|Saturday, 18 May 2013 Home About Us Contact Us|
You are here:
Mail to a Friend Printer friendly
Shaykh Ibn Jibreen and the Innovators
Shaykh Ibn Jibreen was a person of knowledge who in the early 1990s got involved, unfortunately, with personalities like Muhammad al-Misery and his organization called CDLR (an organization practically working to effect Leninist and Marxist type revolutions in Muslim lands). Through this interaction the Shaykh was led to hold erroneous opinions towards Innovators such as Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb. He proceeded to defend these individuals, not upon knowledge and baseerah or any kind of detailed research, but out of sentiments and out of the affectation he suffered from as a result of being involved with such unsavouries. Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen (rahimahullaah) and other scholars blasted the CDLR in very powerful words (we have the audio and will publish separately on this site inshaa'Allaah) and the scholars expressed their disappointment with the likes of Ibn Jibreen getting involved with these people. Unfortunately that connection harmed the Shaykh in that he became blinded to what these people were really upon, for he, in his methodology, was not upon the doctrines and methodologies that these takfiri revolutionaries were upon, even if he was deceived by them in his perception of the Innovators such as Qutb and Bannaa. As such, whilst the truth is clear expressed in many of his statements regarding the rulers, the issues of Takfir, the issue pertaining to the Secular Laws that the rulers have been put to trial with, revolting, terrorism and so on, he unfortunately, showed lenience towards these Innovators even if the truth that is found in much of his speech actually convicts these very same people. Due to Shaykh Ibn Jibreen's persistence in defending these people however, Shaykh Ibn Jibreen was powerfully and forcefully refuted, and his contradiction made clear by the likes of Shaykh Ahmad an-Najmee who wrote a series of refutations against him, and also expelled him from Ahl us-Sunnah for his continued allegiance to and defence of Jahmite Ash'ari and Sufi Innovators (see this series here) and Kharijites such as Usamah Bin Laden (see here).
It is important to note that while Shaykh Ibn Jibreen did not agree with the Takfir and khurooj of the Kharijites, he unfortunately displayed a lenient position towards them in many of his statements, clearly opposing other Scholars such as Shaykh Ibn Baz, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin, Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, and others. The reason for this has been explained above - in that he unfortunately had affiliations with the harakiyyeen (activists) which tainted his perceptions. It is for this reason that you see all the people of Takfir and khurooj attaching themselves to him. However, despite this, you still see certain truths being expressed in some of his speech, because that truth is undeniable. These statements that we are bringing of Shaykh Ibn Jibreen, together with the statements of the others Scholars are a final nail in the coffin of those people who have been deceiving the Ummah for many long years. They certainly got their mileage out of Shaykh Ibn Jibreen, but that period is now over.
This is an answer dated 19/7/1427H regarding Usamah Bin Ladin, click on play to hear the audio:
يقول: كثر كلام الشباب في أسامة بن لادن فنريد منكم توضيحا ما الموقف من أسامة بن لادن ؟
[The questioner] says: There has been much speech of the youth regarding Usamah Bin Ladin, so we desire clarification from you, what is the position towards Usamah bin Ladin?
الجواب : أسامة ... كان من أفراد هذه البلاد , فردا من الأفراد , من أولاد محمد بن لادن , وكانوا أهل ثرة و أهل مال و أهل مقاولات , ثم إنه عزم على أن يغزو للجهاد , فتوجه إلى الأفغان , قبل عشرين سنة أو أكثر , وحصل له فوائد هناك وشجعه الذين يعرفونه , يعرفون جهاده وجهوده , ومدحوه الخاص والعام , ولم ينتقدوا عليه شيئا في القتال الأول , ثم لما حصلت وقعة فتنة الخليج , التي في سنة 11 و حصل أن دولتنا ودولة الكويت استقدموا الأمريكان , أنكر ذلك عليهم وكأنه تجرأ على أن هذا كُفر و أنكم قد كفرتم بذلك ونحو ذلك , فأُنكر عليه هذا التكفير الذي هو تكفير الدولة ومن حولها , هذا هو الذي أنُكر عليه , وهو مجتهد .. نحن لا نكفر مسلما لا نكفره ولكن نقول : أخطأ في هذا التكفير وأن الذين آووه ونصروه يعتبرون مثله في أنهم يكفرون المسلمين .. هذا القول الصواب فيه
Usamah ... was one of the individuals of this land, one from its individuals (i.e. residents), from the sons of Muhammad Bin Ladin, and they used to be people of abundance, people of wealth, and building contractors. Then he was determined to go out for Jihaad, so he turned towards Afghanistan, [this was] before twenty years ago or more. And he attained benefits and those who know him and know his Jihad and striving encouraged him, and the general and distinguished (people) praised him, and they did not criticize him with anything in relation to the first fighting (i.e. Afghanistan)...
