Saturday, 15 February 2025 Home About Us Contact Us |
![]() | |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
You are here:
Home /
Articles
Mail to a Friend Printer friendly
Background to the Origins of 20th Century Takfiri Polemics, Argumentation and Deduction of Evidence First a little background regarding where todays Takfiris are coming from, from an ideological perspective. We have documented extensively with proofs in other places that Sayyid Qutb was "gulping" down the Western materialist (secular atheistic) philosophies for 15 years of his life between 1925 and 1940 (see here); that when he started turning to Islam, this past nurturing affected his ideology and doctrine; that a major influence upon him was Marxist-Socialism; that he considered Islam to be made up in part of Communism (see here and also here); that on the basis of a Communist perspective of "Social Justice" and a [Communist] critique of Capitalism (see here), Sayyid Qutb reviled and attacked Uthmaan, Mu'awiyah, Amr bin al-Aas (radiallaahu anhum) and negated Islam from Bani Umayyah (see this series), continuing to publish his attacks upon Uthman and Bani Umayyah right until his death; that he launched a Socialist revolution in 1952 along with the Free Officers, helping Jamal Abdul-Nasser coming to power as a result, (this revolution being planned in Qutb's own house); that despite being refuted by Shaykh Mahmood Shakir in 1952 for his attacks upon the Companions he persisted upon displaying the Communist-Marxist-Socialist ideologically motivated attacks upon some of the Companions right up until his death (see here, here and here); that Qutb, having already been behind one Leninist type Socialist revolution in 1952, began to pen down the ideology of revolution in the late 1950s, along with the takfiri fikr in the late 1950s and early 1960s in his works az-Zilal and Milestones (a Leninist Manifesto for Muslims) - see this article. This went alongside and was built upon his mass Takfir of the entire Ummah which is known and acknowledged by prominent figureheads amongst the "Muslim Brotherhood" (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here), and Qutb essentially believed that all Muslims, societies and states had become apostates (except him and those upon his doctrines) and that the greatest obligation was to remove them with general revolutions. This understanding became mixed with and labeled with "Jihad", but it is an innovated, heretical, evil notion of Jihad, that has nothing to do with the Shari'ah Jihad. For the justification of this particular notion of Jihad, which has continued today and has taken on its own polemical landscape, many quotations are brought from the Scholars of the Sunnah that are twisted and made to apply to situations they do not actually apply to, and these types of citations form the basis of many of the doubts that are propagated by the Takfiris in order to give legitimacy to their methodologies and activities. In this series we will be looking at the multitude of doubts spread through a Takfiri discussion forum run by Abu Zubair Saleem Beg from Croydon, Surrey (UK) in which he allows, upon a secular qaanoon, people of all persuasions and backgrounds to spread their misguidance, in particular, the Khawarij, but with many other sects present and participating, very often without any hindrance or objection to what they say - this is in the name of "freedom of speech".
What has led them to this state is that these people are poisoned by that 20th century "fikr" and "harakah" which came to them through Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb. It is essentially a distillation of western materialist philosophies (violent revolutions, mass-populist pluralist politics and so on) that came through in the writings and actions of these Jahmite Ash'ari and Sufi individuals in 20th century Egypt. Sayyid Qutb made Takfir of all Muslim societies and governments without exception and called for Leninist type revolutions against them to "establish the khilaafah". Hasan al-Banna, having the same objective in mind, spent efforts to bring together all the sects and groups of innovation, including the Jahmiyyah, Rafidah, Sufiyyah and so on, in order to effect the same result, establishing the khilafah through working within the existent (secular) political framework. Essentially we have the violent revolutionary method of Qutb and the mass-populist, pluralist method of Banna. These two ideologies and ways of thinking , (which we can label as "Qutbitude" (takfiri, revolutionary strain) and "Bannaawitude" (mass-populist, pluralist strain), and the multitude of methodologies, principles, arguments, evidences and polemics that follow on from them, are found today in many people claiming to follow Salafiyyah. These are "Ikhwanis" wearing the gown of Salafiyyah. Subsequently, they go to the books of the Scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah, such as Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, to seek evidence for much of their falsehood. In this series we will be exposing their intellectual and academic frauds, and the freedom of the Scholars from their falsehood. Most of these doubts in relation to the Takfiri strain come from the followers of the Takfiri Kharijites such as Abu Qatadah, Abu Baseer Mustafa Haleemah, Nasir al-Fahd, Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi and others, and the website(s) of Abu Zubair Saleem Beg al-Azzami (by way of example) are the platforms from which these doubts are disseminated or have been disseminated over the years.
