Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-19 (LAST)

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/eb/d5/08/ebd508e41f9f37b5bdfd9f7c5127a219.jpg

So, now we are onto the fourth and final part of the book “Kashf ash-Shubuhat” by Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhab and so this is the fourth and final as we said.

So, the first part of the book was the Introduction, the second was a general mentioning of a refutation against the misconceptions that people use to justify shirk, and there were nine of those. So, we mentioned them in general and then there was also a specific or a more detailed refutation of those misconceptions. The third part of the book was the evidences that the people use themselves, and there were a number of evidences that they use.

So, the first was the hadith of ‘Usama, also the hadith of ‘Umar. So, the hadith of ‘Usama was the one where the Prophet (saws) rebuked him for killing a person who said La ilaha ila Allah, and the hadith of ‘Umar is the hadith of “I was ordered to fight the people until they say La ilaha ila Allah” and then the hadith of the Shafa’a or the intercession, in which the people will ask the Prophets to intercede on their behalf on the Day of Judgement.

And the last evidence that they used was the story of Jibril with the Prophet Ibrahim and how or the evidence what they claim is that, Ibrahim (as) when he was placed in the Fire, Allah sent Jibril to ask him if he had any need, and then Ibrahim (as) said, “As from you, then no”, so they say that this is evidence that seeking help from the creation isn’t shirk because Jibril offered Ibrahim (as) the opportunity to receive help from him, so had it been shirk, he wouldn’t have offered it to him.

So, these were the three parts of the book that the author…or how he divided it in, and now we’re in the fourth part.

And this fourth part is kind of a summary of the importance of Tawhid and some of the matters that relate to it, specifically with regards to Iman, or the reality of Iman and kufr, as well as the importance of actions with regards to Tawhid, and the requirement of the actions of the body and actions of the heart in order for a person to be Muslim.

So, we can entitle this fourth part as being the ruling on the person who leaves acting upon Tawhid while he has the ability to do so while using these false arguments or false excuses. So, the author he will discuss the evidences for the obligation of actions and how they’re required for Tawhid, as well as a refutation of some of the false arguments that people use to justify or to say that it isn’t required.

And we say here, that the person needs to be able, so meaning if the person is unable to act for whatever reason, then there’s an excuse there, otherwise if there’s no excuse, or the ability is there, then there would be no excuse. So, just to add to this as well would be that, if the person is compelled or coerced, then this would be an excuse and we’ll get into it in more detail later on, but it would be an excuse with regards to what takes place on the tongue as well as what takes place on the body. But if we’re talking about what takes place in the heart, whether it’s the statements of the heart which we’ll get into later, then there’s no excuse in this whatsoever.

So, now just move onto what the author himself says. So, he says,
“Let us conclude this book by mentioning an important matter that will clarify what has previously been said.”

So, as we said, this is kind of a summary.

So, he says,
“We will discuss it separately because of its importance and because many people fail to understand correctly. So, we say, there is no difference of opinion that Tawhid must exist and be manifested with the heart, the tongue, and the deeds, or the outer deeds, and if one of these matters is missing then a person will not be Muslim. So, if a person knows Tawhid but does not act upon it, then he is an arrogant disbeliever.”

So, meaning he’s arrogant, he knows of it but doesn’t do it.

 He says,
“As was the case with likes of Fir’awn and Iblis and others like them and this is the matter that many people misunderstand. They say, “This matter of what you have explained is true and we fully understand it, and we testify to its correctness, however we are not able to do it and to put it into practice, and it is not allowed by our countrymen to act upon these matters, unless it agrees with them and their beliefs and their customs, and they give other excuses so that they do not act upon the correct beliefs.”

So, then he continues and says,
“However, such a wretched person does not realise that most of the leaders of falsehood know the truth and they only leave acting upon it due to some excuse. As Allah mentions, “They purchased with the signs of Allah a miserable price.” [9:9]

Then he says,
“Other verses also explain this point such as when Allah…”

So, this verse when Allah was speaking about the Yahud when they were waiting for the Prophet (saws) to merge or to be sent, Allah sent about them,
“Or they recognise him, just as they recognise their own sons.” [2:146]

So, here he gives evidences or these two evidences to show that in these situations about these disbelievers, their disbelief wasn’t due to a lack of knowledge or it wasn’t due to them rejecting something actually being from the truth, it was because they didn’t act upon it.

Then he continues and says,
“Now if he acts upon Tawhid with his outward actions, while he does not understand, nor believe in his heart, then he is a hypocrite who is more evil than the pure disbeliever. As Allah says, “Indeed, the hypocrites are in the lowest depths of the hell-fire.” [4:145]

And then he continues and he says,
“And this is a prolonged matter to discuss, however if you ponder over it, two categories of people would become clear to you in your discussions with them. You’ll see one who knows the truth but leaves acting upon it for fear of some loss in this world, such as his prestige or property and you will also see one who outwardly acts on the truth but not inwardly. If you were to ask him, what he truly believes in his heart, he would not know, but upon you is to understand two verses from the Book of Allah. The first of them has already been mentioned and it is the verse, “Do not give excuses, you have disbelieved after your faith.” [9:66]

And then he says,
“So, if it is confirmed that some of the Companions who actually fought with the Prophet (saws) against the Romans, disbelieved because of a statement they made jokingly, and then it will become clear to you that a person who makes a statement of disbelief or acts upon it because of fear of loss or money, prestige and so on, are ordered to pleased one greater than he, is greater in sin than one who said such a statement in jest.”

