This
scholar praises the early Ottomans whilst mentioning a personal
incident, and cites an Ottoman scholar who narrates Ijmā’ on kuffr of
insulting the Rasūl (saws), and how they reconciled between the two opinions on
accepting his tawbah.
The Muftī of Shām, Shaykh al-‘Allāmah ‘Alī Ibn Muhammad al-Murādī (Died 1184AH) mentioned in his short treatise “Aqwāl al-A’immah al-‘Ālinah Fī Ahkām ad-Durūz wat-Tayāminah” (pp. 45-48):
❝During the year 1159AH, when the governor of Shām at the time who was As’ad Pāsha went to face them (i.e. the Drūze), I went out with him with the niyyah (intention) of Jihād.
And his army pillaged one of their villages, and grabbed one of their books on creed, so As’ad Pāsha gave it to me, and I found everything mentioned about their filthy ‘Aqīdah which we have stated from what’s noted down in it.
And perhaps the one who mercy has befallen, al-Khayr ar-Ramlī didn’t stumble upon their books, and that’s why he said, “If what is mentioned about them (i.e. the Drūze) is authentically confirmed.”
What’s correct is that they insult the Prophet (saws). As for the ruling on insulting the Prophet (saws), the extremely skillful scholar famously known as Hassām Jalabī from the great scholars of the State of Sultān Salīm Khān, the son of Sultān Bāyazīd Khān the Ottoman, may Allāh aid their State until judgement day, has stated in a concise risālah which he authored in response to the “Bazzāziyyah” concerning the ruling on this matter:
“What you must know is that insulting the Prophet (saws) is kuffr and apostasy, since it negates glorifying him and believing in him, and this is authentically confirmed with Qat’ī (clear-cut) evidences whereby there’s no misconception pertaining it.
Hence, insulting him is rejecting him which would be kuffr, so he is killed if he doesn’t make tawbah.
Moreover, this is unanimously agreed upon amongst the Mujtahidīn, however if he repents and returns back to Islām, his Tawbah would be accepted, so he’s not killed according to the Hanafiyyah and Shāfi’īyyah unlike the case with the Mālikiyyah and Hanābilah, as Shaykh al-Islām ‘Alī as-Subkī has stated in his book “As-Sayf al-Maslūl Fī Sabb ar-Rasūl.”
And he mentioned in “al-Hāwī”; Whoever insults the Prophet (saws) becomes a kāfir, and his tawbah isn’t excepted unless he renews his Īmān.
Some later scholars mentioned; There’s no tawbah for him to begin with (in this dunyā), so he’s killed as a hadd (Islamic punishment), citing as evidence the statement of the Prophet (saws), “Whoever insults a prophet, then kill him.” [“Majma’ az-Zawā’id” (6/260)]
What supports this is what has been mentioned in some Fatāwā which are quoted from the book “al-Kharāj” by Imām Abū Yūsuf; That whoever insults the Prophet (saws) becomes a kāfir, so if he repents, it’s accepted and he’s not to be killed according to him and Abū Hanīfah, contrary to Muhammad (Ibn al-Hassan).
This is along with the fact that the sharp intelligent scholar al-‘Allāmah Abū as-Su’ūd, the Muftī within the land of the Khilāfah answered something in relation to this issue when he was asked for a fatwā on it.
The conclusion is that it’s a differed upon matter, and this matter has been raised to the Sultān, the Mujāhid in the cause of ar-Rahmān, Sultān Sulaymān Khān, may Allāh have mercy and be pleased with both, in trying to reconcile between the two opinions, making thisna uniting element for both schools, that what’s preferred is to observe the situation of the individual who made tawbah from insulting the Messenger (saws).
If it has been understood from him the validity and sincerity of his tawbah, and excelled with his Islām, and rectified his situation, then the opinion of the Hanafiyyah is to be acted upon in accepting his tawbah, and what’s sufficient is to imprison and give him a disciplinary punishment.
However, if no goodness is understood from him, then we act upon the other school of thought, so no consideration is given to what he displays of tawbah and Islām, he is to be killed as a hadd (legal punishment).
