kaafir, whereas Ibn Taymiyyah would not apply the word Kaafir upon him, while agreeing that he’s a mushrik.

Insha'Allah this clarifies any doubts you may have. May Allah grant us sincerity and give us a good-ending, Allahumma Ameen!


INSHA'ALLAH TO FURTHER READ SIMILAR ARTICLES, CLICK:

No comments:

Post a Comment