So, he’s saying here that, we have evidence in the Qur’an that, people made statements of disbelief that they didn’t believe in their heart, but they only did so out of joking, so it this was the case who said it out of joking, then what would we say about someone who does so because they fear a loss of their money, their status or something like this, obviously someone who says so joking will be a lower level of danger or wouldn’t be as bad as someone who says so out of fear of wealth and so on, loss of wealth and so on.

Then he goes on and he says, so he’s still taking about the two verses that a person should know from the Book of Allah or should remember from the Book of Allah, and the second verse is when Allah said, the meaning of which is that Allah said,
“Whoever disbelieves after having faith, except he who is coerced while his heart is firm with belief but is upon him whose heart opened to disbelief [so meaning willingly].” [16:106]

 Then he continues and says,
“So Allah does not excuse such people except if they were forced into doing something while their hearts were still firm and content with belief, so anyone besides such a person has disbelieved after having faith, regardless of whether he does it out of fear or greed or wanting to please someone or out of love for his country, his family, relatives or money, or even if he does it jokingly or any other excuse. The only acceptable excuse is the one who was unwillingly forced.”

And then he says,
“So the verse proves this in two ways. First the phrase إلا من أكر or “Except one who is coerced”, so only such a person is excused.”

So obviously, the author’s showing that, because the exception was made to the coerced one.

And then he says,
“And it is well known, that a person can only be forced to do an act or to say something verbally. He cannot be forced to believe with his heart for no-one can coerce another’s heart.”

Then he says,
“Secondly, [so the second part of the verse that proves this, the next verse in 107], “That is because they preferred the life of this world over the life of the Hereafter.” [16:107]

So, he says,
“So, it is clearly mentioned that the reason for their kufr and punishment was not due to any heart-felt belief, or because of ignorance or a hatred of religion, or a love of disbelief, rather, the reason for their eternal punishment in the Hereafter was due to the fact that he achieved some benefit in this world preferring this benefit over the religion. And Allah knows best.”

So, this is the end of the book. So, now just to add some commentary. So, as we said, the point of this is to show that actions are needed in order for Iman or the religion of the person to be accepted and for it to be valid.

So, the author started this section of by telling us that it’s an extremely important great matter and the reason for this, for anyone who’s been listening to these lessons from before or anyone who is involved in da’wah to the ‘Aqidah of Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l Jama’ah obviously would see why. Because the number of people who fall into mistakes with regards to this are a very high number of people, and the issue of Iman was the first matter of bid’ah that came about in the Ummah of Muhammad (saws), which was at the end of the time of the Sahabah, with the Khawarij, and then it start to grow from there and later on the Murji’ah and so on.

So, the Shaykh as well as the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l Jama’ah in his area at that time, and elsewhere in the world were dealing with these matters with regards to people giving false excuses to people who would believe things of disbelief, or make statements of disbelief, or perform actions of disbelief or shirk, at the time, they were obviously dealing with this, and this was one of the reasons why the author mentioned this.

As the author said, there’s no dispute that Tawhid must be in the heart, on the tongue and in the actions, and if one of these is absent, then the person would not be Muslim, and this is the ‘Aqidah of Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l Jama’ah and we talked about this many times before, that Iman is belief in the heart, or the actions and statements of the heart, as well as the statements on the tongue and actions of the body.

And Tawhid is part of Iman in general, so it is a must that each part of Tawhid would contain each part of Iman, so meaning that just as Iman needs to be at least three areas, then Tawhid would need to be in these three areas as well. And as the author mentioned, there’s no dispute about this. And we talked about this many times before, the number of early scholars that not only said this statements but stated that, it’s a matter of consensus, is more than that can really be discussed in one lesson, so it’s not really a matter of dispute.

So, this is the ‘Aqidah of Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah. If we’re talking about the ‘Aqidah of the Murji’ah, and any of the type of the Murji’ah, or any group that falls under the banner of the Murji’ah when we talk about the issues of Iman and kufr, so this would include the Asha’irah, or the Ashari’s, the Marturidiyyah, the Jahmiyyah, the Rafidah or the extremist Shi’a, the Karamiyyah… so the Marturidi’s and the Jahmi’s and the Rafidi’s and the Karami’s, and as well as a number of scholars have included in this in our time, Jama’at at-Tabligh as well as what they call, al-Asrana’in which are a type of modernist group.

According to these people, or these groups, the Tawhid according to them is only in the heart, and some of them would say on the tongue as well. So, meaning that, all that’s held accountable for, all that a person needs to be Muslim is whatever is in their heart, and some of them would add to this, what’s on the tongue, so meaning that they state or make the statement La ilaha ila Allah and this would  be sufficient for the person to be Muslim, and the vast majority if not all of these groups, don’t include actions in Iman or Tawhid. And it would include the actions of the heart and actions of the body.

