Introduction
The scholars) of Irjaa’ and Bid’ah are desperate to twist the clear wordings of the Qur’aan and Sunnah from their rightful places and raise pseudo-arguments in an attempt to extinguish the light of Allaah and to firm up the thrones of their masters from the Taaghut rulers. The rulers who do not rule by what Allaah has revealed and have allied with the Kuffar and fought with them against the people of Tawheed and tortured and killed the ones who command good and forbid evil. These scholars have sold their Akhirah for the Dunyah thereby destroying themselves, but they will never be able to extinguish the Truth, for Allaah the Exalted and Majestic says:
“They intend to put out the Light of Allaah with their mouths. But Allaah will complete His Light even though the disbelievers hate (it). It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of truth, that He may proclaim it over all religion, Even though the Pagans may detest (it).”[1]
Most of the arguments presented by those misguided from the truth revolve around the issue of not ruling by what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed from the famous verse of Hukm:
“Whosoever Rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon.”[2]
It is therefore pertinent to start at this juncture by exhaustively analysing this ayah before scrutinising the pseudo-arguments and downright lies of those who try to water down the issue of not ruling by what Allaah has revealed.
Context of the Ayahs
The full context of the revelation of the ‘ayahs regarding whosoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed is as follows:
(41) Oh Messenger, let not those grieve you, who race each other into disbelief: (whether it be) among those who say ‘We believe’ with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen Even to others who have never so much As come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: They say, ‘If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!’ if any one’s trial is intended by Allaah, Thou hast no authority in the least for Him against Allaah. For such – it is not Allaah’s will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace In This world, and In the Hereafter a heavy punishment.
(42) (They are fond of) listening to falsehood, of devouring Suht (Bribery). If they do come to thee, either judge between them, or decline to interfere. If you decline, they cannot hurt you in the least. If you judge, judge in equity between them – for Allaah loves those who judge in equity.
(43) But why do they come to you for decision, when they have (Their own) law before them? – Therein is the (plain) command of Allaah. Yet even after that, they would turn away; for they are not (really) people of Faith.
(44) It was we who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islaam) to Allaah’s will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allaah’s Book, and They were witnesses thereto: Therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not My Signs for a miserable price. And whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed, they are al-Kaafiroon.
(45) We ordained therein for them: ‘Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.’ But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for Him. And whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed, they are al-Thaalimun.
(46) And In their footsteps we sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the law that had come before him: we sent Him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allaah.
(47) Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allaah hath revealed therein. And whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed, they are al-Faasiqun.
(48) To you we sent the Scripture In truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allaah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that has come to you. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allaah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (his plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allaah. It is He that will Show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;
(49) And This (He commands): you judge between them by what Allaah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them Lest They beguile you from any of that (teaching) which Allaah has sent down to you. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allaah’s purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious.
(50) Do they then seek after a Judgment of (the days of) ignorance? But who, for a people whose Faith is assured, can give better Judgment than Allaah.”[3]
[1] Soorat as-Saff, verse 8
[2] Soorat Ma’idah, verse 44
[3] Soorat al-Ma’idah, verses 41 / 50
The Meaning of ‘Ruling’
Since the subject matter of these verses concerns ‘Ruling by what Allaah has revealed’, it is impossible that the word is meant to mean anything other than the sole exclusive right of Allaah ta ‘ala to legislate both in essence and meaning.
He alone has the sole prerogative of command, and this is precisely what Allaah has revealed. From this basis, other types of ruling emanate from the Nass (text) which we are supposed to elaborate upon as to how we are to rule by what Allaah has revealed. These various types are meant with the word Ruling here, and these can be placed into the following categories:
* الفتيا al-Futiyyah. The first type of ruling is to give Fatwah, which means expressing an opinion which you believe to be true without it being legally binding upon others. This can be an expression of an opinion in any aspect, including religious, scientific, rational, aesthetic, and morality. All of these come within the meaning of ruling, and are construed to be within the context of what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed.
* القضاء al-Qa’dthaa’ (Judicial ruling). This involves pronouncing a point of view to settle a dispute in a binding way. It is different from a Fatwah which is not (necessarily) legally binding. This is where it can be enforced by a State. In modern times this is seen as one of the three major powers of the state, and in Arabic a judge is called Hākim, and what he pronounces is known as a Hukm (ruling). Therefore it is not permissible to enact judicial ruling except by what Allaah has revealed and whoever does not do so is one of the Thaalimun, Faasiqun and Kaafiroon.
* Managing the affairs of the public. The third type of ruling meant by the ayat is managing the affairs of the public by administrative and executive powers. The one who does this is known in Arabic as the Wali / Wali- ul amr / Hākim / Sulān. In modern times it is also common to call the governments in the Arab world Hukūmah which refers to the executive authority of state. In the United States, the Hukūmah is the President who is the chief executive. It is not permissible to manage the affairs of the public in both the executive and administrative arms of the state except by what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed. If it is done by other than what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed then they are Dhālimūn, Fāsiqūn and Kaafiroon.
* Adoption in Ruling. This refers to the practical implementation of the divine laws. It is not formulating primary legislation but procedurally enacting the divine laws, whether that is in the format of a constitution, bye-laws or executive decree(s). The essence of adoption in ruling is ijtihad applied in governance. One can therefore discern that there is a sharp distinction between this and modern parliamentary / legislative systems that assign sovereignty to man – either the entire body politic, but more commonly through their ‘elected representatives’ – who formulate not only administrative laws, but also primary legislation. The management of the modern political society or state through the adoption of rulings, enacting constitutions, bye-laws or the like, which are made legally binding, has to be done according to what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed. Moreover, ruling does not merely involve the provision of formulating legislation. Exercising political judgement in a given situation or scenario arguably forms a key element of ruling. Underpinning such judgement are core fundamental values, and indeed, a distinctive reference point. In Islaam, this reference point is only the divine sources, namely, the Qur’aan and the Sunnah.
* Nevertheless, in either of the aspects mentioned above ruling cannot be conducted upon personal whims or desires of a political leadership, nor for that matter, can it be based upon what is considered the will of the majority or the majority’s opinion. It has to be according to what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed, lest the leadership falls within the categories of Thaalimun, Fāsiqūn and Kaafiroon as specified in the verses of al-Mā’idah.
The word Ruling in the ‘ayahs cannot be restricted to mean only judicial rulings as some contend. It is ruling with the full range of meanings in the Arabic language and has been shown and proven by the Qur’aan as it is the main authority in this issue. The word ruling and the meaning which we have discussed are encompassed within it. Other meanings are also mentioned in the Qur’aan, but they are not relevant to this present study. To give a brief example, Allaah ta ‘ala’s ruling on the day of judgement. Obviously this is confined to the ‘Ākhirah and our focus of the word is concerned with the Dunyah, but this is also a meaning of the word ruling.
Establishing the Correct Meaning of the word ‘al-Kaafiroon’
The term al-Kaafiroon has come with the definite article ‘AL’ (Alif Lām Tah’rīf) in the statement of the Exalted: ‘Wa-mā Lem Yaĥkum Bimā ‘anz-zullAllaahi Fa’ūlā ‘ika hummul-Kaafiroon’. This has come with the reinforcement in the Arabic grammar Dthamīr (Pro-noun) of specific address ‘Hum (Those)’. Hence it is ‘…Fa’ūlā ‘ika hummul (those who are…)’. However, the ‘Hum’ is not needed to indicate that the ‘ayah is addressing the Kuffar, because even by saying ‘Fa’ūlā ‘ika Kaafiroon (who are Kaafiroon)’ is enough to know that the ‘ayah is addressing those who have contradicted Islaam. It is however reinforced with the addition of ‘Hum’, so saying ‘…Fa’ūlā ‘ika hummul-Kaafiroon’ is to explain who the ‘ayah is addressing as Kaafiroon specifically.
Difference between the application of Kufr and Kaafir
The word al-Kaafiroon is addressing those who have the attribute of the well-established Kufr which we are familiar with – the Shari’ah meaning of Kufr al-Akbar.[1] This is because the attachment of ﺃ (Alif) ﻝ (Lām), which is also used in other languages, either indicates the definiteness because it is known, which is called al-‘Aĥad, or the definiteness because it is a genus, for example if we say ‘The livestock’ we mean here the genus i.e. the type of live stock not the specific live stock, or if we say ‘The man said that the person you are with would know who you were taking about.[2] Moreover, there is no doubt when calling someone a Kaafir[3] (as is done in the ‘ayah) that this is more powerful then attributing Kufr to him. This could be because he has one attribute of Kufr, or he did an act of Kufr. To make this clear we will use an example as evidence:
The Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم said:
‘Two things of men are found, which are features of Kufr…’ [4]
And the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم said:
‘Whoever has intercourse with a menstruating woman, or with a woman in her rectum, or goes to a fortune teller has Yakfur (disbelieved) in what was revealed to Muhammad.’[5]
Or in another famous Hadīth of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم where he said:
‘Insulting or swearing at a Muslim is Fusūq (disobedience) and fighting him is Kufr.’ [6]
This is stronger then saying that he committed an act of Kufr, (because this is the lowest level) saying he is Kaafir is stronger then that. For example, the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم said:
‘Between man and Shirk and Kufr is the abandonment of Salāh.’ [7]
This is also clear from the language of the Arabs when you say a man is white, it is his attribute / nature; it is stronger then saying he has whiteness or he became white as this can only be a temporary attribute. Similarly there are three levels of Kufr. The attribute al-Kaafir is stronger than being Kufr and this in turn is stronger than committing Kufr. Another example to illustrate this is to say when referring to someone, that he is a wise man, and this is stronger than saying he has wisdom and the lesser form would be to say that he acted wisely. To be wise would refer to the inherent character or attribute of the person and athis is stronger then saying he has wisdom or he acted wisely.
Thus the statement of the exalted ‘al-Kaafiroon’ in the ‘ayah (which is the focus of our study in this treaties) means it is the fixed attribute. It is part of their being, part of their description, and not something causal or in passing. It must be concluded that it is the full meaning which is Kufr al-Akbar (major disbelief). In the Qur’aan the word Kufr is usually used to refer to Kufr al-Akbar. One could argue that there are veryfew places one can entertain the possibility of it having a different meaning, and in those places it is used to mean ingratitude to Allaah[8], and even there it can be interpreted as being Kufr al-Akbar also. A crucial point arises here regarding the word Kufr and how it is used in the Qur’aan. It is actually used to mean the standard Kufr al-Akbar. There is no other meaning, and all Kufr is the Shari’ah meaning of Kufr i.e. Kufr al-Akbar. There is no Kufr al-Asghar used whatsoever; any other uses would be the linguistic meaning.
The basic root of the linguistic meaning of the word Kufr is ‘covering’ or ‘hiding’. For example, the night is called al-Kaafir because it hides. Labīd the famous Muallaqāt[9] and poet of Jāhilīyyah whose poems were hanged on the Ka’bah, and who subsequently became Muslim, said in one of his poems:
‘…when the clouds have Kafarah Najūmun (covered the stars)’
He used the word Kufr to mean ‘cover’. Based on this, anyone who covers something does Kufr to it. In the same vain, linguistically a farmer is called a Kaafir when he buries seeds beneath the soil, Allaah ta ‘ala says:
“…as the likeness of vegetation after the rain, thereof the growth is pleasing to the tiller (Kuffar); afterwards it dries up and you see it turning yellow; then it becomes like straw.” [10]
Where the word Kufr in the Qur’aan can have two definitions
The Shari’ah has transferred the meaning to the opposite of Islaam. It means the one who does not accept the Deen of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم. If we go through the root of the word ‘Ka-fa-rah’ using the Qur’aan and looking through the indexes of classical Arabic, we will find that is it is not used except as the real Kufr which contradicts Islaam completely which is Kufr al-Akbar, except in the few following places where it could mean rejecting the Ni’mah (blessing) of Allaah and even in those places it can still be interpreted as Kufr al-Akbar.
Allaah ta ‘ala says:
“…they know the benefit of Allaah, but most of them reject it and most of them are Kaafiroon”.[11]
Because there is Ni’mah (blessing), one must appreciate it, and because the word Kaafiroon appears here in this ‘ayah it may indicate ingratitude which does not necessarily contradict Islaam and exclude one from the Millah. It could also mean Kufr al-Akbar, because believing in Allaah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم is included in appreciating Allaah ta ‘ala’s Ni’mah (favours).
Another example is of what Fir’awn said to Mūsa عليه السلام:
“[Fir'awn (Pharaoh)] said [to Mūsa (Moses)]: “Did we not bring you up among us as a child? And you did dwell many years of your life with us. “And you did your deed, which you did (i.e. the crime of killing a man). And you are one of the ingrates (Kaafiroon).”[12]
In other words, ‘…one of the rejecters of our favours…’ as was stated by Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn Jareer at-Tabarī (r.h) chose it (as the most appropriate meaning) in his Tafseer.[13] This type of Kufr in the قāghūt (false deities such as Pharaoh), is (obviously) the desired and praiseworthy kind.
In another ‘ayah Allaah ta ‘ala says:
“We indeed bestowed upon Luqmān al-Hikmah (wisdom) saying: Give thanks to Allaah.” And whoever gives thanks, he gives thanks for his own self. And whoever is Kafarah (unthankful), then verily, Allaah is All rich, Worthy of All praise.”[14]
Again here it could be either Kafarah in respect to being in opposition to Shakarah (thankful to Allaah) in the linguistic meaning, or it could mean Kufr al-Akbar.
(112) ‘Allaah sets forth a Parable: A City enjoying security and abundantly supplied with sustenance from every place: yet was it Fa-kafarat Bi’an-’umil-lāhi (ungrateful of the favours of Allaah). So Allaah made it taste of hunger and terror (in extremes), because of the (evil) which they used to do. (113) And there came to them a Messenger from among them selves, but they falsely rejected him; so the wrath seized them even in the midst of iniquities.
(114) So eat of the sustenance which Allaah has provided for you of the lawful and good food; and Wash’karū (be grateful) for the favours of Allaah, if it is He whom you serve.
(115) He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the blood of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allaah has been invoked. If one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing! Then Allaah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
(116) But say not – for any false thing that your tongues may put forth falsely: “This is lawful, and this is forbidden,” So As to ascribe lies to Allaah. For those who ascribe false things to Allaah (they) will never prosper.
(117) (In such falsehood) is but a paltry profit; but they will have a Most grievous penalty’.[15]
In the aforementioned verses ‘Kufr’ could again have either meaning, but here they rejected the Messenger sent to them so it constitutes the real Kufr which is Kufr al-Akbar. As is clear from the context, the stronger indication is that it is the real Kufr rather than the meaning of not appreciating Allaah; the opposite of being thankful to Allaah. The real Kufr is the worst type of non-appreciation to Allaah.
The fourth place is more inclined towards not being grateful to Allaah:
‘Said one who had knowledge of the Book: “I will bring it to you within the twinkling of an eye!” Then when (Sulaymān) saw it placed firmly before him, He said: “This is by the Grace of My Lord! – To test me whether I am Ash’karu ‘Am Ak’faru (grateful or ungrateful)! And if any is Shakarah (grateful), truly His gratitude is (a gain) for His own soul; but if any is Kafarah (ungrateful), truly My Lord is free of all needs, Supreme In honour!’ [16]
Here we see this ‘ayah is inclined more towards non-appreciation and not being thankful, because the context in which Sulaymān عليه السلام speaks of being thankful and non-thankful one could recognise a difference in the usage of the word Kafarah, but then again the end of the ‘ayah uses the word Kafarah in the context of that which contradicts Islaam.
The first three ‘Ayāt’s are more towards the real Kufr i.e. Kufr al-Akbar and the fourth place is perhaps more indicative of the ingratitude than the difference between Kufr and ‘Īmān (faith). In every case the context has come balanced in favour of the word Kufr in the context of rejecting the blessings of Allaah and non-appreciation, and not the other meaning which is the opposite of Islaam. Having said that, none of the verses have the context that definitely refers to rejecting the Ni’mah, as they could be interpreted as referring to Kufr al-Akbar, except the ‘ayah we mentioned in Soorat An-Naml. Set in mind with these few exceptions of it being either Kufr al-Ni’mah or Kufr al-Akbar, the ‘ayah we are studying as well as the multitude of verses in the Qur’aan with the words Kufr or Kafarah are all with the meaning of that which is the opposite to Islaam.
Within the ‘ayah under consideration, there is no reference of Ni’mah (blessing) or ingratitude to Allaah surrounding the word al-Kaafiroon, so it must be understood in the category contained within the Shar’ī meaning which is the opposite of Islaam which is completely in sync with the book of Allaah ta ‘ala, unless we have a compelling evidence coming from Allaah ta ‘ala either in the Qur’aan or the Sunnah indicating otherwise. Hence it means the real Kufr – Kufkr al-Akbar – which is the opposite of Islaam. This is dictated by the Shari’ah and its terminologies, thus it will also be used in the same context where it has multiple meanings, otherwise one is in danger of going astray, and may Allaah ta ‘ala protect us from such an eventuality.
The understanding of the Sahābah (Radthī-Allaahū ‘anhumah)
This understanding is further based upon the understanding the Saĥābah (Radthī-Allaahū ‘anhumah) had of the word Kufr as is proven in the following Hadīth:
* (Told us) Abdullah Ibn Maslamah from Mālik from Zayd Ibn ‘Aslam from ‘Atā Ibn Yasār from Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbās (Radthī-Allaahū ‘anhu) who said: ‘The sun had an eclipse in the lifetime of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم. So the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم offered the eclipse prayer and stood period equal to the period in which one could recite Soorat Baqarah. Then he made a very long Rukū’ then stood very long but less than the previous one, and then made another Rukū’ (so in the same Ruka’a it has two Rukū’) then stood up and read Soorat Baqarah or something similar then made Rukū’ again then he lifted his up again for very long but less than the previous one again then he went down into Sujūd and he repeated this for two Ruka’a and then made a very long Sujūd until after the sun had cleared. Then he صلى الله عليه و سلم said “The Sun and Moon are signs of Allaah, they do not eclipse if someone dies nor if someone is born. If you see it then remember Allaah including this (type of) Salāh’. Then the Saĥābah said “Oh Messenger of Allaah, we saw you had taken something and then we saw you step back’ He صلى الله عليه و سلم said: ‘Yes, the paradise was shown to me and I wanted to take some of its grapes, and if I had taken them you would have been eating with me until the end of time. And then I was shown the fire and I have seen nothing as terrifying, and I saw most of the inhabitants were women’, they (The Saĥābah) asked why? He صلى الله عليه و سلم said “Bi-Kufr Hinnah (because of their Kufr)”, the Saĥābah asked ‘Kīnah Yakfurnah Billāh (Is it Disbelief in Allaah)?’, He صلى الله عليه و سلم said “They do not appreciate there companions and they do not appreciate the good deeds you do for them, and if you are charitable to one of them all your life and you make one mistake, they say we have never seen any good from him!’.[17]
Emphasis here must be placed upon what the Sahābah said in reply when they heard the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم say ‘Bi-Kufr Hinnah (because of their Kufr)’ they replied in astonishment by saying ‘Kīnah Yakfurnah Billāh (Is it Disbelief in Allaah)?’ They did not understand any other type of Kufr apart from the Kufr which causes one to leave the Millah, namely, Kufr al-Akbar. They never interpreted Kufr as non-appreciation as a standard usage, so as soon as the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم said Kufr they replied ‘Yakfurnah Billah’ then the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم explained what was meant in this specific instance.
To reiterate, this was the standard meaning used by the Sahābah, and even when they were asking in shock if the woman were in Hellfire due to Disbelief in Allaah (because this is how they understood the meaning of the word Kufr) the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم approved of their saying and never rebuked them for saying something out of the ordinary as this was the norm. If those who oppose the truth try and claim that the understanding of the word Kufr the Sahābah had was due to it being early on in the beginning of the Messenger’s صلى الله عليه و سلم Risālah, and that its meaning has changed, we say that this would be lies based on the clear evidence we have from the chronological date this narration goes to – Ibn Sa’d.[18] narrates that it was the day the Messenger’s صلى الله عليه و سلم son Ibra’heem died on Tuesday the 10 of Rabī’Al-Awwal, and He صلى الله عليه و سلم explained that the Sun and the Moon are the signs of Allaah ta ‘ala and are not the signs of anyones death or birth, so the year was the 10 Hijrī and the Islamic Shar’i usage of words were in full use, as can be seen by the reaction of the Sahābah. Furthermore, if we consider the fact that Soorat al-Kaafiroon was an early Meccan Sūrah, we find that the early Sahābah understood the meaning of the word Kufr to be that which contradicts Islaam, and that is in line with the Shari’ah use of the word, which evidently had lasted for up to ten years and over, and Allaah ta ‘ala guides whom He pleases.[19]
Some claim that this Kufr, which is attributed to those who do not rule by what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed is either ‘Kufr Duna Kufr’ or ‘It is Kufr, but not like the one who disbelieves in Allaah His Angels His Books and His Messengers and the day of Judgement’ or ‘Not the Kufr which takes you outside the Millah’. Even though they all agree that this is one of the Kabā’ir, the crime which Allaah ta ‘ala called Kufr, Dthulm and Fisq is far greater than that of any Kabīrah. They rely on that which has been allegedly narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās (Radthī-Allaahū ‘anhū) where he is supposed to have said ‘Kufr Duna Kufr’ or ‘It is Kufr, but not like the one who disbelieves in Allaah His Angels His Books and His Messengers and the day of Judgement’. There are some who may admit that the application of the ‘ayah ‘Whoever Rules by other than what Allaah has revealed are al-Kaafiroon’ is the real Kufr that takes one out of the Millah of Islaam, but they say it is not applicable to everyone but rather it is for a specific group with a specific description which according to a another narration they have attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās says: ‘Whosoever Jahidah (rejects) or denies what Allaah has revealed is a Kaafir, and whoever does not deny or reject what Allaah has revealed is a Dthālim or Fāsiq’. Significantly though, the ‘ayah does not mention the one who is Jāhid (one who rejects to rule by what Allaah has revealed), and there is no Ikhtilāf (difference of opinion) concerning the one who does this (Kufr al-Jahūd), that he is Kaafir outside the Millah of Islaam.
Since there is a lot of dispute and arguments which are based on these narrations from Ibn ‘Abbās, it becomes obligatory for us to study them to see how firm these narrations actually are.
[1] That which takes you out of the Millah of Islaam completely
[2] Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: ‘There is a difference between al-Kufr, which comes attached with Alif Lam, as in the Prophet’s saying: ‘There is nothing between the slave and al-Kufr or al-Shirk, except abandoning the Salāt, and between Kufr which is not attached with Alif Lam…” This can be found in Iqtidhā. as-Sirāt al-Mustaqīm, p.69. For more details about the comprehensiveness of the words preceded with the أ (.Alif) and ل (Lam), refer to: al-Īdhah Fī Ulūm Al-Balāghah, by al-Khatīb al-Qazwīnī; published by Dār al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 1405 H, and as-Salāt, by Ibn al-Qayyim, p. 18; published by Dār al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah
[3]As Muhammad Ibn Ibra’heem ‘Āl Ash-Shaykh (r.h) said: ‘It is impossible for Allaah to call someone a Kaafir for Ruling by Other Than What Allaah Revealed, and then for them not to be a Kaafir…’ al Fatāwa, Vol. 15/82 and Vol. 24/246
[4] Saĥīh Muslim, Ch 30, Hadīth No. 67; Musnad Ahmed, Vol.2, Hadîth No. 377
[5] Tirmithī from Abu Hurayrah, Vol.1, Hadîth No. 243
[6] Saĥīh al-Bukhāri, Kitāb al-Aĥkām 88, Vol.9, Hadîth 197. Saĥīh Muslim, Ch 28, Hadīth No. 64
[7] Saĥīh Muslim, Ch 35, Hadîth No. 82; Sunan Abu Dawūd, Hadîth No. 4679; Tirmithī, Ch 2, Hadîth No. 2621
[8] kufr an-ni’mah
[9] The Muallaqāt were poets of such high standard that the Arabs would hang their poems on the Ka’bah. Such poems usually consisted of around a hundred to a hundred and fifty words; they typified what the Arabs were famous for, namely poetry..
[10] Soorat al-Hadīd: 20
[11] Soorat al-Nahl: 83
[12] Soorat ash-Shu’arā’: 18-19
[13] Tafseer Ibn Katheer”, Vol. 3 / 344
[14] Soorat Luqmān: 12
[15] Soorat an-Nahl: 112-117
[16] Soorat an-Naml: 40
[17] Saĥīh Al-Bukhāri, Vol.2, p. 91, Hadîth No 161; Muwaā Imām Mālik, Ch.111, Hadîth 438, p. 88
[18] Ibn Sa’d At-Tabaqāt, Vol.1, p. 163.
[19] al-Azharī said: ‘His virtues are His signs which indicate His Tawheed and the virtues that the Kaafir has concealed are His apparent signs which have come so that we may determine that the Creator is One with no partner and also His sending of the Messengers with signs which are miracles and the Books which descended and the clear evidences that are a virtue from Him. So whoever doesn’t believe in them and rejects them; he has disbelieved in the virtue of Allaah. In other words, he has covered it and veiled it from himself.’ (See also Lisān al-Arab).
The Asbāb al-Nazūl of the ‘Āyats of Hukm
Arguably one of the best approaches to shed light upon the meaning of a certain ‘Ayāt (including these ‘Āyats of Hukm), is to know what the circumstances of revelation were, namely, what was the reality that was being addressed by these revelations. Crucially though, it must be stressed that what has been narrated concerning the circumstances of revelation (provided they are authentic) is but a guide, providing further details and indeed clarification. It does not restrict the rulings nor does it place a condition on them, nor will it change the fundamental principle of generality of the wording.[1] The Asbāb al-Nazūl[2] will not affect the ‘Ayāt in Muqayyad[3] (qualified), Takh؛ī؛[4] (specification) nor in Ta’weel.[5] These can only be used because of another Nass (text) which provides proof of such, or because necessity of reason or perception dictates that.
To give an example of interpretation by way of the necessities of reason and perception, there is a narration that speaks of the Sun asking permission to make prostration and waiting for permission to rise again:
‘The Sun makes Sujūd at the foot step of the ‘Arsh of Allaah, the next day the Sun asks permission to return again and permission will be granted, and then one day permission will be denied and she will raise from the west’.
It is known that the Sun does not physically move around the earth, so by the necessities of reason and perception our interpretation of this narration would be Majāzi (metaphorical), to mean that it indicates the Sun’s obedience to Allaah ta ‘ala, and since there is a place on the earth where the Sun is actually in a position of setting at every moment in time or at every millisecond, the meaning would be that the Sun is continuously in obedience to Allaah ta ‘ala.
Another important principle about the occasions of revelation is that it should not be confusing or interpreted as contradictory, or rejected if there are various differing narrations surrounding the ‘Ayāt’s reason for revelation. There will be various narrations, because the single ‘ayah or the collection of ‘Ayāt related to a topic (which is called a Najūm (stars) of ‘Ayāt) are revealed to address a certain event. When it is revealed for the first time, the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم would know; he صلى الله عليه و سلم would recite it to a sufficient number of Katibah (scribes) to write down the latest ‘Āyats in order for it to be a sufficient authority.[6] He صلى الله عليه و سلم would dictate it to whomever was present and it would be written on what was available like sheep skins, bones, etc. Later on those writings would be then transferred onto proper sheets and compiled into a Saĥīfah. While the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم was collecting all the parchments together, this procedure was called Ta’rīf al-Qur’aan , and there is a narration where one of the Sahābah, Zaid Ibn Thābit, actually said:
‘While we were with the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم compiling the Qur’aan from its parchments…’[7]
They were gathering all the separate parts and compiling them into one Musĥaf, and there were at the time of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم Masāĥif of the Qur’aan in existence, which is in contradiction to some who believe that at the time of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم there were only oral transmissions. There is a clear narration where the Messenger’s صلى الله عليه و سلم governor of Taif before accepting the position asked for one request. The Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم replied by saying what is it, so he asked for a Musĥaf. This shows that the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم had his own Musĥaf. We know that when the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم received revelation there would always be someone there to write it down and that would be its time of revelation. Normally, the occasion of revelation of a particular ‘ayah or ‘Ayāt will synchronise in every detail with the situation in which it was revealed. If we find either a reliable narration that has been dictated or that the ‘ayah actually relates to another situation and is the reason in which it was revealed, we can conclude with greater probability, that it is the first revelation. Later on, a part of the ‘ayah may apply to another case where a ruling is imposed.
To elaborate and clarify this, we should ask, why are there other narrations explaining that the revelation has been revealed in another place and a different situation. The reason for this is simple and quite straight forward – the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم may invoke the ‘ayah in other situations, and the fact that not all Sahābah were Qur’aan memorizers would mean that they would have thought that the ‘Ayāt were revealed for this particular occasion, but the revelation may not have been just revealed and may have been revealed months or years before. Nevertheless the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم would recite it again, and the Sahābah who were present may have interpreted the occasion as a completely new part of the Qur’aan. If he صلى الله عليه و سلم recites an ‘ayah accompanied with the Shiddah (sweating), this does not necessitate that he صلى الله عليه و سلم is receiving a new revelation, as the revelation itself may have been much earlier. He صلى الله عليه و سلم could be receiving a command that it applies to another given situation, or a specific part of the verse or a specific ruling can be delivered on a number of occasions or instances. If we have another event, it is quite possible that the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم read the ‘ayah and the Saĥabi who witnessed this specific moment may have presumed he was experiencing a Waĥī for the first time on that given matter.
There are various narrations which relate the Asbāb al-Nazūl, although they may be conflicting in situations, this is nonetheless nothing to be shocked over. The task at hand is to sift through them and match the one which is the first, identifying others that may be applied to a different or latter scenario. The fact that the revelation has not come down for one case but has come down for an infinite number of applications until the day of judgement means it is very well possible that in the time of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم they were applied on several occasions.
Here we will relate the ‘Ayāt of Hukm again, starting from a few verses before and then a few verses afterwards to give the full context because we do not want to mislead anyone by revealing some of the book and hiding the other parts. Allaah ta ‘ala says:
(41) Oh Messenger, let not those grieve you, who race each other into Unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say ‘We believe’ with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen Even to others who have never so much As come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: They say, ‘If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!’ if any one’s trial is intended by Allaah, Thou hast no authority in the least for Him against Allaah. For such – it is not Allaah’s will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace In This world, and In the Hereafter a heavy punishment.
(42) (They are fond of) listening to falsehood, of devouring ھuĥt (Bribery). If they do come to thee, either judge between them, or decline to interfere. If you decline, they cannot hurt you in the least. If you judge, judge in equity between them – for Allaah loves those who judge in equity.
(43) But why do they come to you for decision, when they have (Their own) law before them? – Therein is the (plain) command of Allaah. Yet even after that, they would turn away; for they are not (really) people of Faith.
(44) It was we who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islaam) to Allaah’s will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allaah’s Book, and They were witnesses thereto: Therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not My Signs for a miserable price. And whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed, they are al-Kaafiroon.
(45) We ordained therein for them: ‘Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.’ But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for Him. And whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed, they are al-Thaalimun.
(46) And In their footsteps we sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the law that had come before him: we sent Him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allaah.
(47) Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allaah hath revealed therein. And whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed, they are al-Fāsiqūn.[8]
There are two narrations specifying why these ‘Ayāt were revealed:
*
The oppression of the ‘royal tribe’ over the ‘meagre tribe’
*
Changing ar-rajm (stoning) as the punishment for the crime of adultery
[1] Shaykh Ibn Taymīyyah (Rahīmullāh) said: ‘Even if these ‘Ayāt came down for certain circumstances, their meanings and rulings are general as are most of the ‘Ayāt that were revealed for specific reasons. There is no difference of opinion among the people on this issue that we know of. They (i.e. the ‘Ayāt) are general for those whose situations are the same as those whom the ‘Ayāt were revealed for. If the wording (of the ‘Ayāt) is general; it is alright to mention that they were revealed for such and such people about such and such event; however, their meanings and rulings are not to be limited to these people and events only. And what the majority of people are (agreed) upon, is that it is Wājib (obligatory) to take the rulings of these ‘Ayāt in a general sense unless there is a clear evidence which proves that the rulings are limited specifically to those they were revealed about’. as-Saram al-Maslul ‘Ala Shatim ar-Rasul, p. 33.
[2] These deal with the phenomenology of the Qur’aan, and explain the events that are related to the revelation of particular passages. The known Asbāb al-Nazūl have been related to us by the reliable Sahābah. Ignorance of Asbāb al-Nazul may thus lead to the neglect or misunderstanding of a part or even the whole of an injunction. Shāibī, Muwāfaqāt, Vol.3, p. 201
[3] Mutlaq (absolute) denotes a word which is neither qualified nor limited in its application. When we say, for example, a ‘book’, a ‘bird’ or a ‘man’, each one is a generic noun which applies to any book, bird or man without any restriction. In its original state, the Mutlaq is unspecified and unqualified. The Mutlaq differs from the ‘Āmm (general), however, in that the latter includes all to which it applies whereas the former can apply to any one of a multitude, but not all (Khallaf, ‘Ilm, p. 192; Badrān, ‘Usūl, pp. 351, 371.). However the ‘Ulema have differed regarding the definition of Mutlaq and Muqayyad. To some ‘Ulema, like Al-Baydawi, the Mutlaq resembles the ‘Āmm, and the Muqayyad resembles the Khāss (Specific). Hence anything that specifies the ‘Amm can qualify the Mutlaq. Both are open to Ta’wīl and Mutlaq/Muqayyad are complementary to ‘Āmm/Khāss respectively (Ansārī, Ghāyat al-Wusūl, p. 84). When the Mutlaq is qualified by another word or words it becomes a Muqayyad, such as qualifying ‘a book’, as ‘a green book’, or ‘a bird’ as ‘a huge bird’ or ‘a man’ as ‘a wise man’. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, by Mohammad Hashim Kamali, p. 155
[4] To the majority of ‘Ulema, it is a form of explanation (Bayān) in all of its varieties…The majority view on Takh؛ī؛ thus differs from the Hanifīs in that it may be by both means of dependent or an independent locution, and the specifying clause need not be chronologically parallel to the general proposition. This is because, in the majority opinion, the specifying clause explains and does not abrogate nor invalidate the general proposition. Abu Zahrah, ‘Usūl, pp. 128 / 129
[5] ‘Allegorical Interpretation’. The ‘Ulema of ‘Usūl have defined Ta’wīl as a departure from the manifest (Dthāhir) meaning, where there is evidence to justify the departure. Āmidi, ‘Iĥkām Fi-‘Usūl ‘Iĥkām, Vol.3, p. 53; Badrān, ‘Usūl, p. 400
[6] Upon the descent of Waĥī, the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم routinely called for one of his scribes to write down the latest ‘Ayāt. Abu ‘Ubaid, Fadā’il, p. 280; Ibn Hajar, Fathul Bāri, ix: 22, quoting ‘Uthmān, referring to Sunan of at-Tirmithi, an-Nisa’i, Abu Dawūd, and al-Hakim in his al-Mustadrak.
[7] al-Baqillānī, al-Inti؛ār, p. 166. The narration continues, ‘…he said: Blessed be Shām. He صلى الله عليه و سلم was asked: ‘Why so ‘O Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم of Allaah?’ He replied – ‘Because the angels of the Most Compassionate have spread their wings upon it’.