This was the Afghan war in the 1980s, and in which the Americans were providing support against a communist aggressor.
Then the tribulation of the Gulf occurred, which is in the year 11 (meaning 1411H, that is 1990CE)...
This is in reference to the aggression of Saddam Hussain, a communist ba'thist upon whose (ba'thist) regime the Scholars, such as Shaykh Ibn Baz had made Takfir.
...and it transpired that our state (Saudi) and the state of Kuwait asked the Americans (for aid), and he (Usamah) rejected that from them, and it as if he ventured into the [judgement] that this is disbelief, and that you (the states of Saudi and Kuwait) have disbelieved because of that. So this Takfir was rejected against him, which is Takfir of the (Saudi) state and those surrounding it. And this is what was rejected against him. And he is a mujtahid (in this).
This claim of excusable ijtihaad is a serious error, and opposes the usool of Ahl us-Sunnah, for Ahl us-Sunnah declare as innovators those who enter into the well-known major issues that the whole Ummah is clear about, such as the innovations of the Khawaarij, Qadariyyah and others (see further below). In this there are no excuses. Further, ijtihaad has requirements and conditions of which Usamah Bin Ladin has none. Further, when there are present Imaams of the Sunnah in your midst, then what excuse do you have of making Takfir of entire nations and states and the Muslims therein?
Meaning, we do not make Takfir of a Muslim, meaning here the rulers of these states. This shows Ibn Jibreen, up until he died considered Saudi and the Gulf states to be Muslim states upon whom Takfir is not made and to whom obedience is obligatory and anyone opposing this is from the "Kharijite, Dogs of Hellfire" (in the Shaykhs own words in another fatwa - see here).
However, we say (about Usamah) that he erred in this Takfir, and that those who gave him sanctuary and supported him (those around him) are to be considered like him in that they make Takfir of the Muslims.
This is the correct saying regarding him.
Whilst the Shaykh corroborates that Usamah Bin Ladin entered into the madhhab of the Khawarij it is a shame to see the Shaykh going to such lengths to show lenience to these people and to defend them, just like he did with Sayyid Qutb, despite them clearly being upon the deen of the Khawaarij against whom the Sunnah is so severe and especially after these types of fatwas from Ibn Jibreen himself on these types of people.
Is There the Excuse of "Ijtihaad" For Non-Scholars in Making Takfir of Nations, States and Societies?
The definitions of the linguists and scholar of "ijtihaad" is summarized as "Expending efforts to arrive at certainty regarding a sharee'ah rulings" and a "mujtahid" is "A faqih, jurist (a Scholar) who expends efforts, (time and resources etc.) to arrive at certainty in a Sharee'ah ruling". And from the conditions of a mujtahid is that he is an aalim (has knowledge of) the Book and the Sunnah, the issues of Ijmaa' (consensus) and knowledge of the Arabic language, and that he is grounded in the usool (foundational principles) of fiqh (jurisprudence), that he has knowledge an-naasikh wal-mansookh (the abrogating and abrogated) and understands the maqaasid (goals, objectives) of the Sharee'ah. This is what you find from the people of knowledge regarding ijtihaad, and the mujtahid and the faqih in the well-known classical books.
Usamah Bin Ladin, in light of all of this, is clearly not a mujtahid, because he is not known for sitting and taking knowledge from the Scholars, or having studied books, or fiqh, or aqidah, and there is nothing of knowledge from him - all that has ever come from him is Takfir and reviling of the Scholars - there are no traces of knowledge or teaching from him, and his specialty was construction, constructing buildings and the likes, not issuing fatwas and giving great and mighty rulings upon which the lives, welfare, safety and sanctity of other Muslims depends upon - especially in the presence of a large number of senior Scholars.
Finally, this quote ends the conversation and puts an end to the matter quite decisively: This is from the book of Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, "al-Jaami'" and it is on page 121:
And from the saying of Ahl us-Sunnah: Is that a person whose ijtihaad leads him to an innovation is not excused, because the Khawaarij made ijtihaad in [their] ta'weel [faulty interpretation] and they were not excused, since they departed, by way of their ta'weel from [the way of] the Companions, and he (alayhis salaam) described them as maariqeen (those who exit) from the religion.
So that clarifies the issue in a manner that it needs no further clarifying, and this is the consensus of the Salaf, that excuse and reward is only for the mujtahid in the ahkaam who errs, as for the one who makes ijtihaad in bid'ah, and especially when it is a famous, well-known bid'ah whose opposition to the Book and the Sunnah is well-known and established, then there is no excuse for such people.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link
You must be registered and logged in to comment.