So, when we say the actions of the body, this is obvious, Salat, fasting, Hajj, giving Zakat, performing Jihad, giving da’wah, teaching…anything that’s on the actions of the body. Actions of the heart are things that take place in the heart that aren’t related to belief or what the person’s ‘Aqidah or actual belief is, so meaning that the actions of the heart are things like, fear, love, hope, desire, all of these types of things. While the statements of the heart are things like, ‘ilm, and ma’rifah, and tasdiq, and yaqin, and things like this.

So, the person, what he believes, his knowledge in his heart of Allah and the religion, as well as his certainty in this, so the things that relate to the person’s beliefs can be said that it’s statements of the heart, and the things that relate to how the heart feels and acts in different situations would be actions of the heart.

 Next is, the Khawarij, and the Mu’tazilah, so the early groups of the Khawarij and the Mu’tazilah, they agreed with Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah in including actions in Iman and Tawhid. So, they also agreed that in order for a person to be Muslim, they would have to have the beliefs in the heart or the statements and actions of the heart, as well as statements on the tongue and the actions of the body. However, they also disputed or differed with Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah on issues related to this.

So, for example the Khawarij and the Mu’tazilah, they considered every single action to be a condition for Iman. So what does this mean? So, Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah, we say, in general, a person has to have the different things in their heart, so they need to have the statements and actions in the heart, and statements on the tongue, and actions of the body. We don’t say that if a person didn’t do every single thing that’s obligatory, that they’ve left Islam, or if they didn’t state every singe thing that’s obligatory on them, that they would leave Islam. So, we say that each one of these things needs to be present. A person needs to have some actions of the body, some statements of the tongue, some actions of the heart, and some statement of the heart.

And we say that, there’s certain things in the heart that need to be present in order for the person to be Muslim. Some might not be present sometimes, and some might be present sometimes as well as the actions of the body and statements of the heart. While the Khawarij and the Mu’tazilah, they say that every single action of the heart that was obligatory has to exist all the time, otherwise the person isn’t Muslim, and likewise with the statements of the tongue, statements of the heart, the actions of the heart and the actions of the body.

So, if a person left something that was obligatory or left a statement that was obligatory, they would leave Islam. If they left an action that was obligatory, they would leave Islam and so on. So, Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah and these groups agree in considering these things from Iman, but Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah doesn’t consider that every single action needs to be present in order for a person to be Muslim, or if someone leaves one thing that’s obligatory, that they’ve left Islam, or if they do one thing, or two things or a number of things that are haram, that they leave Islam. We don’t say this, we say that there’s things that can remove a person from Islam, if they say them on their tongue, or do them with their body or believe them in their heart.

Likewise, there’s things in these three areas that are required for a person to be Muslim, but there’s also ones that aren’t required, and this is more of matter to get into when we get into when we talk about the reality of Iman. So, for this part, the take away would be that, we differentiate between, or we say that statements of the heart and the tongue, and actions of the heart and the body, need to be present in some way in order for a person to be Muslim. We also say that there’s some of these things that actually are required for a person to be Muslim.

So, there might be certain beliefs that a person has to have in order to be a Muslim. So, for example if someone doesn’t believe that Allah exists, we would say obviously they’re not Muslim. If someone doesn’t know a specific detail that Allah told us in the Qur’an about Himself, for example a person doesn’t know that Allah, as the Prophet (saws) mentioned in the Sunnah, doesn’t know that Allah descends in the last third of the night, this wouldn’t be required for the person to be Muslim, as long as if he knew, or if he heard of it, he accepted it. But for example, someone isn’t even Muslim if they don’t believe Allah exists, so we say that each of the actions of the heart and the body, the statements of the heart and the tongue are different levels as well.

So, this is another matter from the ‘Aqidah of Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah, that we differentiate or we say that each thing has different levels. So, some things are a requirement for the person to be Muslim, if they didn’t have them, they wouldn’t be Muslim. Other things aren’t a requirement to be Muslim, but they’re obligatory, so if a person didn’t do them, they would be sinful, but they wouldn’t leave Islam. And last there are things that aren’t even obligatory but they’re recommended, so if a person didn’t do them, they wouldn’t leave Islam, and they wouldn’t be sinful, but they would have lost the opportunity to gain those rewards, and likewise when it comes to bad deeds. 

So, there’s certain beliefs, actions or statements a person can do, or say or believe, that can remove a person from Islam. There’s also other things where if they did these, any of the three, they wouldn’t leave Islam, but they’d be sinful. And lastly, there’s other things where if they did them, they wouldn’t leave Islam, and they wouldn’t even be sinful, but they’d have lost the opportunity to  gain the reward by abandoning those things. So, we don’t say that Iman is all one things, it’s either present or absent, we say it’s different levels, and it can increase and it can decrease, and it’s at different parts of the body.