[8] Soorat al-Ma’idah: 41 / 47
Asbāb al-Nazūl of the ‘Āyats of Hukm continued
The oppression of the ‘royal tribe’ over the ‘meagre tribe’
It has been narrated in the Tafseer of at-Tabarī:
* (Told us) Rabī’, told us Ibn Waĥab, told us Ibn Abi Zinād from his father who said we were sitting with ‘Ubaid’ullah Ibn Abdullah Ibn Utbah Ibn Mas’ūd, and he mentioned the three ‘Ayāt of Hukm, but ‘Ubaid’ullah objected and said: ‘Many people relate this ‘ayah and explain it incorrectly, Allaah revealed these words concerning two tribes of the Jews, one of which had subjugated the other during the Jāhiīyyah period until they reached an agreement that for every person among the inferior group killed by the superior group, the blood-money would be fifty Wasq, and for every person among the superior group killed by the inferior group, blood-money would be one hundred Wasq. This remained in force until the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم came to Medina, and both groups felt that they lost their status when he came. Then the inferior group killed a man from the superior group, so the superior group sent word to the inferior group, telling them to send one hundred Wasq. The inferior group said: ‘Have there ever been two tribes whose religion, lineage and country are the same, where blood-money of some of them is half the blood-money of the others? We accepted this deal because of our weakness and our fear of you, but now the Muhammad has come, we will no longer accept this.’ There was almost war between them, and then they agreed to appoint the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم as a judge between them. Then the superior group said: ‘By Allaah, Muhammad is not going to approve of this state of affairs whereby you receive double what they receive, and they are right, they only accepted this arrangement because of their fear and weakness. Send someone in disguise to Muhammad so that he can tell you what his opinion is. If he is going to give you what you want, then appoint him as a judge.’ So they sent some people from among the hypocrites in disguise to the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم, to find out for them what the opinion of the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم was. And ‘Ubaid’ullah says that they are whom Allaah meant.[1]
This is what ‘Ubaid’ullah says concerning the reason for their revelation – that they were revealed concerning these Jewish tribes. Obviously, if he believes that they were revealed exclusively for them then he is mistaken, as Allaah ta ‘ala would not have wasted these ‘Ayāt on these two tribes which would be forgotten until the Day of Judgement. It obviously applies to every similar case, but it clarifies what happened and why the ‘Ayāt were initially revealed, which is very important. Furthermore, it does not support the claim of those who argue that these ‘Ayāt were revealed specifically for the Jews and can only be applied to them or that the Kufr is one of Kufr Duna Kufr. ‘Ubaid’ullah does not mention that he took this narration from Ibn ‘Abbās so it is Mu’tasil[2] and not Munqati’[3] which someone may argue, but this Hadīth is valid with a first class Isnād.
The next narration is from the Musnad of Imām Ahmed:
* (Told us) Ibra’heem Ibn ‘Abbās, told us Abdur-Rahmān Ibn Abi Zinād from ‘Ubaid’ullah Ibn Abdullah Ibn Utbah Ibn Mas’ūd from Ibn ‘Abbās who said: Allaah revealed the words: ‘they are Al-Kaafiroon’, ‘they are Al-Thaalimun’, and ‘they are Al-Fāsiqūn’. Allaah revealed these words concerning two tribes of the Jews, one of which had subjugated the other during the Jāhiīyah until they reached an agreement that for every person among the inferior group killed by the superior group, the blood-money would be fifty Wasq, and for every person among the superior group killed by the inferior group, blood-money would be one hundred Wasq. This remained in force until the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم came to Medina, and both groups felt that they lost their status when he came. Then the inferior group killed a man from the superior group, so the superior group sent word to the inferior group telling them to send one hundred Wasq. The inferior group said: ‘Have there ever been two Tribes whose religion, lineage and country are the same, where blood-money of some of them is half the blood-money of the others? We accepted this deal because of our weakness and our fear of you, but now the Muhammad has come, we will no longer accept this.’ There was almost war between them, and then they agreed to appoint the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم as judge between them. Then the superior group said: ‘By Allaah, Muhammad is not going to approve of this state of affairs whereby you receive double what they receive, and they are right, they only accepted this arrangement because of their fear and weakness. Send someone in disguise to Muhammad so that he can tell you what his opinion is. If he is going to give you what you want, then appoint him as a judge.’ So they sent some people from among the hypocrites in disguise to the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم, to find out for them what the opinion of the Messenger of Allaah was. When they came to the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم, Allaah informed His Messenger about them and what they wanted. And Allaah revealed the words – ‘O Messenger! Let not those who hurry to fall into disbelief grieve you, of such who say: “We believe”…And Whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed they are Al-Fāsiqūn’. The he (Ibn ‘Abbās) said: ‘Concerning them (the two groups), by Allaah, it was revealed, and they are the ones whom Allaah meant’.[4]
The narration is also in the Mu’jam al-Kabīr[5] with the same wording but not through the channel of Imām Ahmad, and also in Sunan Abu Dawūd[6] although it is abridged.
Ibn ‘Abbās makes an oath here by Allaah ta ‘ala that this was the reason the ‘Ayāts were revealed which he has every right to do. But the reason they were revealed has nothing to do with them actually being Banu Nadthīr and Banu Qurayzah, this is just something incidental, but it was in fact due to certain acts that they had committed, so the meaning is the most important subject here, and as we said already the meanings will stand until the day of judgement and will be applicable for an infinite amount of similar situations.
The first objection concerning the aforesaid Isnād is due to Abdur-Raĥmān Ibn Abi Zinād narrating from his father. He was given the rank of Thiqqah if he was narrating from Medina, but when he went to Baghdād his memorisation became weaker, but since three narrators some of which were quite old, they most probably heard from him while he was in Medina. This then strengthens the narration. But we are in possession of other Isnāds that confirm this narration. Although they are not of the highest quality that one maybe fully confident in them, there are other independent Isnād’s that make these solid and reliable beyond doubt.
It is reported in the Seerah An-Nabawiyyah:[7]
* Ibn Isĥāq said, Dawūd Ibn Ĥussain reported to me Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbās who said that the ‘Ayāts in Soorat Ma’idah have been revealed concerning the Diyyah (blood-money) between Banu Nadthīr and Banu Qurayzah, and the people of Banu Nadthīr would receive a hundred Dinar (for Qi؛ā؛) while the people of Qurayzah would receive only fifty, then they decided to take up the issue with the Messenger of Allaah to make a decision between them, and the Messenger then forced them to the correct just way of handling the Diyyah because there is no difference between those who have been killed and are of noble aristocracy and those who are of a so called lower class.
Imām an-Nisā’i also narrates the same narration:
* ‘(Told us) Abdullah Ibn Isĥāq, told us ‘Ammi from his father from Ibn Isĥāq who said Hussain…’[8] It is also narrated from Abu Dawūd[9] through Ibn Ishāq. Although it has a different channel from the one through ‘Ubaid’ullah Ibn Abdullah Ibn Utbah, it runs through Ikrimah who is another Tāba’i, then through to Ibn ‘Abbās. The narration is not the same word for word, and the details are slightly different, but it is still the same story, so we can now conclude that this has definitely come from Ibn ‘Abbās.
This Isnād is Saĥīh due to it having Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbās who Bukhāri used. Now although Imām Muslim would use this channel due to his own methods of authentication, but it is not narrated from Ikrimah alone as it is supported by ‘Ubaid’ullah Ibn Abdullah Ibn Utbah Ibn Mas’ūd, so if there were to be any objection based on the principles of Imām Muslim, it would not be warranted, as we have shown that the narration is supported by another Tābi’een.
The narration from Ibn ‘Abbās is established beyond doubt, because the two Isnāds together make a firm authority that it has come in the difference in blood-money and Diyyah between Banu Nadthīr and Banu Qurayzah.Additionally the Matn (text) synchronizes very well and is without any Shudūd (discrepancies), although some of them are expanded and some are abridged they are still in conformity with one another and they are also without any contradictions, and in one of the narrations Ibn ‘Abbās confirms by an oath that the ‘Āyats were revealed on this occasion and that Allaah meant these two tribes.
Ibn Katheer has said:
* ‘Therefore the ‘ayah after it said: ‘we made for them soul for soul, eye for eye’.[10]
Imām Ibn Katheer was of the opinion to begin with that the ‘Ayāts of Hukm were revealed about adultery, but here he steps back when he realised that it fits the context completely, which is clear from the whole narrative because the Jews had sent someone to the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم which is not in the narrative of adultery which is completely different. It is thus clear that this story is the real cause of revelation of these ayahs, not the story of adultery which most people will claim.
[1] Tafseer at-Tabarī, Vol.6, p. 251
[2] That the Isnād of the Hadîth is unbroken; see: Studies in Hadîth Methodology and Literature, by M. M. Azami, p. 44
[3] An Isnād having a single link missing somewhere in the middle, in one place or more. Ibid.
[4] Musnad Imām Ahmed, Vol.1, p. 246; Nasā’i, Vol.8, p. 19
[5] Mu’jam al-Kabīr, at-Tabarāni, Vol.3, No. 95/1
[6] Abu Dawūd, Kitāb ad-Diyāt, Hadîth No. 4494
[7] Seerah an-Nabawiyyah, Vol.3, p. 102
[8] an-Nasā’i, Hadîth No. 4411
[9] Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: Qurayzah and Nadir (were two Jewish tribes). An-Nadir was nobler than Qurayzah. When a man of Qurayzah killed a man of an-Nadir, he would be killed. But if a man of an-Nadir killed a man of Qurayzah, a hundred wasq of dates would be paid as blood-money. When Prophethood was bestowed upon the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم, a man of an-Nadir killed a man of Qurayzah. They said: Give him to us, we shall kill him. They replied: We have the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم between you and us. So they came to him. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: “If thou judge, judge in equity between them.” “In equity” means life for a life. The following verse was then revealed: ‘Do they seek of a judgment of (the days) ignorance?’ Abu Dawūd, Kitāb ad-Diyāt, Hadîth No. 4479
[10] Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Vol.2, p. 59
Changing ar-rajm as the punishment for the crime of adultery
Turning to the second narrative, it is the one which most of the people in scholarly circles have said is the occasion in which the revelations of Hukm were revealed. But in fact it is not the occasion in which they were revealed, and we do not say that it totally contradicts the ‘Ayāts because they can be applied in some aspects of it, however their applicability is not in full.
Muslim has narrated from Bara’a Ibn Āzib:
* ‘Two Jews were brought to the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم with blackened faces, having been whipped. He صلى الله عليه و سلم said: ‘Is this the punishment for the Zina that you find in your Book?’ They said ‘Yes’. So he called one of their scholars and said: ‘I ask you by the One who revealed the Tawrāt to Mūsa, is this the punishment for Zina that you find in your book?’ They said ‘No, if you had not asked me by Allaah I would not have told you. The punishment that we find (in the قawrāt) is stoning, but Zina became widespread among our leaders. So if we found a leader doing this, we would leave him alone, and if we found a weaker (member of our community) doing this, we would carry out the punishment on him. So we said, let us agree on some punishment that we could apply equally to the leaders and the weak alike. So we agreed on blackening the face and flogging in place of stoning’. The Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم said: ‘O Allaah, I am the first to revive Your command which they had abandoned.’ He commanded that they should be stoned, and Allaah revealed the words: O Messenger! Let not those who hurry to fall into disbelief grieve you… If you are given this, take it (Qur’aan 5:41). They said: ‘Go to Muhammad and if he tells you to blacken their faces and flog them, then accept it, if he tells you to stone them, then beware’. Then Allaah revealed the words And whosoever does not Rule by what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon (Qur’aan 5:44); And whosoever does not Rule by what Allaah has revealed they are al-Thaalimun (Qur’aan 5:45), and Whosoever does not Rule by what Allaah has revealed they are al-Fāsiqūn (Qur’aan 5:47) concerning all the Kuffar’.[1]
Amazingly, either Bara’a or one of the narrators interjects where he said the Jews said ‘Go to Muhammad and if he tells you to blacken their faces and flog them, then accept it, if he tells you to stone them, then beware’ – but here the discrepancy is to be found. Why did they say go to Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم and ask him what he thinks about this way of punishing when they had already flogged them, blackened their faces and they were passing the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم on the donkey (as in another narration) and he asked them about this type of punishment? It is clear that the narrator has tried to put in the history what in actual fact does not exist, the beginning of the Hadīth and its Isnād are authentic but the beginning contradicts the rest, and it seems as though the narrator is trying to make sense of the ‘ayah so it was assumed that they sent someone to ask him but the reality is that they didn’t send anyone to ask him because he was already on the donkey and had been blackened etc. But it was the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم who was asking and it was the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم who asked for the scholar and it was the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم who asked by the one who sent the قawrāt to Mūsa. They never sent anyone to him so this narrative does not fit into place. Whoever the narrator was, he was trying to make the narration synchronise with the ‘ayah, but as we have shown it does not quite do that.
Comparing this with the narrative of the two tribes, it is clear that the narrative of the two tribes is supported in every detail, and moreover in the case of the two tribes the next ‘ayah speaks about the issue of Qi؛ā؛, of a soul for a soul and an eye for an eye. It does not speak about flogging, and if the story about ar-rajm is correct then the ‘ayah should have mentioned stoning if it is to comply with this context, and this doesn’t hinder the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم from invoking the ‘Ayāts to indicate that those who have not applied what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed are al-Kaafiroon, al-Thaalimun and al-Fāsiqūn. The narrator knows that these ‘Ayāts have been revealed in the same context and he is thus struggling to apply it to that reality, and from this Hadīth alone we will see that that this is not the occasion in which they were revealed.
In another narration which can be found in the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer: Imām Aĥmed said:
* ‘Told us Abu Mu’āwīyah, told us A’mash from Bara’a Ibn Āzib’[2]
This is the same narration as the previous one, but Bukhāri did not narrate this which may have been due to the Isnād, which he was right in avoiding. Ibn Katheer relates this chain from Imām Ahmad while the text is exactly the same in Saĥīh Muslim, and these are also narrated in the Sunan of Abu Dawūd, the Kubra of an-Nasā’i with essentially the same text, and the Isnad’s are of the utmost reliability, but as we have shown the text is exhibiting some discrepancies.
And it is also narrated in at-Tabarī with the same story, but what is interesting about this narration is at the end either Bara’a Ibn Āzib or the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم said:
*
‘…and these ‘Ayāts were revealed only for the Kuffar’.[3]
But we do not know whose saying this actually was, and there were some scholars who used this report to justify their stance in opposition to what we say concerning ruling by other than that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed, but we will InshAllaah show how it backfires on them.
It has been reported again in at-Tabarī:
*
‘(Told us) Hannād, told Abu Mu’āwīyah, told us A’mash from Bara’a Ibn Āzib’[4]
All these narrations are essentially the same while the narration from Imām Muslim is the most comprehensive while the others are abridged here and there. Similarly there is a narration from Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khaāb, and it has come with the best Isnād in Dunyah which is Mālik from Nāfi’ from Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar and which is also known as the golden chain. This seems on the surface as the same story but it it is a different event all together.
Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar has related:
* ‘The Jews came to the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم and told him that a man and a woman from among them had committed Zina. The Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم said to them: ‘What do you find in the قawrāt concerning stoning?’ They said that they should be flogged. Abdullah Ibn Salām said – ‘You are lying; the punishment prescribed in the قawrāt is stoning’. They brought the قawrāt and opened it, but one of them put his hand over the verse about stoning, and read the verses before it and after it. Abdullah Ibn Salām said – ‘Lift up your hand’. So he lifted up his hand, and there was the verse about stoning. They said ‘He is speaking the truth, ‘O Muhammad, there is the verse about stoning’. So the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم commanded that they should be stoned, and I saw the man trying to shield the woman from the stones’.[5]
The point here concerning its meaning it that there is also a slight problem, the way in which the story is told in this narration is different from the story narrated by Bara’a Ibn Āzib. In this narration they came to the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم and in the other he saw them and then asked them. The best way to synchronise these what conflicting accounts is that the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم saw them, then he صلى الله عليه و سلم called them and then they came and that is when the discussion between them commenced. They never came prior to the punishment as it was already administered. Bara’a is older than Ibn ‘Umar so Bara’a would have witnessed this early on and thus Ibn ‘Umar would have witnessed it in the later phase. That they came asking their questions is due to Ibn ‘Umar witnessing this in the later phase, so Ibn ‘Umar thought that they came asking and did not realise that they were called over and that they were already scandalising in the judgement according to the قawrāt. Ibn ‘Umar was more accurate as he narrates that it was a man and a woman on the back of the donkey[6], and then the details of the discussion and the Munāshirah. The reason why it is not a different narrative is due to the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم asking ‘what do you find in the قawrāt concerning stoning’. If the story of Bara’a is the first one then the story is already exposed as somebody has already been stoned.
In another narration in the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer he narrates from the Musnad of al-Humaydi:
* Ibn Katheer says from Imām Abu-Bakr Abdullah Ibn Zubayr al-Humaydi in his Musnad, Told us Sufyān Ibn Uyaynah told us Mujarrid Ibn Sa’eed al-Hamdāni from ash-Sha’bi from Jābir Ibn Abdullah who said: ‘A man from Fadak[7] committed Zina, so the Jews of Fadak wrote to some Jews of Medina to ask Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم about this, if he orders you to flog him then take his decision, but if he orders you not to flog him then reject his verdict. So the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم asked for the two most knowledgeable men from amongst the Jews, so they sent two, one of which was one eyed (who was called al-‘Awrah) and another. The Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم asked them if they were the most knowledgeable from amongst their people, they replied that this was the reason our people sent us to you. Then the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم asked them if they had the Tawrāt which contains the Ruling of Allaah and they replied by saying yes. The Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم said: ‘I am urging you by the one who split the sea for the children of Isra’eel and covered you with clouds, and saved you from the house of Fir’awn, and sent down Mana’ and Salwah on the children of Isra’eel, what do you find in the Tawrāt concerning stoning?’ One turned to his companion and said ‘We have never been urged in this way’, and then they said ‘We find that if you continuously look, then that is a form of Zina, and if you embrace it then it is Zina, and if you kiss it is Zina, but if four witness the penetration of the stick in the charcoal pot, then it is stoning’, so the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم said: ‘That is then the answer to your question’ so the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم ordered the man to be stoned and so the ‘ayah was revealed – ‘If they do come to you, either judge between them, or decline to interfere. If you decline, they cannot hurt you in the least. If you judge, judge in equity between them. For Allaah loves those who judge in equity’ (Qur’aan 5:42).
* And it has also been narrated by Abu Dawūd, Ibn Mājah from Mujarrid Ibn Sa’eed Al-Hamdāni similarly’.
The wording from Abu Dawūd from Jābir is narrated in a similar fashion:
* ‘The Jews came to the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم with a man and woman who had committed Zina, so the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم said: ‘Bring me the two most knowledgeable men from amongst you’, so they brought him the son of Suriyah and another man, so he urged them and asked: ‘What is the ruling for them in the Tawrāt?’, they said ‘If four people witness the mans penis in the woman’s vagina like the mascara stick in its pot then they have to be stoned’, so the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم asked: ‘Why don’t you stone them then?’, they said ‘Our kingdom has gone so we disliked to punish by the death penalty’, so the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم called four witnesses that had witnessed the mans penis in the woman’s vagina and then ordered for them to be stoned’. This was narrated by ash-Sha’bi and Ibra’heem An-Nakha’i without mentioning the Saĥābi, and he asked for the witnesses to witness again’.[8]
This narration is not an authority because Mujarrid Ibn Sa’eed al-Hamdāni is weak; there is also I’tirāb (confusion) in the Isnād as some have narrated it connected and some have narrated it Mursal. It may still be considered a supporting evidence from what other trustworthy authorities have reported. There is also some Is’tish’kal about the text because how is it that the Jews of Fadak were asking yet they were not under the authority of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم? In the other narration the fornicators were present so they cannot be from Fadak as they must have been from Medina. Consequently the narration is found to be wanting. The witnesses were Jewish because they were living in a Jewish area, so the question must be asked, are Jews allowed to be witnesses according to the Shari’ah ? Evidently there are a few problems with this specific narration.
Ibn Katheer continues:
* al-‘Awfi and Ali Ibn Abi Talha al-Wālabi both narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās that the ‘Ayāts were revealed concerning the two Jews who had committed Zina as in the latter Hadīth, and maybe the two reasons for revelation have come together[9] at the same time, WAllaahu A’lam’.[10]
To start with here, Ali Ibn Abi Talha al-Wālabi never reached Ibn ‘Abbās and neither is he strong according to the scholars of Jarĥ Wa Ta’deel. al-‘Awfi is known to commit many mistakes. As previously iterated, the narrative of stoning is not that reliable, but it has been attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās by mistake. The strongest narration from Ibn ‘Abbās, is that of the ‘royal and meagre tribe’.
With regards to the narrative regarding stoning although some narrations have been narrated with strong Isnāds, like those in Bukhāri and other books of Hadīth, it is remotely possible that it is the occasion of revelation for the first time when we compare it against the story of the royal and the meagre tribe which was narrated by Ibn ‘Abbās. This becomes very clear from the context of the ‘Ayāts that speak of retribution, and mention specifically a ‘Life for life…eye for eye’ (Qur’aan 5:42), which the royal tribe carried out by mere force and oppression and thus transgressed their limits. This indicates that it is in reference to the matter of Qi؛ā؛ and equality of blood and human life rather than punishment of stoning in the case of Zina. The plot of the Jews by approaching and asking the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم about the Diyah (blood money) is very clear in the story of the royal and the meagre tribe, because the royal tribe refused to be just and the meagre tribe said they were going to go to Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم for the verdict as the time of oppression is over. Even though they did not consider the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم to be a real Messenger, they still saw him as a just ruler, and the unjust tribe said that they would go with them because maybe he would rule in their favour, all the while having the intention of rejecting the verdict if it went against them. From this alone the plot is clear. While in the narration of stoning there is no plot, we have already shown that one of the narrators tried to insert a plot in the story but in reality there was not one because all the strong narrations say that the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم saw two Jews whose faces were blackened being carried on a donkey. He صلى الله عليه و سلم was not asked about it before this, and they already admitted that they were avoiding administering the real punishment for Zina which was prescribed in the Tawrāt, so we must ask where is the plot contained here? There are two evils that the ‘Ayāts are addressing; firstly retribution for equality and secondly that there was an evident plot, so it is clear that the occasion of revelation with all its details fits clearly with the narration of the royal and the meagre tribes. To reiterate, this does not prevent the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم invoking the ‘Ayāts again to apply them where necessary as a general principle, like with our narrations concerning stoning. Usually when one invokes an ‘ayah it would be to apply one Hukm, where as the ‘ayah may contain ten Hukm’s but you would still recite the whole ‘ayah. Whenever we recite one ‘ayah to apply it to a current situation it obviously has not been revealed solely for that instance. Rather it was revealed fourteen hundred years ago, so invoking it again would not necessitate its occasion for revelation, but merely it’s application in whatever situation it is deemed necessary.
We iterate that this is the correct conclusion after thorough analysis. The Asbāb al-Nazūl for the ‘Ayāts of Hukm were revealed concerning the story of the royal and the meagre tribe and not of ar-rajm, which is in contrast to the view expounded by Ibn Katheer:
* ‘It has been said that these ‘Ayāts were revealed concerning Jews who had killed someone, and they said let us go to Muhammad for the verdict, and if he rules in favour of Diyah then accept it from him, but if he says otherwise in favour of execution then reject his verdict. And the correct opinion is that it has been revealed concerning Zina of the two Jews and they had changed the Book of Allaah which is in their hands which commands stoning, and they had twisted it, and they agreed between themselves that they would exchange it for one hundred flogs, blackening their faces and places in reverse on donkeys. When this story happened after Hijrah, they said let us go to Muhammad, and if he says to flog them and blacken their faces then take it from him and will take it as an argument on the Day of Judgement in front Allaah and say one of your Messengers gave us this verdict[11], but if does not rule in our favour then reject what he says’.[12]
That which Ibn Katheer thought to be correct concerning the Asbāb al-Nazūl for the ‘Ayāts of Hukm is actually the less likely reason. The correct reasoning, as we have explained, concerns the two tribes in the issue of Qi؛ā؛. Ibn Katheer actually retreated slightly from his own position concerning this where he says:
* ‘Allaah says ‘Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal’ (Qur’aan 5:42), and this strengthens the statement that the occasion of revelation was the story of Qi؛ā؛, and Allaah ta ‘ala knows best’.[13]
Although Ibn Katheer retreated from his original position, he nevertheless followed the opinion of most scholars due to the story of ar-rajm being narrated in Bukhāri and other sources of reference with an apparently strong Isnād. Scholars would be taken back by this, but it does not mean that this takes precedence over the story of the royal and the meagre tribe, as it also has a strong channel. But because the story of ar-rajm is so common, and it is related in the major works, the scholars would be more inclined to this due to these books being the prime source of reference and also an authority of history. Yet this is not always necessarily the case as there are other books of Seerah which contain writings of history which are stronger and more befitting than can be found in Bukhāri or Muslim, not always but it does happen.
Based on this, it can be succinctly argued that the ‘Ayāts were revealed when the people left that which Allaah ta ‘ala had revealed out of transgression and injustice; they were cognisant of their transgression as they never denied that it was a revelation of Allaah that they were not applying. In fact they knew it was the prescribed punishment that Allaah ta ‘ala had revealed to their previous Messengers, but they were transgressing due to their hunger for power and arrogance.
The situation of one who denies that it is the revelation cannot be applied in any way here, so it is not the situation of one who makes Istiĥlāl Qalbi (making permissible that which is Harām by the heart) or Jahūd (rejection), it is purely about those who say are cognisant that it is the Hukm of Allaah but deliberately choose not to apply it, for some specific reasoning. Comprehending this distinction is of paramount importance.
To elaborate further, in the first narrative concerning the royal and the meagre tribe, both of them knew that they were violating the Hukm of Allaah, but they made a distinction in the Diyah. The royal tribe made it out of transgression and arrogance, and the meagre tribe out of submissiveness and weakness. When Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم arrived in Medina the weak tribe had hoped that it was the end of injustice and the beginning of fairness, and the royal tribe knew that the time of oppression was over. Here it can be seen that there was not one iota of Takdtheeb[14] or Jaĥad.[15] The choice of the Jews to deliberately leave or abandon that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed was purely out of arrogance and oppression. The discussion that they had clearly shows that they never denied the ruling of Allaah – that is clearly evident; it was plain and simple oppression of one group of people over another.
Often the view is expounded that if someone rules by other than what Allaah has revealed but does not believe that their own rule is superior to that of Allaah ta ‘ala, then they are still a Muslim and this is manifestly false. It is a statement of those who have adopted the Minhaj of the Murjiyah, because as we have seen from these narrations, the Jews never once claimed that their ruling was superior to the Hukm of Allaah, yet the ‘ayah still applies to them.
When the royal tribe sent an emissary to seek out a verdict from Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم, this was not carried out by force, as they were not being ruled directly by the Muslims, they were behind their own fortress and were being governed by their own supreme council, somewhat like a commonwealth. Although they were under the protection of the Muslims they still had their own independent rule and were governing by the Mosaic law. They had a choice whether or not to seek his judgement, and their intention was not to seek the ruling of Islaam but rather to seek a verdict that would fit their own particular interests and desires.
The issue here is not a matter of Jaĥad, Istiĥlāl or belief or disbelief: it concerns the altering of the Shari’ah for the interest, desire and ultimately the benefit of an oppressive group. Such a group sought to overpower their rivals and contemporaries, regardless of the legality or justness of their actions. Worsening this pitiful approach, this group had the audacity of allowing the approach to the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم to see if he would issue a verdict endorsing their abhorrent conduct.
The same goes for the second narrative. The Jewish scholar admitted after he had been urged by the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم that the punishment for Zina was ar-rajm, but they said that they were unable to apply it. For example, in one of the narrations, a relative of the King committed Zina and he refused to stone him, then a common man committed Zina and he requested his stoning but the people protested by saying that this is unfair. The King asked for some kind of reconciliation where nobody was executed and that they can all agree on, so they agreed on flogging, and they knew that flogging for Zina was not the Hukm of Allaah ta ‘ala. They never denied that the correct ruling was stoning, there was no Jaĥad (rejection) by saying that stoning was not the ruling of Allaah and that Mūsa عليه السلام was a liar. This would constitute Jaĥad because one knows the truth in ones heart but it is denied by the tongue. The situation was neither one of Takdtheeb nor that of Jaĥad. Even though the ruling of Allaah was not being applied, it was not being denied, and this is definitely not the standard situation of Istiĥlāl as there is nothing here resembling such a reality.
Indeed, in the beginning of their interaction with the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم they denied that the punishment of stoning was in their books, only because they wanted to avoid embarrassment because they were so called religious scholars who are supposed to be those who preserve the teachings of their religion. When their books were opened, and the truth of the matter was exposed, namely that stoning was the prescribed punishment for the act that was being discussed, they admitted that they had not been applying that which was obligatory upon them, with the usual excuses that they were unable to enforce them for the reasons they had mentioned. While there is Jaĥad here to begin with, this is not the Jaĥad of the actual ruling of Allaah but Jaĥad of the ruling in the book, with the purpose to either mislead the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم or to cover it up from the common public. But it is not the usual Kufr al-Jaĥūd that is commonly used. The correct application of Kufr al-Jaĥūd is when someone may say the Hukm is in the Tawrāt but the Tawrāt is not from Allaah and Mūsa is not His Messenger, this would be Kufr al-Jaĥūd although he knows in his heart to the contrary. However if we say that someone has committed Jaĥad of the Hukm of Allaah, it means that he denies that it is actually the Hukm revealed by Allaah ta ‘ala but does not deny that it is in the Qur’aan although he knows in his heart that it is from Allaah. If the individual denies due to doubt and uncertainty then it is Shak[16], and if the individual does not believe at all that it is from Allaah then it is Takdtheeb which is plain disbelief and is not Jaĥad. Jaĥad only occurs when one knows in the heart yet denies it upon their tongue, which is what the Qur’aan tells us about the people of Mūsa عليه السلام:
* And they Jaĥadū (denied) them (those ‘Ayāt) wrongfully and arrogantly, though their own selves were convinced thereof’[17]
Nowhere in this narrative do we have anything related to Jaĥad, Istiĥlāl, and I’tiqād in the classical sense. All we have is pure arrogance and oppressive behaviour fuelled by the want of power and love of worldly gain. Furthermore, the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم said: ‘O Allaah, I am the first to give life to Thy command which they have killed’[18] and these are the infallible words of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم where there can be no doubt. The Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم did not say:
* I am the first one to revive your ruling after you had disbelieved in it
* I am holding it true after they had held it as false
* He has convinced of it after they doubted it
* I have confirmed it after they denied it
* I have surrendered to it after they rebelled against it
There was nothing even closely related to any of the aforesaid statements, neither can his statement be interpreted according to these ideas. The Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم said clearly that he was the first to revive it after they killed it, because they left it. The application of the Hukm had died but he revived it once more, and these are the accurate words of the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم. To reiterate, there is nothing to be found in his speech that is remotely related to the classical understanding of the concept of Kufr and ‘Īmān.
The correct statement is that the Jews never rejected the Hukm of Allaah ta ‘ala as Imām at-Tabarī (r.h) claimed. Regretfully at-Tabarī spoke here with some Irjaa’’ because he said their Kufr was due to their rejection of the Hukm of Allaah. It seems at-Tabarī was caught by some Irjaa’’ that he restricted Kufr to Jaĥūd or similarly.[19] The non-application of the ruling was not because they rejected the Hukm, as we have seen; they fully admitted to it being the Hukm of Allaah after they had been exposed by the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم who had urged them to admit the true ruling that was written in their book, and which they fully complied with. It is very likely that they were convinced that the ruling of Allaah was better than their own ruling, and they admitted that Mūsa is the Messenger of Allaah, but the only thing here is that they let his Shari’ah die out as a result of wilfully not applying it. All of this was due to a plethora of flimsy excuses related to Dunyah, or because of Ta’weel, like the fear of a rebellion, or even inability to enforce it because they never had a Kingdom. There was no Jaĥūd, it was purely non-application and the rule finally faded out.
Modern secular systems of governance closely follow the practice of the Jews in this instance. Abandonment of the rule of Allaah has become the order of the day. It is not an issue of I’tiqād or Tasdeeq, since the contemporary systems of governance do not enact laws because of morality. For example if someone commits adultery the modern secular state will not punish that person. While they may grudgingly concur that the act is not moral or conducive to social cohesion, they will not implement a punishment for it here in the Dunyah!
[1] Muslim, Kitāb al-Hudūd, Bāb Rajm al-Yahūd, Hadîth No. 1700
[2] Tafsîr Ibn Kathîr, Vol.2, p. 59
[3] Tafsîr At-Tabarī, Vol.6, p. 251 and thereafter
[4] Ibid; this is also narrated by Muslim, and also in the Musnad of Imām Ahmad but it is abridged.
[5] Saĥīh al-Bukhāri, al-Janā’iz, Hadîth No. 1329; Muslim, Kitāb al-Hudūd, Bāb Rajm al-Yahūd, Hadîth No. 1699
[6] “…we darken their faces and make them ride on the donkey with their faces turned to the opposite direction (and their backs touching each other), and then they are taken round (the city)…” ھaĥīh Muslim, Bāb 17, Hadîth No. 4211
[7] A city near Medina
[8] Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Vol.2, p. 59 onwards
[9] Referring to the story of the two tribes and the one of stoning
[10] Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Vol.2, p. 59 onwards
[11] Abu Dawūd, Ch 38, No. 4435, narrated by Abu Hurayrah
[12] Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Vol.2, P. 59 onwards.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Takdtheeb refers to disbelief in ones heart.
[15] It is knowing the truth in the heart and rejecting it upon the tongue, such as the rejection of the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم by the Jews with their knowledge that He is the Messenger of Allaah. Like them are those who reject a known matter in the Deen after the evidence from the Shari’ah; (which is) ‘Allaah has said…’ and ‘the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم has said…’ Allaah ta ‘ala said about the Kufr of Rejection: ‘And they belied them (those Ayāt) wrongfully and arrogantly, though their own selves were convinced thereof…’ Soorat An-Naml, verse 14. And in another verse: ‘But none denies Our Signs except every perfidious ungrateful’, Soorat Luqmān, verse 32; and He ta ‘ala has also said: ‘…as also do some of these (who are present with you now like ‘Abdullāh bin Salām) and none but the disbelievers reject Our Ayāt.’ Soorat ‘Ankabūt, verse 47.
[16] This type of doubt takes one out of the Millah. It is not the doubt that is spurred on by the whispers of the Shayān, but rather that which is prolonged to the extent that doubter no longer has ‘Īmān
[17] Soorat an-Naml, verse 14
[18] Sunan Abu Dawūd, Ch 38, Hadîth No. 4433
[19] Not only in this instance did the Imām express some traits of Irjaa’’ but it is clear from his discussion about the ‘Ayāt in Soorat an-Nisâ’, verses 88 / 91 he made the excuse that allying with the Kuffar against Muslims could only be carried out by someone who was happy with the enemies religion. It is clear from the ‘Ayāt that the mere action of fighting against Muslims along side the Kuffar is Kufr al-Akbar which takes one completely out of the Millah, yet Imām at-Tabarī says one must be content with the opposition’s faith; the reality is clearly the opposite.
The Oft-Repeated Addendum – The narrations of Ibn ‘Abbās (r.a) and their strengths and weaknesses
‘It is Kufr, but not like the one who commits Kufr in Allaah His Angels His Books and His Messengers.’
(Told us) Ĥassan Ibnu Yaĥyah who said, informed us ‘Abdur-Razzāq saying informed us Ma’mar from Ibn Tawūs from his father who said Ibn ‘Abbās was asked about the statement of the Exalted ‘Whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon’, he (Ibn ‘Abbās) said:
‘Heya Bihi Kufr’ (It is enough in him Kufr)
Then Ibn Tawūs said:
‘….and it is not like the man who denies Allaah His Angels His Books and His Messengers.’[1]
It is clear from this ‘Athār of Ibn ‘Abbās that this action is Kufr, which is a standard statement meaning that which contradicts Islaam. The rest of the ‘Athār is from Ibn Tawūs who adds that it is not the Kufr in Allaah, His Angels, His Books and His Messengers. Ibn Tawūs is claiming, according to his own understanding, that this is not like the one who commits Kufr in Allaah etc, and so this is the statement of Ibn Tawūs and not that of Ibn ‘Abbās. Moreover, it is not even the statement of Ibn Tawūs himself who is not a Tāb’ieen, but actually a Tabi Tāb’ieen and does not reach to the level of his father, neither does his father reach to the level of Ibn ‘Abbās.