So the Sultān commanded all the judges under his rule after this day to implement this judgement of reconciliation between the madhabs, due to what it contains of benefit and deterrance of harm.
This is the conclusion of that answer, we thank Allāh for his efforts on the day of recompense. So this is what we have jotted down in respect to the Muslim, so how about the case of those mentioned from the Tā’ifah of the Drūze and Tayāminah.
The following is mentioned in “At-Tanwīr” and its sharh [“Hāshiyat Ibn ‘Ābdīn” (3/290)]:
“Every Muslim who apostates, then his tawbha is accepted except for the following types of people; Whoever’s apostasy keeps occurring as we have clarified, the kāfir who insults one of the Prophets, he’s to be killed as a hadd (legal punishment), and his tawbah isn’t to be accepted unrestrictedly.”
This is what relates to this topic, while we were in the “Lessons of as-Sulaymāniyyah” which was founded by Sultān Sulaymān Khān and the news of Ba’albek has reached us;
That the Drūze appointed Haydar the Rāfidhī in place of his Rāfidhī brother in Ba’albek as a army general.
Then on the 2nd week of Jum’ah, we gathered with the deputy of Shām, al-Hāj ‘Uthmān Pāshā, and he mentioned to us the transgression of these Drūze against his cavalries, and opposing commands which come from the Sultān.
So we mentioned to him, Inshā’Allāh triumph occurs, and the banner of Islām would be raised the highest, and we found from him intense Īmān, and was very angry with these wicked people, so perhaps Allāh the most High would permit him to gain victory to release this pressure.
So this deputy governor would be a key towards goodness, and would be a means towards additional acceptance in the sight of Allāh, His Messenger, his Khalīfah and the believers.❞
[An addition was added at the end of this manuscript which says, “Its liberation was made once again in the start of the sacred month of Muharram, the year 1317AH, we ask Allāh for complete success, and a good ending for us and all Muslims, Āmīn. Glory be to your Lord, the Lord of honour of what they describe, and may the salutations decend upon our master Muhammad, and all praise belongs to the Lord of the worlds, Āmīn”]
The Muftī of Shām, Shaykh al-‘Allāmah ‘Alī Ibn Muhammad al-Murādī (Died 1184AH) mentioned in his short treatise “Aqwāl al-A’immah al-‘Ālinah Fī Ahkām ad-Durūz wat-Tayāminah” (pp. 45-48):
❝During the year 1159AH, when the governor of Shām at the time who was As’ad Pāsha went to face them (i.e. the Drūze), I went out with him with the niyyah (intention) of Jihād.
And his army pillaged one of their villages, and grabbed one of their books on creed, so As’ad Pāsha gave it to me, and I found everything mentioned about their filthy ‘Aqīdah which we have stated from what’s noted down in it.
And perhaps the one who mercy has befallen, al-Khayr ar-Ramlī didn’t stumble upon their books, and that’s why he said, “If what is mentioned about them (i.e. the Drūze) is authentically confirmed.”
What’s correct is that they insult the Prophet (saws). As for the ruling on insulting the Prophet (saws), the extremely skillful scholar famously known as Hassām Jalabī from the great scholars of the State of Sultān Salīm Khān, the son of Sultān Bāyazīd Khān the Ottoman, may Allāh aid their State until judgement day, has stated in a concise risālah which he authored in response to the “Bazzāziyyah” concerning the ruling on this matter:
“What you must know is that insulting the Prophet (saws) is kuffr and apostasy, since it negates glorifying him and believing in him, and this is authentically confirmed with Qat’ī (clear-cut) evidences whereby there’s no misconception pertaining it.
Hence, insulting him is rejecting him which would be kuffr, so he is killed if he doesn’t make tawbah.
Moreover, this is unanimously agreed upon amongst the Mujtahidīn, however if he repents and returns back to Islām, his Tawbah would be accepted, so he’s not killed according to the Hanafiyyah and Shāfi’īyyah unlike the case with the Mālikiyyah and Hanābilah, as Shaykh al-Islām ‘Alī as-Subkī has stated in his book “As-Sayf al-Maslūl Fī Sabb ar-Rasūl.”