So, this is just a very quick explanation of the matters of Iman according to Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah, as well as the Khawarij and the Murji’ah. So, the authors point here is that, each part of these things on the body, or from the body, so the heart, the tongue and the actions or the outward actions of the body, need to be present in order for the person to be upon Tawhid, or to be considered a Muslim. So, if either of these are gone, whether it’s just one of them, or two of them, or three of them, the point is all three of them need to be present, if any of them are gone, then the person wouldn’t be Muslim.

So, if we look at what the author said, we see that he mentioned that there’s three types of Tawhid, one in the heart, and this is the greatest type of it, and it’s the basis for everything and it’s impossible that anyone could be compelled or coerced with regards to anything like this, or that there would be some sort of excuse given for someone in not having Tawhid in their heart, because no-one can force you to do otherwise, or fear can’t actually make you stop believing in your heart, so this wouldn’t be something that would be excused.

And equal to this, is the different types of the things that would happen in the heart. So, if a person with regards to… we talked about the actions and statements of the heart, so the statements are, things like knowledge and acceptance and belief and certainty and things like this that relate to actual beliefs, and then the actions of the heart are love, and hate, and fear and tawakkul, and sincerity and things like this.

The second thing is obviously we talked about is Tawhid on the tongue, and that’s saying La ilaha ila Allah and no-one would be given an excuse for not doing this, except for the person who is physically unable to do so, because they can’t actually speak, of the person who is forced or prevented from doing so for whatever reason with an acceptable type of coercion. And things that would fall under Tawhid on the tongue as well would be, calling to Tawhid, and clarifying the shirk, or clarifying shirk if its being seen and people are unaware of it, as well as the insulting shirk and its people, and declaring the non-Muslims to be non-Muslims, and declaring someone who’s a Taghut to be a Taghut and so on.

And the last of these sections is the Tawhid on the body, and this is acting upon La ilaha ila Allah, for example, seeking help from Allah Alone, slaughtering for Allah or sacrificing for Allah Alone, performing the Salat for Allah Alone, and any of the other actions of Tawhid, and then based on these types of or where Tawhid would take place or where Iman would take place, the author mentioned different groups, or different categories that people would fall into.

So, the first that he mentioned is a person who knows Tawhid but doesn’t act upon it. So, he brings the statement of La ilaha ila Allah and he may believe in his heart, and he knows about Allah, but he doesn’t act upon on his body. Or even better to say would be that the person who knows it in their heart, and believes it in their heart, but doesn’t act upon it outwardly. So, they don’t even say La ilaha ila Allah. So, they don’t attest to the Shahadah or they don’t act upon anything from that, and this is what the author referred to when he talked about Iblis and Fir’awn and their likes.

So, the person who knows it inwardly, or even believes it inwardly and they don’t act upon it or say anything about it outwardly would fall into this category. And this is the type that the author focused mostly on, because it’s less likely for you to know about someone acting upon Islam and not believing in, this would require some strong evidences to show that they actually don’t believe it in their heart, but mostly what we would deal with would be people who know about it, or maybe even attest to it, but never act upon it, or they act contrary to it by performing shirk and so on.

And this is the second type that the author mentioned. It’s the person who acts upon Tawhid, but doesn’t understand it or doesn’t believe it in his heart. So, outwardly you would see him as a Muslim, but inwardly there would be kufr and shirk and hypocrisy and these types of things. And this is what the hypocrite or the munafiq is, and as the author mentioned, that their worse than the regular kafir. Or, the plain kafir, and the reason for this is because Allah said,
“Indeed the hypocrites are in the lowest depths of the Fire.” [4:145]

And the reason for this is because they outwardly to claim to be Muslim to receive the benefits of this in the dunya and they try to fool the Muslimin, and some of them might believe that they’re fooling Allah, as Allah said,
“They try to fool Allah, but Allah is fooling them.” [4:142] and so on.

So, these are some of the reasons why the munafiq would be worse. And also we can also theoretically or even practically see that there would a third type of person that the author didn’t mention, but that’s the person who doesn’t have any Islam or Iman or Tawhid inwardly or outwardly. So, they don’t believe in it in their heart and they don’t fear Allah and they don’t love Allah and so on, and they never upon it, so they don’t say the Shahadah and they don’t perform the Salat or anything else.

 And so just to go back to the first category because that’s what the author focuses on mostly in this book as the majority of his books, and even really the majority of the people who’s spoken about Tawhid because that’s the actual one Muslimin would encounter, this type of person. So, we can say that, this category can be divided into two types as well:

The first would someone who isn’t excused in the way that they leave or they leave their acting upon Tawhid. So, the person doesn’t act upon Tawhid in whatever way, and they’re not excused for it.

The second would be someone who is excused and as we’ll get into…this is someone who’s coerced or compelled or forced and we’ll talk about what’s acceptable in that category and what isn’t.

So, the first, someone who isn’t excused, the author did talk about and that’s why we’re talking about it. So, this is the person who leaves Tawhid, doesn’t act upon Tawhid and it’s out of stubbornness and it’s out of pride or something like this.