Ibn Tawūs would thus be considered a third class scholar when compared with the latter first and second class scholars (the first being the Saĥābah, and the second being the Tāba’een). Our current day ‘scholars’ are not even in the third class, they are more than a hundred classes below when compared to the ‘Ulema of the Salaf. This is evidence that the statement, which is often attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās, is in actual fact not his statement at all, but some weak narrators have attributed it to him because they never distinguished between what Ibn ‘Abbās said and what Ibn Tawūs had said. This is also due to them not being to the level of exactness and accuracy, they are not Hāfidth (memorisers) because one who has this attribute should have no problem in distinguishing between two separate statements. As this treatise continues we shall clarify all of our remarks in order not to leave the reader uninformed or have any of our statements misinterpreted InshAllaah.
It has also been narrated the same way with the same Isnād, and the Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Nasr from Marū[2] narrated from the same Shaykh as at-Tabarī and his book is called “The due respect for the Salāt”, and they have been supported by Al-Ĥassan Ibn Rabee’ Al-Jarjāni who is a Thiqqah and is not the same as Al-Ĥassan Ibn Yaĥyah. He narrated the tradition as follows:
(Told us) Abdur-Razzāq from Ma’mar from Ibn Tawūs from his father that Ibn ‘Abbās who was asked about the statement of the exalted ‘Whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon’. Ibn ‘Abbās said:
‘Kafa Bihi Kufr’ (enough for him is the Kufr) [3]
It can be seen here that he did not narrate part of the Mudraj (merged statement) and left the statement as it is in its pure form, meaning that this was the complete statement of Ibn ‘Abbās, and whatever was added to it was from other than him (i.e. Ibn ‘Abbās). The fact that he did not narrate this part shows that it was not relevant for him, because Ibn Tawūs is not an authority for him, and although Ibn Tawūs is famous and a well known narrator, he is not of such a high rank that his statements had great influence (at least for this narration) so he crossed out the addition. He restricted himself to what was narrated by Ibn ‘Abbās and dropped anything else that was an addition by the narrators along the way which is perfectly legitimate, and this can be found in the Stories of the judges written by Imām Muhammad Ibn Khallāf al-Hayyān who goes by the famous name Wakī’ al-Qādthi.
It is well established from these two narrations with these two Isnād’s that Ibn ‘Abbās said exclusively – ‘Heya Bihi Kufr’ (It is enough in him Kufr) and ‘Kafa Bihi Kufr’ (enough for him is the Kufr). The rest of the statements like ‘It is not like the one who disbelieves in Allaah His angels, His books and His Messengers’, are the words of Abdullah Ibn Tawūs and are not even from his father never mind attributing them to Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbās.
Some narrators attributed the addendum of Ibn Tawūs to Ibn ‘Abbās because they are not strong enough to distinguish between the two statements, so they were merged (Mudraj)[4] together to appear as one whole sentence. If we are to be academically honest, there is a narration that actually attributes the words of Ibn Tawūs to Ibn ‘Abbās, and sometimes these narrations can look somewhat intimidating in that they appear at first glance to be quite strong in terms of those who are present in the chain, but we will show that this is not the case and expose the weaknesses which are inherent within them, and guidance is sought from Allaah ta ‘ala alone.
One of them is in the book “The great rank of Salāh” by Muhammad Ibn Marwazi, he narrates:
(Told us) Isĥāq, informed us Wakī’ from Sufyān from Ma’mar from Ibn Tawūs from his father, he said: ‘I asked Ibn ‘Abbās’, ‘whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed are the Kaafiroon, how?’, He (Ibn ‘Abbās) said ‘Heya Bihi Kufr’, but not like the one who denies Allaah His Angels, His Books, His Messengers and the day of Judgement’.[5]
So this is the statement attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās and this narration is also narrated by at-Tabarī:
(Told us) Hannād told us Wakī’ told us the Ibnu Wakī’ from Sufyān from Ma’mar from Ibn Tawūs from his father from Ibn ‘Abbās concerning the statement of the Exalted ‘Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed are Al-Kaafiroon’, ‘it is indeed Kufr but not like the Kufr in Allaah His Angels, His Books, His Messengers and the day of Judgement’. [6]
Additionally, in Tafseer at-Tabarī with another Isnād:
(Told us) Ĥassan told me Abu Usāmah from Sufyān from Ma’mar from Ibn Tawūs from his father who said, ‘I asked to Ibn ‘Abbās about the ‘ayah’, ‘Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon’, Ibn ‘Abbās said ‘If he does that then it is Kufr in him, but it is not like the one who commits Kufr in Allaah His Angels His Books His Messengers and the day of Judgement’.[7]
And it is weaker due to Idrāj, Abdur-razzāq is the authority of Ma’mar, and the principle of Ziyādatul-Thiqqati Maq’būlah
In these narrations the words of Ibn Tawūs have been Mudraj into the statement of Ibn ‘Abbās, thus giving the impression that these are his actual words. But this narration is less of an authority than the others for the following reasons:
* It is weaker in Isnād than the previous one; this is the criterion for the scholar studying the Isnād, because the narration which is stronger in Isnād must be taken as the authority over all the other Rīwayyat (chains of transmission). The reason for it being weaker is because Sufyān as an authority from Ma’mar is not to the level of Abdur-razzāq from Ma’mar, and this is for two reasons:
*
a. Sufyān has not narrated from Ma’mar saying ‘Haddathanah Ma’mar’ (Ma’mar told me), so maybe between them is a weak narrator. It could be directly because Sufyān did see Ma’mar and took from him, but if he says ‘An (from) Ma’mar’. All narrators[A1] agree that this formulation rings clear alarm bells, because there maybe a man in between the two that Sufyān dropped, so this is an action of those who make Tadlees, and if it is done intentionally and systematically it will make you a weak narrator, but there are some from the great a’immah who would not bother about saying Haddathanah (Told me), they would use ‘An (from) thereby dropping the intermediary at times, and this would be done for various reasons like not feeling compelled to relate the name or the intermediary is not quite up to standard but he is convinced that the narration is correct for some reason or another. But we are not convinced, we have to have evidence, and we are not like Jews and Christians who take evidence from those like Luke who it is claimed is the disciple of Īsa عليه السلام and that he is divinely inspired by Allaah so his transmission is infallible which is an outrageous claim. We on the other hand have to have the Isnād testifying in a realistic way by Nass (text). But to make sure we are not misinterpreted here, Sufyān is not a major Mudallis but has been known to commit Tadlees at times.[8] So we find that these channels are accompanied with the transmission formulation ‘An (from) and do not say Haddathanah (reported to us).
*
b. Although Sufyān is an authority, he is not to the same level as an authority to Ma’mar like Abdur-razzāq. Abdur-razzāq is the prime narrator of Ma’mar. If there is a disagreement between anybody coming from the narrations of Ma’mar then the one who would make the correct decision would be by way of Abdur-razzāq and all other people would be secondary as an authority. So it is weaker in Isnād because of its formulation being by way of ‘An, and also because of the specialty of Abdur-razzāq narrating from Ma’mar. This is evidenced by the people of Hadīth, so if Abdur-razzāq says “Akhbaranah (Informed us) Ma’mar” this is much stronger than ‘Sufyān saying ‘An (from) Ma’mar’. In another context Imām Ibn Hajar Al-Askalāni weighed out Abdur-razzāq from Ma’mar over Abdul-‘Ala’ from Ma’mar, although Abdul-‘Ala is Thiqqah and is used by Bukhāri and Muslim and all scholars, and nobody has doubted Abdul-‘Ala’s capability, still Abdur-razzāq from Ma’mar is stronger than Abdul-‘Ala from Ma’mar, and there is a Hadīth concerning a lamb and the chicken and Abdul-‘Ala inserted the duck in between, but Ibn Hajar said that this was a mistake by Abdul-‘Ala because Abdur-razzāq is the authority from Ma’mar.
Ibn Abdul-Barr (r.h) the Andalusian is recorded as saying:
‘Abān is not an authority, and his addition to Abdur-razzāq cannot be accepted because Abdur-razzāq is the most firm in humanity to Ma’mar’.[9]
To stress this point, Abdul-Barr says that Abān, although he is Thiqqah and is not weak in anyway, when it comes to narrating from Ma’mar it is Abdur-razzāq who will outweigh against anyone as an authority to Ma’mar.
‘Abbās Adūrī narrated from Ibn Ma’een:
‘Abdur-razzāq is the authority in Ma’mar’.[10]
And from Ya’qūb Ibn Shaybah:
‘Abdur-Razzāq is the most firm in Ma’mar and is a perfectionist’.[11]
Ibn ‘Asākir said:
‘I heard Ahmad Ibn Hanbal say: ‘If you see the companions of Ma’mar differ, then the Hadīth is for Abdur-Razzāq’.[12]
* The first narration that is attributed to Ibn Tawūs must be given the preference, because it is has the strongest Isnad. In the wording it says Ibn Tawūs said, ‘….and it is not like the man who denies Allaah His Angels His Books and His Messengers’ this extra information therefore provides clarification that this statement has come from Ibn Tawūs. This addition which is attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās is deficient in the sense that it does not have this addendum, which clarifies for us that it is not the statement of Ibn ‘Abbās but that of Ibn Tawūs.
A fundamental principle in the science of Hadīth is that the addition of the Thiqqah must be accepted; otherwise we cannot accept his addition in the first place. If he adds something extra whereby one narrates the full story and the Thiqqah narrates an addition, that addition must be accepted, because if we reject it then we must reject his first and last, unless there is a good reason to reject his addition like a mistake because even the Thiqqāt are not Ma’sūm (infallible). In principle one cannot reject the Thiqqah haphazardly, one must have an argument to legitimately reject his statements, and here there is no argument, if there are any then the arguments are actually against any opposing view due to the Isnād, so the general fundamental principle is: ‘Ziyādatul-Thiqqati Maq’būlah’ (The addition of the Thiqqah must be accepted).
From these two principles and the evidence showing clear and evident proof, it is thus well established that what we have narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās where he is reported as saying in the famous ‘Athār: ‘Heya Bihi Kufr’ (It is enough in him Kufr) and ‘Kafa Bihi Kufr’ (enough for him is the Kufr)’ that these and only these are his true statements, having no doubt ascribed.
The addendum: ‘But it is not like the disbelief in Allaah His angels His books His Messengers and the day of judgement’ is from Ibn Tawūs with the highest probability and thus attributing it to Ibn ‘Abbās would be speculation, and speculation cannot be a basis by which the Deen of al-Islaam is established. Certitude or conviction beyond reasonable doubt is the correct approach, and certitude is conviction beyond any possible doubt, and Saĥīĥ is established beyond any reasonable doubt. There maybe academic doubts but nothing in the area of reasonable ones, as reasonable doubts cannot be accepted, but anything more than reasonable doubt (and here we have more than reasonable doubt) that these could be the statements of Ibn ‘Abbās is enough to reject them as his statements. Should such statements be accepted as constituting his words then that would lead to rejection of these trustworthy statements where we find that these are actually the words of Ibn Tawūs and not that of Ibn ‘Abbās, and rejecting these words would be Harām in the Shari’ah and would also be rationally inconsistent.
[1] at-Tafsîr at-Tabarī Vol.6, p. 251
[2] Marū is a city south west of current Tehran.
[3] Akhbār al-Qadā’, Vol.1, p. 40 and onwards for Imām Muhammed Ibn Khalaf Ibn Hayyan, known as Wakī’
[4] al-Burqa’ī quotes the definition of adh-Dhahabi, which adds that, ‘and later a Hadîth may be found that splits the additional expression of the reporter from the original statement’. (See: al-Muwqitha fi ‘Ilm il-Hadîth, pp. 53 / 54)
[5] The great rank of Salāh, Vol.2, p. 522, by Muhammad Ibn Marwazi
[6] Tafseer at-Tabarī Vol.6, p.251
[7] Ibid.
[8] Tadlees in the Isnād is to tamper with the names and identity of narrators, which is, essentially, not very different from out right forgery: Shawkānī, Irshād, p. 55
[9] “Tawheed Vol.6, p. 41 in which he discusses the Muwattā of Imām Mālik.
[10] From the book ‘Ilal-Rijāl’
[11] Tahtheeb at-Tahtheeb Vol.6, p. 279, Ya’qūb Ibn Shaybah the scholar of Jarh and Ta’deel and who was also the student of Ali Al-Madeeni.
[12] Sharĥ ‘Ilal at-Tirmithi for Ibn Rajab, Vol.2, p. 607
The Oft-Repeated Addendum – The narrations of Ibn ‘Abbās (r.a) and their strengths and weaknesses continued
The Second Addendum
‘It is Kufr, but not the Kufr that takes you out of the Millah (Fold of Islaam)’
Primarily we find this in two narrations:
(Told us) Muhammad Ibn Yaĥyah, told us Abdur-Razzāq from Sufyān from a man from Tawūs from Ibn ‘Abbās who said, “but not the Kufr that takes you out of the Millah”.[1]
(Told us) Al-Ĥassan Ibn Yaĥyah informed us Abdur-Razzāq from ‘Ath-Thawrī from a man from Tawūs ‘Those are Al-Kaafiroon’ he said “It is a Kufr, but not the Kufr that takes you out of the Millah’. (Here the narration stops at Ibn Tawūs) Wa Qālah ‘Atā (and ‘Atā added): ‘It is Kufr Duna Kufr, Dthulm Duna Dthulm and Fisq Duna Fisq’.[2]
According to ‘Atā, the Kufr, Dthulm and Fisq in the ‘ayah are the minor forms which do not take one out of the Millah. Yet there is Dhulm which does take one out of the Millah, Allaah ta ‘ala says: ي
‘….for false worship is indeed the highest (La-Dhulm) wrong-doing.’[3]
And Allaah ta ‘ala says:
‘It is those who believe (in the Oneness of Allaah and worship none but Him Alone) and confuse not their belief with Dhulm…’[4]
Every Kaafir is a Dhālim (wrongdoer) but at a level taking him out of the Millah. Fisq is also included, because Iblīss is a Fāsiq, but his Fisq is the Fisq al-Akbar not the Fisq al-Asghar which is the Fisq committed by the believer but who still resides within the Millah.
Allaah ta ‘ala says:
‘….certainly they disbelieved in Allaah and His Messenger, and died while they were Fāsiqūn.’[5]
And Allaah ta ‘ala also says:
‘But whoever disbelieved after this, they are the Fāsiqūn’.[6]
In another narration it is mentioned:
(Told us) Isĥāq informed us Wakī’ from Sufyān from Sa’eed Al-Makki from Tawūs who said: ‘It is not the Kufr which takes you out of the Millah’.[7]
Similarly this is also mentioned by At-Tabarī:
(Told us) Hannād, he said told us Wakī’ and told us Ibn Wakī’, he said my Father told us, from Sufyān from Sa’eed Al-Makki from Tawūs who said concerning the ‘ayah ‘Whoever Rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon’ he said it is not the Kufr that takes you out of the Millah’.[8]
Sa’eed Ibn Ĥassan Al-Makki Makhzūmi has been declared Thiqqah from the men of Muslim, and he has been declared Thiqqah by those who have been known to be very tough in Towfeeq which are Ibn Ma’een, Nasā’i and Abu Dawūd.
The last Isnād in at-Tabarī which we related is deficient of anyone unknown, and stopped at Tawūs. The Isnād in ‘Ta’theem Qadr is-Salāh’ stopped at Tawūs in which Sa’eed al-Makki is mentioned clearly. In the two previous Isnād’s Sa’eed al-Makki is not mentioned but a man is mentioned, this man could be either Sa’eed al Makki or could be someone else un known, because Abdur-razzāq could have taken the Hadīth from Sa’eed al-Makki or other then him, or forgot the name of the man. He could have made Tadlees on the man because he knew that he was not that strong and would be thus relying on other narrations, and narrated it in two ways, one going to Ibn ‘Abbās and the other stopping at Ibn Tawūs.
We have certitude that we can attribute this statement to Ibn Tawūs, but there is no certitude that it can be attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās. Formally attributing the statement to Ibn ‘Abbās is weak because in each narration there is an unknown man in the Isnād. This could be Sa’eed al-Makki but it could also be the Shayān himself coming in the shape of a man. We say this because a man is mentioned but we do not know who he is and the Shayān could take the form of a man.
One could consider it reasonable to claim that the missing individual is Sa’eed al-Makki, but who can claim that Sufyān ath-Thawrī only narrated from Sa’eed al-Makki? He narrated from thousands of people, and there were tens of people from Mecca because this is a Meccan Isnād. Tawūs and ‘Atā are Meccan scholars, and their students are a great many in number.
[1] Ta’theem Qadr is-ھalāh, by Imām Muhammad Nāsr Ibn Al-Marwazī, Vol.2, p. 552, Tafseer Abdur-Razzāq, Vol.1, p. 191
[2] Tafseer at-Tabarī Vol.6, p. 251
[3] Soorat Luqman: 13
[4] Surat An’âm: 82
[5] Soorat Tawbah: 84
[6] Soorat Nūr: 55
[7] Ta’theem Qadr is-Salāh, Vol.2, p. 552
[8] Tafseer at-Tabarī Vol.6, p. 251
The Oft-Repeated Addendum – The narrations of Ibn ‘Abbās (r.a) and their strengths and weaknesses continued
The third Addendum: The Famous Phrase
‘Kufr Duna Kufr’ (Disbelief less than disbelief)
Looking at the matter closely it can be conclusively stated that the phrase‘Kufr Duna Kufr’ directly comes from ‘Atā.
It has come to us:
(Told us) Isĥāq, told us Wakī’, from Sufyān from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Atā (This Isnād is one where no complaints can be given as its strength is overwhelming) who said ‘Kufr Duna Kufr, Thulm Duna Thulm and Fisq Duna Fisq’.[1]
And also in at-Tabarī:
(Told us) Muhammad Ibn Bashshār who said told us Abdur-Rahmān, told us Sufyān from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Atā, he was asked concerning the ‘Āyat: ‘they are al-Kaafiroon’, ‘they are al-Fāsiqūn’, and ‘they are al-Thaalimun’. He (‘Atā) said: ‘Kufr Duna Kufr, Fisq Duna Fisq and Dthulm Duna Dthulm’. [2]
Further to this, at-Tabarī mentioned other various Isnād’s:[3]
(Told us) Ibn Bashshār told us Abdur-Rahmān told us Hammād Abu Salamah from ‘Ayyūb and ‘Atā (Told us) Al-Muthannah told me Hajjāj told us Hammād from ‘Ayyūb from ‘Atā Ibn Abi Rabaĥ (Told us) Hammād Ibn Sarī told us Wakī’ from Sufyān from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Atā (Told me) Ibn Wakī’ told me my father from Sufyān from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Atā
Thus, it can be seen that ‘Atā is the one responsible for this statement. at-Tabarī also narrates:
(Told us) Al-Ĥassan Ibnu Yahyah he said informed us Abdur-razzāq he said informed us ath-Thawrī from a man from Tawūs ‘they are al-Kaafiroon’. He (Tawūs) said: ‘It is not the Kufr that takes you out of the Millah’, and he (Tawūs) said he heard ‘Atā saying similarly. [4]
Significantly here we see Tawūs is showing that this statement is not only his opinion but also that of ‘Atā. Yet, again due to this unknown man in the Isnād we cannot say if it is really that reliable.
The statement of ‘Kufr Duna Kufr’ has also been attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās. This is the famous phrase contemporarily used by Muslims to promote their agenda. As will be explained in further detail, the Isnād is weak and cannot be used as an authority.
It has come to us in al-Mustadrak:
* Imām al-Hākim said: Informed us Ahmed Ibn Sulaymān al-Morsali told us Ali Ibn Harb told us Sufyān Ibn Uyaynah from Hishām Ibn Hujayr from Tawūs, he said Ibn ‘Abbās (radthī-Allaahū ‘anhū) said: ‘It is not the Kufr you are taking it to, it is not the Kufr that takes you out of the Millah, (about the ‘ayah) ‘Whoever does not Rule by that which has been revealed they are Al-Kaafiroon’ – it is Kufr Duna Kufr’. [5]
al-Hākim comments: ‘Ĥāthah Hadīth Sahīĥul-Isnād (This Hadīth is correct in Isnād) and the Shaykhayn did not narrate it’. ad-Dthāhabi also said the same in Talkhīs Sahīĥ.
The same is contained in Sunan al-Kubra by al-Bayhaqi through al-Hākim, (al-Hākim was the Shaykh of al-Bayhaqi). al-Bayhaqi says:
Ahmed Ibn Sulaymān al-Morsali…and this is the same Isnād as al-Hākim, so you don’t only have to check in the Mustadrak.
Ibn Katheer narrates:
Ibn Abi Hātim said told me Muhammad Ibn Abdullah Ibn Yazīd al-Mu’kri’ told us Sufyān Ibn Uyaynah from Hishām Ibn Hujayr from Tawūs from Ibn ‘Abbās concerning the statement of the Exalted – ‘Whoever does not Rule by that which has been revealed they are Al-Kaafiroon’, Ibn ‘Abbās said: ‘It is not the Kufr they take it to, it is Kufr Duna Kufr’. [6]
Is Hishām Ibn Hujayr (r.h) an authority by himself?
The narration of al-Hākim and the reiteration of adth-Dthāhabi cannot be accepted here because Hishām Ibn Hujayr is weak according to a group of critical a’immah of Jarĥ and Ta’deel. The reason why al-Hākim uses Hishām is due to him being used in the Sahiĥĥayn but as will be shown, Hishām is not used in solitude as an authority and therefore it cannot be said that Hishām is an authority. One cannot say this when he is only used as a corroborator and is not used independently alone. We will mention the statements of those Imām’s and what their opinions were of Hishām Ibn Hujayr; he has been declared weak because of Hifdth (memorisation) and also nobody else has reported this same narration in the entire universe.
Imām Ahmed Ibn Hambal (r.h) has said:[7]
‘Laysa Bil-Qawī’ (without strength)
It is also reported:
Abdullah Ibn Ahmad said: ‘I heard my father [Imām Ahmad] say: ‘Hishām Ibn Hujayr Huwal Makki Da’eef al-Hadīth (a Meccan who is weak in Hadīth)’.[8]
This means that Imām Ahmed is not saying he is weak or accusing him of Munkar or that he is to be rejected, rather that he is not strong, which could mean somewhere in the middle, but in the other statement Imām Ahmed says ‘weak in Hadīth’ and is therefore seen by the Imām as more towards being weak.
Yaĥyah Ibn Sa’eed al-Qaĥtān (r.h) who was the teacher of Imām Ahmed and arguably one of the first great annalists of the study of men which became a systematic science through his tutelage, is reported to have said:
‘I read upon Yaĥyah Ibn Sa’eed: ‘Narrated to us, Ibn Jurayj from Hishām Ibn Hujayr…’ Yaĥyah Ibn Sa’eed said: ‘It is befitting that I disregard him’. I said, ‘Should I cross out his Hadīth?’ He said: ‘Yes.’[9]
Furthermore:
Abdullah Ibn Ahmad said: ‘I asked Yaĥyah about Hishām Ibn Hujayr and he weakened him very much’.[10]
Imām Ali al-Madeeni was one of the renowned a’immah of Jarĥ and Ta’deel, and he is known to be very well balanced like Bukhāri and Ya’qūb Shaybah as-Sadūsi were. Some of the a’immah of Jarĥ and Ta’deel are known to be very harsh, like Ahmed Ibn Hambal, Yaĥyah Ibn Ma’een, Ibn Abi Hātim, Abu Dawūd, and An-Nasā’i. If someone like Ali al-Madeeni who is known to be very just mentions Hishām Ibn Hujayr in a negative sense, then this is a very ominous sign[11].
al-‘Uqayli says:
There are two narrations from Yahyah Ibn Ma’een, one of which says: ‘Da’eef Jiddan’ (very weak indeed)
And:
‘Sāliĥ’ (righteous)[12]
The way to reconcile these two supposedly opposing statements can be discerned in the following manner. Sāliĥ means righteous; meaning his religion and piety not in his narrations, and Da’eef isn’t used as a reference to his Deen because usually they would use Fāsiq or Khabeeth (impure). So if Da’eef is used then this refers to Hadīth, but if Sāliĥ is used then it is in reference to ones Deen.
There is another narration which is quite odd from al-‘Ajurī. He relates from Abu Dawūd that Hishām was flogged in Mecca. al-‘Ajurī asks why; he is told that he was flogged for that ‘which people are flogged in Mecca.’ We do not know what people were flogged for in Mecca, whether itwas for drinking Khamr or Zina’. This is unacceptable because Abu Dawūd should not really relate such a narration without giving the full details. Even if he was flogged this could be a one off and then he would regain his piety.
Imām Abu Hātim said:
‘Yiqtub Hadīth’ (write down his Hadīth).[13]
The reason behind the statement of Abu Hātim where he says ‘write down his Hadīth’ is because his highest rank is Hujjah’ or Thiqqah then Sāliĥ then Yiqtob Hadīth which is a term that means to compare to the other scholars and to take him as an extra corroborating evidence and not as a narration that can stand as an authority by itself. Hence, Hishām Ibn Hujayr is given a third rank by Abu Hātim, meaning he has quite a number of mistakes but you are to write his narrations in any case.
Sufyān Ibn Uyaynah said:
‘We did not take anything from him except if we found it with someone else.’[14]
This statement is due to the fact that the Muhaddithūn were trying to collect everything in order not to leave anything out. It was not considered prudent to disregard narrations unless it was known that the narrator was a liar or he was so weak and unreliable that no one wrote from him. Anyone who is even on the border of being rejected they would still write from him so that they would not miss any piece that maybe used and then the analysis will come later. The job of the Muhaddithūn is to collect as much as possible, and as has already been mentioned, once the job of collection is complete then the task of analysis would begin.
We can summarise the position so far as follows:
* We have from this report that this narration of Hishām Ibn Hujayr where it attributes the saying ‘Kufr Duna Kufr’ to Ibn ‘Abbās is only found in this Isnād, and has not been found anywhere else.
* Sufyān Ibn Uyaynah would avoid narrating from him unless it was necessary. For example he did not find this narration with anybody else so he would not want to miss anything which might contain guidance. This is an indirect indication that he is declaring him to be weak, so it is saying ‘I am avoiding him unless it is absolutely necessary’.
As to why al-Hākim made a blunder in regard to Hishām Ibn Hujayr being a man used by Bukhāri and Muslim can be readily understood. They never used him independently as a main channel; they would either use him in a corroborating chain or as Mutāba’a, meaning there is already an independent Isnād for the same Hadīth so it would be ‘Wa Taba’u Fulān Fulān’ (and also narrated so and so).[15] For example, Imām Bukhāri uses him in Vol. 6, Hadīth No. 720. This very same Hadīth can be found in the book of Expiation of Oaths. The narration contains Hishām Ibn Hujayr, but we find that he was replaced in another narration of this same Hadīth by Abdullah Ibn Tawūs in the Book of Marriage, Vol.5 Hadīth No. 224.
Likewise with Imām Muslim; he only has two A’hadīth which contain him in their Sanad, and he does not narrate them except that another man has replaced Hishām in a different narration of the same Hadīth. The first narration was the exact same Sanad and phrasing as what has come from Hishām in the Hadīth of the Prophet Sulaymān عليه السلام – Vol.1, Hadīth 654, and we see that Hishām is replaced in the very next chain by Abdullah Ibn Tawūs just as he was replaced in the alternate narration by Imām Bukhāri. The second narration with Hishām was what has reached us from Ibn ‘Abbās who said: ‘Mu’āwīyah said to me – ‘Did you know that I cut (the hair) from the head of the Messenger of Allaah at Al-Marwah with scissors?’ So I said to him – ‘This is an argument in our favour…’ Vol. 1, Hadīth No. 246. Again Hishām is replaced in this Sanad by al-Ĥasan Ibn Muslim in the narration which follows it.
Now that we have produced the words and statements of the classical ‘Ulema concerning the status of Hishām Ibn Hujayr, we will also bring statements of those who have declared him to be Thiqqah as we will try to avoid the actions of the pseudo Mulims who are not shy from hiding part of the truth to suit their own agendas.
In the Tahdthīib of Ibn Hajar it is recorded:
al-‘Ijli said: ‘Trustworthy person of Sunnah’. Abu Hātim said: ‘His Hadīth were written’. He was mentioned by Ibn Hibbān in the Thiqqāt. Ibn Sa’d said “He was Trustworthy (Thiqqah)’. as-Sāji said ‘He was reliable (Sadūq)’. al-Uqayli said that Ibn Uyaynah said: ‘We did not take from him what we did not find with others’.
As-Sāji who is known to be very tough, classed him as Sadūq (Trustworthy). Now although as-Sāji is not that famous, so having a clear understanding of his terminology is limited; this could be interpreted here as either meaning he does not lie or if it is like the convention of Ibn Hajar then as-Sāji would be the only one who would have mentioned it like that. So we have here the statements of the first three mentioned, that being Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Hibbān and al-‘Ijlī, but as mentioned already these three cannot be taken fully as an authority, especially if compared to the likes of Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Yaĥyah Ibn Ma’een, Sa’eed al-Qaĥtān etc, they would never be able to stand up against these giants of Jarĥ wal-Ta’deel.
Al-Hāfidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalāni (r.h) tried to summarise all of these statements as he usually does, by saying:
‘Sadūq Lahu ‘Owhām’ meaning trustworthy but makes mistakes. [16]
We say, it may have been better to have said Sadūq (trustworthy) but with many ‘Owhām (mistakes). Further to this, we also say this because the level of criticism like Yahyah Ibn Ma’een saying ‘Da’eef Jiddan’ (extremely weak) and Ibn Sa’eed al-Qaĥtān saying for his Hadīth is to be crossed out completely indicates that there are more than one or two mistakes. In fact there may be a plethora of mistakes and this is too much for someone narrating fifty or a hundred Hadīth; someone narrating a hundred thousand then this maybe looked over. But the moment someone is declared with Sadūq ‘Owhām (Trustworthy but with mistakes), Lahu ‘Owhām (has mistakes) or Kitheer ‘Owhām (many mistakes) his Hadīth are not to be declared Saĥīh. The best he can be given is Hassan which is ‘maybe reliable’, but to shift it to Saĥīh which can be relied on and you can build Deen upon, and plus to have a narration which nobody else in the world has narrated except Hishām Ibn Hujayr makes it even more doubtful. Ibn ‘Abbās had a great number of students, and students of students, and with Hishām Ibn Hujayr coming with this narration it is most likely that Hishām took this statement from Ibn Tawūs and then lifted it to Ibn ‘Abbās because Ibn Tawūs is on record with similar statements.
The best approach to explain the statements of ‘Kufr Duna Kufr’ and ‘It is not the Kufr that takes you out of the Millah’, is that they are most likely the words of Ibn Tawūs, and he was commenting on the statement of Ibn ‘Abbās as has already been shown from the narration mentioned previously with the strong Isnād. Hishām Ibn Hujayr committed a mistake because he is Sadūq Lahu ‘Owhām or he has plenty of ‘Owhām and lifted the statements to Ibn ‘Abbās, because normally the sequence would be Ibn Tawūs from Ibn ‘Abbās, so if this is heard over a hundred times by the Hadīth collectors then it can become repetitive, but it is still not from Ibn ‘Abbās. That is where the mistake comes. It is a human error, but a first rank scholar would not make this kind of mistake and this is where a narrator would be classed as weak due to mistakes like this.
We have mentioned already from the Tafseer at-Tabarī with a Saĥīh Isnād the following narration: (Told us) Hannād told us Wakī’ and also Ibn Wakī’ both of them from Sufyān from Sa’eed Al-Makki from Tawūs about the statement of the Exalted ‘…they are al-Kaafiroon’, he said: ‘This is not a Kufr which takes you out of the Millah’. We know from this ‘Athār that the statement – ‘This is not a Kufr which takes you out of the Millah’ – is from Ibn Tawūs and that Hishām Ibn Hujayr has made the mistake here by merging the two independent statements of Ibn Tawūs and Ibn ‘Abbās.
It is most likely that the statement – ‘Kufr Duna Kufr’ – is from the Ijtihād of ‘Atā and Ibn Tawūs adopted this Ijtihād. We say this because we have a narration where Ibn Tawūs explicitly said – ‘I heard ‘Atā saying: Kufr Duna Kufr;’ he attributed it to the meaning of not taking one out of the Millah because that is the meaning of Kufr Duna Kufr (a disbelief less than the real disbelief). If it does not take one out of the Millah then we are not bothered about the ranks because we know that Iblīs and Fir’awn are more Kaafir than a simple foot solder, but they are nonetheless Kuffar. Nobody is really bothered about this, as what is important is whether this action takes one out of the Millah or keeps one within it. Ibn Tawūs explained that there is a Kufr which takes you out of the Millah and there is a Kufr which keeps you in it, and we have discussed this issue of Kufr at the beginning of our treatise.
On a side note, it is worth briefly elucidating the excellence of some of the high ranking Muhaddithīn in terms of their skills of memorisation. One such example is of Imām Abu Zurha Ar-Rāzi who was close to Abu Hātim. Abu Zurha went to a famous narrator called Muhammad Ibn Milĥāl who is the brother of Hajjāj Ibn Milĥāl. Muhammad Ibn Miĥāl was blind and had narrated Tafseer from one of the Tāba’een of Ibn ‘Abbās, so Abu Zurha went to Muhammad Ibn Milĥāl and asked permission if he could write from this book under his supervision. Muhammad Ibn Milĥāl replied by saying that he does not have a book as the book is in his chest, i.e. he had put it to memory, so Abu Zurha asked that he dictate it to him. Half of the book was dictated and he returned the following day to complete the rest of it, and Muhammad Ibn Milĥāl started in the exact same place from where he stopped dictating. The significant point here is not only is it incredible the fact that he was dictating from memory, but the fact that he remembered exactly where he had left off. This is the level to which the scholars of the highest rank are; they had almost supreme memories which in modern parlance would be compared to today’s computers.
[1] Ta’theem Qadr is-Salāh, Vol.2, p. 552
[2] Tafseer at-Tabarī Vol.6, p. 251
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] al-Hākim, al-Mustadrak, Vol.2, p. 313
[6] Tafseer Ibn Katheer Vol.2, p. 62
[7] al-Kashif Fi Ma’rifah, p. 5958
[8] al-’Ilal wa ma’rifat ar-Rijaal Vol.1, p. 204
[9] al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, Vol.9, p. 54
[10] Ibid, Vol.2, p. 30
[11] Ibid.
[12] ad-Du’afaa` al-Kabīr, Vol. 4, p. 238
[13] Tahdthīb At-Tahthīb, Vol. 6, p. 25
[14] Hadi as-Sāri, p. 447 / 448, 1st Salafiyah Ed. Tahdthīb by Ibn Hajar
[15] This has also been mentioned by Dr Abdur-Raĥmān Ibn Sāliĥ al-Maĥmūd in “Man made laws verses Shari’ah”, p. 135, Footnote 24 where he says: ‘Even though Hishām Ibn Hujayr is one of the men of Bukhāri and Muslim, they did not narrate from him except as corroborating reports, as is mentioned by Ibn Hajar in his comment on the reports narrated by Bukhāri’.
[16] at-Taqrīb, 7288
The Oft-Repeated Addendum – The narrations of Ibn ‘Abbās (r.a) and their strengths and weaknesses continued
The fourth Addendum: A Subtle Sophism
‘Whoever Jahidah (rejects) what Allaah has revealed is a Kaafir, and whoever accepted it (the rule of Allaah) but did not rule by it, is a Fāsiq and a Dhālim’
At-Tabarī narrates in his Tafseer:
(From) Abu Muthanna, from Abdullah Ibn Sāliĥ, from Muāwiyyah Ibn Sāliĥ, from Ali Ibn Abi Talhah from Ibn ‘Abbās who said regarding the statement of the Exalted – ‘Whoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed are al-Kaafiroon’, he (Ibn ‘Abbās) said: ‘Whoever rejects what Allaah has revealed is a Kaafir, and whoever accepted it (the rule of Allaah) but did not rule by it is a Fāsiq and a Dhālim’.[1]
There is no dispute that this narration is famous and can be found in many works of Tafseer. However, the narration is Munqati’ (broken chain) and is unacceptable because of the personage of Ali Ibn Abi Talhah who did not reach the time of any of the Sahābah, (neither Ibn ‘Abbās or anyone else). Between him and Ibn ‘Abbās there were some intermediaries as has been stated by many of the major a’immah of Hadīth such as Yaĥyah Ibn Ma’een, Ibn Hibbān, Imām Duhaym and others. Some of the latter day scholars have claimed that between Ali Ibn Abi Talhah and Ibn ‘Abbās is Mujāhid or Ikrimah who are both reliable Tabi’een, however such a claim has not been made by any of the trustworthy authorities of the people of the time of Ali Ibn Abi Talhah, and in Arabic this is termed – ‘Rajimun Bil-Ghaib’ (A throw in the unknown), because they are the ones who would have known regarding this matter. In actual fact, the opposite of this has been narrated about Ali Ibn Abi Talhah:
Yaqūb Ibn Ishāq said that Imām Sālih Ibn Muhammad was asked:
‘Who did Ali Ibn Abi Talhah hear Tafseer from? He replied – Nobody!’[2]
Someone may say – ‘La’al-lahu Wijādah’ (maybe he found it in a book). To assert this would be nonsense. Reference to an unknown or unnamed book is not one of the conditions of Wijādah[3] which is to find a narration in a well known manuscript. But we know from this Saĥīfah from which Ali Ibn Abi Talhah narrates that it has some Munkarāt (narrations which are to be completely rejected). The moment there is one Munkar in any Saĥīfah one has to place a question mark on the whole Saĥīfah – this is the principle of Jarĥ Wal Ta’deel – that if there is one obscure narration, then you reject it. For example there is a narration with the same Isnād as the one previously mentioned containing Ali Ibn Abi Talhah but raised to the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم. The narration states:
‘Alif Lām Mēm ھād The opening of Soorat A’raf, Qāf, Hā Ayn Yā ھād which is the opening of Soorat Maryam, Tā-Hā, Ya-Seen, ھād, قā-Sēn, Hā Mēm, Nūn, and similar to that, and the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم said this is a Qasam (oath) that Allaah has made and it is one of the names of Allaah’.[4]
This is enough to show it is Munkar. It is definite that the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم never said this and these are definitely not the names of Allaah ta ‘ala. This shows this Saĥīfah is faulty.
The truth is as Imām Suyūti said:
He narrated from Ibn Hakam, that Imām ash-Shāfi’i said: ‘There are no more than a hundred narrations that are well established from Ibn ‘Abbās on Tafseer of the Qur’aan, and in this Saĥīfah there are fourteen hundred narrations’.[5]
But Ali Ibn Abi Talhah himself is also not a perfectionist in anyway, neither is he a stand alone authority as he makes mistakes in his narrations, although no one denies his truthfulness and that he was a man of Sunnah. Ya’qūb narrated from Sufyān that he is weak, and not reliable. He also said: ‘He is a Shāmi, he is not avoided nor taken as evidence. As for his narration from Ibn ‘Abbās, then is it Munqat’i (not connected), for he did not hear from him’.
Ibn Abi Hātim said:
‘I heard my father say, I heard Dahīm saying: ‘Ali bin Abi Talhah did not hear Tafseer from Ibn ‘Abbās’.[6] Ibn Hibbān said: ‘He narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās and never saw him’.[7]
al-Hāfidth says in At-Taqreeb:
‘Truthful, but his narrations are broken’.
Muādth Ibn Sālih Ibn Hudaif, the judge of Andalusia – al-Hāfidth narrates from him: ‘Sadūq Lahu ‘Owhām’ (Truthful but makes mistakes), so he is not an authority on his own. In addition to this, Abdullah Ibn Sāliĥ, the scribe of the Egyptian Imām al-Layth Said:
‘He has plenty of knowledge, but not that strong, especially if he is narrating from a book’.
Imām Abu Zur’ah has said:
‘For me he is not a person who intentionally lied; I think his Hadīth are Ĥassan’.[8]
Imām Abu Hātim has said:
‘Sadūq, as far as I know him’
This seems to be referring to him in his earlier life, as other Imām’s have stated.
Imām Ali al-Madeeni said:
‘I don’t relate anything from him’.[9]
Imām an-Nasā’i said:
‘He is not a trustworthy authority’.
And Sāliĥ Ibn Jazarah has said:
‘Ibn Ma’een used to declare him to be Thiqqah, but for me he is a liar’.
Ahmad Masālah al-Masri said:
‘He is questionable, people accuse him of Mu’tasim Laysah Bi’shay (lying and he is nothing)’.
Al-Manwāwi quotes, in Fayd al-Qadeer, Vol. 2 / 397, Ibn Abi Hātim saying regarding ‘Abdullah Ibn Sāliĥ: ‘He is really bad in Hadīth when narrating from Mu’āwiyah Ibn Sālih’. Any student of this science knows, whoever this kind of statement is said of, he cannot be used as a witness to anything. Furthermore, as refutation for al-Albāni – the Shaykh of al-Halabi – since he criticised Ahmad Shākir for classifying this Hadīth: ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Āmr narrates: The angels said – ‘Oh our Lord, you gave the children of Ādam the Dunyah letting them eat and drink in it…’ Concerning this al-Albāni said: ‘And it is not correct to me, to declare this Hadīth as strong, relying upon that, with the statement of ‘Abdullah Ibn Sāliĥ, due to the latter being from those who have been criticised (Dakhala ‘alayh)’. Thereafter he mentioned Ibn Hibbān’s statement as can be found above.[10]
Evidently this Isnād is weak and cannot be taken as an authority. We have Abdullah Ibn Sāliĥ who is accused of being weak; we also have Mu’āwiyah Ibn Sāliĥ from the Andalusian judges who is not the strongest, and Ali Ibn Abi Talhah who is not the strongest of authorities and there is Isti’ta to Ibn ‘Abbās, so this narration cannot be taken as constituting a serious proof. Imām at-Tabarī also narrates this from his Shaykh Muthannah Ibn Ibra’heem who is unknown and no one narrates from him except at-Tabarī, further indicating his is a very questionable Isnād. The Matn[11] (text) does not look similar to other Saĥīh statements from Ibn ‘Abbās and it is not what we are used to in terms of words coming from the era of the Sahābah, and it is closer to the style of latter scholars because such fine points like using the term Jaĥad (rejection) is not the way of the Sahābah. The Sahābah would speak in a much simpler manner and this kind of formulation resembles more the latter scholars who developed terms and principles as the Fuqahāh and the Mutakallimeen. So the Matn is Munkar and must be rejected.
[1] Tafseer at-Tabarī, Vol.4, p. 256
[2] Tah’deeb al-Kāmal, Vol. 2, p. 974
[3] Wajadah: That is to find someone’s book without any sort of permission to transmit on anyone’s authority. This was not a recognised way of learning A’hadîth. According to the standard of the Muhaddithīn one must state explicitly that the information that he presented had been taken from the book of such a man. There are references to books of this sort from very early days. An example is the book of Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubaidah (d. 15 AH). Studies in Hadîth Methodology and Literature, by M.M.Azimi, p. 21
[4] Tafseer at-Tabarī Vol.8, p. 115; and Bayhaqi in ‘Asma’ Wal Sifāt, p. 94
[5] Imām Suyūti in al-I’tiqān Vol.2, p. 189
[6] al-Maraseel, p. 117
[7] ath-Thiqqāt, Vol.7, p. 211
[8] al-Mizān for adth-Dthahabi, Vol.4, p. 441
[9] al-’Ilal Wa Ma’rifāt ar-Rijāl, Vol.2, p. 213
[10] See his commentary on the explanation of at-Tahawiyyah, p. 308
[11] The authentication of Hadîth is not restricted to the soundness of the Isnād. A very important part of the authentication process is analysis of the Matn itself. This is an essential part of ‘Ulūm al-Hadîth that the masters of this science have written numerously, discussing the procedures in Matn analysis and giving a guide as to signs they may indicate its weakness. The famous Imām Ash-Shawkānī in Taĥĥan al-Takhrij had dedicated some of his time to this field where he would mention those narrations which were forged, and on some occasions he would even give the names of those responsible for the forgeries. Suyūtī (in Tadrīb p. 48) has mentioned that narrations whose Matn are questionable are found frequently, while according to Ibn al-Mahdi and Abu Zar’ah the only way to determine the genuineness of a narration is through the soundness of the Matn. One of the most important areas of this process that Imām Khatīb mentions in his Sunnah page 242, was if a narration contained remarks of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم that was not part of his usual vocabulary, or expressions that are clearly unsuitable for him, then these are to be rejected; the same can be applied for the Sahābah, if a narration reaches us of the Sahābah were in it contains a speech that is not known from them, then the same applies as that of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم.
The Oft-Repeated Addendum – The narrations of Ibn ‘Abbās (r.a) and their strengths and weaknesses continued
Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd (r.a) and others from the Sahābah and the Salaf defining the act of ruling by other than that which Allaah has revealed as Dhālika al-Kufr (that is the disbelief)!
The truth is that the Imām Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbās is the Tarjumānal-Qur’aan (the explainer of the Book of Allaah) and he is the first and greatest Mufassir of the Qur’aan. He is one of the biggest scholars of the Sahābah and one of the Fuqahāh, and there is no disagreement on this amongst the muslims not even from amongst the Shi’a. He has a very high rank in scholarly circles and his statements have a high respect and rank in the hearts of the people. This is why there is a very great attraction for liars and fabricators to attribute things to him to give them the necessary standing and necessary authority to advance their points. Besides, we have such a huge number of narrations in Tafseer, Fiqh and Hadīth from Ibn ‘Abbās that is Mukhtif. He has a huge amount from which to narrate from, his Fiqh alone is two volumes, so it makes it easy to shift and attribute statements to him. The probability of someone lying, or attributing a statement to Ibn ‘Abbās by mistake is indeed quite high. Our conclusion would be that anything attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās should be taken with the utmost scrutiny and caution and only from first class Imāms with distinctions who are known for their utmost reliability.
Even if it had been established that the Isnād was correct, then it would still not be an authority in and of itself, as only the Qur’aan and the statements of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم are binding authorities; Ibn ‘Abbās (Radthī-Allaahū ‘anhū) can make mistakes just like any other human being. Furthermore, it has also been established that the majority of Sahābah, including the two Imām’s who are also Faqīh and guided, namely ‘Umar and Ali (Radthī-Allaahū ‘anhūmah), they declared Kufr on those who did not rule by what Allaah has revealed.[1] Also we have the famous narration of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd (Radthī-Allaahū ‘anhū), so why should the statement of one Sahābah be taken over the statement of another? Why should the statements attributed to or merged with those of Ibn ‘Abbās carry more weight than the narrations from ‘Umar and Ali (Radthī-Allaahū ‘anhūmah) or Ibn Mas’ūd (Radthī-Allaahū ‘anhū)? Indeed, if we had Ijma’ of the Sahābah then it would have been inappropriate to reject such a consensus, and it would have had to be attributed ultimately to Allaah ta ‘ala, and this is just assuming it is actually authentically attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās, and also assuming we had an actual Ijma’. We mention this point so that we may conclude all arguments. In reality we are nowhere near an assumed Ijma’ as we have on record an authentic narration from other Sahābah with an opposing view to the weak narrations that attribute the lessening of Ruling by other than what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed from Kufr al-Akbar to Kufr al-Asghar. We have the narration of Ibn Mas’ūd who regards bribery in the ruling of what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed between the state and the recipient as Kufr al-Akbar. This has been narrated in the Musnad of Abu Ya’la who said:
‘(Told me) Muhammad (his Shaykh) from ‘Uthmān Ibn ‘Umar from Ibn Hanīfah from Mansūr who said I was sitting with Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd and a man asked him – ‘What is as As-Suĥt (bribery)?’ He (Ibn Mas’ūd) said ‘Bribery’, and then the man said “and in the Hukm (ruling)” Ibn Mas’ūd said ‘Dhālika Kufr’ (That is Kufr) then he recited the verse in Soorat Ma’idah – Whoever Rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon’.
Shaykh Hussain al-Asad (a contemporary Shaykh of Hadīth) in his commentary on the Musnad of Abu Ya’la said about this narration that it is Saĥīh.[2]
This is also narrated in al-Kabīr of Tabarāni who narrated it in a completely different Isnād:
‘Told us Abdullah Ibn Muhammad Ibn Sa’eed Ibn Maryam told us Muhammad Ibn Yūsuf Al-Fariyabī from Isra’eel from Hakim Ibn Juhayr from Sāliĥ Ibn Jahad from Masrūq who said I asked Ibn Mas’ūd about bribery and ruling and he said: ‘Dhālika (This is) Kufr’.
This is also in the Sunnan Al-Kubra by Bayhaqi, and it is a stronger narration, also from ھāliĥ Ibn Jahad, the Isnād is:
‘Told us Abu Nusrah Ibn Qatādah, told us Abu Mansūr Al-Nadarah, told us Ahmad Ibn Najadah, told us Sa’eed Ibn Mansūr, told us Sufyān ( most likely Sufyān Al Thawri), told us ‘Ammār Al-Duhuni, from Sālim Ibn Ja’hash, from Masrāq, he said: ‘I asked Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd about As-ھuĥt, is it bribing and ruling?’ He said: ‘No, whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed is Kaafiroon, Thaalimun and Fāsiqūn. If someone asks you to help him in an injustice he suffered, and then you help him and then you accept a gift for that, then that is ھuĥt. But bribing a judge is an act of Kufr.’[3]
This Athār (narration) of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd is well established without any doubt, particularly when considering the further Mutābi’āt (support) and evidences which is accompanied with this narration. One of them is a narration regarding an act which Masrūq did (as Masrūq was a student of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd). As has been mentioned in the Tabaqāt of Ibn Sa’d, Masrūq made Shafā’a (intercession) for a man for something he suffered, so the man gave him a slave girl as a gift. Masrūq became very angry and he said, “If I had known that this was the intention in your heart, then I would not have spoken on your behalf, and I will not have talked about this matter after this”. He then returned the girl and said, “I heard Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd saying that whoever made Shafā’a (to gain a right or prevent an injustice) and he is given a gift, and he accepts a gift, then this is as ھuĥt’ (bribery).
If you make a Shafā’a, then that should be solely for the sake of Allaah ta ‘ala, the moment you accept a gift then it is a catastrophe and you are in trouble by committing a Kabīrah and you are accepting ھuĥt. A good Shafā’a should be for the sake of Allaah ta ‘ala; a bad Shafā’a is even worse, for an injustice to be completed or a right taken away that is the worse action that could be done for oneself.
Hunayn narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās that the people around him said: ‘We thought the ھuĥt is bribing for ruling?’ He said – this is Kufr’. Another evidence is the statement of the Mufassireen like as-Suddi who said in explaining the ‘ayah in Soorat Ma’idah 44 that:
‘Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, leaving it intentionally or to commit injustice knowingly in the Hukm , then he is of the Kaafireen’.[4]
This statement which has been attributed to as-Suddi[5] has also been attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās, but the narrator is very weak and has been given the classification of Matrūq (rejected). It can not even be used as Mutāba’ah (corroboration), and this can be found in Akhbār al-Qudāt by Wakī’ (not the famous Wakī’ but Wakī’ al-Qadthī).
Moreover we find in another Isnād:[6]
‘(Told us) Ibra’heem Ibn Hakam Al-Dthahīr from his father told us another narration from As-Suddi says Ibn ‘Abbās said: ‘Whoever commits injustice in ruling knowingly or rules ignorantly, and knows he is ignorant, and who takes Rishwan (Bribery) in ruling, he is from the Kaafireen’.
This is not an authentic Athār as al-Hakam is also Matrūq (rejected). However, it illustrates that conflicting narrations have been conveyed to us attributable to Ibn ‘Abbās may Allaah ta ‘ala be pleased with him. Now the question which must be asked is why should the statement of Ibn ‘Abbās take precedent over the statements of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd – when Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd is known to be ‘Umm ‘Abd and is one of the first Muhājireen Sābiqeen al-‘Awwaleen? He was a Badri and was at the Bay’ah of Hudaybiyyah, and he is ‘Aĥadi as he attended all the first practices and Ibn ‘Abbās never attended any of those. We acknowledge that Ibn ‘Abbās is Tarjumān al-Qur’aan and is one of the Fuqahāh as-Sāhabah, but Ibn Mas’ūd is that also; he was one of the first Huffādth of Qur’aan and one of the Fuqahāh, and was also very similar in his practices to the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم. Why give preference to Ibn ‘Abbās over Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd or Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd over Ibn ‘Abbās (Radthī-Allaahu ‘anhum jamī’an)?
The statements of ‘Kufr Duna Kufr’ or ‘Whoever rejects what Allaah has revealed is a Kaafir, and whoever accepted it (the rule of Allaah) but did not rule by it is a Fāsiq and a Dthālim’, are not firmly established as being from Ibn ‘Abbās, nor are they Saĥīh. The only one which is firmly established which we have proven beyond any doubt is the one where he said – ‘Heya Bihi Kufr’ (It is enough in him Kufr) and ‘Kafa Bihi Kufr’ (enough for him is the Kufr). All other narrations are not well established. So taking the well established narrations from Ibn ‘Abbās, and looking at the narrations from Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd, and all other evidences, we can conclude and say that the ‘Ijma’ as-Sahābah on the one who does not rule by what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed is upon Kufr al-Akbar.
Even if these faulty statements did in actual fact come from Ibn ‘Abbās, he is still recorded as using the word Kufr and Ibn Mas’ūd and all the Sahābah have all used the word Kufr. There is ‘Ijma’ on using this word Kufr on the one who is a Kaafir. So the only argument remaining is whether this Kufr is the Kufr which takes one outside the Millah. It is confirmed that the one who does not rule by that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed has the title of Kufr attributed to him and there is no escape, even if he said Kufr Duna Kufr he is still a Kaafir although his Kufr is minor but he is still a Kaafir, which means that he is the worst type of Fāsiq and Dthālim because a person who is a Fāsiq and Dthālim with the extra title of Kaafir is worse than the one who only has the title of Fāsiq and Dthālim![7]
The true statement on this matter which is definite and certain beyond doubt is that whosoever does not rule by what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed, then that person is a Kaafir by the mere act. Such an individual would deserve this title by the agreement of the Sahābah which corresponds with the text of the Qur’aan. It is not permissible to abstain from declaring him to be a Kaafir, independent of whether this Kufr takes one out of the Millah as it is still an affixed attribute and again there is no escape.
The first statement is certain by ‘Ijma’ that one deserves the title of Kaafir for ruling by other than what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed. Beyond doubt this is Kufr Akbar which takes one outside the Millah and not Kufr Duna Kufr, because this is the usual well established meaning of the word Kufr in the Qur’aan and thus it cannot be given another meaning except with evidence, and there is no evidence except the statement of Ibn ‘Abbās which is not evidence as we have proven. Even if such statements were proved to be Saĥīh they would not constitute a binding evidence since it would be an Ijtihād, and this cannot be applied here as evidence needs to be from the Qur’aan and Sunnah to restrict the meaning of the Qur’aan whereas we have the statement of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd which adheres to, and applies the general meaning of the verses in Soorat Ma’idah.
[1] This has been collected by al-Alūsī al-Baghdādi in his Tafsîr; he said: ‘And Ibn al-Munthir collected from Masrūq that he said: ‘I said to ‘Umar Ibn al-Khaāb (Radthī’Allaahū ‘anhu), ‘What do you think of bribery in judging, is it from the ill-gotten wealth? He said No, rather it is Kufr, ill-gotten wealth is when a man has a position and rank in the view of a ruler, and the man seeks something from this ruler, he cannot achieve this thing, unless he gives the ruler a gift [and this is ill-gotten wealth].’ And ‘Abd Ibn Humayd collected from ‘Ali (Radthī’Allaahū ‘anhu), that he was asked about as-ھuĥt (ill-gotten wealth), he said: ‘It is bribery’, so he was asked, ‘In rulership?’ He replied: ‘That is the very Kufr’ (Dthālik al-Kufr). al-Bayhaqi collected from Ibn Mas’ūd similar to this statement. Tafseer Rūhal-Ma’ani, foral-al-Alūsī, Vol.3, part 6, p. 140
[2] Musnad Abī Ya’la al-Musalī with the review of Husayn Salīm Asad, Vol. 9, pp. 173 / 174
[3] al-Bayhaqī, Vol. 10, p. 139; Wakī’, in Akhbār al-Qudhāt., Vol.1, p. 52; Ibn Hajar al-Matālib al-Āliyah., Vol. 2, p. 250
[4]Tafseer Ibn Katheer Vol.2, p. 62; Tafseer at-Tabarī, Vol.6, p. 257
[5] And similar to this has been said by the Tābi’een, and we mention this due to those whom have a disease in their hearts by not being satisfied by what we have already proven, they will attack us by asking – ‘But will not agree until you bring us the statements of the Salaf!’, and from them: al-Ĥasan al-Basri, Sa’eed bin Jubayr, Ibra’heem an-Nakh’ee, as-Suddi, Ibn Qudāmah al-Hanbali said: Allaah ta ‘ala said: ‘Akalūna Lis-ھuĥt’ (Takers of ill-gotten wealth), al-Ĥasan and Sa’eed bin Jubayr explained it to be, ‘It is bribery’, and said: “If the judge takes bribes, then it reaches al-Kufr’ al-Mughni ma’ ash-Sharhal-Kabeer, Vol. 11, pp. 437 / 438. Al-Qāsimi said regarding its Tafseer, as has been mentioned in al-Lubāb, that Ibn Mas’ūd, al-Ĥasan and an-Nakh’iee said: ‘These ‘Āyāt are general regarding the Jews, and regarding this ‘Ummah, so whoever takes bribes, and replaces the judgement of Allaah, so he ruled by other than what Allaah has revealed, then he has disbelieved, and oppressed and become evil, and to it went as-Suddi, and it is the apparent meaning of the statement (i.e. the ‘Āyāh)’; Mahāsin at-Ta`weel, for al-Qāsimi, Vol.6, p. 215, Dār al-Fikr print, 1398 AH
[6] Tafseer Ibn Katheer Vol.2, p. 41
[7] We mention here the words of Ibn Abi’l-‘Izz Al-Hanafi to confirm our statement that even if it is considered to be a lesser Kufr the one guilty of that action will still be classed a Kaafir, he says ‘….but if he turns away from it whilst admitting that he is deserving of punishment, then he is a sinner and is described as a Kaafir in a metaphorical sense, or a Kaafir in the sense of lesser Kufr…’, Sharĥ at-Tahāwiyah, pp. 363 / 364
On whom do these ‘Ayāts of Hukm apply?
The Arabic structure “Mann” in the ‘Ayāts of Hukm
These ‘Ayāts are general and are to be applied on anyone who does not rule by what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed because the structure of the ‘ayah has come in the form of Mann, which is part of a conditional sentence. The ‘ayah reads ‘Wa Mann…’ meaning whosoever and this is one of the most striking forms of generality as the scholars of ‘Usūl have established. Regarding this, Ibn Taymiyyah has said: [1]
* ‘And the word Mann (i.e. whosoever) is the most general type of terminology, especially when it is used as a condition or enquiry, like Allaah ta ‘ala’s saying:
* ‘Whosoever does good equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant), shall see it’.[2]
* And His ta ‘ala’s saying:
* ‘Is he whosoever is on a clear proof from his Lord, like those for whoever their evil deeds that they do are beautified for them, while they follow their own lusts (evil desires)?’[3]
The word Mann is not only the most general expression used in the Arabic language, which includes all who fall under its clause, but it is also found in most languages. Therefore the condition here is anyone or all who are in the category it relates to. Thus the ‘ayah is not related to the Jews alone although the first two ‘Ayāts were revealed concerning the Jews. Neither are they exclusively for the Christians as the third ‘ayah was revealed concerning them, and neither are they exclusively for this ‘Ummah alone – they are applicable for anyone who does not rule by that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed.
Statements of the Salaf as to whom the ‘Ayāts of Hukm are applicable
Despite the clear formulation of the ‘Ayāts and their application of generality nevertheless there has still been some debate concerning who these ‘Ayāts are applicable to. In order to decipher the correct opinion we will relate the statements from the Salaf and people of knowledge and then comment thereafter to show that the opinion that these ‘Ayāts can only be applied to the Ahlul-Kitāb is clearly a weak one.
It has been reported from Imām at-Tabarī in his Tafseer:
‘(at-Tabarī said): Some of the people of Ta’weel and Tafseer have disagreed in relation to the meaning of the word Kufr in this issue, and some of them said, like we said before, that He ta ‘ala only meant the Jews who changed the book of Allaah and changed its ruling.
(Told us) Ibn Wakī’, told us Abu Mu’āwīyah from al-A’mash from Abdullah Ibn Murrah from Abdullah Ibn Āzib from the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم about the ‘ayah ‘Whosoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon’, ‘Whosoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Thaalimun’ and ‘Whosoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Fāsiqūn’, they are all related to the Kaafirīn.
(Told us) Muthannah, told us Isĥāq, told us Muhammad Ibnu Qāsim, told us Abu Hayyān from Abu Sāliĥ who said about the three ‘Ayāts in Soorat Ma’idah ‘Whosoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon’; ‘al-Thaalimun’, ‘al-Fāsiqūn’; none of them apply to the people of Islaam, they apply only to the Kuffar.
(Told us) Ibn Wakī’, told us his father from Abu Hayyān from Ad-Daĥĥāk who said about the ‘Ayāts ‘Whosoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon’, ‘al-Thaalimun’; ‘al-Fāsiqūn’; these ‘Ayāts were revealed on the Ahlul-Kitāb.
(Told us) Muhammad Ibn Abdul-‘Alā, told us al-Mu’taba Ibn Sulaymān who said – ‘I heard Imrān Ibn Hudair saying’: Some people from Bani ‘Amr Ibn Sudūs came to Abu Majliz and said: ‘O Abu Majliz, do you think that the ‘ayah ‘Whosoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon’ (Qur’aan : 5:44) is true?’ He said ‘Yes’. They said ‘And the ‘ayah, ‘Whosoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed they are al-Thaalimun’ (Qur’aan : 5:45) true?’ He said, ‘Yes’. They said, ‘And is the ‘ayah, ‘Whosoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed they are al-Fāsiqūn’ (Qur’aan : 5:47) true?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ They said, ‘O Abu Majliz, are these people (the rulers of that time) ruling by that which Allaah has revealed?’ He said, ‘That is their religion which they follow, in which they believe and to which they call others. If they neglect any part of it, they know that they have committed a sin.’ They said, ‘No, by Allaah, you are scared (of the rulers).’ He said, ‘That is more true in your case than mine. I do not accept this view, but you do and you do not find anything wrong with that. But these ‘Ayāt were revealed concerning the Jews, Christians and polytheists’.
(Told us) Muthannah, told us Hajjāj who said told us Hammād from Imrān Ibn Hudair, he said: A group of Ibādthīyah sat with Abu Majliz and said to him: Allaah says, ‘And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon’ (Qur’aan : 5:44), ‘…they are al-Thaalimun’; (Qur’aan : 5:45), ‘…they are al-Fāsiqūn’ (Qur’aan : 5:47). Abu Majliz said: ‘They do what they do (referring to the governors), and they know that it is a sin; these ‘Ayāt were revealed concerning the Jews and the Christians’. They said, ‘By Allaah, you know what we know, but you fear them’, He said ‘You are more deserving than I of this description. I do not accept what you know”. They said ‘But you do know it, but what is preventing you from following what you know is your fear of them’.
(Told us) Hassan Ibn Yaĥyah who informed us Abdur-razzāq who said informed us Sufyān from a man from Ikrimah who said ‘All these ‘Ayāts have been revealed concerning the Ahlul-Kitāb’.
(Told us) Mu’ād, told Yazīd, told us Sa’eed from Qatādah who said concerning the ‘ayah ‘And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon’ (Qur’aan : 5:44), it was said to us that they were revealed concerning a tribe from the Jews’.
(Told us) Al-Qāsim, told us Hussain who said told me Hajjaj from Ibn Jurayj from Ikrimah who said concerning the ‘Ayāts, ‘And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon’ (Qur’aan : 5:44), ‘…they are al-Thaalimun’ (Qur’aan : 5:45), ‘…they are al-Fāsiqūn’ (Qur’aan : 5:47), they were revealed for the Ahlul-Kitāb who neglected that which Allaah had revealed.
(Told us) Yūnis Ibn Abdul-‘Ala, Abdullah Ibn Wahab said that Ibn Zayd said concerning the Ayah, ‘And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon’ who rules with a book that he wrote with his own hand and left the book of Allaah, and claims that the book he has is the book of Allaah, then he is a Kaafir’.[4]
In the Tafseer of Ibn Kathîr, he gives a summary of what we have mentioned from at-Tabarī, he says:
Bara’a Ibn Āzib, Hudthayfah Ibn Yamān, Ibn ‘Abbās, Abu Majliz, Abu Rajal al-‘Atā, Ikrimah, Abdullah Ibn Abdullah , Ĥassan al-Basri and others, they have said that these ‘Ayāts were revealed concerning the Ahlul-Kitāb, and Ĥassan al-Basri added that it is applicable to us also. Abdur-razzāq reported from Sufyān Ath-Thawri from Mansūr from Ibra’heem[5] who said that these ‘Ayāts were revealed concerning Bani Isra’eel and Allaah has applied them to this ‘Ummah also.[6]
These are the statements from the people of knowledge, and as can be seen, there are a number of views that are expressed concerning who the ‘Ayāts should be applied to. It could be considered with liberality that these ‘Ayāts are only applicable to the Ahlul-Kitāb. However the fact that Ibn Katheer reports that Ĥassan al-Basri says that these ‘Ayāts are applicable on Muslims excludes him from this category of those who say it can only be applied on the Ahlul-Kitāb. Additionally, Ibra’heem an-Nakha’i said although they were revealed concerning Bani Isra’eel they are nevertheless applicable to the Muslims, so this also excludes him from the opinion of the exclusivity of the ‘Ayāts in question being only applicable on the Ahlul-Kitāb. Nobody can claim that these two Imāms held the opinion the ‘Ayāts only applied on the Ahlul-Kitāb. The statement of ad-Daĥĥāk only refers to the occasion of revelation, he does not mention on whom they are applicable, so to infer that he meant its applicability would be stretching the remit of his statement too far. Qatādah’s statement is of the same nature, as he comments on the reason for revelation, so the claim that the statements of these Shayūkh that we have just mentioned is only applicable to the Jews would actually be a lie because they are only trying to add more names to their opinion. The other statements may also be interpreted in this way: Ĥassan al-Basri and Ibra’heem an-Nakha’i are definitely not part of the claim that the ‘Ayāts are only to be applied to the Ahlul-Kitāb, and the statements of ad-Daĥĥāk and Qatādah are only concerned with the Asbāb an-Nazūl.
The Hadīth of Bara’a Ibn Āzib about the reason for revelation has been discussed earlier, and there is nothing in his statement that we can conclude with certitude that it is only for the Jews or the Ahlul-Kitāb. Although it says that the reason of revelation was due to the actions of the Jews, it does not say that it is only applicable on them. The obscure sentence ‘they are all related to the Kaafirīn’ will be discussed later as it can have various interpretations.
Concerning the statement of Huthayfah, it is actually the opposite of what has been discussed so far. Ibn Katheer placed him in the category of those who say that these ‘Ayāts are only applicable to the Ahlul-Kitāb is very surprising, because the statement of Huthayfah is actually opposite of this.
The narration attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās is actually weak and is not established. What is established is that he narrates the story about the royal and the meagre tribe, and his words can definitely not be interpreted to be those who say that the ‘Ayāts are only applicable to the Ahlul-Kitāb and not the Muslims. In fact he is on record, from the previous discussions of the Athārs of Kufr and Kufr Duna Kufr, as saying: ‘Heya Bihi Kufr’ and ‘Kafa Bihi Kufr’. Even though there are addendums which declare that it is a lesser Kufr, nevertheless he gave it the name Kufr in reference to the people of this ‘Ummah. Consequently Ibn ‘Abbās cannot be placed in the category of those who confine the applicability of the ‘Ayāts of Hukm to only the Ahlul-Kitāb.
It is clear from the statement of Abu Majliz that the ‘Ayāts do not apply to the rulers of the Muslimeen and is only applicable to the Kuffar al-Aslī[7], and he said the rulers know that they are committing a sin as they have not implemented their Deen as they ought to – so according to Abu Majliz the ‘ayah does not apply to them. It is obvious that he is not including the other words of the ‘Ayāts of al-Thaalimun and al-Fāsiqūn because their open sin definitely amounts to Dthulm and Fisq but he excluded Kaafiroon from their actions. It is probable that Abu Majliz is from the school who say that one has to commit Jaĥad in order to fall into Riddah and thus apply the classification of Kufr on the perpetrator. The point of view of Abu Majliz is that it is not enough by the mere non-application of the law of Allaah ta ‘ala to fall into the category of the Kaafiroon because the rulers in his time admitted that they were committing Harām. To conclude, the stance of Abu Majliz is that he is of those who say if someone makes Jaĥad or denial of the rulings of Allaah then he is a Kaafir, and whoever makes Ikrar and accepts that he is committing sin, then he is a Dthālim and a Fāsiq. From his statement we extrapolate that he understands the word Kaafiroon in the context of Khurūj Min al-Millah (leaving the fold of Islaam) and he does not say Kufr Duna Kufr, so according to him it is only those who commit Jaĥad. His point of view is clear after the discussion with the Ibādīyah.
The statement of Abu Sāliĥ is similar to that of Abu Majliz, although he generalised and did not make his statement detailed. By necessity it is the same in essence as Abu Majliz; the opinion of Abu Majliz and Abu Sāliĥ is that only Jaĥad, Takdtheeb and Shak will make one a Kaafir and anything else will make one a Dthālim and a Fāsiq.
The statement of Ikrimah the freed slave of Ibn ‘Abbās is obscure and quite confusing because one may interpret his statement as either the reason of revelation or something similar to that of Abu Majliz. This is unlikely because Ikrimah has been attacked that he had adopted the point of view of the Khawārij, and there is a narration where Ikrimah stopped and peered into a Masjid and said that all the people were Kaafir which would make him worse than the Khawārij and this is the reason why Imām Bukhāri and others do not narrate from him. So it is most likely that he was referring to the Asbāb al-Nazūl.
