Wednesday, August 01, 2007

The twisting of ahadith to justify the abandonment of the Shariah

Some from amongst the self proclaimed secularists attempt to justify the abandonment of the Shariah by misquoting certain ahadith of the Prophet (saw). They attempt to derive a meaning from them that contradicts definitive matters in Islam, they claim that they allow the ruler of the Muslims to abandon the implementation of the Shariah.

The following Q&A has explained these ahadith and how they should be understood:

Q&A about gradual implementation of Islam


Anonymous said...

Salam bro,
Please explain how a ruler in Dar al-Islam ordering you to do sin is "misapplication" and you can't obey him, (but cannot rebel against him either), yet a ruler who rules with "Kufr",(yet isn't a kafir for whatever reason), is any different to the first example?

I assume, if he isn't a kafir, and is ruling with Kufr law, he is basically ordering you to do a sin? As surely ordering someone to do a sin in ruling, is ruling by other than what Allah revealed, and is therefore Kufr? Don't forget, in our past there were no statute books and legislatures, and executives etc.. it was just the ruler and his rule. There was simply the order of a ruler, and that WAS the law.

So if he ordered you to drink khamr, is that ordering you to do a sin, and therefore you can't obey but you can't rebel either? Beause that would've been the LAW for muslims before legislatures were invented. Or is he ruling by Kufr obliging rebellion?

If he isn't ruling by Kufr in this example, what is then? (without referring to modern constitutions and statutes as they didn't exist 600 years ago, rather all that existed was the decision of the ruler sent to his subjects in written or verbal form, so there must be a Hukm to address that reality, as it will show the point that actually, all orders from a ruler are the same linguistally as ruling from other than what Allah has revealed, coz he's ordering it in the RULE that he's enforcing on the people! He may not be a Kafir yet still rule by Kufr by your criterion, so how is this not the same as ruling by a sin?)

Unless of course you take the classical stance, which is that the ruler ordering you to do sin is not obeyed but is not rebelled against, and rebellion is only permitted when the ruler becomes a KAFIR, which they all said.

They didn't have this anaomolous middle ground where he's ruling by Kufr, yet is still a Muslim, as it is the same as ruling by a sin!!!

How do you reconcile this contradiction and make the distinction between ruling by Kufr (yet still being a Muslim) and ruling by a sin? What is the difference??? Classical scholars didn't have this bida'ah!

Abu Ismael al-Beirawi said...

Your question is clarified in:

What you said is wrong regarding the classical scholars. The article mentions some of their quotes and views on this subject.

Anonymous said...

With respect brother,

I read your article, and I don't think you got my point. I ask of you to consider my words carefully:

The issue your article adresses is the difference betweem a Muslim ruler who displays Kufr Buwaha and doesn't believe in it (Kufr Asghar). and so he remains a Muslim Fasiq or Thalim, and one who displays Kufr Buwaha and believes in it (kufr Akber) and so he becomes a Kafir.

I am, however, asking what is the definition of a ruler ordering you to do a sin, yet in all but that sin he must be obeyed.

Please consider my example. Today, if a ruler permitted Zina by law, you have said he would be ruling by Kufr (and it may be either Akber or Asghar). However, 600 years ago, if a ruler ordered someone verbally to commit Zina, you would say that the person should disobey that order, yet not rebel, becasue ordering to do a sin isn't the same as ruling by Kufr.

All that has changed in those 600 years though, is that the rulers "old" orders have changed to "new" statutes in modern political terms. Thus, today you say, "he has laws that allow so and so", and yesteryear you would have said, "he orders people to do so and so".

Now, keeping in mind that the "Khalifah IS the state", and his word is law, and that you don't believe in the seperation of the Khaleefah (executive) from law making (legislature), how can it be that 600 years ago when he orders (obliges) someone to commit any crime (like Zina) it is merely "ruling by sin", yet simply by having that order written down in statute (statute that simply permits and not even obliges Zina) it becomes "ruling by Kufr"?

Most, if not all, classical scholars didn't have this new category of allowing sins equals Kufr Buwaha.

They said rebellion was allowed when a ruler becomes a Kafir, and the Kufr Buwaha is his becoming a Kafir, and then they differed on what makes him a Kafir (ie: merely not judging by what Allah has revealed, or also not believing in what Allah has told him to judge by), otherwise they didn't allow rebellion, because he is ruling by a sin.

Check Fat'h al-Bari on when rebellion is allowed if you want! (NOT on what defines Kufr Buwaha, but on when rebellion is allowed).

You will realise my brother, that everything you define as ruling by Kufr, would have been ruling by a sin, with your own definition, if applied before the modern notions of state and legislation (and thus seperation of legilsative and executive powers) penetrated your mind and made you view Islam from that perspective. It's strange, because, your theory doesn't accept the seperation of the legislature from the executive anyway?

So I ask again, how do you explain this contradictin of the same thing (ordereing someone to commit Zina) as being an order to do a sin when in the days of old, yet now you consider the mere permission of it as ruling by Kufr?

Anonymous said...

The statement is factually incorrrect - teh classical scholars all stated the above pint and devoted chapters in tehir hadith shuruh to the aove point - see Nayl ul-awtar of Imam Shawkani - which you have referenced which has a whole chapter on teh obedience to teh amir on this issue.

So it is, with respect you who are factually wrong about this matter.

It will be a sign of your intellectual honesty whether you respond and admit this and allow this post. I urge you as a brother who loves you; speak the truth in this matter though it may be difficult and bitter for you; that will be better fo you and this Ummah; your responsibility is great.

Anonymous said...

1) Is your latest answer an Istinbat (interpretation) and Ijtihad (legal analysis), or is it the definitive (Qati'i) word on the matter which if rejected with knowledge (and not out of ignorance)renders the rejector a Kafir for rejecting a Qati'i matter.

2) If it is not Qati'i and is merely an Istinbat and Usooli Jam'a (jurisprudential reconcilliation) of seemingly clashing evidences (Tarjeeh bayna al-mutaaridayn) (and I assume you would say that it isn't Qat'i because even in your answer you accept that some scholars differ on the application of these ahadith to today, and you depend heavily upon terms such as mafhoom and wasf Nakirah etc... which are usooli and linguistic terms subject to many many differences in themselves within the science of Usool al-Fiqh), so if it is not Qati'i then how can the absence of what your answer calls for in the reality, be considered by you to be Kufr?

