Concerning Ali al-Timimi on the Rulers Who Rule by Secular Laws and the Qutbi Accusation of Irjaa' Against the Imaams of the Sunnah|
Friday, January 08 2010 - by Takfiris.Com
Read more articles at Takfiris.Com
Regarding Ali al-Timimi
The Qutbiyyah (see here, here, here, here and here for proof that the Scholars recognize them and label them as a faction with this name and methodology) are boasting these days that Ali al-Timimi was "spoon-feeding" aqidah to the youth in the United Kingdom in the early 90s. This was when he had not fully transitioned to the da'wah of Sayyid Qutb, and in those days he did speak a lot of truth, even if influences of the Qutbiyyah were clearly manifest in some of his speech even at that time. What destroyed Ali al-Timimi was a number of factors, the most important of them being firstly his attachments to and infatuation with Abdur-Rahmaan Abdul-Khaaliq, the Egyptian, through which he eventually got poisoned and overtaken by Qutb's exaggerated doctrines of Haakimiyyah. And secondly his long standing commitments towards the Innovators of IANA and his associations with Salaah as-Saawee and other unsavouries amongst the Qutbiyyah. Signs of this affectation could be seen in the early 90s but it wasn't till after the mid-90s that his affair became manifest, and unfortunately it deteriorated from that point onwards after he turned his back upon many of the usool he was previously "spoon-feeding" to others before the mid-90s, and took a portion of the youth towards the Ikhwani methodologies of Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq and his likes. This shows that guidance is in Allaah's hands and having plenty of knowledge and understanding of issues does not actually equate to guidance in and of itself.
Ali al-Timimi on the Rulers Who Rule By Secular Laws
Ali al-Timimi said in response to a question pertaining to Takfir of the contemporary rulers who rule by secular laws:
Here is the transcript (with comments)
The question now, is concerning the rulers of today. And the only way we can understand this issue is to understand, what?... When does a ruler become a disbeliever by not ruling by the Sharee'ah, and when is he not a disbeliever, [but is] considered sinful in that matter?...
Ali al-Timimi here is simply reproducing what is found in the speech of the Scholars, such as Shaykh Ibn Baz, Shaykh al-Albani, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin, Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad and also in the statements of many other Scholars including Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibrahim and Shaykh ash-Shanqiti and others regarding ruling by the Secular Laws - and they make the tafseel (clarification, detail) that al-Timimi is outlining here.
We have to understand that these people are upon the doctrines of Sayyid Qutb of mass takfir. In the 60s and 70s, when they emerged, they were taking the verses in Surah al-Maa'idah, and applying them absolutely and unrestrictedly. When the Scholars clarified through the tafseer of Ibn 'Abbaas that they are not applied absolutely, but are subject to detail and clarification, the Qutbiyyah and their likes then moved on to other arguments to elicit Takfir of all nations and societies. And thus, when they came across these verdicts of the Scholars who speak of this situation, they found their treasure. Through this, they maintained their Takfir of all nation states and societies and justified their da'wah which consists of the Leninist revolutionary manifestos that they acquired from secular atheist Jews through the works of Qutb (see here) and which are the actual methodologies these people take as their religion before Allaah as opposed to the methodology of the Prophets in da'wah and rectification. The slogan for this da'wah became "Haakimiyyah".
For the verdicts relating to total replacement of the Sharee'ah, you can refer to these articles here, its a good idea to read them all before continuing:
For the sayings of the Scholars on al-Haakimiyyah, see these articles:
Ali al-Timimi continues:
But, if the ruler says that the Sharee'ah is the best way, and that we're obligated to follow the Sharee'ah... and to rule by the Sharee'ah - yet he doesn't do it in some instances, or in most of his instances , or in few instances - then this person is not a disbeliever.
The situation present in most Muslim lands today is that Secular Laws are present in greater or lesser amounts, and the Qutbiyyah make Takfir of the rulers upon this situation predominant in most of the Muslim lands. This Takfir is derived from the doctrine of Sayyid Qutb that not ruling by everything, in all affairs, is kufr and apostasy, it is either 100% rule or not, it is black or it is white, there is no in-between state. Any deviation or deficiency is kufr and apostasy. And this extremism, exaggeration and absolutism is found in his works and we will document that separately. They fraudulently apply the sayings of the scholars regarding the total or systematic abolition of all of the Sharee'ah to the situation present in most of the Muslim lands - and at the same time, these very same scholars who hold such views, such as Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Aal ash-Shaykh, Shaykh Salih Aal ash-Shaykh, they all refute these people and call them misguided and label them as Kharijites. So you get the picture.