The statement of Abu Zayd is also quite strange, because there is nothing in the ‘Ayāt or in the narrations of its reason of revelation indicating that ‘who rules with a book that he wrote with his own hand and left the book of Allaah, and claims that the book he has is the book of Allaah, then he is a Kaafir’. It could only be matched up if it is taken in the case of the story of ar-rajm. In one of the narrations the Jews said that the blackening of the faces and the placing of the guilty on the reverse of the donkey and they said that it this was found in the Tawrāt. They tried to cover the verse that commanded stoning by their hands but Abdullah Ibn Salām exposed their lies. In any case they never wrote a new book and neither did they attribute a false book to Allaah, they ruled by another ruling but they never claimed that this ruling was the ruling of Allaah. Abu Zayd’s statement that whoever writes a book with his own hand and claims that it is the word of Allaah is not found anywhere, whether it be in the ‘Ayāts that are being discussed here or in the narrations pertaining to its reason of revelation. The exact statement of Abu Zayd cannot be matched with the relevant sources, unless we approach it liberally then we would conclude that he is referring to the story of ar-rajm and what the Jews were guilty of. Nowhere in his statement does he exclude these ‘Ayāts being applied to Muslims. If we take it that he expressed himself insufficiently and he only meant those who change the Shari’ah and make their own Tashri’ is a Kaafir, and if we add a statement that he means only those are the Kaafirīn, then we can see that his understanding is similar to that of Abu Majliz. Although his statement does not say only those are the Kaafiroon but let us assume that this is what he was saying because he made it so detailed that he gives one the impression that this is what he meant. Now if this would have been an Ijma’ then we would never attempt to violate it because the Ijma’ of this ‘Ummah is Ma’sūm, but as we have seen there is no Ijma’ about these ‘Ayāts being restricted to only the Ahlul-Kitāb. We have the other higher class of Saĥābah namely Ibn Mas’ūd declaring those who commit Suĥt in the area of ruling is Kufr, while we know that bribing in and of itself is a Kabīrah. If Ibn Mas’ūd says that it is Kufr in contradiction to Suĥt which is a Kabīrah then he means that it is the Kufr Al-Akbar by necessity. We also have the statement of Ibn ‘Abbās which discussed in great detail to show that he also placed it in the domain of Kufr which expels one from the Millah. There has been some disagreement between some Saĥābah and Tabi’een concerning this issue, thus the application of declaring Takfeer on those who are guilty of Mubadalu Al-Shar’īya’[8] has not been opposed by the people of Ahlul-Sunnah Wal Jamā’a, but there have been some who have said that those who admit that they are sinful are not necessarily Kaafir, although some have held this point of view the issue is that it is not an Ijma’ and this ‘Ummah will never unanimously agree on Bātil, and as we have mentioned earlier the statements of ‘Umar Ibn al-Khaāb and Ali Ibn Abu قālib (radthī-Allaahū ‘anhum) also concur resoundingly with that of Ibn Mas’ūd (r.a).
The statement of the Sahābi Hudthayfah Ibn Yamān (r.a)
Turning to the statement of the Saĥabi Hudthayfah Ibn Yamān (radthī-Allaahū ‘anhum) at-Tabari says:
(Told us) Ibn Bashār, told us Abdur-Raĥmān, told us Sufyān (At-Tabari says again), told us Ibn Wakī’, told us my father from Sufyān from Habīb Ibn Abi Thābit from Abi Bukhtali from Hudthayfah about the statement of the Exalted – Whosoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are Al-Kaafiroon (Qur’aan : 5:44), he said: ‘What good brothers the Children of Isra’eel are to you. If everything sweet is for you then everything bitter is for them. No, by Allaah, you will follow them step by step’.
(Told us) Hannād Ibn Sari, told us Wakī’ from Sufyān from Habīb Ibn Abi Thābit from Abi Bukhtali who said Hudthayfah was asked about the statement of the Exalted – Whosoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are Al-Kaafiroon, (Qur’aan : 5:44), and the rest of the narration is similar to that of the narration from Ibn Bashār.
(Told) Al-Ĥassan Ibn Yaĥyah, told us Abdur-Razzāq, told us Ath-Thawri from Sufyān from Habīb Ibn Abi Thābit from Abi Bukhtali, a man asked Hudthayfah about the ‘Ayāts – Whosoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are Al-Kaafiroon, (Qur’aan : 5:44) ‘Al-Thaalimun (Qur’aan : 5:45) and ‘Al-Fāsiqūn (Qur’aan : 5:47), so the man said: ‘It has been said that these ‘Ayāts were revealed concerning Bani Isra’eel’, Hudthayfah said: ‘What good brothers the Children of Isra’eel are to you. If everything sweet is for you then everything bitter is for them. No, by Allaah, you will follow them step by step’.[9]
This last statement from Hudthayfah shows that he was offended by the claim that it was only applicable to the people of Bani Isra’eel as he said ‘you want everything sweet and you want everything bitter to be applied to them’; he explained to them that this idea was incorrect and that they would be treated the same. Where he said ‘step by step’ he meant in the Dunyah – so if you do the same actions as that of the Jews you will be punished in the Ākhirah. He does not mean it in the sense of the Hadīth of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم where he said:
‘You will inevitably follow the paths of those who came before you, hand span by hand span, cubit by cubit, until even if they entered the hole of a lizard, you will follow them.’ We said: ‘O Messenger of Allaah, (do you mean) the Jews and Christians?’ He said – ‘Who else?’[10]
Hudthayfah meant it in the sense of ruling – that the ‘Ayāts of Hukm applies to this ‘Ummah also. It is quite surprising to find Ibn Katheer placing Hudthayfah (r.a) in the category of those who say that they are only applicable to the Ahlul-Kitāb when his statement is the complete opposite. So this is the stance of Hudthayfah (radthī-Allaahū ‘anhu), who rejected the claim that these ‘Ayāts of Hukm are only applicable to Bani Isra’eel and replied sarcastically.
The statement of ash-Sha’bi (r.h)
Actually, a statement which is stronger than that of Hudthayfah has come in the way of ash-Sha’bi. At-Tabarī has said:
‘And some have stated that the Kaafiroon is applicable to Ahlul-Islaam (i.e. the Muslims), Thaalimun to the Jews and Fāsiqūn to the Christians’,
(Told us) Ibn Wakī’, told us my father from Zakarīyah b. Abi Za’idah from Āmir ash-Sha’bi who said, ‘The Kaafiroon came down for the Muslims, the Thaalimun to the Jews and Fāsiqūn to the Christians’.
(Told us) Ibn Wakī’, told us Ibn Yamān from Sufyān from Ibn Abi Safr from Ash-Sha’bi who said – ‘Kaafiroon for the Muslims, Thaalimun to the Jews and Fāsiqūn to the Christians’.
(Told us) Ibn Wakī’, Abi Sa’i and Abdul-A’la who all said told us Ibn Fudayl from Ibn Shubrumah from ash-Sha’bi who said, ‘One ‘ayah is applicable on us and two on them (i.e. Ahlul-Kitāb), ‘Whosoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon’ (Qur’aan : 5:44), this is on us (Muslims) and on them, ‘Whosoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Thaalimun’ (Qur’aan : 5:45), this is for the Jews, ‘Whosoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al- Fāsiqūn’ (Qur’aan : 5:47) and this is for the Ahlul-Kitāb (generally).
(Told us) Ibn Wakī’, told us my father from Sufyān from Jābir from Āmir, and it is similar to the narration of Zakarīyah.
(Told us) Muhammad Ibn Muthannah, told us Abdul-Samat Abdul-Muwārith, told us Shu’bah from Ibn Abi Safrah from ash-Sha’bi who said, ‘Whosoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon’ (Qur’aan : 5:44), this is for the Muslims, ‘Whosoever rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Fāsiqūn’ (Qur’aan : 5:47), this is for the Nasārah (Christians).
(Told us) Ya’qūb Ibn Ibra’heem, told us Hushaym, informed us Zakarīyah Ibn Abi Za’idah from Ash-Sha’bi about these three ‘Ayāts in Soorat Ma’idah, Al-Kaafiroon is for us the Muslims, Al-Thaalimun is for the Jews, and Al- Fāsiqūn is for the Christians.
(Told us) Muhammad Ibn Bashshār, told us Abdur-raĥmān Ibn Maĥdi, told us Sufyān from Zakarīyah Ibn Abi Za’idah from ash-Sha’bi concerning the statement of al-Kaafiroon, he said, ‘The first one is for the Muslimūn, the second one is for the Jews and the third one is for the Christians’.
(Told us) Ĥassan Ibn Yaĥyah, informed us Abdur-razzāq, informed us Sufyān from Zakarīyah from ash-Sha’bi, similarly. (Told us) Hannād, told us Ya’la from Zakarīyah from Āmir, similarly.[11]
According to Imām ash-Sha’bi, Kufr is restricted to Muslims, but Dthulm and Fisq is applied to the Ahlul-Kitāb, and we cannot conclude where he deduced this opinion from, when analysing the ‘Ayāt of Hukm, because it seems to be the complete opposite of whoever rejects or denies what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed is a Kaafir and whoever admits that he is sinning by non-application of the rulings of Allaah ta ‘ala is a Dthālim and / or Fāsiq. It is a possibility that ash-Sha’bi means that the Jews and Christians are Kuffar anyway, so there would be no problem here as they do not follow the final Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم, so the only meaning applicable to them would be the injustice of Dthulm and rebellion of Fisq which applies to a Kaafir. Not all Kuffar would have the title of Fisq like some monks who are peaceful but their beliefs are undoubtedly Kufr therefore holding the title of Kaafir. There are Kuffar who commit Dthulm, so applying Dthulm and Fisq to a Kaafir makes complete sense but applying the term Kufr to a Kaafir does not make sense as they are Kuffar by default, so it is a possibility that this is what ash-Sha’bi is alluding to. The only title which is applicable to them because they are Kaafir-Asli, is if they leave the ruling of Allaah ta ‘ala then they would be committing Dthulm and Fisq, but the people of Islaam if they violate the ruling of Allaah ta ‘ala by either non-application of laws or introducing new laws then this would violate their Islaam and they would be committing Kufr which takes one out of the Millah. ash-Sha’bi is from the extreme school who say whoever does not apply that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed becomes a Kaafir independent of his / her belief.
One can therefore conclude that there is a disagreement between the Saĥabāh[12] and Taba’een, thus there being no Ijma’ Yaqeeni whereby we can state a firm verdict. Due to this, the only way to resolve this dispute is to refer it to Allaah and his Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم referring to the text of the Qur’aan and Sunnah[13], and according to the Arabic language as there is no other way because the Saĥabāh and Taba’een are first class Arabs and they have disagreed, and we have shown by the mere reading of the ‘Ayāts in question that whosoever rules by other than that which Allaah has revealed is a Kaafir, Dthālim and a Fāsiq with the mere act of leaving the Hukm of Allaah ta ‘ala. This is independent of one’s belief because the ‘ayah does not address belief or the state of the heart, and there is no differentiation between a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist etc – he is still a Kaafir. There is no difference between a Muslim becoming a Kaafir by this action or who was a Kaafir already and is increasing in his Kufr by this action; there is no difference between those who were just before this action and then become unjust by this action, and no difference between a person who was obedient and became disobedient, and a person who was disobedient and increased in their disobedience through this action. Thus there is no difference between any of these scenarios.
The definite statement that we must conclude with certitude is that the one who does not rule by that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed (and it is not just a matter of ruling by something other than the ruling of Allaah – it is merely abstaining from ruling by the ruling set down by Allaah) is a Kaafir, Dthālim and a Fāsiq. For example if we take the issue of the Hijāb which is Wājib for the woman, if someone were to say that they were not going to take a stand upon the matter either way, whether implementing it or not implementing it, with this statement alone that person automatically becomes a Kaafir, he does not need to say that is permissible for a woman to expose her ‘Awrah. Merely abstaining from even giving his opinion is Kufr by itself. What we get from this is that ruling is a type of Aqā’id by its own nature, and this is where people have made the mistake by saying that ruling is an action when in fact it is actually a statement or a judgement, thus there is no action necessarily taking place. For example, if one were to ask about someone’s judgement concerning Zina, if it is good or bad, if they say that it is good then they have ruled by other than that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed and thus would have left the fold of Islaam. It was not by actions but rather a statement. So the correct statement, which we have developed earlier and will develop further about the attribution of Kaafir, is the Kufr which takes one outside the Millah; is not just Kufr by name or Kufr Duna Kufr, it is the real Kufr which is the opposite of al-Islaam.
[1] al-Fatāwa, Vol.15, p. 82; also Vol.24, p. 246
[2] Soorat az-Zalzalah, verse 7
[3] Soorat Muhammad, verse 14
[4] Tafseer at-Tabarī, Vol.2, p. 256
[5] It is said that Ibra’heem an-Nakha’i was the most knowledgeable in the school of Rā’i (opinion) in Kūfa. Abu Hanifah, the progenitor of the Hanafi school of Fiqh, was the student of Imām an-Nakha’i and it is said that the Hanafi Fiqh is found in the statements of the great Shaykh an-Nakha’i. See: The Four Imams, by Muhammad Abu Zahra, p. 167, Dar Al Taqwa publications.
[6] Tafseer of Ibn Katheer, Vol.2, p. 59
[7] Those who are Kaafir in origin like the Jews, Christians etc. And these are whom the Jizyah is taken from and their meat is Halāl to consume and their woman Halāl to marry.
[8] Those who deliberately change the Shari’ah of Allaah ta ‘ala to something else and either rule or judge by secular political principles, ideologies or philosophies; other religious texts, or just their own preferences and desires.
[9] Tafsîr At-Tabarī, Vol.6, p. 251
[10] Narrated by al-Bukhāri, Al-I’tisām Bi’l-Kitāb Wa’l-Sunnah, 6889; Muslim, Al-‘Ilm, 6723
[11] Tafseer at-Tabarī, Vol.6, p. 251
[12] But this disagreement is minimal as we have shown, because we have the statement of the Saĥābi Ibn ‘Abbās where it is established that he said ‘Heya Bihi Kufr’ and ‘Kafa Bihi Kufr’, but we shall take the liberal approach and refrain from claiming Ijma’ when it is not set with certitude.
[13] Concerning Ikhtilāf between the Saĥābah, the Fuqahah have spoken in their regard, from them: Ibn Abdul-Barr said, ‘And as-Samtī narrated from Abu Hanīfah that he said, regarding the two contradictory statements of the Saĥābah ‘One of the two sayings is incorrect and the sin is removed’ (Jāmi Bayān al-Ilm, Vol.2, p. 83). And he also said concerning Imām Mālik – ‘One is incorrect and one is correct, so it is you to perform Ijtihād” (Ibid, p. 83). ash-Shāfa’i was asked, ‘What do you see regarding the differences in opinion of the Saĥābah of the Messenger of Allaah? So he replied, ‘We go to that from it, which complies with the book and the Sunnah or the Ijmā’…’ (ar-Risālah, with a review of Ahmed Shākir, pp. 596 / 597). Ibn al-Qayyim said in his discussion of the fundamentals of Imām Ahmed – ‘The Third Fundamental from the Fundamentals: If the Saĥābah differ, then he chooses from their saying that which is closer to the book and the Sunnah, and he does not go out from their sayings…’ (I’lām al-Muwaqqi’īn, Vol.1, p. 50)
Replying to the Sophistries
The First Sophistry
They say, “That the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم stated clearly while commenting on the Ayāts of ruling that they have been revealed for the Kuffar where he said: ‘Fi Kuffari Kullihah (all of them (these Ayāts) are for the Kuffar)’ and ‘Heya Fi Kuffari Kullihah (they (these Ayāts) are all for the Kuffar).”
We have already related this Hadīth and the government scholars have asked if we agree with this Hadīth, and we have no qualms whatsoever with it and agree to its authenticity. Moreover, some attempted to hold on to this weak point of view where they commented on these A’hadīth (which we already discussed) at length in their books, and they relied upon the comments of the great Imām at-Tabarī who said:
*
‘The statements which are closest to the truth according to my point of view, is the statement of the one who said that they have been revealed only regarding the Kaafiroon from amongst the Ahlul-Kitāb, because the Ayāts before and after are related to them, and they (the Ahlul-Kitāb) are the ones being addressed. So because it is addressing them, then this is closest to its Siyā’q (context). But if someone mentions that Allaah ta ‘ala has made these Ayāts general for everyone who does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, how come you then make it specific for this group of people. We say (at-Tabarī), Allaah has generalised this statement about people who have been making Juhūd with that what Allaah has revealed. So because of their Juhūd they became Kaafiroon. Exactly as someone who does not rule by what Allaah has revealed while he is a Jāhid is the same as some one who knows that Muhammad is the Messenger but he rejects it’.
Indeed at-Tabarī has acknowledged that he has restricted these Ayāts, but as we have mentioned before they are in fact general, and he has restricted them to the people of the book as he claims that they only apply to the one who are Jāhideen (rejecters), in contradiction to the usual principles of the Arabic language and ‘Usūl al-Fiqh: the Qur’aanic expressions must be applied in there generality unless there is a evidence to restrict it or specify it. He claims that there is a reason for his specification, but his claim is something which is not indicated in the text or by the Arabic language, and this should not be accepted unless there is a text or Daleel to support it. This position that has been taken concerning its applicability by Imām at-Tabarī should be presented with evidence before we can fully accept it.
Firstly the Ayāts do not contain anything about I’tiqād, they only refer to leaving the ruling of that which has been revealed by Allaah ta ‘ala, they are about ruling and not ruling, and they do not relate to an internal state of the heart but in fact relate to the external action of ruling or non-ruling.
Nowhere in the text do we see anything which relates to belief or non-belief, rejection or non-rejection, arrogance or non-arrogance. If anything of this nature is claimed then it must be accompanied with an external evidence, and there is not a word in the text that indicates Juhūd (rejection) or anything for that matter which relates to the constitution of the heart, and at-Tabarī is more knowledgeable and pious to claim otherwise as the ‘Ayāts referred to are quite clear.
Secondly he relied on its restriction to the people of the book due to the Asbāb al-Nazūl. If we go to the Asbāb al-Nazūl as it may have indications as to why they have been labelled as Kaafiroon for not ruling by that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed, we do not find anything indicating in them Juhūd in that sense, which is the Juhūd that makes one a Kaafir. They did not deny or reject that these were the rulings of Allaah, they confirmed that they were the rulings prescribed in their books but they did not apply it due to their arrogance and oppression over others, and the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم commented in the narration of the stoning that he had revived the ruling after they caused its death, they let it lapse by non-application for a long period time. Evidently this is not the same reality as Juhūd or denial or Istikbar, it is another reality which is leaving the Hukm sufficiently long enough that it fades away by non-application, and this happens in all societies when old customs start to die out, then rulings regarding those customs start to lapse without anyone explicitly removing that ruling or custom.
If at-Tabarī had said that it is only for those who have changed the Shari’ah by substituting it with another Shari’ah but have not cancelled specifically the previous Shari’ah but have let it die out, then we could understand as this definitely applies to those who Mubaddilah Shari’ah (changed the Shari’ah ) as they did change the Shari’ah in the sense that they were not applying what had been prescribed to them. This is the reality of those who do not rule by what Allaah has revealed. It is not like the judge who claims to apply the Shari’ah but secretly takes a bribe to rule in favour of the guilty party and publicly it is made to look as though he is applying the Shari’ah , and this is different from the one who lets it die out as they are not pretending to apply the Shari’ah by substituting it with another Shari’ah , but they let it lapse based on a different motivation.
Furthermore, if at-Tabarī would have restricted the meaning of the Ayāts to those who have changed the Shari’ah which would have been taken from the reality of the two stories in regards to the Asbāb al-Nuzūl, then holding an opinion around this could be understood and fully appreciated. However this would again lead to a problem because not applying what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed is also changing the Shari’ah. But at-Tabarī tries to restrict the Ayāts by a condition of the heart (Juhūd) and Takdtheeb which is not addressed in the Ayāts at all. Even then the ayah says the one who does not rule by what Allaah has revealed; thus merely leaving the ruling of Allaah is enough to constitute Kufr al-Akbar which does not even go as far as substituting the law but simply abstaining from applying the law of Allaah. If one were to just refrain from ruling by saying that they are not going to rule either way and that they are going to abstain from passing judgement, someone like this has not changed the Shari’ah in the literal sense like those of the story of the two Jewish tribes and the story of ar-rajm, one like this would come under the meaning of these Ayāts because we are obliged to rule by what Allaah has revealed. A ruler is obliged to rule, but there are instances where one is not obliged to rule like the incident between the people of the book where the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم was not obliged to rule between them but if one does rule between them then that ruling must be just i.e. ruling between them by referring to the infallible Qur’aan and Sunnah. These Ayāts of Hukm are not confined to merely ruling by other than which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed but even abstaining from the ruling is enough to violate the affirmation of ‘Imān which ultimately takes one outside the Millah.
at-Tabarī’s opinion is not consistent with what can be found in the texts but is explained by way of the situation of the people of the book being one of Kufr and Juhūd, but from the specific Asbāb al-Nuzūl of these Ayāts there is no indication that they were revealed due to some form of Juhūd. It is just changing the Shari’ah for certain desires and not restricted to Juhūd as Juhūd is knowing the truth in one’s heart but rejecting it openly.
Another answer to the statement of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم ‘Fi Kuffari Kullihah’ may refer to the original Asbāb al-Nuzūl; in other words, when the Ayāts were revealed they were revealed in relation to the Jews. Another answer is that this is not the statement of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم rather it is the statement of Barā’a Ibn Āzib (r.a) because it is unclear from the text if it is Mudārij (merged) or not.
From this discussion, it is established that Allaah intended to place everyone and anyone who does not rule by what He ta ‘ala has revealed (in its generality and in its absolute meaning) from the people of the Tawrāt as a Kaafir, Dthālim and Fāsiq, and whoever does that from amongst the people of the Injeel are a Kaafir, Dthālim and a Fāsiq and whoever does that from amongst the people of the Qur’aan are a Kaafir, Dthālim and a Fāsiq, and the people of the Qur’aan would deserve these titles more so since the Tawrāt and Injeel are not infallible and are instead full of obscurities and contradictions due to there nature, whereas the Qur’aan is protected by Allaah ta ‘ala.
Concerning what has come via the Hadīth of Barā’a, then in the long version of the the various narrations we find the statement of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم – Fi Kuffari Kullihah (all of them (the Ayāts) are for the Kuffar) one cannot conclude with certitude that this is the actual statement from the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم and this is what Imām Ibn Katheer said when commenting upon this Hadīth from Barā’a Ibn Āzib. The other narration is shorter than the long version, so it maybe the case that the compiler while writing it lifted it up to the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم therefore giving the impression that it has come down from the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم. The long complete version is not conclusive and the short one is incomplete so any evidence where there is doubt cannot be used, and evidence cannot be vulnerable and open to attack which automatically excludes it from being an authority.
Even if we assume that it is authentically reported from the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم, then we have to take it upon the best and most reasonable meaning intended, which are arguably the following two meanings:
1. That these Ayāts were originally revealed on the Kuffar to start with. Yet the application of the Ayāts is general, as what is significant is the wording and not the occasion of revelation. Thus it applies to the occasion of revelation.
2. That the meanings of these Ayāts have only been revealed concerning the Jews and Christians and are not applicable to the people of al-Islaam; but this is impossible because if a Muslim does not rule by what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed then this action would not even be considered as Dthulm, Fisq or Kufr, and this is impossible because even our opponents and all the people of Islaam agree that if one does not rule by what Allaah has revealed they are, at the very least, a Dthālim and Fāsiq which constitutes an Ijma’ Yaqeeni. How can it be that only two of the categories for ruling by other than that which Allaah has revealed are for the Muslims and the category of Kufr for the Muslims is to be neglected? Hence this interpretation has to be rejected.
3. And those who say that all the Ayāts apply to those who are committing Kufr al-Akbar, Fisq al-Akbar and Dthulm al-Akbar and none of them apply to the people of al-Islaam because what applies to them is only Kufr Duna Kufr, Fisq Duna Fisq and Dthulm Duna Dthulm. However this is a statement which we can neither prove nor disapprove anything, it is just an arbitrary statement out of four possibilities and it needs an evidence by itself. To lay claim that this is the only possible meaning of the ayah is false as there are four possible meanings, and one cannot claim that this is the only possible meaning until we exclude the other meanings which have so far been mentioned.
4. The fourth possible meaning[1] which we have adopted is that whoever rules by other than that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed is one of the Kuffar. Therefore his Kufr is that of the Kuffar, his Fisq is that of the Kuffar and his Dthulm is that of the Kuffar. If one of the people of Islaam commits one of the acts which violate these Ayāts by not ruling by that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed then he has committed the Kufr which would take him outside the Millah of Islaam.
Our conclusion regarding this sophistry is that although the Ayāts have come with three different words which are al-Kaafiroon, al-Fāsiqūn and al-Thaalimun, in reality they apply to only one type of person(s) which are the Kuffar, in contradiction to those who may imagine that there are three separate categories.Therefore all of them are Kaafiroon outside the fold of Islaam.
After long thought and analysis of this sentence (Fi Kuffari Kullihah) we could not find any other meanings than the four mentioned above. Should anyone claim that there are other meanings to these Ayāts then they should bring them forth so we can analyse them. The only one which befits the statement of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم is the fourth: that whoever commits the act of not ruling by that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed then they are from amongst the Kuffar all of them.
In any event, the statement ‘Fi Kuffari Kullihah’ is not conclusive in its meaning. Therefore we need to look at other evidences to find a meaning that fits the Ayāts, and so we are back to square one. It cannot be an evidence as evidence has to be Qata’ī Dalālah , and it is not Qata’ī Thabūt (definite in evidence) as a narration coming from the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم as it could be a statement from Barā’a Ibn Āzib.
What has come at the end of the second Hadīth of the occasion of revelation (i.e. the story of the ‘royal’ and the ‘meagre’ tribe) where it says: ‘Concerning them (the two groups), by Allaah, it was revealed, and they are the ones whom Allaah meant’, meaning the strong tribe and the weak tribe at the end of the Hadīth, and this is clearly the statement of Ibn ‘Abbās and not that of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم, because there is nothing attributed to the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم anywhere as it is Ibn ‘Abbās’s interpretation. Obviously he meant Banu Qurayzah and Banu Nadthīr when he said the royal tribe and the meagre tribe, and he wants to refute anyone claiming that it is the narrative concerning stoning by saying it is referring to these two tribes and it was for this narration that the Ayāts were intended. As a general rule we attribute to the Sahābah and the great scholars of Islaam the best interpretation of their statements, and most likely Ibn ‘Abbās meant here the Asbāb al-Nuzūl and not the story of the stoning as Allaah intended to rebuke these two tribes and anyone similar to them in behaviour. Ibn ‘Abbās did not mean that it applies exclusively to these tribes and not to the Muslims or anyone else as other statements attributed to this great Sahābah are ‘Hiya Bihi Kufr’ (it is enough in him disbelief), so what he means here is essentially that the reason for revelation is the incident between the royal and the meagre tribe and do not believe those who claim it is the narrative of stoning.
[1] But we are not relying on this possible meaning as exclusive evidence like our opponents do, because there are four possible meanings and it is incorrect to use something that has multiple meanings.
Replying to the Sophistries
The Second Sophistry
They say, “The ‘Ayâts of not ruling by that which Allaah has revealed have come with three attributes, so we must conclude that three categories of people are being referred to, and for every category one description applies”
This is a more philosophically sound sophistry and is the viewpoint of Shaykh Taqiuddin Nabhâni (the founder of Hizb at-Tahrîr).
1. If one leaves the ruling of what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed because of rejection, or doubt, or suspects an error, or jokes about it, or turns away completely from it then he is a Kâfir.
1. If one leaves the ruling of what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed but does not leave it due to one of the reasons mentioned above, but he leaves the Hukm of Allaah ta ‘ala without doing injustice like taking away the rights of people, then he is a Fâsiq as he did not oppress any of the Muslims.
1. If one leaves the ruling of Allaah ta ‘ala without any Mukaffir (disbelief) by either rejection, doubt, suspicion, or mockery etc, and one is oppressive by taking away the rights of people then he is a Dthâlim, and by being a Dthâlim this also includes being a Fâsiq by necessity.
Three categories are distinctly identified and analysed separately, namely the category of Kâfir, Fâsiq, and Fâsiq Dthâlim. Although it may appear to be a reasonable and logical sub-division, there is an underlying assumption that these three attributes cannot be together in one person simultaneously. If they were three different categories which could not fit into one person simultaneously then we would know that the three different categories were intended to be sub-divided. However if they do all fit into one person then there is no reason to make explicit these three categories unless one has an additional evidence which would prove such a case.
This categorization is definitely praiseworthy as it shows a good analytical investigation, however it would have been better to describe this reality by saying that whoever leaves the ruling of that which Allaah has revealed is a Kâfir according to the statement of Allaah ta ‘ala, and being a Kâfir is being unjust as Allaah ta ‘ala says in the Qur’ân :
‘…the Kâfirûn are Dthâlimûn‘[1]
There is Dthulm (injustice) in Kufr by necessity, as the real Dthâlimûn are actually the Kâfirûn also, and he is definitely a Kâfir since he would be disobedient to Allaah by not obeying the first commandment which is to worship and submit to him sincerely, so he is a Fâsiq, and this is what Iblîs was guilty of, so the Kâfir is by necessity rebellious towards Allaah ta ‘ala and his commands. This is the only way to keep the text to its generality and which is our duty to be consistent with unless there is evidence against it through another text or rational necessity, and there is no rational necessity as the three categories can fit into one person without any contradiction. Notwithstanding this, there is no textual evidence for this explicit separation or a rational necessity as this point of view is based on an incorrect assumption that these three categories cannot fit into one person when in fact the opposite can indeed be the case. What is the necessity of explicitly arguing that there are three categories meant? One should only separate these categories if forced to do so due to other textual evidences. But we do not have a textual evidence for this separation nor are we forced by rational necessity. Although this categorization sounds respectworthy, it is nevertheless based on a hidden assumption that the three categories are mutually exclusive in and of themselves because they cannot be applied to one person all at once. Evidently this assumption is incorrect; one cannot say that only the Kâfir is the one who denies or rejects and the others fall under the categories of Dthâlim or Fâsiq. This is not permitted because the wording is the same and they are going out of the wording with extra information which is not dictated by a textual evidence or rational necessity.
Some may argue by saying:
‘The Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم said that whoever leaves the Salāh (prayer) has committed an act of Kufr, and the majority of scholars say that the one who leaves the Salāh does not become a Kaafir unless they reject or deny its obligation!’
We would respond here by saying if one looks at the wording of the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم closely, we find that it does not say that the one who leaves one Salāh has committed Kufr. Rather it says whoever has left as-Salāh[2], the statement of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم is referring to the Salāh ‘Abudd’adeen. He صلى الله عليه و سلم did not speak about one Salāh, as he referred to the Salāh in its general sense, meaning: ‘whoever leaves the Salāh he has disbelieved’. The correct meaning here is whoever neglects the prayer completely, or has the intention to pray but never prays, not even Juma’āh, ‘Eid etc, has disbelieved. Can anyone in their right mind imagine someone who falls into any of these situations being a Muslim? It is definite that such a person is a Kaafir as this would most certainly be Kufr al-Akbar. We are not arguing about someone leaving one Salāh or neglecting Juma’āh. Rather we are discussing if someone leaves the Salāh completely. This would seem as a better understanding than that conveyed by the majority even if it is a majority as there is not a clear distinction as to what qualifies as Kufr al-Akbar concerning the Salāh. There are many complicated viewpoints surrounding this subject as the ‘Ulema of the past discussed whether the narration meant missing one Salāh or neglecting the Fajr Salāh until after sunrise, or whether missing the Salāh for twenty four hours or one month. However there is no ‘Ikhtilāf about the one who leaves Salāh completely and never prays still being a Muslim. This is not even a Jamhūr, but even if the majority were of an opinion then the Jamhūr are not infallible because only the Ijma’ of the whole‘Ummah is infallible. We would also add that even if there is some kind of Jamhūr then this would be extremely questionable because the majority of the Sahābah were of the opinion that the one who leaves the Salāh is in fact out of the Millah as they interpreted leaving it as Kufr al-Akbar.[3] This may even be an Ijma’ of the Sahābah (although it would need to be verified and checked), and would evidently be a sounder Jamhūr to adhere to then the Jamhūr of the later day scholars. Even when people do follow the Jamhūr it is usually referring to various complicated statements on specific issues regarding Salāh, like we said either leaving it for twenty four hours, a week, a month, so it not really leaving as-Salāh completely as they all argue that is Kufr al-Akbar except maybe the extreme Murji’ah, who are Kuffar[4] themselves as they say that even ‘Iblīs was a Muslim and not a Kaafir for being disobedient as he affirms the existence of Allaah ta ‘ala in his heart.
The Hadīth of Salāh is not a conclusive evidence and there is no Ijma’ on its meaning being that of Kufr al-Akbar for leaving one Salāh. The better interpretation is that it refers to the one who abandons the Salāh completely and it never even comes to his mind that he should pray as has been discussed above. If there is no performance of Salāh then there can be no relationship with Allaah ta ‘ala except the theoretical knowledge that Allaah exists which is the belief of the Jaĥmiyyah who are Kuffar anyway, and this is not enough as Allaah ta ‘ala did not only ask mankind to recognise that He is One, but He required mankind to worship Him and the minimum of worship is the Salāh.
[1]
[2] THE Salāh, which is attached with the ﺃ ﻝ (‘Ālif Lām) which we mentioned before describes a definite article.
[3] ‘A group of Sahābah and those who came after them believed that an intentional decision to skip one Salāh until its time is completely finished makes one a Kaafir. The people of this opinion include Umar Ibn Al-Khattāb, Abdullāh Ibn Mas.ūd, Abdullāh Ibn Abbās, Mu.āth Ibn Jabal, Jābir Ibn Abdillāh and Abū Ad-Dardā’. Sahīh At-Targhībi Wa At-Tarhīb, p. 235. Abdullāh Ibn Shaqīq al-‘Uqaylī said: ‘The Sahābah of Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم did not consider the abandonment of any act except the Salāt, as being Kufr’. (Related by At-Tirmithī and al-Hākim, who said it met al- Bukhāri’s and Muslim’s conditions for calling their A’hadîth ‘Sahīh‘, also Sahīh at-Targheeb Wat-Tarheeb, 564. Imām Mālik narrated: ‘Umar sent instructions to his administrators that the Salāt was the most necessary and important of all their functions. He wrote: ‘He who learnt the rules and regulations (of Salāt) and said it at its proper time, presented and safeguarded his religion and he who neglected it has lost his religion…’ (al-Muwatta, with a Sahīh chain according to Shaykh Sulaymān Ibn Nāsir Ibn ‘Abdullah al-‘Ulwān). Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd, may Allaah be pleased with him said: ‘Whoever leaves the Salāt; then there is no Deen for him’. Sahīh at-Targheeb Wat-Tarheeb , 563
[4] Ibn Taymiyyah said: ‘And here, there are fundamentals, which the people have disagreed upon. From these: Can the heart either disbelieve or believe with no traces (of this Īmān or Kufr) being shown upon the tongue or the limbs but only be shown when (the person) does not fear (to demonstrate his Kufr or Īmān)? The thing that the Salaf and the Imāms and the majority of the people are upon is that there must be something shown upon the body (i.e. either words/actions of Kufr or words/actions of Īmān.) So whoever says that he believes in the Messenger and loves him and glorifies him in his heart but does not speak (the words) of Islaam and does not perform anything from it’s Wājibāt (obligations) without fear, then this person is not a Mu.min on the inside. Rather, he is nothing but a Kaafir. And Jahm and those who agreed with him; he that he would be a Mu’min on the inside because, (to them) if the heart knows (something) and believes it (to be true) this is Īmān. And (to them) it deserves rewards on the Day of Judgment without any sayings or actions (of Īmān) upon their outward appearance. And this (idea) is absolute falsehood according to the Shari’ah and the intellect and from the Salaf like Wakī. And (Imām) Ahmad and others who used to make Takfīr to the ones who say this’. .Al-Fatāwah, Vol. 14, pp. 120 / 121
Replying to the Sophistries
The Third Sophistry
They say, “That ruling is an action and not a belief, and if an action is not in compliance to what Allaah commands then it is Ma’siyah (disobedience) and not Kufr. As is clear from reading all the texts from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, the mere non-compliance with a command or a mere committing of sin does not make one a Kaafir”
We say that this statement is good as it is well defined. However it is not true in its generality that ruling is an act and not a belief, and Kufr is related to ‘Itiqād (belief) only, because some acts by themselves are Kufr, like insulting Allaah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم, or mocking them and making them a topic of jest, or disrespecting the Musĥaf like stepping over it, or accusing Maryam Ibn Imrān of adultery (which is the slander of the Jews), and the mere statement alone without even believing this in the heart is enough to take one outside the Millah of Islaam as is mentioned where Allaah ta ‘ala says:
‘Whoever disbelieved in Allaah after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with‘Īmān…‘[1]
The ‘ayah is clear as it indicates that the mere pronouncing of Kufr is Kufr by itself unless ones heart is firm in ‘Īmān and one is under coercion. The mentioning of Allaah or the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم accompanied with bad and fowl language is not permitted at all unless there is a case of coercion and ones heart is firm with ‘Īmān then one is excused. Otherwise a statement of this nature is Kufr as can be seen from the ‘ayah, and if this‘ayah did not mean Kufr al-Akbar then it would be devoid of meaning if the statements it is referring to were not Kufr by themselves. This ‘ayah was revealed regarding Ammār Ibn Yāsir (r.a)[2] who was forced and beaten to say words of Kufr while he was under a state of coercion. If he had not been under coercion then he would have become a Kaafir by this statement according to the ‘ayah, otherwise the ‘ayah does not have any meaning at all. Why did he come weeping to the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم if the mere statement alone did not have any importance as it was just a statement he uttered from his tongue?[3]
The rest of the ‘ayah from Soorat an-Nahl says:
‘…and whose heart is content Kufr…’
One could say ‘that his heart is not content with Kufr‘, but in reality his heart must be content with Kufr if he finds it easy to talk about Allaah ta ‘ala and His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم jokingly without any excuse of being under coercion because there should be the utmost respect for Allaah and His Messengers. If one finds it easy to talk like this then it is clear ones heart has found contentment by these sayings as mentioned in this ‘ayah. These acts alone are acts of Kufr unless it is due to Ikrāh.
If the aforementioned ‘ayah is read carefully then we can see that it classifies people into two types:
* The first type is the one who pronounces Kufr while he is under coercion and his heart is firm in ‘Īmān.
* The second type is the one who may even be under coercion but doubts Allaah ta ‘ala by thinking how could Allaah let this happen to him as he was a good believer, this shows his heart is not content with ‘Īmān and this is Kufr al-Akbar even under the presents of coercion.
The one who insults Allaah ta ‘ala or His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم without any form of duress, then this also constitutes Kufr because he found it easy to mock at his Lord. ‘Īmān is not simply just Ma’rifah (recognition / cognisance) as Allaah ta ‘ala must be respected and worshiped, and if it were purely Ma’rifah which constituted ‘Īmān then ‘Iblīs would still be a Mu’min and we are then back to the belief of the extreme Jaĥmiyyah who defined ‘Īmān as just a philosophical belief, and such a belief has no relationship with the ‘Ākhirah!
The following examples also illustrate other areas, aside from coercion, regarding statements of Kufr:
1. at-Tilāwah – If one reads the Qur’aan and a statement that Allaah ta ‘ala narrates from the Kuffar, then one is not pronouncing a statement of Kufr as this is just narrating that which the Kuffar have said.
‘…I think not that this will ever perish. And I think not the Hour will ever come…’[4]
Or if one recites the ‘ayah:
‘…‘Uzāir (Ezra) is the son of Allaah‘[5]
And:
‘…‘Messiah is the son of Allaah‘[6]
Therefore this is not Kufr and in fact one is receiving a reward for reading the Qur’aan if one recites the ‘ayah. If these words are recited from the Qur’aan, although they are statements which exit people from the Millah.
1. Shahādah – bearing witness. When one is summoned to a court of law as a witness it is mandatory to narrate what a defendant has said which contains Kufr in their statement, and this also is not Kufr as Allaah ta ‘ala says in the Qur’aan , ‘Accept those who witness the truth while He knows what is the truth…’, so the Shāhid (witness) is excluded from falling into Kufr as they would be simply repeating what they had heard.
1. Kadthib Il-Khida’adthūl al-Harbi – Lying to the enemy in a state of war. Like saying – ‘Oh Muhammad has misguided us…’ so that the camp of Kufr gains your trust so that you can destroy them afterwards. This is well known as it is narrated in the Seerah regarding the story of Ka’b bin Ashraf when the Sahābah had to infiltrate his camp. Jābir (r.a) narrated:
The Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم of Allaah said: ‘Who is for Ka’b bin Ashraf, as he has insulted Allaah and His Messenger?’ So Muhammad Ibn Maslamah stood and said: ‘O Messenger of Allaah, would you like for me to kill him?’ He صلى الله عليه و سلم said, ‘Yes’, He (Muhammad Ibn Maslamah) said ‘Then give me permission to say something’, He صلى الله عليه و سلم said ‘Say it’. So Muhammad Ibn Maslamah went to him’.[7]
Muhammad Ibn Maslamah (r.a) went on to say words which on the outside were insulting towards the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم but they were said out of deception to lure in the enemy. So again in circumstances like this then it is permitted.
1. al-Hāqi or Rāwī – the one who narrates. When one narrates someone else’s saying like ‘The Jews say that Maryam Bint ‘Imrān committed adultery’ which is not narrating what one has witnessed and not saying it from oneself, then this is not Kufr. The scholars say that the narrator of Kufr is not a Kaafir himself, and in some cases it is needed to repeat these statements for a number of reasons one being so that a refutation can be applied. An important note here is that it is enough to narrate by words what happened, because if someone stepped on the Qur’aan then one does not need to carry out the same action in order to relay to others what someone did, it is entirely sufficient to narrate what the perpetrator has carried out.
The above categories are in addition to excuses of coercion for those who pronounce statements of Kufr. However, if someone pronounces Kufr and does not have the above excuses then he is a Kaafir[8], although there are some who have been influenced by the philosophy of the Murji’ah and Jaĥmiyyah who may say ‘But he believes in his heart’. We have to completely reject this statement of Bātil although we could agree that he may have knowledge in his heart of Allaah ta ‘ala and His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم, but knowledge alone is not enough to establish ‘Īmān. And yes, ‘Īmān needs knowledge as that is a part of ‘Īmān, but ‘Īmān is more then just knowledge. Believing that Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم is the Messenger of Allaah is not sufficient for ‘Īmān until you surrender and follow him, as is clear from the incident of the two Jews who came to the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم and kissed his hand and said:
‘We witness that you are the true Messenger’ and he صلى الله عليه و سلم said ‘Then why do not you follow me?‘ they said ‘If we follow you the Jews would kill us’.
Here it is clear that just recognising the Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم as the true Messenger was not enough because he asked them ‘why do not you follow me?’ demonstrating that ‘Īmān is more then just mere knowledge or recognition.[9]
As a side point, the previous nations were not even allowed the option of saying Kufr under coercion otherwise they would become Kaafir and if they said a statement of Kufr they were not even given the option of Tawbah, so we have been given a much easier Shari’ah with the possibility of being forgiven.
The claim of some of the Murji’ah that the people who mock Allaah ta ‘ala and His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم are still within the Millah is clearly Bātil and should be completely rejected. The word I’tiqād that is used by some of the proponents of this viewpoint is very confusing, because if they mean mere belief, then this is irrelevant as we are not talking about mere belief and disbelief. We are discussing the difference between ‘Īmān and Kufr. But if they use the word I’tiqād to what we mean by ‘Īmān then we are back to square one, as the ‘ayah in Soorat Ma’idah says:
‘Whosoever does not rule by what which Allaah has revealed is from the Kaafiroon‘[10]
The ‘ayah does not have the word ‘Īmān within it therefore the one guilty of ruling by other than that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed is without ‘Īmān. So we ask them what do they mean by I’tiqād. If they mean ‘Īmān then the ‘ayah clearly says that the one who does not rule by what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed has no ‘Īmān. If they mean belief, in the sense that the ‘ayah has been revealed by Allaah ta ‘ala and that Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم is the Messenger of Allaah, then that is irrelevant because it is not restricted enough to apply. So they should use the terms ‘Īmān and Kufr instead of using the word I’tiqād as it is not a Shari’ah word.
Secondly, concerning the statement that al-Hukm refers to actions and not belief, even if we assume that ruling is an action like any other action, it in fact has nothing to do with what we are discussing, because the ruling that we are discussing relates to ‘Īmān and Kufr and has nothing to do with I’tiqād. The usual way they interpret I’tiqād is belief, whether something exists or does not exist and not ‘Īmān in the Shari’ah sense. As we have said, we are discussing whether leaving the ruling is Kufr or ‘Īmān, so we should not be confused by saying that ruling is just an act and not I’tiqād, and in any case it is definitely not I’tiqād, but again we are not discussing whether it is I’tiqād to leave the ruling of Allaah ta ‘ala; what we are trying to establish is whether it is Kufr or not.
Moreover, Hukm is a special type of act, it is not like the general type of actions but it is closer to statements, because the one who passes a ruling does not necessarily carry out an action. As we mentioned previously it is usually carried out by uttering a statement in order to pass a judgement, so it is not an act like the physical acts which fall under the category of ‘Amil al-Jawārih. For example a ruler or judge may proclaim – ‘I condemn so and so to be executed by the sword’. Here he is not actually doing any kind of action, but the one who will cut the neck of the individual is the one who will be carrying out the action. Ruling is more of a statement or a pronouncement, its power stems from the fact that it can invariably carry an executive command over a given matter, thus making it closer to I’tiqād and ‘Īmān. Using the act of Zina as an example, if one were to ask a Muslim why they have committed Zina (presuming they have) and his reply is that he was overcome by desire, but at the same time he recognises that he has committed a Kabīrah; this would keep him within the Millah. However the moment he makes a statement saying it is allowed because we are in the twenty-first century (or excuses like that), then he becomes Kaafir automatically, and this is a statement unlike the action of committing Zina but knowing it is Harām. The one who has committed Zina and recognises that it is Harām has ruled by that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed although he has carried out the action, and this is different from the judge who passes a verdict verbally. The claim by some that Hukm is a Fi’l (an act) under I’tiqād is very weak indeed, it is closer to I’tiqād itself and is more from the area of statements than that of actions.
The word I’tiqād (creed or (Tasdeeq) belief), is a conventional term and not a Shari’ah one. Normally it means what has been believed firmly in the heart. If they mean by the word I’tiqād what the Shari’ah means by the word ‘Īmān then they are actually saying that Hukm is an action and not ‘Īmān. This is akin to trying to redefine ‘Īmān with the word I’tiqād to try and prove their point and is contradicted by the definite and absolute evidences of the Qur’aan and Sunnah which we have mentioned before which show that some actions by themselves are the type of Kufr which would exit the perpetrator outside the fold of Islaam. Furthermore, it is contradicted by the Mutawātir narrations which have come from the lips of the beloved Messenger Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم when he called certain acts ‘Īmān, for example:
Narrated Barā’a (bin Āzib): When the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم came to Medina, he stayed first with the grandfathers or maternal uncles from Ansār. He offered his prayers facing Baitul-Maqdis (Jerusalem) for sixteen or seventeen months, but he wished that he could pray facing the Ka’ba (at Mecca). The first prayer which he offered facing the Ka’ba was the ‘Asr prayer in the company of some people. Then one of those who had offered that prayer with him came out and passed by some people in a mosque who were bowing during their prayers (facing Jerusalem). He said addressing them: ‘By Allaah, I testify that I have prayed with Allaah’s Apostle facing Mecca (Ka’ba).’ Hearing that, those people changed their direction towards the Ka’ba immediately. The Jews and the people of the scriptures used to be pleased to see the Prophet facing Jerusalem in prayers but when he changed his direction towards the Ka’ba, during the prayers, they disapproved of it. Barā’a added – ‘Before we changed our direction towards the Ka’ba (Mecca) in prayers, some Muslims had died or had been killed and we did not know what to say about them (regarding their prayers.) Allaah then revealed:
‘And Allaah would never make your ‘Īmānakum (prayers) to be lost (i.e. the prayers of those Muslims were valid)’.[11]
In another Hadīth, Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم said:
‘Īmān is about seventy branches or is more than sixty branches. The highest of which is Lā Ilāh-ha IlAllaah and the lowest of which is the removal of what is injurious from the road, and modesty is a branch of ‘Īmān.[12]
No one could disagree that removing something from the path is an action, and Hayā is nether an act or a belief as it is more of a Huluq (behaviour).
Also in another Hadīth, Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri reported that the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم said:
Whoever from you hears a Munkar (evil) let him change it with his hand, if he can not then let him change it with his tongue and if he can not then let him change it with his heart and this is the weakest of ‘Īmān.[13]
These are all actions that are carried out by the limbs and also the heart, as hate is an action that the heart performs.
Another Hadīth says:
Whoever loves for the sake of Allaah, and hates for the sake of Allaah and gives for Allaah and prevents for Allaah then he has completed ‘Īmān.[14]
Again these are all acts; acts of the heart, not pure belief (as we have already mentioned) which is something else, because love and hate are something other than belief by their own nature.
Another Hadīth narrated by Anas states that the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم said:
Love for the Ansār is a sign of ‘Īmān and hatred for the Ansār is a sign of Nifāq.[15]
Moreover:
And in the narration from Abu Jamra, a delegation from the tribe of Abdul Qais came to the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم and said – ‘O Allaah’s Apostle! We are from the tribe of Rabi’a’. Then the Messenger said to them, ‘Neither will you have disgrace nor will you grieve’. They said – ‘O Allaah’s Messenger, we cannot come to you except during the Sacred Months and there is an infidel tribe of Mudar that stands between us and you; Please order us to do something (religious deeds) which we may carry out and also invite to it our people whom we have left behind and that we may enter paradise (by acting on them)’. Then they asked about drinks (what is legal and what is illegal). The Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم ordered them to do four things and forbade them four others. He ordered them to have ‘Īmān in Allaah and asked them: ‘Do you know what is meant by believing in Allaah alone?’ They replied, ‘Allaah and His Messenger know better’. Thereupon the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم said: ‘It means to confess that none has the right to be worshipped but Allaah, to offer prayers perfectly and to pay the Zakāt, to observe the fast in the month of Ramadān and to pay one-fifth of the booty in Allaah’s Cause’.[16]
Many of these are evidently acts and are not only centred on ‘Aqīdah. It is narrated by Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم was asked about the best of actions. He صلى الله عليه و سلم said:
‘Īmānu-Billāh (Belief in Allaah)…‘[17]
An action has been clearly described here as‘Īmān. ‘Umar Ibn Abdul-Azīz wrote to the Muslims in the new Muslim settlements:
‘Verily, the ‘Īmān is obligations and laws and punishments and things from the Sunnah. So whoever completes them completes ‘Īmān, and whoever does not complete them, does not complete ‘Īmān. So if I live, I will make them clear to you until you act upon them and if I die, then I am not eager for being your companion’.[18]
Some of these narrations are of the Majāzi (metaphorical) type which we do not deny. However the totality of them cannot be just attributed as being metaphorical. ‘Īmān is not merely to do with ‘Aqīdah (creed). That ‘Īmān has nothing to do with anything except the state of the heart is completely wrong; for example, statements are a type of action and are a part of ‘Īmān. If someone was asked to pronounce the Shahādah but refused, then he would be classed as a Kaafir[19]which is evident from the narration where the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم said:
‘I was ordered to fight the people until they declare that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah‘.[20]
Actually the best description of ‘Īmān would be قā’a (obedience). Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم said:
‘The fornicator does not fornicate while he is a Mu’min (believer)…’[21]
Commenting upon the aforesaid Hadīth, Ibn Hazm said – ‘He is not Mu’min because the moment he commits Zina he is not obeying Allaah ta ‘ala‘. We see here that in fact ‘Īmān is obedience, thus the meaning of the ‘ayah is further clarified and placed into direct context:
‘I have only created Jinn and men, except that They worship Me.’[22]
The moment the individual is not obeying Allaah, they would not be a Mu’min because ‘Īmān is obedience. This does mean that the individual is a Kaafir but they would be without ‘Īmān temporally. The best description of ‘Īmān is in fact obedience – that one must obey Allaah ta ‘ala’s commands which are essentially acts of obedience, and that it is not just believing that Allaah ta ‘ala is one but is inseparable from obeying His commands simultaneously which makes one Mu’min.[23]
Thirdly the claim that ruling is an action and that it is not related to I’tiqād is not an accurate statement to say the least, because as we have mentioned, ruling is not a pure act, it is something different and is more from the category of statements and beliefs. To make this point clear so it can be fully comprehended what we are saying we will give the following examples Insha’Allaah ta ‘ala. Intercourse is an action that is carried out by the limbs. In the Islaamic Shari’ah intercourse between a man and a woman which is not legitimate (i.e. with what is termed as Halīlah being either his wife or a slave girl) is called Zina, and the ruling regarding this act is that it is Harām. Although the act is the same whether it is with one’s wife or with one’s girlfriend, the ruling is different. This ruling is not an act; it is something different; it is rather a judgement of the act from statements or beliefs rather than it being purely an action. Now if a person who had committed intercourse with someone who did not fall under those who are Halāl for him therefore committing Zina and deserving the title of Zāni, and he was then asked regarding the action he had carried out, there are one of two answers he can give regarding this action:
1. ‘Yes, I have committed Zina and it is Harām but and I was weak and taken over by desire which was too strong’.
1. ‘I do not believe Zina is Harām, what is the difference between Zina and Nikaĥ as they are all the same?’
The first statement will prevent him from leaving the Millah because he is admitting that the action he did was Harām, whereas the second statement would take him outside the Millah. In fact he would not even need to commit the act of Zina to leave the Millah as it is enough that he says something like the second statement above to make him a Kaafir, and the Murji’ah could not disagree with us here since they restrict ‘Īmān to statements, and the second statement is clearly making Istiĥlāl of something openly prohibited.
Hence ruling is not an act in the orthodox meaning of the word, it is something else. It is (as we have said) closer to statements and beliefs. So the claim that ruling is an act and not a belief is wrong and has led to a great deal of confusion amongst some sincere ‘Ulema[24]. More importantly young Muslims have been adopting this view and have been active in its propagation which is a great travesty.
To conclude this third sophistry with a brief summary, the claim that ruling is an act and not I’tiqād is false on many grounds:
* It is false because ruling is related closer to statements and belief rather then a mere act.
* Referring to ruling as I’tiqād is irrelevant, rather what is relevant is referring to I’tiqād as ‘Īmān.
* I’tiqād is different from ‘Īmān, because I’tiqād is not really a Shar’i term rather it is a scholarly classification.
[1] Soorat an-Nahl, verse 106. Concerning this ‘ayah, Ibn Taymiyyah has said: ‘He made everyone who speaks words of Kufr to be under the threat of punishment of the Kuffar except those who are compelled while their hearts are at rest with Īmān. So if it is said, But the Most High said: “…but such as open their breasts to disbelief…” It is said to them (in answer). And this is said in compliance to its (i.e. the ‘Āyats) beginning because anyone who disbelieves without being compelled to, has opened his breast to Kufr. And if it weren’t like that, then the nullification of its beginning would have come at its end. And if the meaning of whoever disbelieved, was the one who opened his breast to Kufr that would be without compulsion then He would not have only made an exception to the one who was compelled, rather it would have been obligatory to make an exception for the one who is compelled and the one who is not compelled if he says the words of Kufr, willingly then he has opened his breast to it and that is Kufr…’ [al-Fatāwah, Vol.7, p. 220]. Moreover, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhāb said, in his explanation of this ayah: ‘So Allaah did not excuse anyone from them except the one who is compelled while his heart is at rest with Īmān. But anyone besides these who commit Kufr after their Īmān, whether he did it out of fear or willingly in order to please someone, or due to an extreme pressure from within him or for his family or his people or his wealth or he did it out of joking or other than that, from the things, which aren’t (covered in the definition) from compulsion. And the ‘ayah indicates this in two ways: Firstly, His statement: ‘except him who is forced thereto. So Allaah did not make an exception except for he who is compelled. And the second was His, the Most Highs statement: That is because they loved and preferred the life of this world over that of the Hereafter. So He made clear that this Kufr and this punishment was not because of belief or ignorance or hate for the Deen or love of Kufr, rather its cause was only a factor from the factors of the (love of this) life. So it had an affect upon his Deen. (Majmū’at at-Tawheed, pp. 88 / 89)
[2] Seerah Ibn Hishām, Vol.1, p. 320
[3]Khulasatu Tafaseer, Vol.2, p. 578. The stories of the early persecutions that the Muslims experienced are related there.
[4] Soorat Kahf, verses 35 / 36
[5] Soorat Tawbah, verse 30
[6] Ibid, the full ‘ayah says: ‘And the Jews say, ‘Uzāir (Ezra) is the son of Allaah, and the Christians say, ‘Messiah is the son of Allaah. That is a saying from their mouths they imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old, Allaah’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!’
[7] Sahīh al-Bukhāri, Vol.4, Ch ‘Killing Kaafir warriors secretly’, Hadîth, No. 271
And Ibn Hajar al-Askalāni says ‘And in the Mursal (narration) of ‘Ikrimah, ‘So the Jews became terrified, so they came to the Messenger and said ‘Our leader was killed by assassination’. So the Messenger reminded them about his deeds and what he used to incite against him, while insulting the Muslims’. Ibn Sa’d added, ‘So they were frightened and did not say anything (further)”. Until Ibn Hajar said, “And in it there is the permissibility of killing the polytheist (Mushrik) without Da’wah as long as the general Da’wah has reached him. And in it there is the permissibility of saying that which is necessary during war, even if the one saying it did not really mean it“. [Fat'h al-Bāri, Vol.7, p. 340]
[8] Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyah said, “Imām Isĥāq Ibn Rāhawayh, one of the prominent a’immah said: ‘The Muslims are agreed that whoever insults Allaah or His Messenger, or rejects anything that Allaah has revealed, or kills one of the prophets of Allaah, is a Kaafir by virtue of that, even if he believes in everything that Allaah has revealed’. [as-Sārim al-Maslūl, Vol.2, p. 15 & Vol.3, p. 955, the words of Isĥāq are mentioned in At-Tamheed by Ibn Abdul-Barr, Vol.4, p. 226]. Ibn Hajar al-Askalāni has said: ‘Ibn Mundthir narrated that there was consensus that whoever insults the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم in clear terms must be killed. Abu Bakr al-Fārisī, one of the Shāfa’ī Imāms, narrated in Kitāb al-Ijma’ that whoever insults the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم in a manner that is clearly slander, is a Kaafir according to scholarly consensus’. Fath al-Bāri, commentary on Hadîth No. 6928 of Sahīh al-Bukhāri (Fath al-Bāri, Vol.12, p. 281, 1st Salafiyah edition). And from the son of Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal (the father of the Hanbali Madthhab) ‘Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who said, “My father was asked about a man who said, ‘O son of so-and-so… (then he curses that man and adds)…you, and whoever created you!’ My father said, ‘He is a Murtadd from Islaam.’ I asked my father, ‘Do we cut his head off?’ He said, ‘Yes, we cut off his head.’ [al-Fatāwah, Vol.7, p. 209]
[9] Ibn Taymiyyah (r.h) has said: ‘Could it be comprehended that people would say to the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم, ‘We believe in what you came with in our hearts without any doubt. And we accept (i.e. pronounce) the Shahādatayn on our tongues. But we will not obey you in anything that you order us to do or to avoid. So we will not pray or fast or perform Hajj or believe in your words and we will not return what we are entrusted with and we will not fulfil our covenants and we will not do any of those good things that you order us with. We will drink alcohol and we will commit open fornication with those whom it is Harām and we will kill whomever we can from your companions (and) from your ‘Ummah and we will take their wealth, we will kill you also and we will fight against you with your enemies’? Would a sane person think that the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم would say to them, ‘You are believers with complete ‘Īmān and you are from the people of my intercession on the Day of Judgment and hopefully, none of you will enter the Fire.’? Every Muslim knows from basic (common sense) that he would say, ‘You are the most disbelieving in what I have come with!’ And he would cut off their heads if they did not repent from that’. [Fatāwah, Vol.7, p. 287]
[10] Soorat Ma’idah, verse 44
[11] Sahīh al-Bukhāri Vol.1, Ch ‘The offering of prayers is a part of ‘Īmān“, Hadîth No. 39; the verse referred to is in Surat Baqarah, verse 143.
[12] Sahīh Muslim, Vol.1a, Ch Kitāb al-‘Īmān, Hadîth No. 35R1
[13] Sahīh Muslim, Vol.1a, Ch Kitāb al-‘Īmān, Hadîth No. 49
[14]
[15] Sahīh al-Bukhāri, Vol.1, Ch ‘Love for the Ansār is a sign of ‘Īmān‘, Hadîth No. 16
[16] Sahīh al-Bukhāri, Vol.1, Ch ‘To pay the Khums (one fifth of the war booty) is a part of ‘Īmān‘, Hadîth No. 50; also in Sahīh Muslim, Vol.1a, Ch Kitāb al-‘Īmān, Hadîth No. 17R1
[17] Sahīh Muslim, Vol.1a, Ch Kitāb al-‘Īmān, Hadîth No. 83
[18] Sahīh al-Bukhāri, Vol.1, Imām Bukhāri (r.h) mentioned this letter at the beginning of the first chapter, p. 15 [English edition by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan]
[19] Ibn Taymiyyah said: ‘If the Shahādatayn is not declared, while (a person has) the ability to declare it, then he is a Kaafir with the agreement of all the Muslims. He is a Kaafir on the inside and on the outside according to the opinions of the Salaf of the ‘Ummah and its Imams and the majority of its scholars.’ al-Fatāwah“, Vol. 17/609. an-Nawawī has said: ‘Ahl us-Sunnah (The people of the Sunnah) among the Hadîth scientists and the jurists and spokespeople are agreed that the believer who is judged as being from Ahl Al-Qiblah [people of the (prayer) direction - i.e. Muslims] and that he will not remain eternally in the Fire (for his sins) while he believes, in his heart, in the Deen of Islaam fully, without any uncertainty and having declared the Shahādah (i.e. Lā Ilāha Illā Allaah). So if he is short of any of this, he is not from Ahl al-Qiblah (i.e. a Muslim) from the beginning unless he is unable to declare it due to a defect with his (power of) speech’ Sharh Sahīh Muslim“, Vol. 1/149
[20] Sahīh Muslim, Vol.1a, Ch Kitāb al-‘Īmān, Hadîth No. 21; the rest of the narration is as follows, ‘…and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affair rests with Allaah‘
[21] Sahīh Muslim, Vol.1a, Ch Kitāb al-‘Īmān, Hadîth No. 57
[22] Soorat Dthāriyāt, verse 56
[23] Ibn Rajab said: ‘If leaving these major sins was not from ‘Īmān, then he (i.e. the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم) would not have negated the ‘Īmān from the ones who committed them. This is because the name (i.e. ‘Īmān) is not negated unless some of the obligations or pillars of that label are negated’ Jāmi’ al-‘Ulūm Wal-Hikām, Vol.1, p. 105
[24] See: Man-made Laws verses Shari’ah, by Dr Abdur-Rahmān Ibn Sālih al-Mahmoud, pp. 265 / 272 where he explains the reasons why some of the latter scholars were influenced by the Murji’ah, and while studying the texts of those belonging to Ahlil-Sunnah Wal-Jamā’ah. They would take their words and incorrectly apply them in their generality, which ultimately lead to the views of those who would agree on the surface with Ahlil-Sunnah Wal-Jamā’ah that ‘Īmān consists of statements, beliefs and actions, but in fact they would contradict themselves because they would label all Kufr al-Akbar as Kufr al-I’tiqādi (Kufr in belief) and all Kufr al-Ashgar as Kufr al-Amali (Kufr in actions).
Replying to the Sophistries
The Fourth Sophistry
They say, “We do not deny that there are statements and actions that are Kufr by themselves because they contradict the I’tiqād which Allaah has commanded, like making Sujūd to idols which by necessity contradict the belief in the Tawheed of Allaah”. And they say, “Ruling by other than that which Allaah has revealed is disobedience in actions and not disobedience in I’tiqād”
According to the eloquence of the Arabic language, when considering the principle of classing some acts as ‘Īmān, we note that the ‘Asl (root) is ‘Īmān and the action(s) that are classified as acts of ‘Īmān are its Furū’ (branches / fruits) that spring from the root. Thus the root is not an action as of itself, but the action is the fruit of ‘Īmān, exemplified in the Hadīth where the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم says: ‘Hayāh (modesty) is a branch of ‘Īmān‘. Hayāh will develop if one has ‘Īmān to begin with; one does not attain ‘Īmān by just having Hayāh, one has to have ‘Īmān in the first place. If one has true ‘Īmān then one of its derivatives is Hayāh.
There are some acts which are Kufr al-Akbar in and of themselves whose evidence are Qata’i, being established by both the Qur’aan and Sunnah, leaving no room for any confusion. Numerous examples for this can be given, like mocking Allaah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم, which is undoubtedly an act of Kufr al-Akbar by the clearest of statements, both from the Qur’aan itself and the consensus of the scholars of Ahlul-Sunnah. There is no doubt that it is the form of Kufr that removes one from the Millah[1].
Allaah ta ‘ala has stated:
`tBur َO©9 Oن3ّts !$yJخ/ tAtRr& ھ!$# y7ح´¯»s9′ré’sù مNèd tbrمچدے»s3ّ9$# اححب
‘Whosoever Rules by other than what Allaah has revealed they are al-Kâfirûn‘[2]
This ‘آyah is Qata’i Thabût (decisive in its origin / transmission), however it is not Qata’i Dalâlah (decisive in meaning) because it can be interpreted in a number of ways, as is evident from the previous opinions mentioned regarding this. To reiterate, some have argued concerning the meaning of the verse, is it applicable to a certain category, like those who reject the ruling of Allaah ta ‘ala, or those who mock the rulings of Allaah ta ‘ala, or the ones who are too arrogant to apply the ruling of Allaah ta ‘ala. Consequently, it is often said that the ones who neither reject, mock, or are too arrogant to apply the Hukm of Allaah ta ‘ala, but have merely taken a bribe and know that they are sinful do not fall within the remit of the verse.
Even those who have been afflicted by Irjâ’ would acknowledge that there are certain acts by themselves which are Kufr al-Akbar. This is because they contradict the basic beliefs of Islâm like Sujûd to a Sanum (idol). Even if there is no textual evidence by way of the Qur’ân or Sunnah, a Sanum is an idol which is perceived as divine, so Sujûd to something (whether it be a statue or human) that is perceived as divine and is directed toward other than Allaah ta ‘ala must be regarded as an act of worship which is evident Shirk which exits the individual from the Millah. Or they may have clear evidence that shows that the action is Kufr al-Akbar like mocking at Allaah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم which is clear beyond doubt from the relevant ‘Ayāts.
But this does not apply to those who do not rule by what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed, simply because some scholars have said that the ‘Ayāts of Hukm may admit a possibility (because as we said the issue is not Qata’i Dalālah) that al-Kaafiroon applies to a certain category, al-Thaalimun and al-Fāsiqūn applies to another category, so they say that there could be two categories and hence one cannot pronounce Takfeer based on something which is not Qata’i.
Those who have held the opposite view from us in this present treatise were respectable scholars like Imām at-Tabarī and Imām Abdullah Ibn Tawūs, who cannot be accused of sophistry or being sycophants. We have a trustworthy Isnād to Ibn Tawūs (r.h) where he stated these opinions of there being two categories of people; the one’s who have committed Juhūd and those who have not. This shows that the meaning of these ‘Ayāts is not Qata’i, because if they were, then these great a’immah would not have gone against that which was clearly Qata’i.
One can discern that a key element of this fourth sophistry is far more elaborate and detailed than the previous sophistries that we have discussed. Beneath the veneer though it hides a problem in its reasoning and this is due to the definition of what is termed I’tiqād.
Proponents of this sophism have used the word I’tiqād and not the Shar’i term of ‘Īmān. The reason is that if they had used the Shar’i term ‘Īmān, then they would encounter an obstacle in their ‘Usūl of the concept of Kufr and ‘Īmān because the moment they use al-Kaafiroon then it’s opposite is al-Mu’minūn. This is why they refrain from using the term ‘Īmān, and they do not deny that Kufr is the opposite of ‘Imān, but they say that some acts oppose or contradict I’tiqād and there are some acts that are accompanied with definite evidence that they are Kufr in and of themselves, like the issue of mocking at Allaah ta ‘ala and His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم.
Returning to the first point; they claim that they are not Murji’ah because they agree that there are instances where one can exit the Millah through acts that constitute Kufr al-Akbar and that this type of Kufr is not only related to I’tiqād, however it has to be under two conditions:
1. Acts which are contrary to I’tiqād, such as making Sujūd to an idol
1. Acts for which evidence has been clearly established beyond doubt in both the relevant sources and in their meaning, that has the effect of making the perpetrator leave the fold of Islaam, such as mocking Allaah ta ‘ala in which all scholars agree that the meaning in Soorat Tawbah is Qata’i, whereas the ‘Ayāts of Hukm in Soorat Ma’idah are not Qata’i.
Regarding the first condition mentioned that acts must be contrary to I’tiqād, if one were to ask them if ruling by other than what which Allaah has revealed went against I’tiqād, according to them it would not. Now the problem should start to become clear with the term I’tiqād that they are holding firmly onto, because the word I’tiqād cannot be used by them with the meaning of just pure belief when describing that which differentiates a Muslim and a Kaafir. It cannot be a mathematical doctrine where one holds something to be true or false from one’s objective (or even subjective) opinion, because some acts of the heart can take one outside the fold of Islaam, for example, hating Allaah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم can make one a Kaafir and this may have nothing to do with belief in this context. One could believe that he صلى الله عليه و سلم is indeed the Messenger of Allaah but may not like him for some reason. The word I’tiqād‘ can be a problem, if they mean pure Tasdeeq[3] then we are going back to the Minhaj of the Jahmiyyah. This would mean that someone could believe in the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم but dislike him and at the same time still be a believer. We can therefore discern that such a proposition would be ludicrous; there is no way that ‘Īmān could exist in a person who believes in the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم but have any harbouring of hate for him simultaneously, so it must be more than that.
Believing in pure Tasdeeq by affirming something to be true to the utmost certainty imaginable for a created being is also not enough, because Iblīs has a level of Tasdeeq more so than many among mankind in knowing Allaah, His Angels, Paradise etc. Yet Iblīs is still a Kaafir due to his arrogance and refusal to submit to Allaah ta ‘ala’s command because he believed he was nobler then Ādam عليه السلام and thus refused to bow to him. Iblīs’ argument holds no direct relevance – refusing to obey a direct command no matter the facts resulted in his Kufr, so he still became a Kaafir even though he is one whose Tasdeeq cannot be reckoned with compared to many of the inhabitants of this Dunyah.
This is a Musādarah al-Mad’bub (confiscating the argument through the back door) by using the word I’tiqād. We would agree to a certain point that if an action contradicts I’tiqād then it would take that person outside the fold of Islaam or if there is an evidence that proves a contradiction of I’tiqād that exits the one guilty outside the fold of Islaam. But it is not restricted to what they say as there are other aspects that would contradict ‘Īmān and would also exit the perpetrator outside the fold, like the brief examples that we have mentioned, such as hating Allaah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم which clearly contradicts ‘Īmān to the level of Kufr al-Akbar. In terms of Tasdeeq, one would still be a believer according to the logic behind this sophism because the recognition that Allaah ta ‘ala and His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم exist and are obligatory to submit to. However in actual fact the person would be a Kaafir as it was a violation of his ‘Īmān. In one angle a Kaafir can be a believer with complete Tasdeeq in Allaah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم while still be a Kaafir simultaneously as he has contradicted ‘Īmān[4], like Iblīs who said in Soorat al-A’rāf while speaking with Allaah ta ‘ala:
tA$s% !$yJخ6sù دZoK÷uqّîr& ¨byمèّ%V{ ِNçlm; y7sغ؛uإہ tLىة)tFَ،مKّ9$# اتدب
‘(Iblîs) said: “Because you have misguided me, surely I will sit in wait against them (human beings) on Your straight path’.[5]
This is the language Iblîs was using with Allaah ta ‘ala and that is why he became a Kâfir and not because he did not believe that Allaah ta ‘ala existed but rather he refers to Allaah as Rabb (Lord) as his belief in Allaah ta ‘ala was one of Tasdeeq Jâzim (certainty without any doubt). Yet because of his arrogance and haughtiness he is still a Kâfir as Allaah ta ‘ala says:
4n1r& uy9ُ3tFَ$#ur tb%x.ur z`دB ْïحچدے»s3ّ9$# اجحب
‘He refused and was haughty and He was one of the Kâfirûn!’[6]
Thus their argument is quite elaborate and sophisticated but in any case it is not convincing, because there are things that do not contradict Tasdeeq but contradict other aspects of ‘خmân as we have mentioned. It is clearly insufficient for them to establish the claim that ruling by other then that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed is not enough to take you outside the fold of Islâm and is a case of Kufr Duna Kufr with the exceptions of either Juhûd, hatred toward the Shari’ah or making something permissible if the Shari’ah has described it as forbidden.
If the proponents of this sophism mean by the term I’tiqâd – states of the heart, which contain Tasdeeq Jâzim; total surrender with no rebellion; respect with no disrespect and love which is opposite of hate, then we are back to ‘خmân, in which case we must ask then how can they conclude that not ruling by what Allaah has revealed does not contradict ‘خmân? It may not contradict I’tiqâd, however it contradicts other aspects of ‘خmân like submission, and by Allaah ta ‘ala using the word ‘al-Kâfirûn’ in the ‘آyah it shows that it contradicts submission to Allaah ta ‘ala’s commands to the level of taking one outside the fold of Islâm. Moreover, Zina or the consumption of alcohol does not take one outside the fold of Islâm because nowhere in the Qur’ân or Sunnah does it say that committing acts such as Zina or drinking alcohol contradicts ‘خmân or takes the doer outside the fold of Islâm, whereas ruling by other than that which Allaah has revealed was mentioned with the word al-Kâfirûn in the texts quite clearly.
To reiterate, if the sophists mean with the term I’tiqâd what we mean with the Shar’i term ‘Aslî ‘خmân – the root of faith (which is more than just Ma’rifah), then this is good, as it corresponds with the majority of evidences that we have brought via the Qur’ân and Sunnah. If this is the case then it is much more preferable to use the word Allaah ta ‘ala and His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم used which is ‘Īmān instead of the term I’tiqād. They should therefore reword the first condition to state that nothing takes a person outside the fold of Islaam in acts, deeds and statements except that which contradicts the root of ‘Īmān and not I’tiqād, and then they would have to adopt what we have proven by referring to the relevant sources!
If ‘Īmān is defined and understood correctly, then any act which contradicts the root of ‘Īmān is therefore Kufr al-Akbar; we can thus conclude that ruling by other than that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed is an act of Kufr which takes one outside the fold of Islaam as it contradicts the root of ‘Īmān.
And besides, all this does not even apply to our discussion concerning of not ruling by that which Allaah has revealed, or worse still ruling by other then that which Allaah has revealed, because not ruling by what Allaah has revealed by its very own nature contradicts Tasleem (submission) and surrender to Allaah ta ‘ala which is a basic essential part of ‘Īmān.
Actually, to reiterate further, not ruling by that which Allaah has revealed is not merely an act, it is based in part on one’s mental and physiological makeup and is more of a Qawl (statement). A judgement is a statement, and there are other actors (like policemen etc) who execute that statement, so it is closer to I’tiqād than acts like Zina, eating, drinking and so on. Even if we accept the term I’tiqād, even then it has a component which contradicts I’tiqād; why then does prostrating to an idol constitute an act of Shirk and therefore contradicts Tawheed, and not ruling by that which Allaah has revealed somehow not contradict Tawheed? Both acts are not in accordance with the precepts of Allaah ta ‘ala’s Tawheed and submission in Islaam. Furthermore, most of the Fuqahāh claim that the actions of the Hākim (ruler), Walī (governor), and the Qādthi (Judge) are acts of worship; they do not receive salaries like other occupations, but seeing as though they have devoted themselves to this position and also have houses and families to maintain, they are given Rizq for their contribution. They are not given this money for the act itself, but rather they are given these contributions for their devotion. One need only to look at the example of Abu Bakr as-Siddīq (r.a) when he was Khaleef and he approached the market to earn his wage. ‘Umar (r.a) asked what he was doing and he replied that he was heading to the market place in order to support himself. With that ‘Umar said that if he were to continue this then the affairs of the Muslim community would be lost, so ‘Umar said that they would allocate to Abu Bakr a wage that would satisfy his needs, and all this was done because the position of Abu Bakr, like the positions of the Hākim, Walī and Qādthi, were perceived by the Muslims as an act of devotion.
Similarly, an Imām at a local Masjid is not paid a salary for leading the Muslims in prayer. However he may be given a type of Rizq if his situation necessitates. So why should this type of ‘Ibādah be treated differently than the act of prostration to an idol which is classed as an act of Kufr? Ruling by what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed is also defined as an act of worship, and should be placed in the same category if it is to be looked at correctly.
[1]
[2] Soorat Ma’idah, verse 44
[3] In his refutation of the Murji’ah concerning this usage of the term I’tiqād and equating it with Tasdeeq, Shaykh al-Islaam, Ibn Taymiyyah (r.h) said: ‘al-‘Īmān in not interchangeable with Tasdeeq in its definition because everyone who brings information concerning something from the apparent or the hidden; we say about him in the language, Sadaqta (i.e. you have told the truth), as we might say, Kathabta (i.e. you have lied). So whoever says – the sky is above us – it is said to him, Sadaqta in the same way it is said Kathabta (when he tells a lie). But the word Īmān is not used except in the cases where someone has brought information which is hidden. It is not found in the (correct) phrasing that the one who has brought information about an apparent thing such as if he were to say, The sun has risen, that he would be told, Āmannāhu (i.e. we believed him). As it would be said – Sadaqnāhu (i.e. he has spoken the truth) – because Al-Īmān is derived from al-Amn. So it (i.e. Īmān) is only to be used in that, which the informer is to be trusted in, such as in the hidden matters. And for this (reason) we do not see ever in the Noble Qur’ân or other than it, the phrase – Āmana lahu (i.e. we have believed him) except in this form (i.e. except in the form where it is concerning a hidden matter)…’ [Kitāb Al-Īmān, p. 276 or al-Īmān al-Awsāt from his Fatāwah, Vol. 7, p. 71]. Further to this, Ibn Taymiyyah has also said: ‘The word Al-Īmān in the language is not an antonym for at-Taktheeb as the word At-Tasdeeq is (an antonym of At-Takthīb). This is because, it is known in the language that every informer might be told, Sadaqta (i.e. you have told the truth) or Kathabta (i.e. you have lied). And it is said, Sadaqnāhu or, Kathabnāhu. But it is not said to every informer, Āmannā lahu, or, Kathabnāhu, and it is not said, You are a Mu’min towards him, or, a Mukath.thib towards him. Rather, the known thing, which opposes Īmān is the word al-Kufr. It is said – He is a Mu’min – or a Kaafir, and al-Kufr is not limited to Takthīb. Rather, if he said – I know that you are truthful, but I will not follow you and instead I will take you as my enemy and hate you and oppose you and will not comply with you – then his Kufr would have been greater. So when we see that the Kufr, which opposes Īmān is not only Takthīb, it becomes known that the Īmān is not only Tasdeeq…‘ [Kitāb al-Īmān, p. 277; see also the meaning of Īmān in the Arabic language contained in Lisān al-.Arab, Vol. 3, pp. 21 / 27 and al-Qāmūs al-Muh'īt, Vol. 4, p. 197 and Mukhtār as-Sihāh, p. 26 and an-Nihayah. Vol. 1, p. 69 from Ibn al-Athīr, and as-Sihāh from al-Jawharī and al-Mukhtār Min Kunūz as-Sunnah., p. 57 from Dr Muhammad Abdillāh Darāz]. And he said: ‘And the Kufr of Iblīs and Pharaoh and the Jews; its Asl was not because of the non-existence of Tasdeeq and knowledge. This is because no one had informed Iblīs with any news. Rather, Allaah ordered him to prostrate to Ādam but he refused and became proud and he was from the Kaafireen. So his Kufr was out of refusal and pride and that which comes as a result of it and not because of Taktheeb. And also like this were Pharaoh and his people. They rejected it while their own selves were certain of it, due to wrongdoing and conceit. And Mūsā said to him: And you have known that no one brought that down except the Lord of the Heavens and the Earth. So what must be said here is one of two matters: (The first is what the Murji’ah say): Either it is to be said that al-Istikbār and al-Ibā (i.e. refusal to comply) and al-Hasad (i.e. envy) and things like that, from which Kufr would be directly associated with the non-existence of knowledge and Tasdeeq, which is Īmān (according to them). Otherwise, whoever has full knowledge and Tasdeeq; then it would be a must for him to submit and to obey if he is able to. Just as having full intention makes it a must for him to attain his goal if he is able to. It is known that if the goal is not achieved when the presence of ability exists, that there was no real intention in the heart (behind it). And likewise, if we do not see the result of Tasdeeq and knowledge from the love in the heart and its obedience, this would indicate (according to their thinking) that what exists in the heart is not Tasdeeq and it is not knowledge. Rather, there is misunderstanding and doubt. And this is exactly like the groups have stated and it is the Asl of the saying of Jahm and as-Sālihī and al-Ash’arī in what is famous from him and most of his companions such as the al-Qādhī Abī Bakr and those who followed him from the ones who consider the apparent and hidden actions from the product of Īmān and not it (i.e. Īmān) itself. And they considered from those things, that Īmān is non-existent when they are non-existent to be from the prerequisites of Tasdeeq, which they do not consider possible for Tasdeeq to be present internally while Kufr exists, ever’. [al-Īmān al-Awsat, from Majmū al-Fatāwah, Vol. 7, pp. 534 / 535]
[4] Ibn Hazm (r.h) said: ‘But as far as the one who swears at Allaah ta ‘ala, there is not on the face of the Earth a Muslim who disagrees that it is Kufr on its own except the Jahmiyyah and the Ashāirah and they are two groups who are not even considered who clearly state that swearing at Allaah ta ‘ala and uttering Kufr is not Kufr. And some of them say it is evidence that he believes Kufr, not that he is certainly a Kaafir due to his swearing at Allaah ta ‘ala…’ [al-Fisal Fī al-Milali Wal Ahwā.i Wan-Nihal, Vol. 13, p. 498]
[5] Soorat al-A’rāf, verse 16
[6] Soorat al-Baqarah, verse 34
Replying to the Sophistries
The Fifth Sophistry
They say, “That the Qâdthi (judge) who in principal rules by the Shari’ah, but in one individual case rules by other than that which Allaah has revealed is not commiting the Kufr which exits him outside the Millah but rather it is Kufr Dûna Kufr”
Indeed, there remains the problem of the Muslim Judge, who in principle rules by the Shari’ah in the realm of Islâm where the Shari’ah is supreme, but he does not rule by that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed in a specific case intentionally, knowing that in this specific point he will be refraining from applying that which has been prescribed from the Qur’ân and Sunnah. His motivation may be due to a number of reasons, for example money, love, hate or personal grudge etc; so what do we say about this and how do we judge him? Many would say that he is merely a sinner and not necessarily a Kâfir.
Firstly it is clear that if the Qâdthi knows that he is not ruling by that which Allaah has revealed, and he knows the correct ruling according to the divine texts but still insists on passing an alternate judgement, he would not publicly acknowledge such a matter, as it would be known that he was ruling by other than that which Allaah has revealed, and as a result that would be clear open Kufr (Kufran Bowwaĥ)[1].
Therefore there is no discussion about him violating the command of Allaah intentionally in public; in essence he would be playing a deceitful game in this specific case under consideration, either by:
1. Not considering some of the witnesses by neglecting some of the testimonies by labelling them invalid, when he knows fully well that they are valid
1. Neglecting and / or rejecting some of the documents / certificates that are essential evidence in the case
1. Preventing one side of the case from representing itself fully by cutting short statements
1. Accelerating the sessions so that one side does not have adequate time to represent itself
1. Delaying the sessions sufficiently long enough whereby the side he wants to lose do not see the point of continuing
These are all games which a judge could play so that a case is perceived as fine externally but in reality it is the complete opposite. It is feasible that a corrupt judge would act in such a manner in Dar al-Islâm. If he were to publicly state: ‘I will not be applying the laws of Allaah ta ‘ala but instead apply my own’, then as we said this would constitute clear Kufr, to which there is no argument. What some of the ‘Ulema have argued while applying the category of lesser Kufr to the one who rules by other than that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed is when a Qâdthi accepts a bribe and then intentionally misapplies the divine law to benefit a party that is not entitled to it, and this is carried out while the judge is fully cognizant of the correct judgement to be passed. Some have argued that in such a situation the individual judge would be a sinner guilty of Ma’siyah, like the one who commits Zina. But this is incorrect, because there is not a relationship between the actions of the judge ruling by other than the Shari’ah and that of Zina. Zina is an act which is usually committed while in the heat of the moment, when one is sexually aroused and is placed in a situation where Zina is invited, and this is vastly different when compared to the corrupt judge who plans his action well in advance, by adopting the tactics noted above, and who is knowledgeable of the law and its applications.
It is however closer to the professional perjurer (Shâhid az-Zurr) who gives false testimony in exchange for money which itself is a major Kabîrah, or one who persists in carrying out his business through the application of usury (Riba), or the one who is entrusted to take care of an orphan but plans from the outset to consume and devour their allotted wealth. All of these are very close to Kufr when compared with the one who is a Zâni (fornicator), and this is not said to lessen the crime of the Zâni. We have the Hadîth of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم clearly stating that if certain acts are committed then there are no amount of good deeds one has accumulated that would be sufficient to provide recompense if they are committed, one of them being Shirk Bil-llāh, another is usury and the other is Shāhid az-Zurr. What is meant here is that these acts are enough to erase all of one’s good deeds, so in fact these acts are closer to Kufr than the lesser Kabīrah like Zina. The Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم would describe these major sins as Akbar al-Kabārah (the greater major sins), and these are closer to the judge’s actions than the act of one committing Zina. Although it is not classified as a prophetic Hadīth, we have the statement of ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd (r.a) where he classifies this as Kufr[2] because he applies the ‘ayah in Soorat Ma’idah clearly and strictly and does not compare it to just a sin, but rather classifies it as Kufr. The Qādthi may try to argue that he is applying the Shari’ah but in reality he is not, because in this specific case the outcome would not be according to the Qur’aan and Sunnah. He may be making nominal reference to the Shari’ah for the masses to witness, but the reality is clearly otherwise. The passing of such a judgement on face value to an observer would not appear to contradict the Shari’ah, but instead of the truth being given in favour of A, to whom it rightfully belongs to, it would be given to B.
This is the only case concerning ruling by other than that which Allaah has revealed where there maybe some contention, therefore it is worth some analysis as any and every other case should be straight forward, but if we take the opinion of Ibn Mas’ūd (r.a) then this matter is settled as it clearly constitutes Kufr. If we were to excuse this case (i.e. the Qādthi who may rule by other than the Shari’ah in one specific moment) from constituting an act of Kufr al-Akbar, we would also have to excuse the ruler (Khaleef /‘Ūlil-‘Amr) from Kufr al-Akbar also. For example, it is known that one who rebels against the legitimate ruler is to be considered a Muhārib, and the one who commits this crime of waging war against the state, his hands and legs can be amputated and he can also be crucified or expelled from the land. But in this specific case the ruler knows very well that this man is not rebelling against him as a Muhārib but is rather commanding good and forbidding evil. The ruler nevertheless accuses him of being a Khāriji and thus applies the Hadd punishment of those who rebel, and as we said this is carried out by the ruler in full knowledge that he is not a Khāriji by rebelling against the legitimate authority but is rather commanding good and forbidding evil. Thus it can be seen from this example of a ruler who accuses an innocent person of a crime that is in fact not true, the ruler in this instance has not ruled by that which Allaah has revealed, because he should have judged otherwise. This would be similar to the Qādthi; just as the Qādthi may do, the ruler may also follow in using Islaamic rhetoric and terminology as a cover-up, to hide the fact that he has referred to Tāghūt for judgement. Even if we do exclude the case of the judge or the ruler from constituting Kufr al-Akbar for following their desires to enforce legislative decisions by abusing their powers of authority by either accusing someone of a crime they never committed or excusing someone of a crime they had committed, then all other cases should not be met with any contention as to their major Kufr, because all other cases are crystal clear that they have left the ruling of that which Allaah has revealed, by either enacting or formulating a new law(s); publicly declaring the right course of action to be taken rather than what the Shari’ah has dictated, or even worse, which would be applying another law and leaving aside the laws of Allaah. The first actions are milder in severity because the rule of Allaah ta ‘ala is not being applied, which nevertheless still constitutes an act of Kufr. However the second form is far worse as it is involves directly replacing the Shari’ah with other than the divine Hukm (rule / law), and all these related cases are definite acts of Kufr and there is no room for attempting to apply any kind of Shu’bah that could excuse those who are guilty of these heinous crimes against the divine names of Allaah ta ‘ala.
Concerning the classification of this judge, we were not going to have a final conclusion as to his status, although we believed that his actions were definitely closer to Kufr, but we refrained from declaring him to be a Kaafir, because if we asserted that he is not a Kaafir then this is dangerous because it could easily open the door to some who may not recognise it as an act of Kufr at all. This may produce an unhealthy slackness and some could easily fall into destruction due to it being related to Kufr. Asserting that the judge is a Kaafir is also dangerous as there are strict injunctions prohibiting the accusation of Kufr upon someone without absolute evidences. However such a situation in Dunyah by a judge who carries out the kind of behaviour we have described cannot obviously be performed in public, so the maximum that will happen is that this judge is really a Munāfiq; he is a Kaafir in reality who appears to be a Muslim on the outside, and treating someone as a Munāfiq is not a major problem, one would treat him as a Muslim in the affairs of Dunyah, but if one knows for certain he is a Munāfiq then one would simply have to abstain from praying their Salātul-Janāzah and refrain from making Du’ā for them. There is no other treatment for a Munāfiq that is prescribed in the Shari’ah when there is no proof reaching the level of certainty that they are Kuffar.
After careful analysis of this issue however, we developed the idea further, and the reason why we initially halted at the above conclusion was due to looking at the situation from two angles that were intermingled into one:
* The crime itself, i.e. the judge referring to other than the Shari’ah and therefore ruling by other than that which Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed
* The reason that led to the judge carrying out this action
However this method that was applied in analysing this situation was incorrect, because even in other cases of Takfeer there maybe conditions from declaring Takfeer and maybe the conditions were not fulfilled. For example, there is the condition of Jahil (ignorance). In this instance, he is not to be declared a Kaafir because he was ignorant of the ruling. So looking at the state of the person to see if he is ignorant of committing Kufr is a condition that would prevent Takfeer being declared, and this is not what we are studying in this book. The question we are asking is whether or not the act is an act of Kufr, and the act in and of itself according to the ‘ayah in Soorat Ma’idah is an act of Kufr. We must stick to judging the action for what it is. Therefore whether or not those who rule by other than that which Allaah has revealed have some preventions from declaring Takfeer on them is an independent issue, as these two issues must not be mixed as can be understood from our explanation, we are studying this issue from the act itself. Whether someone is a Kaafir due to this action or not is a completely separate issue. But to reiterate again for clarity, the act itself according to the ‘ayah is an act of Kufr, and there is no evidence worthy of respect that it is Kufr Dūna Kufr, so it must be classified as an act of Kufr, but the judge given as an example may not be a Kaafir because of the impediments relating to the rules of Takfeer which as we said is another issue which needs its own independent research.
Our conclusion here is that anyone who leaves the ruling of that which Allaah has revealed intentionally, even in one judicial or executive case, or in one individual case as some people claim there is a difference between individual and general cases because while one maybe able to play the game of hiding this action in the Ĥala’ ‘Ayniyyah (individual case) it will not be possible to do the same in the Ĥala’ ‘Ammah (general cases), nevertheless there is no difference whatsoever as the same principle applies if one does not rule by what Allaah has revealed – it is neither more or less Harām, they are both at the same level of Kufr. Whosoever commits these acts has committed an act of Kufr which takes the perpetrator outside the Millah of Islaam and he himself is a Kaafir and thus a Murtadd (apostate), unless there is a legitimate excuse dictated by the Shari’ah. This conclusion synchronises very well with the ‘Ijtihād of ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd (r.a) because as he says, the one who takes a bribe while knowing the correct Hukm and applies a completely different Hukm because of the bribe, has thus committed Kufr al-Akbar and that individual is a Kaafir outside the Millah, unless there is a prevention of declaring Takfeer on him.
The preventions of Takfeer could be various, for example:
* Jahl (Ignorance): and this is non-applicable as the Qādthi knows the Hukm
* ‘Ikrah (Coercion): and this is also non-applicable as the Qādthi is the one in power
* Ta’weel (Allegorical interpretation): and this prevention could not be used because taking a bribe is not a condition that falls under the prevention of Takfeer from an invalid Ta’weel
* Shaĥ’wāh (Desires): this is also invalid because most of the Kuffar are committing Kufr and Shirk due to their desires
[1] From the Hadîth in Sahīh al-Bukhāri Vol. 9 Hadīth No. 178 which reads: ‘We entered upon ‘Ubaydah bin as-Samit while he was sick. We said – May Allaah make you healthy. Will you not tell us a report from the Messenger and by which Allaah may make you benefit? He said: ‘The Messenger called us and we gave him the pledge of allegiance for Islaam, and among the conditions on which he took the pledge from us was that we were to listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease and to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him displaying clear Kufr for which we would have a proof with us from Allaah‘.
[2] Mansūr has reported the following: I was sitting with Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd and a man asked him ‘What is as as-Suĥt (bribery)?’ He (Ibn Mas’ūd) said – ‘Bribery’; and then the man said – ‘and in the Hukm (ruling)?’ Ibn Mas’ūd said: ‘Dthālika Kufr (That is Kufr)’, then he recited the ‘ayah in Soorat Mâ’idah – Whoever Rules by other than what which Allaah has revealed they are al-Kaafiroon. Musnad Abī Ya’la Al-Musalī with the review of Husayn Salīm Asad, Vol. 9, pp. 173 / 174
Replying to the Sophistries
The Sixth Sophistry
They say, “That ruling some acts to be Kufr, like ruling by other than that which Allaah has revealed needs evidence that is both Qata’ī Thabūt (certain in meaning) and Qata’ī Dalālah (certain in narration), like a Qur’anic evidence which is certain beyond doubt”
The aforesaid sophism is incorrect. Declaring that an action amounts to Kufr is itself a Hukm Shar’ī (Law of Shari’ah), and for all laws of Shari’ah it is sufficient to establish them using the Khabar ‘Aĥad (single chain narrations), i.e. it is sufficiently convincing that it has come from the Messengerصلى الله عليه و سلم . There does not need to be absolute certitude like an ‘ayah from the Qur’aan which is established by Tawātor, if certitude is there then that is sufficient for that narration to be taken as an evidence and acted upon as a Shar’ī ruling.
In the case of ruling by other than that which Allaah has revealed, the ‘Ayāh in the Qur’aan is one of absolute certitude (Tawātor) in its transmission. However the meaning of the ‘Ayāh has been disagreed upon due to the so-called narration of Ibn ‘Abbās (r.a) which some viewed to cast some doubt upon whether the ‘Ayāh in question refers to either Kufr al-Akbar or Kufr al-Asghar. There is a Shari’ah evidence that the term Kufr can also imply Kufr al-Asghar, like in the narration of the women who were ungrateful to their husbands and their ungratefulness being described by the Messengerصلى الله عليه و سلم as Kufr. Yet it is well established that this Kufr is not from the category which expels the doer outside the Millah. This being the case, i.e. the possibility that there are actions that are committed which have been given the label of Kufr and are not always Kufr al-Akbar, could leave open some doubt as to whether the word al-Kaafiroon in the ‘ayah of Soorat Ma’idah actually means Kufr al-Akbar. Those who raise this Shub’hah use this method of reasoning to argue that there is no certitude in the meaning of the ‘ayah, therefore it is not enough to establish Takfeer, because to establish Takfeer one is in need of a Qata’ī (definitive) evidence.
We say: Takfeer is a Hukm Shar’ī and can be established with sufficient evidence that does not necessitate it reaching a level of absolute certitude. All the Mujtahid needs when making a Hukm of Takfeer is for the matter to be beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore whoever rules by other than which Allaah has revealed, we rule that this individual is a Kaafir as this act is an act of Kufr al-Akbar. If there is someone who disagrees with our opinion then we would not accuse this individual of Kufr, Fisq or that they are Mub’ted’i (innovators) for their point of view, and although this opinion that opposes our view is weak as we have proven already, if stronger evidence is produced to prove contrary to what we have brought, then we are ready to concede and adopt the stronger opinion.
We are excluding from this category of individuals who have this weaker Ijtihād the government scholars, because it is known that they are traitors and cannot be trusted so we are not giving them the benefit of Ijtihād, Takfeer does not need Qata’ī evidence, it is sufficient for its evidence to have reasonable certitude, and the one who has an opposing view concerning the Takfeer of those who do not rule by what Allaah has revealed has to be respected for their Ijtihād , with the exception that he is not from among the sycophants.
Replying to the Sophistries
The Seventh Sophistry
They say, “The one who pronounces Takfeer on those who rule by other than that which Allaah has revealed will open the doors to excessive Takfeer, which will increase in a successive chain until the one who performs a mere sin will have Takfeer pronounced upon him and thus entering him into the Hellfire”
Hāshah Lillāh! (May Allaah Protect us)
Our case of Takfeer here centres only around the following terms:
* al-Kaafiroon for those who do not rule by that which Allaah has revealed,
* Kad-Kafr (have committed Kufr) for those who leave the Salāh,
* Kufr in the case of the one who fights the Muslimeen.
The textual evidence in these three cases came Ba’ayna’ī (by themselves) with the words al-Kaafiroon, Kad-Kafr and Kufr, and nothing has come that could deviate the meaning of these words to Kufr al-Ni’mah (ungratefulness to Allaah) like the Hadīth of women who commit Kufr al-‘Ashīr (ungratefulness) to their husbands, and we mentioned before that this is definitely not related to the Kufr in Allaah constituting Kufr al-Akbar.
Furthermore we are not studying phrases like ‘Laysah Minnah’ (he is not of us)[1], or ‘whoever does such and such will die the death of Jaahiliyyah‘[2], or ‘this is from the manners of Jaahiliyyah‘[3], or ‘this is from the features of Jaahiliyyah‘[4], or saying to someone, ‘You have the traits of Jaahiliyyah‘[5], or the like. It is very well possible that these sayings of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم that came in these forms were over distinct threats to warn the people as to the seriousness of certain actions or statements, thereby drawing the attention of the listener and those to come as these terms carried with them very negative connotations and carry the idea of being distanced from Islaam by acting upon them.
In a similar vain, phrases such as ‘Lā Yu’min’ (one does not believe)[6] because this could be referring to the Majāzi (metaphorical), or that the one that this particular saying is applied to may mean that they are with out the compulsory ‘Īmān (‘Īmān al-Wājib) but not without the necessary ‘Īmān (Lāzim al-‘Īmān) that if non-existent within the Muslim would render them outside the Millah. Then there is the complete ‘Īmān (Kamāl al-‘Īmān) which is to the level of Iĥ’sān, and thus the narrations that say ‘Lā Yu’min’ are explaining that the one undertaking a certain act is not to the level of Muĥ’sin, and these are the different types of ‘Īmān.
Therefore it must be clear that we are not discussing any of the above examples. Rather we are studying only the three terms al-Kaafiroon, Kad-Kafr and Kufr, and in the case of Kufr where it is mentioned about the woman and their ungratefulness to their husbands then this is merely speaking of the Kufr which is the opposite of Shukr (thankfulness), and in no way does Kufr al-‘Ashīr mean anything other than this type of Kufr which is established by ‘Ijma’. Nothing else in the Shari’ah has used these terms other than these three cases, so there will be no danger of some kind of chain of Takfeer as has been alleged in this Shub’hah.
There are those who level the accusation at us that we say some people are the people of Paradise and others are destined to the Fire, to which we reply: A’ou’thubillah! We do not dare say such statements because even the Kaafir Harbī (an aggressor towards Islaam) may be in the enemy ranks but he is acting as a spy for the Muslims, and that is the sole right of Allaah ta ‘ala to decide who is destined to either end in Jannah or in the Nār. We say generally that whosoever receives the message of Islaam and commits Kufr will enter the hellfire, like in the case of those who rule by other than that which Allaah has revealed. He will enter hellfire as Allaah Himself says, but to declare that a specific individual is definitely to enter hellfire is to be judged solely by Allaah.
Proponents of such sophism have also classed our position as ‘Takfeeri’oun‘ – to indicate those who declare Takfeer on societies as a whole. They base this accusation on a mistake on the part of Sayyid Qutb (r.h) who wrote about Mujtema’ah Jāhili,[7] because he did not want to use the term Dowlah (state). Instead he opted for what he termed Mujtema’ah, and this opened up a door for people to misconstrue what was originally intended. There is nothing really called Mujtema’ah, there is the Jamā’ah which has no state and then there is the Jamā’ah which is under state control. It has been misinterpreted by those who have assumed that what was meant by this term was the Takfeer of the whole society. What Shaheed Sayyid Qutb meant must have been the Dowlah itself; therefore it would have been more suitable if the term ‘Dowlah Jāhili‘. The intention of the writer was to describe the state apparatus and no one else which would include the nominal citizen living under normal conditions.
[1] The Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم said: ‘He is not one of us (Laysah Minnah) who beats the cheeks or tears the front of the shirt or uttered the slogans of the days of Jāhillyyah‘. Saĥīh Muslim, Vol.1, Hadîth No. 103, [English Edition]
[2] ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar said, ‘I heard him صلى الله عليه و سلم say: ‘The one who withdraws his band from obedience (to the Amīr) will find no argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allaah on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amīr) will die the death of Jāhillyyah‘. Saĥīh Muslim, Book 20, Hadîth No. 4562.
[3] ‘Ubayy bin Ka’b narrated that the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم said: ‘If you see a man taking pride in his ascription to a people in the manner of Jaahiliyyah, tell him to go bite his father’s penis, and do not sugar-coat my words’. Saĥīh al-Jamī’, Hadîth No. 567, and ‘as-Silsilah as-Saĥīhah, Hadîth No. 269
[4] Abu Mālik al-Ash’ari reported the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم as saying: ‘Among my people there are four features of Jaahiliyyah which they will not abandon; boasting of high rank, reviling other peoples’ genealogies, seeking rain by stars, and wailing’. Saĥīh Muslim, Book 4, Hadîth No. 2033
[5] Narrated Al-Ma’rur, ‘At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dthar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave too was wearing a similar one. I asked the reason for it, he replied, ‘I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names, the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم said to me: ‘You still have the traits of Jaahiliyyah‘ Saĥīh al-Bukhāri, Vol.1, Hadîth No. 29
[6] The Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم said: ‘He who does not love for his brother what he loves for him self has not believed (Lā Yu’min)‘, Saĥīh al-Bukhāri, Vol.1, Hadîth No. 12.
[7] Literally meaning ‘Ignorant societies’ however it is best translated as “Disbelieving societies” as this is the meaning that was understood from Shaykh Sayyid Qutb’s book ‘Ma’ālim fil-Tarīkh‘ commonly translated into English as Milestones.
Replying to the Sophistries
The Eighth Sophistry
They say, “a) Many of the rulers who do not rule by that which Allaah has revealed may have an excuse due to Ta’weel, or b) an inability to apply the Shari’ah because they fear an attack by the major Kufr state, or c) they are unable to get away from the usury banking systems because the Islamic economies are too weak and are unable to confront the international banking systems of the world, or d) that they are under an immediate occupation by a major Kufr state and are being coerced, or e) most of the rulers are extremely ignorant concerning Islamic rulings, and their ignorance concerning the Islamic rulings is to such a degree that their understanding of the Shari’ah is that it has come to bring benefit and prevent harm, therefore the rulings that are imported from the Kufr states are perceived as bringing benefit and preventing some harms”
We say, all of these excuses, even if for the sake of argument we admit that they are legitimate, have only the effect that the accountability of the one who is excused of Kufr will be different, but this does not change the nature of the crime. For example, to kill someone is categorised as being murder. Even if the killer has been clinically diagnosed as being mentally insane and is therefore not responsible (in Dunyah) for his actions, the act itself is still characterised as being one of killing and murder. It would be impossible that this act can suddenly transform into something else like fornication or theft just because the perpetrator is later classified as being insane, this would be completely absurd. Thus the act still retains its description as murder, and that the mitigating circumstances behind the motive of the killer is a separate issue, but again it does not change the nature of his action, whether he is to be excused of this crime due to insanity or someone is killed by an unintentional action thereby becoming manslaughter, someone has still been killed and that fact can never change no matter what the surrounding circumstances may be.
Our present study is purely about what is the nature of ruling by other than that which Allaah has revealed as an act by itself. The Qur’aan clearly and unambiguously says that it is an act of Kufr. It cannot be committed by someone who is not mentally insane, who is in power and has no excuses except that he is a Kaafir. It may be committed by someone who is under coercion (‘Ikrah) or ignorant (Jāhil) concerning the rulings and therefore has the preventive factors barring their specific Takfeer, but these do not fall under our study which is purely the act of ruling by other than that which Allaah has revealed in and of itself.
Moreover, if the Shari’ah has been changed (Mubeddal ash-Sharā’a), or new laws (Tashrī’ al-’Ām) have been enacted that contradict the Shari’ah, or the state is under the control of a foreign Kufr rule, then the Kufr Bowwaĥ has become apparent, and the Shari’ah ruling in these cases is that it must be changed with the legitimate means that the Shari’ah dictates, whether that be with the sword or by other means. This is independent of whether the specific ruler is excused of Kufr himself; it is an obligation which is independent of individual excuses. We do not know of any other excuses for displaying Kufr publicly except what has been mentioned previously, which is ‘Ikrah (coercion), or al-Hāqi or Rāwī (the one who narrates), or Shahādah (bearing witness) like in a court of law, or Kadthib Il-Khida’adthūl al-Harbi (lying to the enemy in a state of war). Although ignorance can be added to the excuses it would however be quite rare. The excuses mentioned in the above Shub’hah are not befitting, because the coercion that is claimed as an excuse is invalid unless a major Kaafir state has its battleships on the Islamic state’s coastal waters and starts bombing its cities, or if there is an economic embargo and the citizens of the state are starting to starve, then this could be classed as coercion. In the Shari’ah the mere threat of force itself in the absence of an actual amassed troops or the indication that the utility of force will be employed, the matter cannot be classed as coercion[1].
This is the correct situation regarding these invalid excuses that have been mentioned, they have no grounding in the Shari’ah evidences, and whoever relies on these excuses will be falling head first into a fiery abyss in hellfire, as Allaah ta ‘ala says:
‘(He) will have his home in a (bottomless) Pit (falling head first). And what will explain to you what this is? (It is) a Fire Blazing fiercely!’ [2]
If the people of this particular Shub’hah are sincere, cautious and are afraid to declare Takfeer on some Muslimeen without justification, the most that can happen as a result of this will be the one who carried out the Takfeer would have committed a mistake or is sinful at the least. Likewise they too should have the same sincerity and cautiousness and fear that the masses and rulers will fall into Kufr due to their Fatwah which will open the door to innocent people feeling content with what they are doing and would allow people to continue in their Kufr and therefore be dammed and humiliated in the ‘Ākhirah. This door that would be opened is evidently far more dangerous and destructive.
Indeed it is more appropriate for those who adhere to this Shub’hah to remember the destructive claims of children of Bani Isra’eel, who said,
‘And They say: “The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days’
Allaah ta ‘ala answers them where He ta’ala says:
‘Say: Have you taken a promise from Allaah, for He never breaks His promise? Or is it that you say of Allaah what you do not know? Nay, those who seek gain in evil, and are girt round by their sins, – They are companions of the Fire: therein shall they abide (for ever)’[3]
If however those who hold to this Shub’hah are from amongst the government scholars who are protecting their masters, then we duly inform them that this will not help them in the least, because the Wilā’yah (authority) of their masters has crumbled apart by being a land of Kufr, and have thus opened a path to Kufr being available everywhere.
[1] “Hayāt as-Sahābah“, Vol. 1/292 And from what must be mentioned is that Shirk – due to it being the biggest of the Kabā’ir (greatest sins), which is unequaled by any sin – does not fall under the definition of the compulsion of speech, unless the threat is extremely severe and the punishment is very harsh. And (it can) not be from a (mere) threat that is in the category of what could be escaped from or a punishment that could be easily endured. But those who commit Kufr under situations that are easy and then consider that to be from compulsion (and claim that it is only) due to a punishment – but it could be easily endured with the least amount of patients and steadfastness – and then they use as their proof, the story of ‘Ammār; they are (certainly) wrong and mistaken. This is because ‘Ammār, may Allaah be pleased with him, went to them (i.e. his tormentors) in order to command (the good) and forbid (the evil) and they killed his two parents in front of his eyes and burnt him with fire and immersed him in water. So he gave them what they demanded (i.e. the swearing at the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم and speaking good about their gods). And this is (found in) one of the narrations that the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم met ‘Ammār when he was weeping. “So he started to wipe his eyes saying, ‘The Kuffar took you and immersed you in water so you said such-and-such. So if they return, say that to them (again).” And from ‘Amr Ibn Maymūn who said, “The Mushrikeen burnt ‘Ammār with fire.” So where are they (i.e. these people who claim compulsion) compared to ‘Ammaar and what happened to ‘Ammār?!
And Yahya Ibn Ma’een – in the days of the Fitnah of the creation of the Qur’aan (caused by those Jahmiyyah who claimed that the Qur’aan is not the Words of Allaah but rather only the creation of Allaah, because they denied the attribute of Speech of Allaah, may Allaah curse them and those like them!) – took for himself, the reductions in the strictness of the Shari’ah and took for himself, the excuse of fear and said, “The Qur’aan is created,” (after he was threatened with violence if he did not do so). And when he entered upon Imām Ahmad, may Allaah be merciful to him, while he was ill, he gave Salaam to him but he (i.e. Imām Ahmad) did not return his Salaam. So he (i.e. Yahya Ibn Ma’een) did not stop making excuses and stating the Hadeeth of ‘Ammaar and saying, “Allaah, the Most High said: ”…except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with (‘Īmān) Faith…“ So Ahmad turned his face away to the other side and Yahyaa said, “He will not except any (valid) excuse.” So when Yahya left, Ahmad said, “He uses the Hadīth of ‘Ammār but the Hadīth of ‘Ammār is, ‘…I passed them and they were swearing at you (i.e. the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم) so I forbade them (from that) and they beat me…’ and it is said to you (by the Jahmiyyah who had influenced the Imam at that time, Ma’mūn, to hold their same corrupted beliefs), ‘We want to hit you.’ [In other words: The Hadīth of ‘Ammār does not apply to you because he said his statement of Kufr after being tortured and beaten and you said your words of Kufr (i.e. "The Qur'ān is created."), upon merely the threat of abuse.] So Yahya said, “By Allaah, I have not seen anyone under the cover of the sky who is more knowledgeable in the Deen of Allaah than you.”
[2] Soorat al-Qāri’ah, verses 9 / 11
[3] Soorat al-Baqarah, verses 80 / 81
Replying to the Sophistries
The Ninth Sophistry
They say, “We know from definite evidences (Mutawātor) that the adulterer and similarly are people of sin and not people of Kufr, and have therefore not left the Millah, which contradicts that which the Khawārij had believed who are themselves astray, therefore these acts should not be called Kufr unless what is meant by that is Kufr al-Ni’mah (ungratefulness). And committing these acts is in fact ruling by other than that which Allaah has revealed, therefore we are forced to say that the ‘ayah in Soorat al-Ma’idah: 44 is not Kufr al-Akbar but rather Kufr al-Asghar, in contradiction to where Allaah ta ‘ala says “Allaah will not allow the Kaafireen to have authority over the Muslims” with this meaning the real Kaafireen”
This Shub’hah is a lot like a Shaghab (hooliganism) and is even weaker than the previous sophistries. It originates from the Ghulāt al-Khawārij, being three different splinter sects named the Azārikah, Sufriyyah[1] and the Najdiyyah, as they declared that anyone who commits a mere sin is a Kaafir. Most of the Khawārij originated from the Bedouin tribes of Najd who are distinguished by their toughness, hard-heartedness, simple-mindedness and arrogance, which when mixed together produces the most destructive combination which leads to self-glorification and self-praise as they believe they are the ones who are guided upon the straight path while everyone else is astray. Moreover, they were not far from being completely ignorant of the Sunnah of the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم which clarifies the Mujmal[2] of the Qur’aan with the result that they suffered their destruction due to them being unaware of the generalities of the Qur’aan and the ambiguous (Mutashābihah) ‘Ayāt.
We must ask though, what is the truth concerning this Shub’hah? The Huqq (truth) is that if you ask a fornicator about his fornication he will either say:
1. That fornication is Harām, his statement being that he is ruling by what Allaah has revealed correctly. If you were to ask him further as to why he had committed this act he may say that it was due to weakness as his desires were highly aroused, and that he hopes in the infinite mercy of Allaah ta ‘ala that he will be forgiven, therefore admitting that he is sinful. He does not rule by other than that which Allaah has revealed, and in fact says clearly by his statement that he has ruled by the Shari’ah of Allaah ta ‘ala, namely that Zina is Harām.
1. That fornication is Halāl, and Halāl and Harām are old historical concepts that are not relevant to my actions, and yes Zina is Harām but I do not care for the rulings of Islaam as we are in the twenty-first century and we are no longer living in medieval times. In fact I believe that fornication in our era is Halāl because centuries ago people did not have the facilities that we have today. Now in a situation like this it is completely clear that these sayings are all open Kufr and the perpetrator is therefore a Kaafir. No Muslim will argue on these points. Even if a Muslim were to argue these points then that too would be a statement of Kufr itself, so this man is clearly not ruling by what Allaah has revealed.
While the act carried out by these two individuals is identical, the first one is still a Muslim, albeit sinful, as Zina is from amongst the Kabā’ir. The other individual would have left the Millah and is thus a Kaafir. This is exactly what our point is in this treatise: whilst the Khawārij did not distinguish between the two statements because in their ignorance of the Shari’ah they could only perceive the act, while what we have said is in no way similar to that of the misguided Khawārij.
The statements and words of Allaah ta ‘ala and His Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم al-Hamudillāh do not contradict each other, nor do they change from one direction to another. They are consistent and unambiguous, and if the believer will examine carefully what we said, he will see through this simple-minded Shub’hah, and neither did the Khawārij themselves distinguish between the Hukm and Fi’l (act), nor did they distinguish between I’tiqād and Amal (action). Hence Fāsiq Milli (disobedient Muslim who belongs to the Millah) admits his sin by declaring it to be Harām, and while he did not act in this instance as Allaah ta ‘ala ordered, he did not however rule by other than that which Allaah had revealed.
[1] Ash’āri, Vol.118, pp. 9 / 10; Ĥur, 177, p. 8 (from Balkhī)
[2] Mujmal (Ambivalent); this denotes a word or text which is inherently unclear and gives no indication as to its precise meaning. What usually defines these words or texts is the Qur’aan or the Sunnah themselves, therefore recourse to Ij’tihād is usually the way in which their meanings will be understood.
Replying to the Sophistries
The Tenth Sophistry
They say, “The situation of the current day rulers, and in particular those who (claim) are ruling by the Shari’ah is like that of the Dynasty of Banī ‘Umayyah who were unjust tyrants, and it is well-known that the Salaf did not declare them to be Kaafir”
In response to this, we say: stop telling lies and coming up with fabrications. As far as we know there were no violations in the ‘Aĥkām implemented by Bani ‘Ummayyah, except that they have a Ta’weel even if it is a weak one. We never heard that they permitted usury banking or brothels. They did not give permission for nightclubs where Khamr is sold freely to Muslims or allowed the ‘Owra to be publicly exposed. Neither did they adopt secular constitutions. They never established well budgeted official centres where by special training is carried out to spy on Muslims, like the vast intelligence agencies that exist in our present age. Moreover, they did not enter into international organisations whose constitutions were based on complete Kufr and Shirk like that of the UN, nor did they enter into any international treaties / covenants containing statements of Kufr, and neither did they participate with the Kuffar in a military alliance against other Kuffar let alone against other Muslims. In fact they did the complete opposite as they participated in Jihād to bring lands like al-Sind (in modern day Pakistan) and Andalusia (Spain) under the domain of Dar al-Islaam. We can therefore see that the similitude between some Muslim countries and that of Bani ‘Ummayyah are clearly not the same,
In spite of many negative things that occurred, the ‘Ummayyid dynasty implemented Islaam in its original purity, and avoided tainting it with the Persian arrogance and the Roman pomp. For example, Malik Marwan would travel on the back of a camel unlike the Persians and Romans who would travel on the backs of men. They cared about the preservation of the Arabic language and being strict concerning its correct pronunciation, so to compare them to the current day regimes is quite unfair and unjust.
We do not however have any evidence of Kufr Bowwaĥ coming from the rulers of Bani ‘Ummayyah, although there were injustices like confiscation of the state treasury for their own private use. They may have misapplied Islaam, and they may have even been privately guilty of Zandaqah and ‘Ilhād as some of them have been accused of being Zandeeq although this was on the personal and private level and nothing of this nature ever being made public. This applies more so to Yazīd Ibn Mu’āwiyah who made Medina permissible to be looted, and it is known that the Salaf fought and rebelled against him, and also Waleed Ibn Yazīd Ibn Abdul-Mālik who was accused of being a Zandeeq although this was on a private level and was not made public.
Maybe the deviations of Bani ‘Ummayyah, which cannot compare to the deviations of the current rulers, is what Ibn Tawūs (r.h) and other leaders of the Salaf referred to as Kufr Dūna Kufr. This is what should be assumed to show our deep respect to these a’immah, because we know they were sincere and not like the government scholars of today. We therefore say this to protect their honour from any insults that may come their way accusing them of being government scholars themselves. This is what they saw, and this is why they defined these deviations as Kufr Dūna Kufr as that was the reality of their time. These deviations are essentially different from the Kufr Bowwaĥ for which we would have evidence from Allaah ta ‘ala.
On the other hand, some great Tābi’een like Imām Mujāhid (r.h) the Imām of the Mufasireen, he is known to have pronounced Takfeer on Hajjāj Ibn Yūsuf and used to refer to him as Shaykh al-Kaafir[2], and similar statements have been narrated by Tawūs (r.h)[3] and Sa’eed Ibn Jubayr (r.h)[4] where he said that they did not rebel against him until we saw clear Kufr. The claim that the Salaf did not declare Takfeer on any of the local governors Bani ‘Ummayyah is a generalisation which is not warranted by any evidence which shows either a distortion of history or complete ignorance.
The truth is that the ‘Ummah did not witness Kufr Bowwaĥ for which there was evidence from Allaah despite there being widespread injustice and misapplication of the Shari’ah until the Tartārs (Mongols) entered into Islaam. Some of them continued to apply their own law from a judicial book entitled al-Yāsiq in certain areas of the domain of Islaam like a place called Mārdeen. Mārdeen was transformed from being Dar al-Islaam into Dar al-Kufr, and the majority of the Fuqahā ruled that they were Kaafir and Murtadd who should be fought. Of the Fuqahā who said this concerning the Tartārs was Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (r.h)[5] and his famous student Imām Ibn Katheer (r.h)[6]. Before the invasion by the Tartārs one of the last Khulafā of the ‘Abbāsi dynasty established an official administration for spying. This was the first time that a state security apparatus had been officially established so that spying on Muslims by the government maybe carried out. It was not a complete strange phenomena that spying was organised by a state, there were spies working previously for the rulers albeit in a private manner and not in an official public way. A few decades after this spying administration had been implemented by the Mongols when they invaded Baghdād, killed his relatives and destroyed annihilated the Khilāfah ‘Abbasiyyah in Baghdād, and the population suffered immensely; they were slaughtered and their woman dishonoured by the invading Tartārs, all due to their negligence in accounting their rulers and allowing them to act as they pleased.
It has been said that the Fātimid Khilāfah of Egypt also exhibited public Kufr in the area of ruling. It is reported that they assisted the Tartār invasion of Baghdād and were an essential part of the destruction that befell the Muslims[7]. al-Hamdulillāh Allaah ta ‘ala removed them completely at the hands of the hero of Islaam Salaĥ-uddīn ‘Ayyūbi (r.h). Further to this, it is clear that the Qarāmitah[8] also showed Kufr Bowwaĥ in what is now eastern Saudi Arabia.
Concerning the violations of Mu’āwiyah Ibn Sufyān (r.a) who was the head of the Fi’ al-Bāghiyah as the Hadīth which says that ‘Ammār Ibn Yāsir (r.a) will be killed by the Fi’ al-Bāghiyah[9], he had made Ta’weel with the rulings of Bay’a (allegiance) by misapplying it[10]. He also made Ta’weel regarding what the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم said about the legitimate offspring belonging to the marital bed, which means the one who has offspring through fornication cannot be the legitimate father of the child and therefore the child cannot carry the father’s name. However Mu’āwiyah adopted Ziyād Ibn ‘Umayah as his legitimate brother[11] through his fathers name Abu Sufyān who committed fornication in Jāhliyyah and produced Ziyād. Mu’āwiyah (r.a) here evidently had made Ta’weel in these instances and it has nothing to do Kufr Bowwaĥ. So where there are aspects of Ta’weel being applied this then restricts any notion of declaring a specific individual to be a Kaafir or being guilty of Kufr al-Akbar.
This all undermines the claim of the government scholars who say – ‘The Muslim ruler who does not rule by what Allaah has revealed is a Fāsiq as long as his belief is correct and has pronounced the Shahādatayn by his tongue and faces the Qiblah in Salāh; so it is not permissible to rebel against him by the sword nor remove him from power because of the many A’Hadīth which order us to have patience and endurance towards the unjust rulers’. This Shub’hah is again playing with rulings from various aspects, and it is an attempt to go around the truth by placing the premise onto the result which is a method to confuse the believers whereby achieving a desired result. One takes the result and places it as the premise, but this is not evidence as one needs independent evidences to prove the result. The Shub’hah above is merely a statement with no proof (Burĥān) and is purely arbitrary. This Shub’hah also mixes between the ‘Aĥkām al-Buhgā (laws of rebelling) against a ruler and the issue we are studying in this book although they are both independent of one another.
[1] This refers to some current day regimes that declare that they rule according to the Shari’ah (i.e. Dar al-Islaam) and therefore should be considered as a state of Islaam.
[2] Yaĥya bin ‘Īsa ar-Ramlī narrated on the authority of al-A’mash who said: ‘The people disputed over the affair of al-Hajjāj so they asked Mujāhid (the Imām of Tafseer) and he replied: Do you ask me about the Kaafir Shaykh (referring to al-Hajjāj)?’ al-Bidayah Wan-Nihayah, Vol.9, p. 143
[3] Tahtheeb at-Tahtheeb, Vol. 1, p. 363
[4] Abu Thafr Ja’far bin Sulaymān narrated on the authority of Bistam bin Muslim, on the authority of Qatādah who said: ‘It was said to Sa’eed Ibn Jubayr: ‘You rebelled (Kharaj’ta) against al-Hajjāj.’ He (Sa’eed) replied: ‘By Allaah I did not rebel against him until he disbelieved (Hatta Kāffar)’. al-Bidayah Wan-Nihayah Vol.9, p. 142.
[5] Ibn Taymiyyah said, ‘If you see me their (i.e. with the Tartārs) sight, kill me, even if you see I have put the Qur’aan on my head’ [This Fatwah was issued whilst the battle between the Tartārs and the Muslims was engaged]. al-Bidayah Wan-Nihayah, Vol.14, p. 20
[6] Ibn Katheer said, ‘So what about the one who takes the Hukm to al-Yasāq and puts it before it (the Shari’ah)?! Whoever does that, he has disbelieved by the Ijmā’ of the Muslims’. Ibid, Vol.13, p. 119
[7] Ibn Taymiyyah said, ‘For nearly two hundred years, Cairo was ruled by something other than the Shari’ah of Islaam; its rulers were outwardly Rāfidtha, but inwardly they were Bātinī Isma’eeli, Nusayrī, Qarāmitah‘. As al-Ghazāli said in his book which he wrote to refute them: ‘Outwardly they follow the way of the ar-Rafd, but inwardly it is pure Kufr‘. See Man made laws Vs Shari’ah by Dr Abdur-Raĥmān Ibn Sāliĥ al-Mahmūd, p. 244
[8] The Qarāmitah was started by Sulaymān Abu Tahir al-Qarmatī, who entered Mecca in 317 A.H. and enslaved around 30,000 Muslims. A part from al-Qarmatī and his follower’s beliefs which was Paradise was this life and Hell was what the people of prayers, fasting, Jihād and Hajj go through, they also disbelieved in the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم and resurrection., but what stands out about them in history is that they took the black stone from the Ka’bah and sold it to the Khaleef al-Muti for 50,000 Dinārs which stayed away from Mecca for around twenty years or so until it was returned.
[9] ‘Umm Salamah narrates: ‘The Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه و سلم said: ‘A band of rebels would kill ‘Ammār’. Saĥīh Muslim, Hadîth No. 6970
[10] Ibn Ĥazm states that Mu’āwiya’s refusal to give Alī Bay’a was because the latter never captured and punished ‘Uthmān’s assassinators, Ibn Ĥazm then says that although Mu’āwiya’s reasoning was ultimately wrong, this type of Ta’weel is legally recognisable. al-MuĥAllaah, Vol.11, p. 335
[11] ‘Mu’āwiya’s declaring that Ziyād was his brother, was the first act that was in open contradiction to the laws of Shari’ah because the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم said that the legitimate child is one born from wedlock’, Tareekh al-Kāmil, Vol.3, p. 225; the same has been recorded by Jalāl-uddīn as-Suyūti in Tareekh al-Khulafā’, p. 185
Conclusions
Whoever rules by other than that which Allaah has revealed are Fāsiq, Dthālim, and Kaafir by the clear definite texts of the Qur’aan. Whoever abstains from declaring the one who rules by other than that which Allaah has revealed as a Kaafir without an evidence from Allaah is saying Allaah ta ‘ala’s classification is wrong and it is thus a rejection of Allaah ta ‘ala’s ruling, unless one has an external textual evidence. If one has evidence to prove their verdict then as Allaah ta ‘ala says:
‘Say: Produce your proof if you are truthful’[1]
If they reply in an attempt to contradict our stance by saying – ‘We have the statement of Ibn ‘Abbās (r.a) where he said Kufr Dūna Kufr or It is not the Kufr which takes you outside the Millah, we say:
* Ibn ‘Abbās called it ‘Kufr‘ and thus naming it Kufr becomes obligatory on everyone. He did not describe it as Fisq and Dthulm only. Therefore his description of it being Kufr connects it to other branches, one of which is a Kaafir cannot have Wi’layah (authority) over Muslims, and it is the Ijma’ of the Saĥābah that they used this name when describing those who are not legitimate to rule over the Muslims, and this example cannot be escaped from.
* If it is claimed that the narration is Saĥīh and our discussion concerning its weakness earlier on it is incorrect, then this statement of theirs would be unacceptable, because strengthening or weakening A’Hadīth is an objective science which has its own rules and methods, and we have shown the weakness of the narration by proving a man in its chain to be weak and not a full trustworthy authority that one can call Saĥīh. At most, the best one could say is that the Isnād is Hasan (acceptable), provided that some other supporting evidences are themselves Saĥīh or Hasan. However in this case there are no supporting evidences, and in fact we have brought other narrations which contain extra additions by reliable first class authorities that show that the statement ‘Kufr Dūna Kufr‘ and ‘It is not the Kufr which takes you outside the Millah‘ is not from Ibn ‘Abbās but rather it is from Ibn Tawūs. We are compelled to take these extra additions who have been narrated by first class authorities and who are all Thiqāt, therefore it must be accepted and ruled that these statements are from Ibn Tawūs, and they are not from his father and neither Ibn ‘Abbās. But those who claim that this Isnād is good enough then we will narrate the words of Allaah ta ‘ala:
‘Say: Produce your proof if you are truthful’.[2]
* The true authority resides in the statements and words of Allaah ta ‘ala and his Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم only. There is no authority in the statements of Ibn ‘Abbās or Tawūs or his son, unless one can bring an absolute evidence to say Ibn ‘Abbās, Tawūs or Ibn Tawūs are infallible authorities.
On the grounds of the previous three points one must classify the act of not ruling by that which Allaah has revealed as Kufr, and one cannot escape from this matter, so the word Kufr must be used and in no way can it be restricted to Fisq and Dthulm.
Whoever pronounces the Shahādatayn, prays Salāh and faces the Qibla and eats from our food is then a Muslim, he is given the same rights and responsibilities as any other Muslim without any recourse into testing his Islaam which is impermissible. But if he commits an act or statement which is Kufr Yaqeeni (definite disbelief) like insulting the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم, denying the day of judgement or throwing the Musĥaf intentionally into places of Najāsa (impure) such as toilets, he would become a Murtadd Kaafir even if he continues to pray or goes on the Hajj pilgrimage. This would not help him in the least unless he re-enters Islaam after these crimes by repenting for each specific act, or he may have excuses preventing Takfeer on him like ignorance, Ta’weel, coercion or he does acts of a similar nature in order to infiltrate the enemy camps of the Kuffar, so we know from these excuses he would not be himself classed as a Kaafir although his actions are still Kufr.
This what we are saying about the masters of the government scholars: they maybe Muslims by pronouncing the Shahādah but they have committed acts of Kufr by ruling by other than that which Allaah has revealed and they did not repent from their actions so they are Kaafir, and there is no difference between these rulers and the Muslim who prays and gives his Zakāt but has mocked at Allaah and his Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم, which renders all his deeds null and void.
Who says it is impermissible to rebel against the Fāsiq Muslim ruler, or that it is impermissible to remove him from office? The strongest point of view is that he must be removed from office with the proper legitimate method[3], by taking him to the Maĥkum Shar’iyyah (Supreme Shari’ah Court). If the court was to rule that he committed a major sin which results in him becoming a Fāsiq and thus unfit to be in a position of government, should he then refuse to leave office and resist by force, then he is rebelling against the Islamic order and is then to be considered as part of at-Tā’ifah al-Mumtani’ah (resisting group) which can be fought according to the rules pertaining to fighting resisting groups. He will be fought against like a group of Kufr and Riddah, they would not be fought like the Khawārij are fought, and neither like a group of Bughāt (rebels). These resisting groups are in the same category as those who refused to pay Zakāt, the example of which was during the Khilāfah of Abu Bakr as-Siddīq (r.a) who fought those who refused to pay the obligatory Zakāt[4] which is known as the Harb al-Murtaddeen (War of apostasy), and this would continue until they are subdued.
But if there is no court to take the grievances to, or there is a court but it is ineffective due to it being incapable of even considering removing a leader, it is still obligatory to rebel against him and remove him by a small number of people, in modern parlance what is termed a coup d’état or by an agreement of the ‘Ahlul-Hali Wal-Aqd[5], or even by the masses so long as the possibility of there being a Fitna is quite small, because there could be a long drawn-out battle. If this can be reduced then this would also be a correct method. But if there is an expectation of a widespread Fitna resulting from these actions, then there is a well known disagreement amongst the scholars as some have said that it is still permissible, while others have said that it is undesirable; others have said it is Harām. However rebellion, in spite of there being Fitna or no Fitna is the Madthab of some of the Sahābah like Hassan and Hussein (Radthī-Allaahu ‘anhum)[6], or the Tābi’īn who rebelled against Hajjāj Ibn Yusūf[7], and there were also an important group of scholars[8] who were included in the rebellions that took place in Medina. So if anyone claims an Ijma’ against rebellion and that is not the way of the Salaf, then we say the Ijma’ of who and what Salaf? Because after the Sahābah and the Tābi’īn, who incidentally comprise what is known as the Salaf, there is no Ijma’ after them. Even Ibn Hajr al-Askalāni mentions that rebellion against the Fāsiq rulers is the old Salaf point of view[9].
Removing the ruler and observing Kufr from him are unrelated, because the ruler can be removed for other reasons. Therefore establishing Kufr Bowwaĥ is not a Shart (condition) binding on the removal of a ruler, as they are two independent issues. For example, in Dar al-Kufr where the majority of people are Kuffar and the ruler is just having good relations with the Muslims that reside in his domain; he is not at war with the Muslims and neither is he oppressing them. Even though he is ruling by Kufr and the majority of the population accept this fact must we then remove him or declare war to remove him? The answer is no, the evidence being the Sahābah who resided in Abyssinia. So the point being made here is that removal of rulers is not necessarily connected to Kufr as they are independent of each other. Combining these issues is an illusion created by the government scholars in an attempt to corner someone so that they can justify labelling them Takfeeri where they say – ‘Prove the ruler is Kaafir so that we can remove him’. Yet one does not need to declare the ruler to be a Kaafir because it is possible that he is a Fāsiq, or he may even be a Mu’min but is unable to run the affairs of governorship and thus it may be a hindrance for the ‘Ummah to keep him as the benefits of the ‘Ummah maybe in danger so his removal becomes required.
In any case, the movement of one or few of the Ahlul-Shawka (people of power) in a coup d’état does not lead to general widespread Fitna, because either they succeed in removing the ruler with the possibility of a small lost of life, but the Munkar is removed. Conversely, they fail, and it is more than likely that those who were connected to the coup d’état will be apprehended and executed by the state. In that case they are considered Shaheed because they stood up to change the Munkar, and according to the Hadīth: ‘The best of martyrs is Hamza (r.a), and a man who stands in front of a tyrant ruler and advises him, and is then killed‘. It is impossible that the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم meant other than this. Standing to command good and forbid evil before the tyrant ruler for something Mubaĥ does not seem likely. It is known that commanding good and forbidding evil is not restricted to the tongue, it can also be done by the hand for those who are capable, and in the case we mentioned the individuals concerned would believe they have the capability and power to carry it out, thus commanding good and forbidding evil by force. The fact that it can fail has nothing to do with the legality of such an action because not everyone who attempts to change Munkar by the hand or tongue is successful, and it is Allaah ta ‘ala who does in the universe as He pleases. Nobody can claim that a coup d’état will lead to a Fitna whose result will be complete chaos, because it either succeeds or fails and very few people are affected.
Indeed there are many A’Hadīth that urge the believers to have patience with unjust rulers. Yet there are also as many or even more A’Hadīth and that are stronger in Isnād which specifically talk of commanding good and forbidding evil concerning the rulers. So why are there some who reveal part of the revelation and not the other by mentioning the A’Hadīth which speak of obedience to the rulers and hide those which speak of non-obedience to the corrupt rulers? Are they afraid that people will be misguided by Allaah ta ‘ala’s revelation? Or are they afraid that Allaah ta ‘ala will be unjust towards them and their ‘Umarah (leaders)? Allaah ta ‘ala is just towards all His creation, and Allaah ta ‘ala is far above that which they intentionally and unintentionally attribute to Him. Repeating the A’Hadīth daily about obeying the rulers while neglecting the A’Hadīth about accounting them is a habit that cannot be ignored and deemed as something arbitrary, it is clearly an indication of something most disturbing.
We are therefore obliged to take all the texts of the revelation as a whole; otherwise we run the risk of believing in some of the book and disbelieving in some of it, and this is exactly what happened to Bani Isra’eel which led to their humiliation and disgrace. If it turns out to be impossible to reconcile the two, then one set must be Nāsikh and the other Mansūkh. Thus the Nāsikh must be in favour of the A’Hadīth of commanding good and forbidding evil because they are more numerous, they are stronger in transmission and because they specifically mention the rulers. If they were not the ones which are Nāsikh, then they would be contradictory because commanding the good and forbidding the evil are commands which are imbedded in the Qur’aan. It is impossible therefore that they could be the Mansūkh, because enjoining good and forbidding evil are the characteristics of the believer, and this is exactly what Ibn Hazm (r.h) says in his al-MuĥAllaah[10].
After discusing the issues presented in some detail, whoever claims that the ‘Ayāts of Hukm only apply to the Jews because it is addresses some of their evils and therefore it does not apply to Muslims, or if they invoke what has been attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās (r.a) even though it is not firmly established that it was his words and the fact that other Sahābah have mentioned other statements which are not in conformity with this ‘Athār, whoever insists on keeping with these views should weep at the share of intellect that he has been given and should dismount from his donkey and let the donkey mount him as the latter is more worthy of his status.
The ruling of the one who does not rule by that which Allaah has revealed being a Kaafir, Fāsiq and Dthālim is general to everyone who falls into its category. There is no difference between he who originally rules by Shari’ah in general but in certain circumstances does not rule by the laws of Allaah ta ‘ala thereby violating it, like the judges in certain Muslim countries. Even worse are those who do not rule by the Shari’ah , and worse still are those who enact laws which are not derived from the Qur’aan and Sunnah and make them obligatory to be applied by the executive, judicial and legislative branches, which is what most states are applying in the present age. This is an even deeper level of Kufr of the Tawāghīt, as they are enacting laws besides Allaah ta ‘ala and are therefore the heads of Tāghūt and misguidance on this earth.
The only exception is the Mujtahid who makes sincere I’jtihād but errs, and in that case he has the excuse of Ta’weel. He has not ruled by other than that which Allaah has revealed and is not punishable for his I’jtihād although it contradicts that which has been revealed by Allaah ta ‘ala, and there is clear evidence from Qur’aan and Sunnah that if he carried out his I’jtihād sincerely then he will be rewarded.
And All praises are to Allaah ta ‘ala, Lord of All the Worlds.
[1] Soorat al-Baqarah, verse 111
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibn Mufli, al-Furu’, Vol.6, p. 160, reports that al-Nawawī held that an unjust ruler may be removed by force only if the attempt to remove him does not result in a greater harm. Discussed also in the Sharĥ Saĥīh Muslim, Vol.12, pp. 470 / 471, And also in Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalānī, Fatĥ al-Bāri, Vol.14, p. 498; Ibn Hazm says that if a ruler commits acts whereby he becomes unjust, and he does not command and good and forbid evil, he is to be considered a Bāghī himself, who then becomes permissible to rebel against. See: al-MuĥAllaah, Vol.11, pp. 333 / 336, 343
[4] Narrated Abu Hurayrah, ‘When the Messenger died, and Abu Bakr was appointed as Khaleefah, and those Arabs who apostatized did so, ‘Umar said: ‘O Abu Bakr, how can you fight the people when the Messenger of Allaah said: ‘I have been commanded to fight the people until they say Lā ‘Ilāhah IlAllaah, and whoever says Lā ‘Ilāhah IlAllaah, his property and his life are safe from me, unless he trespasses the law, and his account will be with Allaah‘. Abu Bakr said, By Allaah, I will fight whoever differentiates between Salāt and Zakāt, for Zakāt is the right to be taken from property. By Allaah, if they refuse to give me even so much as a kid (young goat) that they used to give to the Messenger of Allaah I will fight them for withholding it’. ‘Umar said, ‘By Allaah, I could see that Allaah had opened Abu Bakr’s heart to the idea of fighting, so I realised that he was right’; Saĥīh al-Bukhāri, Hadīth No. 6924 / 6925. Imām Mālik said, ‘In our opinion, if people refuse to obey one of the obligatory duties enjoined by Allaah, and the Muslims cannot take if from them, then it is their duty to wage Jihād against them’. al-Bāji said commenting on the words of Imām Mālik, ‘This is as he said, whoever withholds some of the dues of Allaah concerning which there is no dispute that they are obligatory, the Muslims must wage Jihād against him until they take these dues. This is what Abu Bakr did with the apostates (Ahlul-Riddah), especially when they withheld the Zakāt. It may have meant all the dues concerning which the rulings are the same as the rulings on Zakāt‘; Al-Muntaqā by Abul-Waleed al-Bāji, Vol.2, p. 157
[5] In a chapter on enjoining good and forbidding evil Imām al-Haramain al-Juwayni states that, ‘If the Walī al-Waqt (ruler of the day) was an oppressor and his injustice and evil actions were manifest and he could not be turned from his evil ways by words, it was for the Ahlul-Hali Wal-Aqd (people of authority and decision making) to agree to deter him, if necessary by force and war’. al-Irshād, p. 211
[6] Ibn ‘Atheer, al-Kāmil, Vol.3, pp. 407 / 444; Ibn Katheer, al-Bidayah Wan-Nihayah, Vol.8, pp. 152 / 214 at-Tabarī, Tareekh, Vol.5, pp. 176 / 236
[7] al-Hajjāj had punished Anas Ibn Mālik (r.a) for supporting Ibn al-Zubayr’s (r.a) Khurūj against him. adth-Dthahabi, Siyar, Vol.3, p. 402; Ibn al-Khayyāt, Tarīkh, Vol.1, p. 255. Sa’eed Ibn al-Jubayr (r.h) was executed by al-Hajjāj for his participation in the rebellion. Ibn Katheer, al-Bidayah Wan-Nihayah, Vol.9, pp. 101 / 103; at-Tabarī, Tareekh, Vol.6, pp. 556 / 558. Ibn al-‘Atheer, al-Kāmil, Vol.4, pp. 280 / 281
[8] In 63 H / 683CE, the city of Medina rebelled against Yazīd Ibn Mu’āwiya which led to the infamous battle of Ĥarra. After the siege of Medina, Muslim Ibn ‘Uqba, pursuant to Yazīd’s orders pillaged the city for three days; importantly, many of the ‘Ulema took part in the rebellion against Yazīd. See: Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhaj as-Sunnah, Vol.2, p. 241. Al-Qastalānī, Irshād, Vol.10, p. 199. For a description of the companions and ‘Ulema who were killed, see Ibn Katheer, al-Bidayah Wan-Nihayah, Vol.8, pp. 223 / 227; Ibn Jawzī, al-Muntadthām, Vol.6, pp. 14 / 16; at-Tabarī, Tareekh, Vol.5, pp. 246 / 250
[10] Ali [Ibn Hazm] said, ‘No two Muslims disagreed that the two ‘Ayāts (Soorat al-Hujarāt, verse 9 & Soorat al-‘Imrān, verse 104) ahead are Muh’kamatān not Mansukhatān [they have not been abrogated]. So with this Yaqīni (certitude) then whatever seems to be contradicting them from the A’hadīth or otherwise must be Mansūkh (abrogated)’. al-MuĥAllaah, Vol.1, p. 47
Filed under: al-Imaan, al-Kufr bit-Taghout, Refutations, Takhrij, Usool ul Hadeeth | Leave a Comment »