Concerning al-imtinaa' and al-Iltizaam
Over the past 15 years we have seen the Qutbiyyah, the Takfiri Leninist Kharijites utilize much from the speech of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah to justify their falsehood. They take quotes which they don't even understand, or if they do, they use them with a view to deceiving unsuspecting people who do not know Arabic and may not be familiar with the meanings of specific words in Arabic which would be crucial to understanding the actual meaning and intent of such quotations. Two such words are (الإمتناع) and (الإلتزام), which we can loosely translate in English, "withholding" and "adhering", even though these words clearly do not convey the real meanings of these words. Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah often speaks with these two words in the context of disbelief and fighting certain factions. The Qutbiyyah, Takfiris, Khaarijiyyah, use such statements to make Takfir of the rulers (primarily), or other than them, who fail to act upon something from the Sharee'ah. This is used to justify the Takfir and rebelling and taking up of arms. As we will see, all of these instances are examples of "Take Qutb's Leninist fikr as being the truth firstly, then go and find evidences for it in the books of the Scholars secondly", or to put it more concisely, "Believe first, then seek evidence after." Here is an example of such "citations" that are used to this end from that Qutbi, Takfiri platform:
By dissecting this from a number of angles, we will see the rampant academic fraud present amongst Takfiris in general. And this fraud, even in just a single citation, is operative on multiple levels. And from past experience, we can tell you that this applies to the majority of the so-called evidences these deluded dishonest people bring in order to deceive and misguide the Muslims. What is taking place in this article, and what follows below is an annihilation of one of the major taghuts (false principles) of the Takfiris, and when this becomes clear, a large body of so-called evidence they cite from Ibn Taymiyyah and others, is rendered obsolete and invalidated. The Meaning of al-Imtinaa' and al-Iltizaam Before we dissect this fraudulent use of the speech of Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, we need to first clarify the actual meanings of "al-Imtinaa'" (الإمتناع) and "al-Iltizaam" (الإلتزام). The meaning of iltizaam briefly for now (to help understanding of the text to follow) is "to accept that one has been addressed by an obligation" or "acceptance of the ruling" and the meaning of imtinaa' is "to deny that one has been addressed by an obligation (alongside accepting it is an obligation)". The Saying of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah says in Majmoo al-Fataawaa (20/97):
وتكفير تارك الصلاة هو المشهور المأثور عن جمهور السلف من الصحابة والتابعين . ومورد النزاع هو فيمن أقر بوجوبها والتزم فعلها ولم يفعلها وأما من لم يقر بوجوبها فهو كافر باتفاقهم
Note that there is a difference between making iltizaam of an obligation, and performing that obligation, as Shaykh ul-Islam has clearly indicated, and this is based upon the true and real meanings of iltizaam and imtinaa' which do not actually equate to the performance or refraining from the performance the obligation itself, respectively. This is because the meaning of iltizaam, as will become more clear as you read further in this article, is to accept that you are being addressed by an obligation, and it is a matter that pertains to the heart.