The second, or another type of person who would fall under this category, or another group of people that would fall under this category are the people who have left Tawhid and acted upon shirk, and they don’t have an acceptable excuse, so meaning they don’t have a acceptable misconception where we would say this is acceptable that the person actually was confused by this, as opposed to someone who does something and isn’t actually convinced by what they’re saying

And the author referred to this when he talked about, he said that it’s not possible for the people of our area or the people of our country, and those who comply with them, and those who do things like them. And the author spent time on this type because this is the majority of what he would encounter and what we would encounter as well.

So, it’s unlikely or it’s very…it’s not very common that we would encounter people acting in a way that contradicts Tawhid when they know that it’s wrong but they’re just refusing to do so, like in a similar manner, like Fir’awn and Iblis. It’s more likely that you would find someone who would act upon shirk or leave Tawhid and they would bring some sort of false excuse, so they would actually think that this excuse is…they might bring an Ayah to try to prove what they’re saying, or a hadith to try to prove what they’re saying, or make a claim about the Sahabah to try to prove what they’re saying, to prove that it’s actually right, as opposed to Fir’awn and Iblis, they knew that they were wrong, but they did so or they refused to follow the truth that came to them, or that they knew of, and this was out of pride or out of stubbornness.

So, some of the examples that the author…or some of the false arguments or false excuses that the author refers to, one of them is that the person leaves Tawhid, or they act upon shirk out of fear that they will lose something from their dunya. So, they’ll lose a job, or they’ll lose some of their wealth, or they’ll lose part of their status, or something like this. So, this is the first thing that the author referred to.

And an example of this as well could be that, if a person knew that you were upon Tawhid, that they wouldn’t buy from your store or from your business, or they wouldn’t sell things to you for whatever you need, or they wouldn’t help you out if you are poor, or they wouldn’t lend you money if they knew you were in need of a loan, and this is the type of that would fall under this category. And other things, is when he says, so he refers to a loss of dunya as well as a loss of wealth. So, here we can say the loss of wealth is a type of loss of dunya, and the loss of something in the dunya could be even more general. So, for example that the person might lose their wife, or their husband, or they might be refused to marry someone, that, that person wouldn’t accept him to marry them, or the person wouldn’t accept for that person to marry them cause of their din and so on. 

Another example that the author gives of a false argument or a false excuse is that the person would do something from shirk, or leave something out of their Tawhid that’s required for Islam out of the claim that they’re trying to please or they’re trying to get near to, or whatever you want to call it, suck-up or anything like this to the disbelievers, and obviously this isn’t an excuse because there’s no evidence for it, so the claim that we’re going to do something of kufr, or leave something of Tawhid, as a means to please someone else from the mushrikin is obviously a false argument.

Another example that the author gives, is a person not acting upon Tawhid or performing shirk and the reason for this would be due to his love or his desire for his own country and this could be his own province or his own state or his own country or city or anything like this and this would become this way if he was in a area that was full of shirk and kufr and he feared that if he rejected it, or rebuked it, or made ‘inkar on it, that he would have to leave that country because the people wouldn’t accept for him to be there, or that he might have to…or he wouldn’t be able to stay in the place that he loves and he would have to go to somewhere that is less beloved to him, so this is what the author is referring to when he mentions like this, or he mentions this.

The next which is the fifth false excuse that the author refers to is if the person leaves Tawhid or acts upon shirk out of love for his people or his family or this tribe, which can be similar to the land or his country as well. In the sense that it’s his love for something and this would be end up leading him to leave acting upon Tawhid, whether it’s by him leaving the Salat or not rejecting or rebuking something upon them when they’re doing open shirk and so on and not declaring his disavowal from it and the likes.

And other examples of this that we would see today, that weren’t around in the time of the author, would be examples of people going into parliaments where shirk is performed, and they might say  because that it’s part of their job or something like this, or they want to make the money or they would like to…they like the status and things like this, or they might say we want to help our country or bring our country together and things like this, but at the same time this job requires them to do things that contradict Islam, to legislating laws that contradict Islam, or rejecting laws that follow Islam, or working in a way that works against the da’wah and the Jihad of the Muslimin and so on. So, this is one of the modern day or contemporary example that some of the scholars have mentioned that would fall under this category.

And the author proved his point that these were false arguments, by mentioning people who disbelieved before from the actions of shirk or kufr, and they had brought up these false arguments or these false excuses, and these excuses weren’t accepted from them and they weren’t taken into account, and these people were held accountable for their actions or their statements.

So, one of the things that he mentioned was the story of the people in the time of the Prophet (saws) who mocked the Prophet (saws) and the Sahabah and we talked about this a number of times before, in Suratul Tawbah when Allah mentioned their story, and then Allah said,
“Do not give an excuse, indeed you have disbelieved after your Iman.” [9:66]

So, Allah, despite the fact that they said we were only joking, He didn’t give them an excuse. And there is other evidence which we can mention as well like when Allah said in Surahtul Tawbah, Verse 24,
“Say, “If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.”

So, here Allah mentioned that all of these things, or giving false excuses about any of these things which is love for anyone in your family, or your tribe, or your wealth or your business, or your homes, meaning your places of dwellings or your country or whatever it may be, that all of these things would be considered false arguments.

And another point that would fall under this issue as well that some scholars or some contemporary scholars have mentioned is that just as all of these false arguments or these false excuses that are given by individuals, likewise these false arguments or false excuses can be given by larger groups of people or even countries or even leaders of countries and so on. So, what some of the scholars have mentioned is that, certain organisations to certain states or countries or whatever these large entities might be, won’t follow the Shari’ah in the way that they need to follow it.

So, if it’s a country, they might not rule with the Shari’ah or they might not perform the things that need to be performed, or they might perform things that shouldn’t be performed and they would contradict Tawhid, and then they would give essentially the same arguments that the individual would give that we just talked about.

So, they might say that, “If we were to implement the Shari’ah, then we wouldn’t receive full support from our people and that we would be called to step down.” Or that, “We wouldn’t receive international support”, whether it be military support, or things like financial support or even just support by means of just support in words, these types of things. “…We might be put on the sidelines, or we might be marginalised as a country, as a state”, and so on, all of these things would fall exactly under what the individual person would give as an excuse, or they might say, “We’ve always been ruling with things that go with our culture, so we can’t start implementing the Shari’ah because this would get rid of some of the things in our culture,” whatever it may be, whether it’s matters of shirk, or matters that are less than shirk, but in any case, just as these excuses wouldn’t apply to an individual, they also wouldn’t apply to larger groups of people whether they’re organised or not organised.

Just as we just talked about the first type of person, the one who wouldn’t be excused, there’s also a second category of people who would be excused. So, they would be excused by leaving something that’s required for Tawhid, or performing something that might nullify Tawhid.

And the condition for this to be accepted is that their heart remains pure, so they haven’t accepted these things of kufr and shirk in their heart, and they’ve continued to believe and contain or hold onto the requirements of Tawhid in their heart, but there was something outward that forced them to perform or to leave something that was required – to perform something that would nullify or to leave something that was required.

And due to this, this is when the author said that Allah didn’t give an excuse to anyone except the ones who were compelled or coerced while their heart was tranquil with Iman. And obviously this is based on the verse that we talked about,
“Whosoever disbelieves in Allah after his faith, except for those who are compelled while his heart is tranquil with Iman.” [16:106]

And the author didn’t go into what are the types of things that would lead to compulsion or coercion and he didn’t go into the different types of compulsion or coercion, and what would actually be acceptable, not acceptable, however we can go into that for a little bit, or a little bit just to give a better idea.

So, we can say that when the scholars talk about compulsion or coercion, they divide it into two different categories.

So, the first type is what we call, Al-Ikrah al-Mulji, and this is what the author referred to when he said that it’s a type that the person performing it would be excused, and Al-Ikrah al-Mulji, or Al-Ikrah is compulsion or coercion, Al-Mulji relates to refuge, so it’s something that the person sought refuge in this compulsion to stop something, or it was something that did give him refuge in leaving Islam in the sense that it was an acceptable type of…an acceptable type of coercion or compulsion.

And the likes of this, or some examples of this is, someone who, for example is given or threatened with death or threatened with execution in the sense that if he acted upon Tawhid then he would be killed, and the situation would or the condition would be that the person who’s making the threat is able to do so. So, for example, if someone was kidnapped and was being threatened, and the weapons were in front of him, and the person doing it, doing the threatening was well-known to follow through his threats, or the person was quite sure if he didn’t do what the person said, that he would be executed, then this would be considered an excuse.

While on the other hand, if someone who has no physical power and has no say in the society, and has no means of enforcing anything, they’re just a person on the street who’s very weak, and they said, “If you don’t leave Islam, then I’m going to kill you,” and there was no threat whatsoever, even though verbally a threat was given, this wouldn’t be an excuse. And this is obvious to anyone who looks at the topic with just or with justice.

Another example of this is, beating or torture that would lead to injuries or severe pain and the person isn’t able to withstand it, they can’t leave, they can’t do something to get away and at the same time they don’t feel they would be able to take it and that it would have a very harsh effect on them, again with the condition that for example, the person is able to do that. So, if it’s someone who physically was able to hurt you or they might be able to hurt you but there was people around to protect you and so on, then this wouldn’t be an excuse as opposed to a small type of beating where the person might receive the cut or they might break a finger or something like this, then most scholars if not all of them considered these things to be unacceptable because there’s no long-term harm.

Other examples that the scholars have given is the threat of prison or actual prison, so for example of if it was one day, or two days as opposed to life in prison, than life in prison would obviously be something that would be considered an excuse or even long-term like 10 or 15 years, if the person felt like they couldn’t handle it as opposed to sitting in a cell for a couple of hours, or overnight or a day or these types of things, then this wouldn’t be considered an excuse.