3) You have said that the Ahadith don't apply to today because the systems today are systems of Kufr. Is there a Qati'i definition of an Islamic System, using only Qati'i evidences (Thubut and Dalala)for you to make this judgement that those systems not on your definition are therefore on Kufr? Or is your very own definition of what is an Islamic System and Ijtihad?

4) If you say that the systems of today are Kufr Systems because they are not even derived from Ijtihads, can you prove that it is Qati'i that all actions in the Muamalat sphere must be done via Ijtihads and that it is not permissable for someone to claim that they are from the Madaniyyah and thus permissable in origin? Can you please prove this by Qati'i evidences which make the opposite of what you say Kufr?

5) As all of todays scholars do, If I [as their shoe-cleaner], after having studied, digested, learned, preached, and converted many many to your ideas, then rejected them not out of ignorance, but with full knowledge of them (to which I confess), now say that there is no Kufr Buwaha in this Muslim country or that, and that I believe this, and propogate it, and have faith in it in my heart, why doesn't that make me and all those scholars who also aren't ignorant of Islam Kuffar? Surely I am allowing open Kufr, and making it Halal? Surely those scholars are denying the Qati'i?

JazakAllahu Khayr

Abu Ismael al-Beirawi said...

As mentioned at the top of the new look site, we may take some time to respond as the brothers who respond don't have so much time on there hands. So please have patience.

Responses will be posted in due course.

Abu Ismael al-Beirawi said...

The scholars like Shawkani did not legitimise the ruling by kufr based on those ahadith rather they talk of different situations. Please post the actual quotes of the scholars rather than your inferences and logical assumptions based on their works.

Lets take what some people infer from these ahadith to its conclusion - basically they are saying that it is allowed to rule by kufr and accept the sovereignty of man over Allah (swt). What did Shawkani say about that?

In one of his essays he said: a) That referring for judgement to Taghoot (evil i.e. non Islam) constitutes major Kufr.b) That referring for judgement to Taghoot is just one of a number of actions of Kufr, each of which in its own is sufficient to condemn the one who does it as a Kafir.c) He gives examples of Kufr, such as people agreeing to deny women their rights of inheritance and their persisting in co-operating in that, and he states that is major kufr. [Ar-Rasaa'il as-Salafiyah by Ash-Shawkani, pg. 33-34]

Again, please post the actual quotes of the scholars rather than your inferences and logical assumptions based on their works. One example that highlights this danger is regarding the issue of having more than one Khalifah some people may have been confused due to half quotes and inferences from what the scholars said rather than what they actually said. After posting their actual quotes it became clear they talked about a reality which doesn't exist today and that no classical scholar permitted the situation which exists today.

The quotes of scholars are not daleel like the Quran and Sunnah from which you can make inference and derive opinions.

Are you saying that based upon Khabar Ahad hadith it is permitted to deny or abandon Qat'i (definitive) ahkam shariah which are established by Qat'i thuboot and dalalah?

Other questions will be answered later...

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately these type of arguments are twisting evidences and quotes of scholars in order to justify clear munkars such as:

- Prostitution, the latest I've heard is some strange people saying that due to the permissibility of Mu'tah in some opinions this makes prositution non-qat'i and therefore is ok for countries like Bangladesh to legalise it.
- Homosexuality - they are saying as the texts upon it are khabar ahad and that the story of Lut in the Qur'an is about the past - this means it is not definite. They also say that because marriage is only mandub and not fard, this further justifies it. I know some of them have homosexual friends and have been spotted in Gay bars, this is probably how they justify it. They also say that the texts talk about the act of penetration and don't address other issues such as homosexual oral sex and therefore those must be ok. They also seem to have a fascination with lesbians as they love that subject and say as the punishment for lesbians is not hudud but is ta'zir then it must be cool.

I think they may start justifying the Qadianis next by saying the verse about the seal of the prophets is not definitive and therefore the opinion of the Qadianis is legitimate.

I think they already believe that the opinion of the Shia is legitimate that their Imams are infallible.

May Allah save us from the fitna of such people

Anonymous said...

By the way the quotes in the rebellion article from Shawkani and An-Nawawi are used in Ad-Doosiyah by Sheikh Taqi ud-deen an-Nabhani

Anonymous said...

I noticed how you now say: 'Most, if not all, classical scholars didn't have this new category of allowing sins equals Kufr Buwaha.'

When before you said: 'Classical scholars didn't have this bida'ah!'

So you now admit that you were wrong? And you accept it as a legitimate opinion? And therefore can't legitimise regimes da'wah carriers on the pretext of rebellion as those who follow this line of thinking do?

There is a clear difference between asking someone to commit zina or committing zina and making zina halal. Making Zina halal for the people The issue of changing the shariah has been discussed by classical scholars as kufr buwah like Qadi Iyad.

Anonymous said...

Contrary to what you said the scholars did talk about this issue.

The great scholar Sheikh 'Uthman dan Fodio spoke about when it becomes necessary to overthrow the rulers, he said when: 'Secular laws are substituted for the Shari'a, pagan customs and behaviour replace Islamic morality; oppressive taxation, usurpation and the confiscation of property replace the Islamic system of taxation and fiscal policies, and Islamic inheritance laws are abandoned in favour of pagan whims.'

Your example about ordering someone to commit zina and legalising zina being the same thing is absurd.

If the Khalifah ordered someone to commit zina it must be established whether what he did is open to interpretation or not. Generally the scholars would refrain from calling it Kufr Buwah if it was an individual example, however for example if it was established that he was ordering people to commit zina by legitimising it and saying it is ok for them to abandon the law of Allah, then it would be kufr buwah.

The great Hadith expert (hafidh), Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (Allah have mercy on him) states in his monumental commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari, Fath al-Bari in the explanation of this very Hadith:

“The meaning of “open Kufr” is “clear and apparent” and the meaning of “having a proof from Allah” is a clear text of the Qur’an or an authentic Hadith both of which are unambiguous and not subject to speculation (ta’wil). Therefore, it is not permissible to go against the leader as long as his action is open to interpretation."

Anonymous said...

Ibn Abeel-'Izz Al-Hanafee said: "Judging by other than what Allah has revealed could be kufr that expels one from the religion and could be a sin either a major sin or a minor one and it could be a symbolic kufr or minor kufr based on the two sayings and this all depends on the situation of the judge: So if he believes that judging by what allah has revealed is not obligatory or that he has the option in this or if he dishonours it(The judgement of Allah) while being certain that it is the judgement of Allah then this is major kufr and if he believes in the obligation of judging by what allah has revealed in this instance but turnsaway from it while recognizing that he deserves to be punished then he is a sinner and is to be referred to as a disbeliver symbolically or upon minor disbelief" (Sharh At-tahaaweeyyah-pg-324)

Anonymous said...

Sheikh Ahmad Shaakir said concerning acting upon these laws or submitting to it or approving of it: ”Verliy the affair concerning these secular laws is as clear as the sun that it is clear Unbelief-Kufrun Buwaah”(Hukm Al-Jaahiliyah-9)

Abu Ismael al-Beirawi said...

There has been a complaint regarding the post which mentions homosexuality, etc.

Someone has complained that you are accusing Muslims without evidence.

Please explain yourself with evidences, otherwise we will have to remove the post.

Abu Ismael al-Beirawi said...

PLEASE NOTE: As we have mentioned before we have received a massive number of comments, questions, etc. Please have sabr, we will get around to posting your questions/comment if we haven't done so already, especially if your comment/question is lengthy. Generally short ones are posted and answered quicker - but even many of these remain unposted and unanswered at the moment. This is simply to do with the time restrictions we have. Please refrain from getting agitating, accusing, etc if your post hasn't come up yet and others have. We aim to post all legitimate comments/questions and answer them in time.

Jazakallah khair for your patience

Anonymous said...

I was talking about the modernists today who are unfortunately trying to justify evils. I don't know why people would object to my post.

For example:

Irshad Manji who is a self confessed homosexual, you can check her website
She has even launched something called Prject Ijtihad, - they are using Islamic terminologies and are miscontrue evidences to justify their arguments. She and apostates like her are more and more using so-called Muslim scholars to justify their arguments, see:

In America there is even a so-called 'Muslim' homosexual group called 'Al-Fatiha'.

They are different shades of this modernist thought, there are also some people who may not be openly so extreme in their deviation however there are clear reports of them saying things such as 'do you know how many classical scholars were gay?' and also saying that in jannah homosexuality will be ok and such other things such as talking about lesbianism as if it is ok. Mobile phones are such useful things, we can do voice recording nowadays on them - so people can't deny what they have said - I may upload the audio recordings when I get some time.

Also about prostitution, there is a difference between Mutah marriage and prostitution, why would someone justify the actions of the rulers of Bangladesh by saying they are not implementing kufr because there is difference of opinion on Mutah marriage. Since when were the Bangladeshi govt shia? or following that opinion. They don't care about Islamic law, how did they pass such a law - was it through adopting an ijtihad or through accepting the sovereignty of their parliament? Also when someone goes to a prostitute there do they enter a mutah marriage contract or do they just do zina and pay for it?
To me its just obvious that people who attempt to justify things like that on the pretext of difference of opinion are causing fitna.

Islamic Revival said...

You have been accused of slander and spying by someone who seems very angry by what you said.

As you say that you recorded someones phone conversation without their permission which is haram, also if you accuse other muslims without evidence then that is slander.

We will give you a chance to explain yourself as admittedly you have not mentioned anyones name apart from Irshad Manji who is well known to be an apostate.

Anonymous said...

How can I have committed slander if I havnt named anyone. Slander only applies when you name someone, how can I be slandering an idea? Or a type of thinking?

I did mention some people in a very general way but havnt revealed their names yet. I mentioned this only so people are warned of some who use the name of islam but dont practise it and have been known to do blatantly unislamic things. I was repeated arguments ive actually heard from people, of course im not saying all modernists hold these views.

I didnt say that I recorded someones private phone conversation. According to my knowledge there is difference of opinion whether you can record a conversation someone has with you and others in a public place, I follow the opinion that its allowed. So how can someone accuse me of spying, i was following an Islamic opinion. I dont think such ppl wuld want me to reveal such recordings but i believe it is islamically allowed to do so. I dont know why someone is getting angry, they shuldnt be worried unless theyve got something to hide.

Anonymous said...

1) The context in which some scholars discussed dar al islam was when the state already existed. The statement of scholars is not a daleel from which we can extrapolate opinions for todays reality, we have to look at the evidence and the arguments based on evidence.

2) Even if people like Mawardi said dar al islam is wherever people can practise the deen. It is agreed that there isn't a Qat'i definition of dar al islam, however what is Qat'i is that ruling by other than what Allah (swt) revealed is prohibited. So mawardi's definition then becomes irrelevant as it would only in reality be an issue of semantics, it would just be a label with no real use - as what is accepted by everyone is ruling by kufr is a munkar. So the rulers today are doing a munkar which must be removed.

3) Some 'scholars' today even say that Britain is Dar al-Islam - does it mean that Britain rules by Islam? Of course not, for the sake of argument if we use Dar al-Islam in this meaning then we would have to sub-classify:

a) Dar al-Islam type 1: Where Islam is not implemented but where Muslims can practice the Deen.

b) Dar al-Islam type 2: Where the rulers are Muslims and violate definite ahkam Shariah such as accepting man-made law above the Shariah of Allah (swt) - thus rule by kufr (whether it is kufr asghar i.e. lesser or kufr akbar i.e. greater type which renders someone non-Muslim is an area of debate amongst the scholars). The rulers may implement some parts of Islam but as they implement munkar, they must be corrected to either ruling completely by Islam or removed according to a legitimate ijtihad.

c) Dar al-Islam type 3: A Khilafah, where Islam is implemented.

It is clear that all the classical scholars including Mawardi hold that only type 3 is legitimate.

So you can see the issue is just one of semantics as NO CLASSICAL SCHOLAR EVER SAID THAT YOU GIVE SOVEREIGNTY TO MAN MADE LAW ABOVE THE LAW OF ALLAH (SWT) like all the governments in the Muslim world today do.

4)The issue of Kufr Buwah is a red herring. Its context is when armed rebellion against the Khalifah is permitted. It is based on khabar ahad hadith and it is accepted that the scholars differ on its meaning. The real issue is definitive that the rulers today are ruling by kufr mixed with some Islamic laws, a matter which is a Qat'i prohibition. Therefore the issue is how to return back to the comprehensive implementation of the deen?

Therefore the issue is how to return back to the comprehensive implementation of the deen? There are the following views:

i) Through a violent armed rebellion - which is a weak opinion based on ijtihad.

ii) Through a non-violent methodology based on Ijtihad.

iii) The rulers today don't need to be changed, they can continue upon their zulm, munkarat, abandonment of the shariah, etc. This is not a legitimate view at all.

5) We cannot compare the rulers today to the period of Islamic rule under the Khilafah as throughout Islamic history until the very end (1850s) they did not implement laws that violate the Shariah in a Qat'i manner.

Anonymous said...


bro,the hadith which talk about the islamic ruler comitting kufr buwaha , can they be applied in todays reality?
there are muslims who are saying that rulers like gaddafi, assad, mubarak, abdullah etc etc are legitimate rulers who need counselling but they are not on kufr!
they are saying there are no qati evidences which say they are on kufr. could you please elaborate this issue.
from my perpective i think these people are living in a world where to them G.W. Bush is the khaleefah and the muslim lands are his wilayah's.
jazak allah khair for your time.

Anonymous said...

Salam, Akhi you are in factual error regarding what the classical scholars have stated not teh questioner as even your quotes state:

To elaborate:

The issue of kufr buwah is not an issue of ruling by kufr and permitting something definitively prohibited rather ut is in kufr and the ruler being upon kufr i.e. a kafir by changing the shariah or disbelieving in its validity as opposed to what you have stated i.e. the ruler should be a kafir this is what is stated by Ibn Hajar, Nawawi and others that you have quoted like shawkani from Nayl ul-Awtar.
Conceptually in order to state that it is dar ul-kufr and not valid today you must actually demonstrate that the rulers are upon such kufr before saying they are invalid, otherwise they are valid and upon Islam. Hence this is contradictory to saying that they are upon Islam but not legitimate; rather they have to be established as illegitimate oin the first place.
Your argument otherwise is circular and not substantiated. As for the language of being a khalifah this is not part o the shariah as established qatan by the multiple usage of different words (mutaradifaat meaning ruler e.g. Imam, Khalifah, Amir, Sultan, Wali-amr, hakim etc.
And by the consensus of the companions (Ijma al-Sahabah [ra]), when they used different terms e.g. Khalifat ul-Rasul, Khalifat ul-Khalilfat ul-Rasul, Amir ul-mumineen, Imam etc.
This is mentioned by the jurists such Taqi ul-Din al-Nabhani in the book shahsiyah Islamiyah volume 2 on the chapter about khilafah, which states that the term is not important rather its reality i.e. a ruler of the Muslims upon Islam.
Also more fundamentally it is implicit in the definition of Dar ul-Kufr that is adopted by Hizb ul-Tahrir i.e. the ruling by kufr and the abandonment of the rule of Islam being a criterion so you must establish this first - this is obvious and factually necessary otherwise you are saying it is dar ul-Islam and the ruler is upon Islam but that it is invalid.
The article contains these fundamental errors and would require addressing these issues; and more fundamentally the logic needs to be changed.
Hence the land is either dar ul-Islam but the ruler is upon kufr (the classical meaning being that he is a kafir or by HT's modern criterion ruling by kufr buwah (which they say is fisq not kufr unless he disbelieves - see the book ruling system which explicates this); Or it is dar ul-Kufr as the ruler has successfully applied kufr buwah and it has become dar ul-kufr according to the Ijtihad of HT.
So the method will depend upon which of the two you establish, either way you must establish the kufr buwah in ruling first in a matter which is not ikhtilafi - something that is factually not possible since your criterion is ikhtilafi as the Ulema disagree with you that the ruling by "kufr" is anything other than ordering with a sin (amr bil-masiyah) and not kufr, as he would be a Muslim who is ordering you to do something Haram, which would be forbidden to obey as the Prophet (saw) said innama'al ta'at fil-maruf/Obedience is in good. See any of teh references you have mentioned for this as factually this is stated by Imam Nawawi and Imam Shawkani and Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in their respective commentaries of Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari and Muntaqa ul-Akhbar li-Ibn Taymia.
Hence the verdict would be thanni as it contradicts their ijtihad and that of thsoe following teh classsical position today amongst the Ulema such as the Ulema of al-Azhar (some of whom I know many personally, the Mufti and Ulema of al-Sham with whom I have discussed with such as the students of Nur ul-Din Itr, Said Ramadhan Buti with whom I met in Britain and the Ulema of Madinah Munawarrah whom I have discussed the above issues with and the primary source texts which I verified myself in teh original Arabic and the fact that this is well known amongst the students of knowledge and the Ulema) - hence by the crierterion of teh Hizb qati kufr which is not ikhtilafi is not established.
Even the issue of the ruling by kufr buwah, according to the modern criterion of HT; this can't be established either as the issue of implementing the shariah is different from the shariah itself. Rather it is far/brach/rule i.e. hukm of shariah not the shariah itself.
Shariah is the speech of Allah pertaining to every action. Legislation and implementation is something different; this is the adoption a#oof a rule by state and the enforcement of it - this is actually mubah in principle as stated by shaykh Taqi ul-Din al-Nabhani in teh book introduction to the constitution page 10 - it is up to him to adopt and then legalise or make illegal something and further yet outside the hudood criminalisation and punishment is a matter of tazir (State discretion) hence the state does not have to punish people for violating the hukm shari.
In fact the issue of hadd can be abandoned or delayed (both) for the sake of an interest (maslaha), according to Imam Ahmed ibn Murtada al-Mahdi the author of Hadaiq ul-Azhar in the chapetr of hudood (volume 3 of the Beirut-Damascus edition of Sayl ul-Jarar mudaffiq ala Hadaiq ul-Azhar).
Hence the abandonment in and of the hudood itself is not a basis of stating that the system is one of "kufr", as this is an Ijtihad that is considered, and repecte by classical jurists.
Even it wasn't then it would be a matter of ikhtialf and still not kufr.
More than this we know that there is classical ikhtilaf on the permissibility of making political agreements which allow the authority not to impose the shariah as a whole. To quote for you from Shawkanis's Nayl ul-Awtar (that you have relied upon in your article as jurist and a source of shariah rulings and hadith shuruh (explanation)).
Chapter on the validity of Islam with a fasid (irregular) condition (volume 4 page 210 dar ul-kutb ul-ilmiyah Beirut) Nayl ul-awtar (min ahadith sayd ul-akhbar saruh muntaqa ul-akhbar) Imam Muhammad bin Ali al-Shawkani on the collection of hadith collated by Ibn Taymia.

Hadith number 3209 - On the authority of Asim al-Laythi, a man amongst them, said verily he went to the prophet sallallhu alaihi wa alihi wasallam and agreed that he would embrace Islam on (the condition) that he would pray two prayers and he (saw) accepted it from him. Narrated by Ahmed.

Hadith number 3210 - On the authority of Wahb who said I asked Jabir regarding what transpired at thaqeef when they gave the bayah (pledge) and he said: the placed the condition (shart) on the prophet (saaw) that there would be no sadaqa upon them, and no jihad. Verilly I heard from the messenger (saw) himself say: They will give the sadaqa and the will fight Jihad! Narrated by Abu Dawud.

Hadith number 3211 - On the authority of Anas: Verily the Messenger (saaw) said to a man, "embrace Islam" and he responded "I find myself somewhat pressured (ajidunee kaarihaan" and He (saaw) said, "embrace Islam even so (in kunta kaarihaan)" narrated by Ahmed.

In these ahadith there is evidence of the permissibility of taking the bayah (pledge of allegiance) and the acceptance of Islam from a non-Muslim even if he stipulates (batil) invalid conditions, or even if there is an element of compulsion. Abu Dawud was silent (i.e. he viewed it as authentic as he states that anything he stays silent about in his sunan he believes is at least hasan - Imam al-Nawawi in his Majmou or ibn Hajar al-asqalani in al-Isaba or Shawkani himself in dararayn al-mudiyah) and al-Mundhiri, regarding the hadith of Wahb that we have mentioned, Wahb ibn munbih and its isnad (chain of narration) is flawless (la bas bih - a phrase used for hadith which are sahih - rigorously authenticated by the scholars of hadith).
So it is certainly not kufr to make such agreements. I have seen the response of Shaykh Ata and his Ijtihad that this is khass (special) to the nabi, a conclusion which is not supported by others such as Imam al-Izz ibn Abdul-Salam in his Qawaid ul-Kubra and Qadi Ibn Taymia and Allama Shawkani as I have mentioned above - and supported by the likes of Mawdudi in recent times amongst others.
Hence you can not describe this as kufr unless you are going to ascribe Kufr on such Ulema and describe them as kafir - Allah save us from this.
Hence the onus returns to you to establish how when there is ilkhtilaf, kufr can be substantiated, rather according to the Hizb criterion the adoption of the ruler is binding, and if they adopt the ahlul-Sunnah position, then unless there was a mazalim to remove him according to his adopted position then rebellion wouldn;'t be allowed neither would military otherthrow of a regime that is valid be allowed accoridng to the criterion of HT.
So the activity that you are undertaking would be invalid according to your criterion; the lands by your criterion would remain dar ul-Islam according to your criterion (even though they are dar ul-Islam according to other criterion mentioned by HT in volume 2 of Shakhsiyah Islamiyah which is the position of Imam Abu Hanifah as mentioned by Imam Kasani in Badai ul-Sana'I and mentioned also by the translator Reliance of the Traveller as the position of the Hanafi Imam, Muhammad Hamid in his rudud alal-abatil).
I await your detailed response after you publish my comment, for the sake of fairness and justice and allowing people to judge for themselves.

Anonymous said...

Alot of your questions have been answered in earlier posts in this thread. I will address what you said regarding Shawkani's quote and the ahdith.

As was suspected people are derived their own principles from their own assumptions based on the quotes of scholars. That's why I will post the actual arabic quote and its translation from Shawkani on this subject, so people can decide for themselves:

بَابُ صِحَّةِ الْإِسْلَامِ مَعَ الشَّرْطِ الْفَاسِدِ 3221 - ( عَنْ نَصْرِ بْنِ عَاصِمٍ اللَّيْثِيِّ { عَنْ رَجُلٍ مِنْهُمْ أَنَّهُ أَتَى النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَأَسْلَمَ عَلَى أَنْ يُصَلِّيَ صَلَاتَيْنِ فَقَبِلَ مِنْهُ .} رَوَاهُ أَحْمَدُ ، وَفِي لَفْظٍ آخَرَ لَهُ : عَلَى أَنْ لَا يُصَلِّيَ إلَّا صَلَاةً فَقَبِلَ مِنْهُ ) .
Chapter on validity of one accepting Islam, despite an invalid condition: 3221:

Narrated on the authority of Nasr bin ‘Asim al-Laithi ( One among the persons narrated that a man came to the Prophet (saw) and accepted Islam on the condition that he would pray two salat, so the Prophet (saw) accepted that from him.) Reported by Ahmad. In another version, on the condition that he would pray no more than a salat, so the Prophet (saw) accepted that from him.

3222 - ( وَعَنْ وَهْبٍ قَالَ : { سَأَلْت جَابِرًا عَنْ شَأْنِ ثَقِيفٍ إذْ بَايَعَتْ ، فَقَالَ اشْتَرَطَتْ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنْ لَا صَدَقَةَ عَلَيْهَا وَلَا جِهَادَ ، وَأَنَّهُ سَمِعَ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ يَقُولُ : سَيَتَصَدَّقُونَ وَيُجَاهِدُونَ } .رَوَاهُ أَبُو دَاوُد ) .

3222: Wahb says: I asked Jabir about the bay’ah of people of the Thaqeef clan, he said that they put the condition on the Prophet (saw) that there will be no sadaqah and jihad on thaqeef. Jabir says, he later heard the Prophet (saw) say: “They will (agree to) pay sadaqah and (take on) jihad.” Reported by Abu Daud.

3223 - ( وَعَنْ أَنَسٍ { أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لِرَجُلٍ : أَسْلِمْ ، قَالَ : أَجِدُنِي كَارِهًا ، قَالَ : أَسْلِمْ وَإِنْ كُنْت كَارِهًا } .
رَوَاهُ أَحْمَدُ ) .

3223: Narrated by Anas: (that the Prophet (saw) told a person: “Accept Islam”, he replied: “I find it cumbersome.” The Prophet (saw) said: “Yet accept it”. Reported by Ahmad.

هَذِهِ الْأَحَادِيثُ فِيهَا دَلِيلٌ عَلَى أَنَّهُ يَجُوزُ مُبَايَعَةُ الْكَافِرِ وَقَبُولُ الْإِسْلَامِ مِنْهُ وَإِنْ شَرَطَ شَرْطًا بَاطِلًا ، وَأَنَّهُ يَصِحُّ إسْلَامُ مَنْ كَانَ كَارِهًا .
وَقَدْ سَكَتَ أَبُو دَاوُد وَالْمُنْذِرِيُّ عَنْ حَدِيثِ وَهْبٍ الْمَذْكُورِ ، وَهُوَ وَهْبُ بْنُ مُنَبِّهٍ ، وَإِسْنَادُهُ لَا بَأْسَ بِهِ .
وَأَخْرَجَ أَبُو دَاوُد أَيْضًا مِنْ حَدِيثِ الْحَسَنِ الْبَصْرِيِّ عَنْ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ أَبِي الْعَاصِ { أَنَّ وَفْدَ ثَقِيفٍ لَمَّا قَدِمُوا عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنْزَلَهُمْ الْمَسْجِدَ لِيَكُونَ أَرَقَّ لِقُلُوبِهِمْ فَاشْتَرَطُوا عَلَيْهِ أَنْ لَا يُحْشَرُوا وَلَا يُعْشَرُوا وَلَا يُجَبُّوا ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : لَكُمْ أَنْ لَا تُحْشَرُوا ، وَلَا تُعْشَرُوا وَلَا خَيْرَ فِي دِينٍ لَيْسَ فِيهِ رُكُوعٌ } .
قَالَ الْمُنْذِرِيُّ : قَدْ قِيلَ : إنَّ الْحَسَنَ الْبَصْرِيَّ لَمْ يَسْمَعْ مِنْ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ أَبِي الْعَاصِ ، وَالْمُرَادُ بِالْحَشْرِ جَمْعُهُمْ إلَى الْجِهَادِ وَالنَّفِيرُ إلَيْهِ ، وَبِقَوْلِهِ : " يُعْشَرُوا " أَخْذُ الْعُشُورِ مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ صَدَقَةً ، وَبِقَوْلِهِ : " وَلَا يُجَبُّوا " بِفَتْحِ الْجِيمِ وَضَمِّ الْبَاءِ الْمُوَحَّدَةِ الْمُشَدَّدَةِ ، وَأَصْلُ التَّجْبِيَةِ أَنْ يَقُومَ الْإِنْسَانُ مَقَامَ الرَّاكِعِ .
وَأَرَادُوا أَنَّهُمْ لَا يُصَلُّونَ .
قَالَ الْخَطَّابِيِّ : وَيُشْبِهُ أَنْ يَكُونَ إنَّمَا سَمَحَ لَهُمْ بِالْجِهَادِ وَالصَّدَقَةِ لِأَنَّهُمَا لَمْ يَكُونَا بَعْدُ وَاجِبَتَيْنِ فِي الْعَاجِلِ ؛ لِأَنَّ الصَّدَقَةَ إنَّمَا تَجِبُ بِانْقِطَاعِ الْحَوْلِ ، وَالْجِهَادُ إنَّمَا يَجِبُ بِحُضُورِهِ ، وَأَمَّا الصَّلَاةُ فَهِيَ رَاتِبَةٌ فَلَمْ يَجُزْ أَنْ يَشْتَرِطُوا تَرْكَهَا انْتَهَى .
وَيُعَكِّرُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ حَدِيثُ نَصْرِ بْنِ عَاصِمٍ الْمَذْكُورِ فِي الْبَابِ ، فَإِنَّ فِيهِ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَبِلَ مِنْ الرَّجُلِ أَنْ يُصَلِّيَ صَلَاتَيْنِ فَقَطْ ، أَوْ صَلَاةً وَاحِدَةً عَلَى اخْتِلَافِ الرِّوَايَتَيْنِ ، وَيَبْقَى الْإِشْكَالُ فِي قَوْلِهِ فِي الْحَدِيثِ الَّذِي ذَكَرْنَاهُ " لَاخَيْرَ فِي دِينٍ لَيْسَ فِيهِ رُكُوعٌ " فَإِنَّ ظَاهِرَهُ يَدُلُّ عَلَى أَنَّهُ لَا خَيْرَ فِي إسْلَامِ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ بِشَرْطِ أَنْ لَا يُصَلِّيَ .
وَيُمْكِنُ أَنْ يُقَالَ : إنَّ نَفْيَ الْخَيْرِيَّةِ لَا يَسْتَلْزِمُ عَدَمَ جَوَازِ قَبُولِ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ بِشَرْطِ أَنْ لَا يُصَلِّيَ ، وَعَدَمُ قَبُولِهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِذَلِكَ الشَّرْطِ مِنْ ثَقِيفٍ لَا يَسْتَلْزِمُ عَدَمَ جَوَازِ الْقَبُولِ مُطْلَقًا .

These ahadith provide daleel to the permissibility of taking ba’yah from a kafir and acceptance of his embracing islam even when the conditions set are batil (invalid). And the acceptance of one who has aversion to Islam.
And Abu Dawud and Munziri have kept silent on the hadith reported by Wahb mentioned above, who is Wahb bin Munabbah, and his isnad have no issue of doubt.

And Abu-dawud has also reported from the hadith by Hasan al-Basari, who quotes Uthman bin Abi-Aas (that when the delegation of Thaqeef arrived to meet the Prophet (saw), the Prophet (saw) received them at the mosque so as to be courteous and amiable to them, they insisted that they will not be gathered [subjected or coerced] and not levied ‘ushr and taxes upon. The Prophet (saw) said: you will not be gathered [coerced] and neither would you pay ‘ushr but there is no khair in the deen which does not has ruku’.

Al-Munziri said: it has been said that: Hasan al Basri did not hear from Uthman-bin Abi Al Aas, and the meaning of the gathering here is their gathering for Jihad and calling for it (nafeer stands for horn or a sign of warning or call), and by the saying “yashuru” is the taking of ushr from their wealth, and by the saying “wala yujabboo” (and they would not fulfill any obligations) with the fath of the letter jeem and the dham of the mushadad letter baa, and the reality of [yujabbu] is that the man stands in the position of the raki’ [the one who makes ruku’] and they had intended that they would not pray.

Khattabi said: there is shubha (uncertainty/doubt) that they might have excused from Jihad and Sadaqa since these two were not yet obligated upon them immediately. Because the Sadaqa, becomes an obligation with the passing of a year’s term and jihad becomes an obligation (only) when it takes place, while the Salah is already obligated upon and it is not permissible to accept a condition to abandon it.

The above hadith of Nasr bin ‘Asim as mentioned in the chapter renders it rather confusing; because in it the Prophet (saw) accepted from a man that he only prays two prayers only, or only one prayer [on the basis of the difference between the two narrations], and there remains ambiguity in his saying in the hadith which we have mentioned “there is no khair in the deen which has no ruku” so it literally gives evidence that there is no khair in Islam for the one who embraces Islam on the condition that he would not pray. And therefore it is possible to say that: the denial of khair does not oblige (لَا يَسْتَلْزِم) not allowing acceptance of the one who embraces Islam on the condition that he would not pray. And the non- acceptance by the Prophet (saw) of Thaqeef’s condition does not entail an absolute (مُطْلَقًا) non-permissibility of such acceptance. [End of quote from Shawkani's Nayl ul-Awtar]

The title of the section in Nayl ul-Awtar is: 'Chapter on validity of one accepting Islam, despite an invalid condition'. This is the subject matter - the whole discussion is about this and restricted to this. Based upon this would it be legitimate to argue that it is allowed to make assumptions upon it and make a general principle which conflicts which definitive (Qat'i) ahkam such as ruling by man made law instead of the Shariah of Allah (awt)?

For people who seem obsessed with the issue of Qat'i matters, how can Zanni ahadith and assumptions based upon the Zanni explanation of those Zanni ahadith go against Qat'i matters?

According to Shawkani all the rulers in the Muslim world are Kafir, refer to quote mentioned earlier - so according to your misconstruction of what he said he would have to call himself Kafir, as according to what you are assuming from what he said - he allowed the ruling by other than what Allah (swt) revealed on the pretexts of maslaha.

Anonymous said...

Regarding an earlier question about modern statutes being only 600 years old and therefore how can we discuss that. Look at the quote below which mentions Ibn Kathir's position on the Yaasiq which was a law the Mongols made to rule areas where Muslims were present.

Shaykh Ahmad Shakir (who used to be a Qadi in Egypt) mentions in the footnotes of Umdat at-Tafseer in the commentary of Quraan Surah Maidah verse 50,

Do they then seek the judgement of days of ignorance?...

" I say, how can it be right, according to the laws of ALLAH, for the Muslims to rule in their land according to the heretic and pagan laws of Europe? Laws which are subject to whims and desires and false opinions, which they change and alter as they wish, and those who institute them do not care whether they are in accordance with islamic sharia or go against it..

The Muslims did not face such a serious problem at all--as far as we know from their history-- except at that time, the time of the Tartars. Do you not see how al Haafiz Ibn Kathir, in the eight century ( AH) described and condemned in such strong terms, the man-made law invented by the enemy of Islam, Genghis Khan? Do you not think that it also applies to the Muslims of this age, the fourteenth century (AH)? But the Muslims now are in a worse position and are deviating further than they were then, because most of the Muslim nations, now, have virtually fully adopted such laws which go against the shar'iah, which resemble Yaasiq made by a kaafir whose kufr was obvious. These laws are legislated by people who claim to follow Islam. They teach them to the children of the Muslims, and fathers and sons feel proud of that. They entrust their affairs to the followers of this modern Yaasiq, and they belittle those who oppose them, describing those who call them to adhere to their religion shariah as backward and rigid, and use other insulting terms. The matter of these man-made laws is as clear as the light of the day: they constitute blatant kufr....."

Umdat at- Tafseer , 4/173-174 See also his comments on Sharh at- Tahaawiyah Pp.258, Daar al-Maarif , Egypt, edition 1373 AH, and in the al Maktab al Islami edition , Pp. 364, 4th print.

Anonymous said...

Salam alaikum,

Bro the actual quotation states that the pledge can be taken with batil conditions and acceptence of Islam from non-Muslims, also with batil conditions. It also states the view as you have quoted that this may be permitted for other than Salah - as the view of Khattabi; Shawkani reconciles this at the end of the bab.

It is clear; and this may not be your view but it is the view of Shawkani and al-Qadi ibn Taymia. This is stated in the commentary that you translated, and is a far' from the furoo and not the asl that you keep addresing which is qati; you make takhsis and Shawkani makes a different takhsis contradictory to yours as you state it is special to the prophet (saw).

So I think that your statement is at best incorrect. Please re-read- it states the permissibilty of taking the bayah and accepting of Islam from a non-Muslim with invalid conditions. Thaqeef had already embraced Islam; and also Bayah is not taken from a kafir, this is uniformily agreed upon and part of the Hizb adopted culture.

Please get back to me and post my comment. Jazakummullah khairan for your efforts.

Anonymous said...

As I have stated, I accept their is difference of opinion on the interpretation of the ahadith, this is why I posted the actual quote of Shawkani. However I think it is clear for anyone who reads this that the quote is actually talking about the subject which Shawkani listed it under i.e. بَابُ صِحَّةِ الْإِسْلَامِ مَعَ الشَّرْطِ الْفَاسِدِ Chapter on validity of one accepting Islam, despite an invalid condition. Why did Shawkani list it under this subject if it is not related to it? As I suspected you were quoting the scholars out of context and drawing your own assumptions based on their statements.

It is well known that people would embrace Islam and give the bay'ah at the same time. Everyone one knows Bay'ah is not taken from a Kafir, until he embraces Islam - it was common practise at the time of the Prophet (saw) for people to embrace Islam and give the bay'ah simulataneously as happened in Fath ul-Makkah (conquest of Makkah) and many other incidents.

The story of Thaqif is well known, in contradiction to what you said they had not embraced Islam.

According to narrations, it was Khalid ibn Sa'id-ibn al `As who played the role of middleman between them and the Prophet (saw); and it was he who had to taste of every food which the Prophet furnished to them in order to convince them that it had not been poisoned. Finally, on their behalf, Khalid informed Muhammad (saw) of their preparation to convert to Islam on condition that the Prophet exempt them from prayer and promise not to destroy their idol, al Lat, for three years. Muhammad (saw) strongly rejected their proposal regarding al Lat. They changed their proposal to two years, and then to one year, and indeed to one month after their return home. But Muhammad (saw) rejected. Finally, Thaqif accepted Islam on Muhammad's terms. They agreed to the destruction of al Lat but they demanded, however, that they be exempted from having to destroy their own idol with their own hands.

Addressing himself to the delegation, the Prophet (saw) said: "As for the destruction of your idols with your own hands, we exempt you from it."

The delegation returned home accompanied by Abu Sufyan ibn Harb and al Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, who knew the tribe of Thaqif and felt toward its people great friendship and compassion. They were assigned by the Prophet the job of destroying al Lat. Abu Sufyan and al Mughirah approached the sanctuary, and the latter began the job of destruction while the women of Thaqif stood around moaning and crying. Not one tribesman, however, dared to stop al Mughirah in the fulfillment of his duty, for everyone had ratified beforehand the agreement the delegation had concluded with, the Prophet. Al Mughirah further seized the wealth of al Lat and its jewelry and, at the direction of the Prophet and in agreement with Abu Sufyan, settled the debts of 'Urwah and al Aswad. With the destruction of al Lat and the conversion of al TAW, the conversion of the Hijaz was complete.

The issue is not about asl and far, as you are trying to say based upon this that it is acceptable for a ruler simply to be a Muslim and rule by whatever he wants even abandoning and violating the definitive Shariah rules, as long as he rules in the interests (defined by the mind) of the Muslims.

As the matter is clear - anyone who reads this can decide for themselves whether Shawkani, Ibn Taymiyyah or any of the clasical scholars would accept this.

Anonymous said...


i hope you are well.

over the last few months certain muslims have been trying to prove that the muslim lands are dar al islam, and they have been quoting scholar after scholar to justify their position.
also they are trying to muddy the waters by using certain arabic terminology eg qati, thanni etc etc.
even the shaitaan used beautiful words to deceive adam(pbuh) in the gardens of jannah and the prophet (pbuh) told us to be aware of such people.
however these people in my view have set agendas to try and stop the dawah for khilafah from spreading. they are trying to divide the ummah into moderates and extremists, islamists and non islamists etc.
the only other people who use such language are the enemies of islam and the muslim ummah eg, bush, blair, brown, edd hussain, shiraz maher and their ilk.
the ummah need to be aware of such people so that they are not misguided.
these pople are misqoting and dliberatley taking out of context the evidences regarding the issue of when a ruler should be removed if he showed kufr buwah.
my advice to other muslims is not to give them the time of day. shaitaan has affected their thinking and he is now guiding them, may allah (swt) protect us all from such people and their corrupted views. ameen.

Islamic Revival said...

Just a minor correction to what someone mentioned in a previous post, the title used بَابُ صِحَّةِ الْإِسْلَامِ مَعَ الشَّرْطِ الْفَاسِدِ Chapter on validity of one accepting Islam, despite an invalid condition - was actually used by Ibn Taymiyyah and included by Shawkani.

Anonymous said...

Some peoples review of the definitions regarding Dar al-Islam & Dar al Kufr surmises there is a dispute amongst the jurists with some accepting a land as Islamic based on authority and security whilst others accept ability to practice Islam or its signs are present. They then conclude from this superficial understanding of the definitions that there is a dispute on the underlying Shariah rules.

This argument focuses entirely on the variations of the form of definitions whilst ignoring the intended meanings i.e., the substance of the definitions, putting the cart before the horse so to speak. It also violates the usooli principle which makes this very point:

لا مشاحة في الاصطلاح ما لم يخالف الشرع؛ لذلك فليست العبرة بالمباني إنما بالمعاني

The scholars who define a land as Dar al-Islam based on the ability for a Muslim to practice his deen are not stating that it is legitimate to rule and enforce kufr, but are highlighting the fact that the Muslim does not need to migrate to somewhere he can practice his deen as the texts permit that.

Likewise, the one who defines the land as Dar al-kufr if the ruling system is kufr, is not stating that Muslims cannot practice their deen there and must migrate – he is stating that Islam requires the system needs changing. As such, the two definitions are not in conflict in substance, simply in form. Some have ignored this point and deemed a contradiction when there is none.

They also fail to note the implications of his analysis if their reasoning was applied to other definitions. It is well recognised that virtually every term in Islam is contested, even those as fundamental as Imaan, Muslim and Quran. The following example should suffice to make this point clear.

The definition of the term, Quran, according to the Hanafi linguist Jurjani in his book on technical definitions is “revelation to the Messenger compiled in the Musaahif and transmitted through tawatur means without doubt” .

According to Zarkhashi/Suyuti it is “speech of God, revealed to the final Prophet in the Arabic language, worship when recited, compiled in the Uthman mushaf and transmitted via tawatur means”.
And according to Aamidi “The word of Allah revealed to his slave Muhammad in Arabic. It is a miracle (Ijaaz) in even the shortest surah, it is written down and narrated to us through tawatur, through which we worship Allah by reading it, it starts with surah al-Fatiha and ends with al-Naas” .

If the definitions are compared, it is apparent there are a number of differences, including “speech of God”, “in the Arabic language” and “worship when recited”.

If the their warped reasoning was applied in this case, one would conclude that the Quran being the speech of Allah or in Arabic is disputed hence zanni (speculative). However, the jurists (as well as all Muslims) did not dispute these matters and agreed they are decisive (qati) due to the evidence.

The point here is not a dispute on definitions. The point here, which makes the whole definition dispute irrelevant, is that Sharia must be implemented and it is forbidden to implement or enforce non-Islamic ideologies.

Abu Hasan said...


Please find a excellent and detailed article clarifying this whole discussion that is going on at

Abu Jibreel said...

The link, is old; it should be changed to

Just a note, fi amanillah

Anonymous said...

salaam Abu Ismael,

could you please have someone edit and revise the translated document regarding the Q&A on Gradualism Jzk! not a revision of content rather a revision for regarding the language. As as English speaker from North America I had an interesting time reading and deciphering what I could from it.

Please look into that. Jzk


an avid reader!

M Kaya said...

Assalam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,

Mashallah you brothers are well-read. I only read few posts in the beginning. I was wondering, if a ruler tells his subjects to do wrong, would that amount to "ruling by sin"? If a Khalifah, says something like, "please buy me some alcohol from that person"; would we say "you rule by kufr law"? This seems like a stretch of grotesque proportions any which way you look at it. Please correct me if I am wrong.