وليس الأمر كما يفهم من إطلاق بعض الفقهاء من أصحاب أحمد وغيرهم أنه إن جحد وجوبها كفر وإن لم يجحد وجوبها فهو مورد النزاع
Here Ibn Taymiyyah is simply clarifying that on the issue of abandonment of prayer, it is not the case as some of the jurists presented it that there are only two situations, one in which there is agreement by everyone and the other which is the point of dispute. Rather, Ibn Taymiyyah explains, there is a little more detail to the matter, because there is a difference between juhood (جحود)and imtinaa' (إمتناع), as we shall see. This will actually lead us to three situations in reality, not two. Then Ibn Taymiyyah explains:
بل هنا ثلاثة أقسام : أحدها : إن جحد وجوبها فهو كافر بالاتفاق
So a person rejects that it is obligatory to begin with. This is clear, he is a disbeliever, its a matter of consensus. Ibn Taymiyyah now mentions a second situation:
والثاني : أن لا يجحد وجوبها لكنه ممتنع من التزام فعلها كبرا أو حسدا أو بغضا لله ورسوله فيقول : اعلم أن الله أوجبها على المسلمين والرسول صادق في تبليغ القرآن ولكنه ممتنع عن التزام الفعل استكبارا أو حسدا للرسول أو عصبية لدينه أو بغضا لما جاء به الرسول فهذا أيضا كافر بالاتفاق فإن إبليس لما ترك السجود المأمور به لم يكن جاحدا للإيجاب فإن الله تعالى باشره بالخطاب وإنما أبى واستكبر وكان من الكافرين . وكذلك أبو طالب كان مصدقا للرسول فيما بلغه لكنه ترك اتباعه حمية لدينه وخوفا من عار الانقياد واستكبارا عن أن تعلو أسته رأسه فهذا ينبغي أن يتفطن له ومن أطلق من الفقهاء أنه لا يكفر إلا من يجحد وجوبها فيكون الجحد عنده متناولا للتكذيب بالإيجاب ومتناولا للامتناع عن الإقرار والالتزام كما قال تعالى : { فإنهم لا يكذبونك ولكن الظالمين بآيات الله يجحدون } وقال تعالى : { وجحدوا بها واستيقنتها أنفسهم ظلما وعلوا فانظر كيف كان عاقبة المفسدين } وإلا فمتى لم يقر ويلتزم فعلها قتل وكفر بالاتفاق .
Pay attention to the fine details here. He has already mentioned the case of one who clearly rejects the obligation of the prayer, that is now clear. Here, he is mentioning the case where a person affirms the obligation of the prayer, but withholds from performing out of affairs in the heart that are disbelief, such as arrogance, jealousy against the religion, or hatred of what the Messenger (alayhis salaam) brought, and the likes. Then Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies that those jurists who held there were only two views which are a) the one who rejects the obligation, and b) the one who affirms it but does not perform it, then these jurists include within the meaning of "juhood" (rejection, denial) these first two (of the three) situations that Ibn Taymiyyah is discussing:
والثالث : أن يكون مقرا ملتزما ; لكن تركها كسلا وتهاونا ; أو اشتغالا بأغراض له عنها فهذا مورد النزاع كمن عليه دين وهو مقر بوجوبه ملتزم لأدائه لكنه يمطل بخلا أو تهاونا
Here, Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) mentions the third case where a person affirms the obligation (i.e. he affirms that it is an obligation that has come in the revealed texts), and he makes iltizaam of it (i.e. he accepts that he is being addressed by the command and that he comes under it), but he does not perform it, not out of something that constitutes kufr like in the second case (such as arrogance, hatred, pride and so on) but out of laziness and neglect. It is this particular situation that Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies is the actual point of dispute. There are many statements of Ibn Taymiyyah that clarify this matter, we can provide one more for the sake of brevity. Whilst explaining that the straight path is in between the innovated asceticism (rahbaaniyyah) and the way of indulgence in sin, he speaks of those who fall into this asceticism and he says about them (Majmoo' 14/460):