The next type of Ikrah is Al-Ikrah Ghayril-Mulji, or Ikrah that isn’t Mulji, it doesn’t fall into or it doesn’t have the conditions that need to be met for this first type. And things like that would be someone who for example is threatened to be beaten, or even they are beaten but with something that doesn’t hurt, or with something that might sting, but there’s no real harm behind it, or someone who’s threatened with a fine of $50 or something like this, while they’re quite well off and $50 isn’t going to affect them, or that they’re threatened with a night in prison, things like this wouldn’t be considered an excuse because there is no actual coercion being taken place here, rather it’s just empty threats, or threats that don’t actually have an effect on the person’s well-being.

Other things that don’t fall into this or things that don’t fall into this is, someone being embarrassed or someone being spoken about in a poor manner, or someone being considered  an extremist or being called certain names like Khawarij, or takfeeri or Wahhabi, or anything like this, because in reality a name call, isn’t a reason to leave something of Tawhid or to perform something of shirk.

So, if someone says, “My family will think bad of me or they’ll call me an extremist, so I’m not going to pray”, or “I’m going to take part in matters of shirk that they have whether it’s celebrating their democracy…”, things like this, none of these things would be considered valid excuses, and rather it’s from the Shaytan, and it’s from the plans of the Shaytan or the plot of the Shaytan as a means to try to scare the people of Tawhid. And this is when Allah said in Surah Ali-Imran, Verse 175,
“Indeed, that is only the Shaytan who is scaring his allies, so do not fear them but fear me if you are indeed believers.” 

So, we know that a fear of something or minor harms or minor annoyances or things like this, they’re not considered actual acceptable means of coercion. And an example of this, even though the hadith is weak, has a slight weakness in the chain, some have accepted the hadith, but as we said Allahu Alam, the stronger opinion is that it’s a slightly weak hadith, that was narrated by Imam Ahmad and Ibn Majah that the Prophet (saws), it’s attributed to him that he said, Allah will say to a slave on the Day of Judgement who saw something that was evil, but he did not rebuke it, or stop it, or try to stop it, Allah will say, “What prevented you from rebuking or making ‘Inkar upon that?”, so the slave will say, “Fear of the people”, so Allah say “I was more deserving of being feared.”

Obviously the meaning or general meaning of the hadith which is the obligation of rebuking, or censoring, or making Inkar upon something when you see it as being wrong is well-known in evidences from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and just the general rules of Islam.

So, here a few things that remain is, is a threat sufficient for the person to follow through with the leaving of something of Tawhid and performing shirk, or does he actually have to be afflicted before they can follow through with it. So, meaning that…and this is a matter that there’s a difference of opinion on among the scholars. So, some say that the being threatened is sufficient, so some of the scholars, the majority say that it’s sufficient to have a verbal threat, with the condition that the person who’s making the threat is able to implement whatever they’re threatening. So, if the person threatens to kill or execute or they threaten to torture, or they threaten to rape or they threaten to…whatever the threat is, if they able to follow through with that, then this would be considered sufficient.

And they use the generality of the verse when Allah said,
“Except those who are compelled or coerced, and their heart is tranquil with Iman.” [16:106]

 The second opinion is that it’s necessary for them to actually be afflicted by something before they can actually follow through it. And this was narrated from Imam Ahmad, and as many know the story in which Imam Ahmad was tortured by the rulers at the time to try to get him to say that the Qur’an was created, but he refused too, and other scholars at the time followed through with this when they were threatened to be beaten, they followed through with this and they said that the Qur’an was created, and Imam Ahmad made ‘Inkar on them, and some of them, he refused to speak to for the rest of their lives and from amongst them was the Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in, and actually the cast majority of the scholars at the time.

And what Imam Ahmad at the time for those who don’t know the story was, the scholars at the time used the hadith of ‘Ammar, so ‘Ammar ibn Yasir, the well-known story where the kuffar of Quraysh were torturing him and ‘Ammar said some statements of kufr, and he came to the Prophet (saws) and mentioned what he had done, and the Prophet (saws) asked him about how his heart, what state he found his heart in, he said it was calm and tranquil with Iman, so he said if they returned to that, then return to what you had done.

So, Imam Ahmad in this situation, he said, they used the hadith of ‘Ammar, but ‘Ammar was actually tortured, while those ones or it was said to them, “We will torture you”, so Imam Ahmad was of the view that a mere threat in this situation wouldn’t be sufficient, because how can you use the hadith in which the Sahabi was actually tortured and say that, this actually gives the excuse to anyone that isn’t even tortured yet, to follow through with whatever they’re being asked to do. However, there’s different ways of reconciling, so some way that, if the threat is with death, then obviously, you can’t wait for it to happen because once it happens, there’s no turning back and if it’s other things like imprisonment and torture and these types of things, then you’d have to wait for it to happen. So, this is one way that the scholars have reconciled between the evidences.

Other ways is that they differentiate between who is being forced to do something. So, if the person is from the scholars, or the major students of knowledge or he’s a person that the people follow and look up to, that if he followed through with this, it would have a major effect on the Muslimin, then this person would actually have to be tortured first or wouldn’t be allowed to even give in while if the person was someone who was, their statements don’t have a major effect on the Muslimin, and by them following through with it, it wouldn’t have a major effect, then this person, being threatened would be sufficient and they wouldn’t have to go through any major affliction.

And in any case, the scholars say that holding steadfast on what you’re on is better, even if it leads to death, and they give examples of the Sahabah who refuse to give in, and what the Sahabah went through.

Another issue to bring up with regards to Ikrah or compulsion is that, it’s an excuse only when it refers to you yourself. But if you are compelled or being compelled to do something to someone else, then it would no longer be an excuse for you. So, for example, if a person said, I was compelled or coerced into swearing at the Prophet (saws) this would be acceptable for him to accept the concession to follow through with that statement, even though it would be better not to, but it would be acceptable with the conditions that we talked about before.

That the person who’s doing the threat is able to follow through with it, and that’s something that would actually have a major effect on the person and so on. But if it’s something that carries on to someone else, for example, you’re being threatened or coerced to kill a Muslim, or to rape a Muslim or to severely beat a Muslim or anything like this, than in this situation, it wouldn’t be considered an excuse for the person, the person who’s doing it or the people who’s using it as an excuse. 

And the scholars have spoken about this, the reason why is because if you’re being threatened to be killed, if you don’t kill someone else, then you’re not at a higher state to kill someone else in your place, or your blood isn’t more protected than the person you’re going to kill, or that person’s blood isn’t at a lower level than your blood, or your life isn’t at a higher level than their life, so for you to put someone else’s life in place of yours would not be allowed, because you can’t make that decision on behalf of that person, and it’s not the time to go into the evidences statements of the scholars right now, but in general, that would be the rule.

So, to sum up we can say that, or we can finish by talking about what is, or where can compulsion actually take place, or what are the situations in which a person might claim compulsion. So, the first would be performing a statement, or performing an action of shirk and kufr. So, for example, making Sujud to other than Allah, or sacrificing to other than Allah and so on.

The second would be statements on the tongue such swearing at the Prophet (saws) or Allah or the religion or anything like this. And the third would be the actions of the heart. So, if we talk about the actions of the body, then it’s possible and it’s acceptable that a person would fall into an action of kufr due to this compulsion, and that would be similar to what we talked about before, which is the different types of things that…if the person says that, “if you don’t do this, we’re going to kill you”, or they beat him until he’s in pain and he can’t take it anymore so he says a statement of kufr. So, this is the first thing, that the harm from your action doesn’t transgress over to anybody else and this is what we talked about before as well.

The second type would be what we talked about before, it does carry over to someone else, so you’re harming someone else at this point, and this obviously wouldn’t be allowed and we talked about this already, and Allah said about the Angels when they took the souls of certain people, that they said, or Allah said in Suratul Nisa, Verse 97:
“They said: “What state were you in?” They said: “We were weak and oppressed in the land”, They said: “Was not the land of Allah widespread so that you would make Hijrah therein, indeed those people’s destination is Jahannam.”

So, Allah revealed this verse concerning Muslimin who did no emigrate from Makkah to Maidnah with the Muslimin and they remained in Makkah, and the kuffar of Makkah went out to fight the Muslimin in the battle of Badr, this verse came down about them, in that they weren’t considered excused in going out and fighting against the Muslimin. Because Allah would give you an excuse if you were forced, if you had no way around it, as well as if the thing that you were doing wasn’t hurting any other Muslim. But if you had a way around it, and refused too, or you did something that was a transgression against another Muslim, then obviously this wouldn’t be excused.

And Allah said in Surah Baqarah, verse 190,
“And do not transgress. Indeed Allah does not love the trangressors.”

And other evidences from the Qur’an and the Sunnah that can be talked about in another time.

If we’re talking about the Ikrah on statements, then this also falls exactly under the Ikrah or compulsion when it comes to actions, because its outward, it doesn’t relate to belief, and also it doesn’t…some of the evidences were revealed and came down like the hadith of ‘Ammar is related to statements and it’s not related to actions. So, everything that we said about actions being excused or not being excused due to compulsion then it would apply as well to statements of the tongue.

And the last thing is actions of the heart or the things that take place in the heart. This is something that it’s not possible for compulsion to affect. So for example, if someone said, “We’re going to kill you if you don’t hate the Prophet (saws)”. There’s no way for this to be tested or there’s no way for you to prove in your heart, or to prove to people in your heart that you hate the Prophet (saws) and there’s no real way for a person to do anything to change that. As opposed to a statement, you can say the statement and it might make them stop whatever they’re doing and it might not make them stop, but it’s something that’s visible and it’s something that you have control over, you can control what you say and you can control what you do. As for the things that take place in the heart, then it’s not possible to have compulsion over it.

And this is when the author said, “As for the beliefs of the heart, then no-one is compelled or coerced with regards to that.”

 So, with this, we would’ve finished the explanation or commentary of the book “Kashf ash-Shubuhat” by Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhab, and insha’Allah those who heart it all or partially have benefited from it. Wallahul A’lam. 

Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid #19 [Transcribed] - By Shaykh Haytham Sayfaddeen


TO READ MORE, CLICK:

No comments:

Post a Comment