|Wednesday, 25 November 2015 Home About Us Contact Us|
You are here:
Mail to a Friend Printer friendly
For the abovementioned the reason, the issue of Takfir of the rulers is a matter that the Takfiris have to protect aggressively (otherwise the entire methodology collapses), and this has formed a large part of the debate between the Scholars upon the way of the Salaf in our time, and those poisoned with the poison of Sayyid Qutb and his likes. The Takfiris were not humiliated and slapped into oblivion by anything more than one whom they were greatly attached to (because he he was sympathetic towards their figureheads), that is Shaykh Ibn Jibreen, when he spoke regarding the some of the rulers and the Secular Laws (read it here), and this statement pretty much destroyed their ship and left it wrecked and in ruins, all but deserted. When these Qutbiyyah found that none of the Major Scholars of Saudi were with them in the Takfir of all of the rulers without exception, they accused them in general of being "revisionists" and turned instead to the ignorant non-Scholars to help them prop up that Leninist manifesto they were operating upon and which had come to them through Qutb's works. As for the removal of amn (security, safety) from the Muslim lands, partly exemplified in the removal of Shariah rule (and hastened in the era of colonialism) then Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, those upon the way of the Salaf, they have a particular understanding of the causes and their effects in respect to this matter which clashes with the Mu'tazili, Qadari outlook of the Qutbiyyah, Takfiriyyah and which all the political groups of today are in fact operating upon. This is why the methodologies of reform between Ahl al-Sunnah and that of the Qutbiyyah, Takfiriyyah, Tahririyyah and all similar groups are at variance and conflict. One is based upon the methodology of the Prophets, founded upon sound reason and revelation, and the other is based upon a Mu'tazili, Qadari perspective whose methodologies are founded upon secular atheist notions of the rise and fall of nations and governments and of social justice and the likes which came to them from ignorant non-scholars of the 20th century. To learn more about this in depth, please study these articles:
The Hadeeth of Abu Umaamah
Abu Umaamah relates that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:
لتنقضن عرى الإسلام عروة عروة فكلما انتقضت عروة تشبث الناس بالتي تليها فأولهن نقضا الحكم و آخرهن الصلاة
The handholds of Islaam will be annulled, one by one, and every time a handhold is annulled the people will hold fast to the one that follows it. The first of them to be annulled is the rule (al-Hukm), and the last of them is the prayer (as-salaat).
Reported by Ahmad in his Musnad, Ibn Hibbaan and al-Haakim. Saheeh al-Jaami' as-Sagheer (no. 5057) of Shaykh al-Albaanee who declared it Saheeh.
And Shaykh Abdul-Azeez bin Baz (rahimahullaah) commented, upon the previous hadeeth (as occurs in Majmoo' ul-Fataawa wa Maqaalaat al-Mutanawwi'ah):
ومعنى قوله في الحديث: "وأولها نقضاً الحكم" معناه ظاهر وهو: عدم الحكم بشرع الله وهذا هو الواقع اليوم في غالب الدول المنتسبة للإسلام. ومعلوم أن الواجب على الجميع هو الحكم بشريعة الله في كل شيء والحذر من الحكم بالقوانين والأعراف المخالفة للشرع المطهر
And the meaning of his saying in the hadeeth: "The first of them to be anulled is the rule (al-Hukm)", its meaning is apparent, and it is the absence of ruling by the legislation of Allaah, and this is what is present today in most of the states ascribing to Islaam. And it is known that what is obligatory upon all is to judge by the Sharee'ah of Allaah in all things and to beware of judging by the Secular Laws, and the customs that oppose the pure legislation.
In the above hadith is a refutation of the contemporary Khawarij in that the Prophet (alayhis salaam) has explicitly stated that the first of the handholds of Islam to be broken is that of al-Hukm (rule) which means the absence of complete rule by the Shari'ah. Upon the principles of Sayyid Qutb who makes Takfir of any departure from the Shari'ah and claims that faith is only valid in the presence of 100% Shari'ah rule over the subjects, it means that the Muslim Ummah for a very long time, more than just a few hundred years, has ceased to exist. In fact, it is what Qutb explicitly states in "Maaalim fit-Tareeq" (p.8, 17th edition, 1991):
The Ummah (of Islaam) has ceased to be in existence (ghaabat al-Ummah) and has not been perceivable for a very long time.
And he was followed in this by the Khawarij of Saudi Arabia (see here and also here), who followed the Ash'arites of Egypt in working towards an ideological and physical revolution to destabilize and undermine the land of Tawhid (where to this day, grave-worship is not to be found, unlike in Egypt, even if sins and disobedience are found therein like in all other places). The intent here is to show that if these people were truthful in their claim and in their underlying premise(s) (they took from Sayyid Qutb), they would have to essentially make Takfir of the entire Ummah from pretty much after the first thirty years of the rule of the Righteous Caliphs, when shortcomings began to appear and 100% rule of the Shariah was not established, especially considering that many of these groups consider kingship to be haraam (unlawful) in Islaam.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link
You must be registered and logged in to comment.