[And] I'll give you an example: The person who says that 'khamar': wine, is haraam - 'it's haraam.' - however, he still drinks it... we say that he is not a disbeliever - [according to the belief of] Ahl Sunnah wa'l Jama'ah - even if he drinks [all] night and day, and he's a drunk. But, if he says that khamar is not haraam - 'is not haraam' - and that 'it's lawful for me' , that he has reached a stage of 'piety', [and] that these rules no longer apply to him, or [he believes that] this was something for the 'old days' [but], as for now; there's no problem with that [anymore]... then, this person is a disbeliever.
He used the example of khamr but it's not really an example that fits the context. A better example - given the context - would be as follows:
Two disputants come to a ruler. The ruler judges by French, English, or American law - and such law courts may be present in the land - so he judges in the issue in order to favor or disadvantage one of the two parties, out of desires, or a particular motive he may have. He knows this is haraam (unlawful), and his belief in the obligation to rule according to the Sharee'ah is established. He does not have hatred or dislike of the Sharee'ah, but this is just hawaa (desire). Or it could be that finds himself compelled in this particular situation, may be it is a high-profile case, and maybe attention may be brought upon him by the media or something, or maybe there are other interests or motives in operation, so out of fear of whatever the circumstances, he judges by secular law in order to avoid rebuke, blame, harm or whatever it might be. Now if this ruler did this once, or twice, or twenty times, or did this most of the time, in this same issue, or other issues or a whole range of different issues together, then as long as he affirms he is sinful, believes in the obligation to rule by the Sharee'ah, and is merely following desires, without him having any dislike or arrogance towards the Sharee'ah, or holding beliefs such as he has a choice, or the Sharee'ah is outmoded, or that the secular law is better or equal to it, or that it is halaal for thim, then this individual is not a kaafir. And there are many verdicts from the Scholars and the likes of Shaykh Ibn Baz and Shaykh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad that characterize this situation here, which we will document separately.
As already stated, many of today's rulers come into power whilst Secular Laws are already present, in fact they have most likely been present in the land even before many of these rulers were born. And if they do institute Secular Laws, then some from the Scholars explain that this is from their erroneous ijtihaad, and Ibn Jibreen was upon this.
See this article:
Whilst noting that if any of those rulers, or ministers or whoever, institutes a single law whilst believing it to be better, more superior, more just than the Sharee'ah, or that it is lawful for him to make tahkeem to it and the likes of these factors, then no doubt this is major kufr.
Our point here is nicely summarized by what was said by Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin to the Algerians in one of his many pieces of advice that the Secular Laws have been present in your land for more than 150 years, and you or your ruler certainly are not going to change them overnight!
Now does this mean the Muslims of those lands accept the situation? Certainly not. But the question is, in those lands what is the nature, orientation and direction of the da'wah and what is the state and condition of the people in terms of Tawhid, Eemaan, Sunnah and so on? This depends on the circumstances of each country.
It was the doctrine of Sayyid and Mohammad Qutb that "Laa ilaaha illallaaha" is nothing but Haakimiyyah, and Tawhid is but to snatch the Haakimiyyah from the creation and hand it back to Allaah. These are actual explicit texts that have come from these people that will be documented separately inshaa'Allaah, from Sayyid Qutb in his "Zilaal". They made this to comprise the very essence of Tawhid, and Mawdudi portrayed the da'wah of the Prophets in such a manner, and Qutb took the doctrine of Haakimiyyah from Mawdudi and laid down his revolutionary manifesto taken from secular atheist Jews in his works "Milestones" and "az-Zilal". This was after he had already helped his former comrade revolutionary, Jamal Abdul-Nassser to come into power in 1952 through the same type of Leninist revolution. These ideas were exported and spread to other Muslim lands by those who fled 1960s Nasserite Egypt and went to other places like Syria and Saudi Arabia. Having emigrated to these lands, they began recruiting the locals for the same type of activities and they brought nothing but turmoil and destruction with their evil doctrines in those places as well.
Ali al-Timimi continues:
[So], the only way to know about the ruler - [as in], if he's a disbeliever or not - [is] if he expresses his belief. So, if the ruler says: 'Socialism is the way for the Ummah to go, and 'the Sharee'ah is barbaric' , or [he says that it] is 'backward' - or is a cause of the Muslims ...[that] 'it does not achieve justice'... then this man is a Kaafir. He's outside the fold of Islam.
Ali al-Timimi here has restricted the kufr of a ruler who rules by the Secular Laws to the verbal expression of the belief in the heart, making it "the only way" to know if he is a disbeliever or not, and he is speaking about Secular Laws like the French, or American, or English law. Both before and after the verdicts of the Permanent Committee regarding two of the books of Ali Hasan al-Halabi (in September 2000), the Qutbiyyah and the Kharijites in general were accusing those who did not agree with their Takfir of the situation predominant in the Muslim lands today of the presence of Secular Laws in greater or lesser amounts of being Murji'ah. What Ali al-Timimi has stated here would be considered Irjaa' by these people.
This accusation was spearheaded by Mohammad Qutb and his stooge Safar al-Hawali and it constituted an ideological defense for the doctrines of Sayyid Qutb (Haakimiyyah, Takfir, Leninist Revolution). And they targeted Imaam al-Abani (rahimahullaah) in this regard in particular as his revival of the da'wah was antithetical to theirs and because he had already criticized Sayyid Qutb on the issue of wahdat ul-wujood, on account of which the Ikhwan sanctioned an organization-wide boycott against him (see here and here). The diminishing of the rank of Qutb and his foundational works (which are the basis for Takfir and Leninist revolution) is a huge threat to these people, because to them Tawhid is "Haakimiyyah" and Haakimiyyah is "Tawhid" and the Kalimah "Laa ilaaha illallaah" is "Laa Haakimiyyah illaa lillaah", and this is the entire premise of their da'wah in a contemporary setting.
The Qutbiyyah made the accusation of Irjaa' upon not making Takfir of the rulers who do not rule by the Sharee'ah in all affairs - and in this, they were supporting the doctrines of Qutb, and they targeted Imaam al-Albani in particular. The scholars refuted them in this. Go and listen to and read this fatwa from Shaykh Abdul-Aziz ar-Raajihee who addresses the accusation of Irjaa' against Imaam al-Albani, Imaam Ibn Baz, Imaam Ibn Uthaymin for their positions on ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed, and here is the text of the question put to the Shaykh:
What is the saying of the respected Shaykh 'Abdul-'Azeez Bin Baaz (rahimahullaah taa'alaa) concerning Takfir on account of abandonment of judging by what Allaah has revealed, and is his saying, and the saying of al-Albaani, and Muhammad Ibn Uthaymeen (alaihim rahmatullaahi) the saying of "the Murji'ah of the Era"? (i.e. as some people say)
So understand this and beware, for the deception of the Qutbiyyah is deep and it will be unveiled elsewhere inshaa'Allaah!
Then he (al-Timimi) proceeds to the issue of revolt.
Now comes the next question. Revolting against the ruler. It is forbidden to revolt against the sinful ruler, the one who is a faasiq, the one who is impious, because he is still inside faith, he is still inside of Islaam and revolting against him will cause more evil. First [and] more importantly, the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) forbade that and said, "...until you see clear kufr from which you have a proof from Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aalaa)", as the hadeeth in Bukhaaree says, "illaa an tarau kufran bawwaahan", something which is clear and that you have proof from Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aalaa) that this is kufr, not something you just conjecture is kufr.
Putting aside other nawaaqid (nullifiers) to one side - because it can be the case that a ruler falls into something of them, and become a kaafir through them such as worshipping other than Allaah, or reviling the Prophet (alayhis salaam), or the Qur'an and so on - then putting them to one side and accepting that the rulers may have other nawaaqid, the issue of Takfir on the basis of ruling by the Secular Laws, when it comes to Takfir of a specific ruler is a very great and serious affair. It has huge implications - and making Takfir and announcing it and calling for revolutions in lands where the entire structure of the country has been established for decades and decades, if not centuries, upon Secular Laws for the most part due to the activities of the colonialists (such as what we see in Algeria), and which have military forces, and are under the watchful eye of their former colonizing powers, is not going to bring about much good. History is a witness to that. It may be the case that a ruler becomes a kaafir, but this issue should be returned to the Major Scholars and not to the bloodthirsty, ignorant, sentimental, revolutionary spring chickens, who think they know "fiqh ul-waaqi'".
See these articles regarding Algeria in particular: