Recap From The First Part

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.

Going Back to the Citations of the Takfiris

Now that we have laid these foundations and clarified the matter, and learned that all of these words have very specific meanings (istihlaal, qubool, juhood, iltizaam, imtinaa'), that are not to be confused with each other, we can now unveil those academic, intellectual frauds and the multiple levels upon which they are being carried out - and this is very common with the Qutbiyyah, Takfiriyyah, Kharijiyyah with respect to the statements of Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (and also Shaykh ul-Islam Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab) - they take statements from these Scholars and apply them to situations that they do not even apply to.

Here they are:

These arguments and quotations in this manner are found frequently on the website, forum run by one of the most extreme and bigoted of the Qutbiyyah, Abu Zubair Saleem Beg al-Azzami, who provides a platform for the Takfiris, Kharijites and other extremists to spread their ignorance, deception and lies with free license. Let's take a closer look at these quotes:

The First Quote is About the Tartars

Let's take the first quote.

Any party that refrains from following a single order from the Apparent Shari'a of Islam, they should be fought until they are Disciplined with the Shari'a, even if they were announcing the Two shahaadas (the two statements of 'I bear witness that there is No god but Allah' and 'Muhammad is His Messenger') and practising some of the Shari'a."(Majmu'a Fataawa, V. 28).

There is no full reference given to it, just a volume number. It actually occurs on page 502 of volume 28. The quoted statement above is in response to a question, and the question is about the Tartars (not about rulers):

This question is about the Tartars who swept across those lands in the year 699H and killed the Muslims, humiliated them, destroyed the mosques, and belittled the Bayt ul-Maqdis, took the wealth of the Muslims, and the bayt ul-maal, and took a great number of Muslim men as captives. Alongside all of this, they claimed attachment to the two shahaadahs (testifications) and claimed the prohibition of fighting against them because they claimed to follow the basis of Islam. So the questioner asks about these people:

Is it permissible to fight them or is it obligatory (to fight them), and whichever of the two it is, from which angles is it permissible or obligatory...

Ibn Taymiyyah answered:

So he replied: All praise is due to Allaah. Every faction that abstains, withholds (طائفة ممتنعة) from making iltizaam of a legislated (act) from the legislated (acts) of Islaam that are manifest and [known through] large-scale successive transmission - whether they are from those people or other than them - it is obligatory to fight them until they make iltizaam of its legislated acts, even if they utter the two testimonials alongside that, and make iltizaam of some of its (other) legislated (acts), just as Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq and the Companions (radiallaahu anhum) fought against the those who withheld the zakaah.

We can see from this answer that:

• The quote is about those Tartars who affirm the Shahadah and consider some of the obligations of Islaam binding upon them, but do not consider others (which are well-known, well-transmitted, openly-known obligations) to be binding upon them, even if they accept that they are obligations. Meaning, that they do not make iltizaam of some of the legislated acts.

• So any one who does that, then it is obligatory upon the Islamic authority (rulers) to fight against them until they make iltizaam of that legislated act, which means that they accept that the obligation applies to them.

• This quote from Ibn Taymiyyah has nothing to do with sinful, disobedient rulers who are neglectful in fulfilling or implementing certain obligations. Rather it is about factions of people who make imtinaa' of the well-known outward obligations of Islam such as prayer, zakah, fasting and the likes.

You have to remember that these Takfiri fraudsters who make attachment to Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, they lie upon him often, and they twist his statements often, and we see in this example a perfect illustration. They try to apply this to the situation of the rulers who do not act upon or implement some of the legislated obligations of Islam or who may fall into some of the prohibitions, alongside the fact that the rulers actually make iltizaam of those obligations or prohibitions, they accept that the obligation does apply to them. And we see that Ibn Taymiyyah has hundreds of statements prohibiting from fighting against the rulers, and rebelling against them, even if they sin, and oppress the people and fail to abide by aspects of the Sharee'ah - and this is mutawaatir in the Sunnah itself, as occurs in the hadeeth of Hudhayfah as found in Saheeh Muslim, the saying of the Messenger (alayhis salaam):

Here the Prophet (alayhis salaam) said that there will be leaders who will a) not follow the guidance of the Prophet b) not follow his Sunnah c) have the hearts of devils in bodies of men d) beat the people e) confiscate their wealth, and alongside all of that the Prophet advised that the people hear and obey them. This is a matter of creed (aqidah), and the Salaf included it in their works on creed and it is a matter of ijmaa'. Unfortunately, these 20th Century Leninist Takfiri Kharijites, work against this particular aqidah, through the doctrine and understanding of "social justice" that came to them from Sayyid Qutb, and which itself was taken by Qutb from the philosophies of atheist secular Jews and their revolutionary manifestos (see here).