يقول أحدهم : لله علي ألا آكل طعاما بالنهار أبدا ويعاهد أحدهم ألا يأكل الشهوة الملائمة ويلتزم ذلك بقصده وعزمه وإن لم يحلف ولم ينذر . فهذا يلتزم أن لا يشرب الماء وهذا يلتزم ألا يأكل الخبز وهذا يلتزم ألا يشرب الفقاع وهذا يلتزم ألا يتكلم قط وهذا يجب نفسه وهذا يلتزم ألا ينكح ولا يذبح . وأنواع هذه الأشياء من الرهبانية التي ابتدعوها على سبيل مجاهدة النفس وقهر الهوى والشهوة
Again we see the meaning here through the use of the word "iltizaam" which is to "make obligatory or binding upon oneself", which is something other than the actual performance of the act. To make this more clear, we can move on to another nice explanation of this issue: Explanation from Shaykh Saalih Aal ash-Shaykh Shaykh Salih Al ash-Shaykh explains this matter very well in (نواقض الإيمان عند أهل السنة والجماعة وضوابط ذلك ), at the end of this treatise, in addressing some of the doubts that the contemporary Kharijites fall into, and speaking about certain words such as "istihlaal" and "iltizaam" and "imtinaa'" (p. 25):
أن هناك ألفاظ تتصل بهذا البحث، ومن أهمها لفظا الالتزام والامتناع؛ لأن الالتزام والامتناع راجع إلى الاعتقاد
The Shaykh then goes on to clarify the meanings of these two words over the next couple of pages:
والالتزام معناه قبول الحكم، والامتناع معناه رد الحكم، وليس الامتناع هنا الطائفة الممتنعة، امتنع من أداء كذا، بمعنى منع، فالامتناع يقابل في نصوص أهل العلم بالالتزام، والالتزام معناه القبول وهو غير الجحد؛ يعني القبول هو أن يكون ملتزما بهذا، يعني أن يكون مخاطبا بهذا.
فمثلا نقول فلان من الناس ملتزم بأحكام الشريعة، فلان من الناس ملتزم بتحريم الزنا؛ لكن يزني، ما الفرق بينهما؟ الفرق بينهما أنه إذا التزم حرمة الزنا فمعناه يقول نعم أنا مخاطب بأن الزنا محرم وأنا داخل في هذا الخطاب، صحيح، لكن فعله يكون له حكم أهل الكبائر
أما إذا قال أنا غير مخاطب أصلا كحال الذي نكح امرأة أبيه في زمن النبي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حديث أبي بردة المعروف فالنبي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أرسل إليه رجلا ليضرب عنقه وبخمس ماله هل لأنه استحل بالفعل؟ لا، قال العلماء لأنه لم يلتزم الحكم، وكان ذلك الحكم في الجاهلة، فلما نزل قول الله جل وعلا ﴿وَلَا تَنكِحُوا مَا نَكَحَ آبَاؤُكُمْ مِنْ النِّسَاءِ إِلَّا مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ﴾ [النساء:22] وخوطب بذلك لم يلتزم وسار على ما كان عليه في الجاهلية، فدل فعله على أنه لم يلتزم، ولا يقال دل فعله على استباحته، دل الفعل على عدم التزامه بحكم الشريعة الجديد الذي يلغي حكم الجاهلية
With the above, clear, pay very close attention to the next bit, because it is significant when we come to discuss these quotes that Leninist Kharijites always bring from Ibn Taymiyyah:
ولهذا يتكلم العلماء على الطائفة الممتنعة ويقابلون بين الامتناع و الالتزام
Remember this for later for this will allow us to uncover one of the main taghuts (i.e. false principle) of the Leninist Kharijites used to argue the case for their innovation and misguidance. The Shaykh then spends a paragraph talking about the difference between jahd (juhood, rejection) and the absence of iltizaam, and he illustrates with an example given by Ibn Taymiyyah, so he says:
لهذا شيخ الإسلام في موضع مثّل في الفرق بين الجحد وعدم لالتزام، قال: مثل من لك عليه دين فأتيت تطلبه دينك، عليك على واحد ألف ريال قلت يا فلان عندك ألف، فهنا إذا قال ما عندي لك أصلا ألف، فهذا يسمى جاحد -هذا المثال أورده شيخ الإسلام في الفتوى- إذا قال ما عندي لك ألف أصلا فهذا يسمى جاحدا، إذا قال: نعم عندي لك ألف لكن أنا ملتزم بألف؛ لكن أنا لا أعطيها لك حياتي كلها، هذا يسمى إيش؟ ملتزم بها رافض لأدائها، فإذا قال أصلا أنا ما عندي لك هذا المبلغ، فهذا يكون جاحدا.