And he mentioned in “al-Hāwī”; Whoever insults the Prophet (saws) becomes a kāfir, and his tawbah isn’t excepted unless he renews his Īmān.
Some later scholars mentioned; There’s no tawbah for him to begin with (in this dunyā), so he’s killed as a hadd (Islamic punishment), citing as evidence the statement of the Prophet (saws), “Whoever insults a prophet, then kill him.” [“Majma’ az-Zawā’id” (6/260)]
What supports this is what has been mentioned in some Fatāwā which are quoted from the book “al-Kharāj” by Imām Abū Yūsuf; That whoever insults the Prophet (saws) becomes a kāfir, so if he repents, it’s accepted and he’s not to be killed according to him and Abū Hanīfah, contrary to Muhammad (Ibn al-Hassan).
This is along with the fact that the sharp intelligent scholar al-‘Allāmah Abū as-Su’ūd, the Muftī within the land of the Khilāfah answered something in relation to this issue when he was asked for a fatwā on it.
The conclusion is that it’s a differed upon matter, and this matter has been raised to the Sultān, the Mujāhid in the cause of ar-Rahmān, Sultān Sulaymān Khān, may Allāh have mercy and be pleased with both, in trying to reconcile between the two opinions, making thisna uniting element for both schools, that what’s preferred is to observe the situation of the individual who made tawbah from insulting the Messenger (saws).
If it has been understood from him the validity and sincerity of his tawbah, and excelled with his Islām, and rectified his situation, then the opinion of the Hanafiyyah is to be acted upon in accepting his tawbah, and what’s sufficient is to imprison and give him a disciplinary punishment.
However, if no goodness is understood from him, then we act upon the other school of thought, so no consideration is given to what he displays of tawbah and Islām, he is to be killed as a hadd (legal punishment).
So the Sultān commanded all the judges under his rule after this day to implement this judgement of reconciliation between the madhabs, due to what it contains of benefit and deterrance of harm.
This is the conclusion of that answer, we thank Allāh for his efforts on the day of recompense. So this is what we have jotted down in respect to the Muslim, so how about the case of those mentioned from the Tā’ifah of the Drūze and Tayāminah.
The following is mentioned in “At-Tanwīr” and its sharh [“Hāshiyat Ibn ‘Ābdīn” (3/290)]:
“Every Muslim who apostates, then his tawbha is accepted except for the following types of people; Whoever’s apostasy keeps occurring as we have clarified, the kāfir who insults one of the Prophets, he’s to be killed as a hadd (legal punishment), and his tawbah isn’t to be accepted unrestrictedly.”
This is what relates to this topic, while we were in the “Lessons of as-Sulaymāniyyah” which was founded by Sultān Sulaymān Khān and the news of Ba’albek has reached us;
That the Drūze appointed Haydar the Rāfidhī in place of his Rāfidhī brother in Ba’albek as a army general.
Then on the 2nd week of Jum’ah, we gathered with the deputy of Shām, al-Hāj ‘Uthmān Pāshā, and he mentioned to us the transgression of these Drūze against his cavalries, and opposing commands which come from the Sultān.
So we mentioned to him, Inshā’Allāh triumph occurs, and the banner of Islām would be raised the highest, and we found from him intense Īmān, and was very angry with these wicked people, so perhaps Allāh the most High would permit him to gain victory to release this pressure.
So this deputy governor would be a key towards goodness, and would be a means towards additional acceptance in the sight of Allāh, His Messenger, his Khalīfah and the believers.❞
[An addition was added at the end of this manuscript which says, “Its liberation was made once again in the start of the sacred month of Muharram, the year 1317AH, we ask Allāh for complete success, and a good ending for us and all Muslims, Āmīn. Glory be to your Lord, the Lord of honour of what they describe, and may the salutations decend upon our master Muhammad, and all praise belongs to the Lord of the worlds, Āmīn”]
No comments:
Post a Comment