So you understand what is going on here, the intellectual and academic fraud that is rampant across all Takfiri polemical works, is that they apply the verdicts (of Ibn Taymiyyah and all other Scholars) that pertain to factions who make imtinaa', meaning they do not make iltizaam (upon the meaning already explained) of something that is a well-known, legislated obligation (such as zakah, or hajj, or fasting and the likes) - they apply these verdicts, wrongly, upon the rulers who make iltizaam (upon the meaning explained) of the obligations but who do not necessarily fulfill the obligations.

This is one of the major taghuts of the Takfiris that they have used for a long time to confuse and deceive the people and by which they lie upon Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah - so please take note of this matter and understand it well! And when you understand the true meaning of iltizaam and imtinaa, then you will understand much of the speech of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab and through that, the many quotes brought by the Takfiris to justify their Takfir and rebellion, will become clear to you.

The Second Quote

The next two quotes are claimed to be from the same page (28/556)

"It is known from the religion by necessity, and unanimously by the Muslims to fight any group that stopped one Shari'a of Islamic Shari`a which is apparent and nobody can dispute About it."(ibid., V. 28, p. 556).

"It is permissible and even compulsory to fight any group or Party which refrains from a single order from the Shari'a, from The known and the apparent Islamic law." (Ibid., p. 556)

When we return to the quotes, we find that these are taken from an answer to a question, and that the question is similar to the previous one, it appears to be in relation to the Tartars and their likes, since the actions described are just like theirs. Also the translations provided are not really accurate. Here is the question:

We can quickly paraphrase the first part of this question, Ibn Taymiyyah is asked about a people who have some power, established in a land, but they do not pray the prescribed prayers, they don't have a mosque, and no adhaan or iqaamah, and if they do pray, it is with an non-legislated prayer. That despite having a lot of wealth, they don't give the zakah. They kill each other, and take the wealth of each other, and they also kill children and do not withhold from shedding blood, or taking wealth (from others) neither in the month of Ramadan, nor the prohibited months or others. And when they take each other captive they sell some of them to the Europeans, or they sell their male and female slaves to the Europeans and parade them like animals. The questioner continues, leading up to the question:

They also marry a woman in her iddah period, and they don't give inheritance to women, and they do not comply with (obey) the ruler of the Muslims. When one of them is invited to the legislation, he says, "We are the legislation", and other than that. So is it permissible to fight them whilst the situation is like this, and what is the way to entering them into Islam alongside what has been mentioned?

We see that the question is in relation to this category of people, not in relation to Rulers who are sinful or do not fulfil some of the obligations, even if they make iltizaam of them.

Ibn Taymiyyah answers, and this is the part that is found in the quotes from the Takfiris cited above:

He replied: Yes. It is permissible. Rather, it is obligatory by consensus of the Muslims to fight these and their likes from every faction that withholds (makes imtinaa') from a legislated (act) from amongst the legislated (acts) of Islam that are manifest (well-known) and reported with large-scale successive transmission...

Please note that the Takfiris have not provided direct, accurate, verbatim translations, rather they have taken the first part of Ibn Taymiyyah's answer above, and just paraphrased it in those two paragraphs of theirs.

Like in the previous quote, the obligation to fight such factions of people is for those in authority (the rulers), in order to force them to make iltizaam of the Sharee'ah, and these situations have nothing to do with that situation that the Qutbiyyah, Takfiriyyah, Khaarijiyyah want to apply these sayings of Ibn Taymiyyah to, which is the ruler who fails to abide by some of the obligations because Ibn Taymiyyah has countless sayings and verdicts that relate to this situation specifically, prohibiting rebellion and ordering obedience in that which is good and giving advice in the proper legislated manner and having patience and the likes.

So we see these people committing this great crime by drawing upon statements of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and applying them to situations they do not apply to, alongside their complete ignorance of the real and true meanings of the terms such as al-iltizaam and al-imtinaa'.

We have said before in this article, we will repeat it again. All of what you see in the writings of the Takfiris are these types of disgraces, academic and intellectual frauds, twisting of words, confusing and deceiving non-Arabic speaking people, and lying upon the people of knowledge, and they do this a lot through the statements of Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah.

Conclusion

Though there are many quotes that the Leninist Takfiris bring from the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah (and Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab), the examples provided in this article are just an illustration, and the same would apply to all such quotations, in that al-iltizaam and al-imtinaa' have very clear specific meanings, and they are other than al-qubool and al-juhood, and distinguishing between these, as is found in the works of the Scholars, is extremely important otherwise it leads to the kind of confusion that we see the Takfiris steeped in. Through this clarification, one of the major taghuts (false principles) of the Takfiris is demolished and if you ever see these people flashing these types of quotes on the websites, forums and blogs, just do your due diligence, check the original references and find out what is really being spoken of, and you will find, as we have come to know from experience over many long years, that these quotes are being misused and misapplied. This is the reality of the nature of the many so-called evidences that these Qutbiyyah bring to deceive the people and to misguide them.