The Shaykh then illustrates with the example of prayer itself:
إذا أصلا هذه الصلاة غير واجبة هذا يكون جاحدا، إذا قال الصلاة واجبة على غيري أما أنا فغير ملتزم بها فهي واجبة وأنا مقتنع بأن الله فرض الصلاة ولا شك لكن على غيري، مثل ما يقول غلاة الصوفية يقولون سقطت عنا التكاليف، هنا يكون كفرهم هل هو بالجحد هم يجحدون حكم الصلاة، يجحدون الصلاة واجبة ويجحدون أن الزنا محرم؟ لا، يقولون الزنا محرم؛ لكن لا يلتزم بذلك يعني لا يقول إنه داخل في الخطاب، وهذا معنى عدم الالتزام، يمتنع من الامتثال بمعنى لا يجعل نفسه داخلا في الخطاب، فيقول أنا ممتنع من قبول دخولي في الخطاب أصلا، مثل ما يقول غلاة الصوفية الذي يقولون سقطت علينا التكاليف، فكفرهم جاء ليس من جهة أنهم جحدوا وجوب الصلاة، يقول لا الصلاة واجبة ولازم تصلون ويأمرون الناس بالصلاة؛ ولكن أنهم من جهة أنهم لم يدخلوا أنفسهم في الحكم
فإذن صار من مباحث المهمة في النواقض الاعتقادية مسألة الاستحلال وعلاقة الظاهر والباطن، وأن الاستحلال إنما يكون باعتقاده حله بالقلب كما نص عليه شيخ الإسلام، والانتباه للفظ الالتزام والامتناع، وتقابل ذلك مع لفظ القبول والجحد، وأن هذه الألفاظ الأربعة ليس لها معنى واحدا، القبول له معنى والجحد يقابله، والالتزام له معنى والامتناع يقابله.
فإذا سمعت في كلام العلماء تقاتل الطائفة الممتنعة، لا تفهم أن معناها الجاحدة، أو الممتنعة يعني المانعة؟ لا، الممتنعة ليس معناها المانعة، الممتنعة يعني التي تقول أنا غير داخلة في هذا الخطاب، مثل حال مانعي الزكاة، مانعو الزكاة في عهد الصديق قالوا نعم الناس يؤدون لكم، نعم، لكن نحن لا نؤدي ليس من جهة إنكار الحكم أو جحد الحكم لكن من جهة عدم الالتزام به فيقول الناس عليهم أن يؤدوا لكن نحن لا يلزمنا ذلك.
ولهذا يعبر العلماء بقولهم تقاتل الطائفة الممتنعة غير الملتزمة، فيأتون بلفظي الامتناع والالتزام، وهذا تفصيل لكن مهم كثيرين يحصل عندهم غلط في ذلك.
Summary Of the Above All the words, al-juhood, al-istihlaal, al-qubool, al-imtinaa', al-iltizaam, have very specific precise meanings that are different to each other, and in particular al-iltizaam means, "acceptance of the ruling" in the sense that "one accepts that the obligation applies to oneself", and it is not synonymous with the actual fulfilment of the obligation itself. And al-imtinaa' is to withhold from fulfilling an obligation because of either a) not considering that the obligation applies to oneself, which is the absence of al-iltizaam, or b) out of something that constitutes kufr in an of itself such as al-kibr (pride) al-istikbaar (arrogance), al-bughd (hatred) and the likes, even if one accepts that the obligation applies to oneself. These are the correct usages of these terms, and this is how the scholars use these terms, both Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and likewise Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab. These types of statements are not in relation to the rulers who make iltizaam of the obligations but fall short in fulfilling them in practice.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link Related Articles:
You must be registered and logged in to comment. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |