The following is a translation from an Arabic leaflet.
O Muslims: All
that agrees with Islam and does not oppose Islam all represent rulings of Kufr
and they are not from the Ahkaam of Islam
By way of
the thought: ‘That which agrees with Islam is from Islam’, the disbelievers
were able to bring Kufr thoughts to us and by way of the thought: ‘That which
does not oppose Islam is from Islam’ the disbelieving States were able to make
us adopt the rulings of Kufr. Through this the thoughts of Kufr began to enter
into the minds of the Muslims so that you would hear the statements: ‘Democracy
is from Islam’, ‘Islamic socialism’ and ‘Social justice’ amongst others. This
also made it easier for the disbelievers and the hypocrites to apply the Kufr
rulings upon the Muslims in areas such as the penal code, the rules of
testimonies (Al-Bayyinaat) and trade laws amongst others. This was the first
step which the disbelievers took to remove the Ahkaam of Islam and the thoughts
of Islam so that the thoughts and rulings of Kufr could replace them in the
lands of Islam and in the minds of the Muslims with their consent and
acceptance. When this was made easy for them and they firmly established this
they then moved on to the following step; the step of presenting the rulings of
Kufr whilst describing them as being progressive in order to replace what they
called backward i.e. to replace the thoughts and rulings of Islam. Then you
have seen with your own eyes the gall and insolence of some of the Muslims in
regards to their distancing of Islam. You have also seen the triviality of
those who pretend to work for Islam or said differently, those who attempt to
reconcile between the Ahkaam of Islam and the Ahkaam of Kufr in order to dress
it with the cloth of progress and their agreement to the modern era and time.
This meant that Kufr was spread all across the lands whilst Islam was
completely sinking from existence.
And now
after Syria has suffered all that it has suffered from the ruling crisis and
the corruption of the rulings of Kufr and the thoughts of Kufr have been
exposed and clearly manifested, the masses from the Muslims have realised and
comprehended that there is no saviour for them other than Islam and that
nothing would put a stop to this anxiety and corruption except for the return
of the State of Islam. As such hope in the coming of the authority of Islam
became embodied within the believers and that Islam was on the verge of
launching its State once again. For this reason it was necessary for Islam to
return in its clear (pure) form, the same form that was revealed upon the
Messenger of Allah (saw). Similarly it was necessary to fight against anything
that was a cause for the rulings of Kufr to become present and to fight against
any method that was used to remove the Ahkaam of Islam.
The people
of power and prevention (Ahl ul-Quwwah Wa-l-Man’ah) began to realise that there
was no saviour except for Islam however the material progress that has appeared
in the West and the East still controls their minds and even if their love for Islam
is dominant within their breasts. For this reason it is feared that the era of
attempting to reconcile between the Ahkaam of Islam and the Ahkaam of Kufr will
return, the era of ‘Whatever agrees with Islam, then it is from Islam’. In
addition, many of the remaining Muslims engaged in this attempted
reconciliation are still active and have followers. They still regard Islam to
be flexible and flowing with every time and place, a view that is (often) heard
and given. As such it is necessary to make clear the danger of the thought:
‘Whatever agrees with Islam then it is from Islam’ and the harm of the thought:
‘Whatever does not oppose Islam then it is from Islam’. This thought is from
the most terrible thoughts that the Muslims have come across and has had the
most severe of effects upon them in terms of making them accept the adoption of
rulings and thoughts of Kufr whilst abandoning the thoughts and Ahkaam of Islam.
Islam is
that which has come as Wahi (divine revealed inspiration) from Allah (swt). As
such it is that which the Kitaab, the Sunnah and what these two have guided to
in terms of evidences, have come with. This alone is Islam and anything else is
Kufr whether it agrees with Islam or it doesn’t contradict and oppose Islam.
The evidence for this is that Allah (swt) has commanded us to take what the
Messenger (saw) has commanded us with and to leave what he (saw) has forbidden.
He (swt) has commanded us to go to the Messenger of Allah (saw) for judgement
i.e. to what the Messenger (saw) came with.
Allah (swt)
said:
وَمَا آَتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ
فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ
شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ
Whatever the
Messenger brings to you take it and whatever he forbids you from abstain from
it. And fear Allah, verily Allah is severe in punishment (Al-Hashr 7).
This is a Nass (text) concerning the obligation
of taking what the Messenger (saw) came with and to leave that which he has
forbidden. If we link and connect this Aayah to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:
فَلْيَحْذَرِ الَّذِينَ
يُخَالِفُونَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِ أَنْ تُصِيبَهُمْ فِتْنَةٌ أَوْ يُصِيبَهُمْ عَذَابٌ
أَلِيمٌ
So let those who go
against His command be warned that a Fitnah will afflict them or that they will
be afflicted by a painful punishment (An-Noor 63).
If we connect them we will know that the ‘Maa’
in His speech: ‘And whatever (maa) he brings to you’ and in His speech: ‘And
whatever (maa) he forbids you’ are in the form of generality clearly
manifesting the obligation of taking what the Messenger (saw) came with and to
leave what he (saw) forbade. That this is general in regards to all what he
commanded to be done and all that he forbade. The Talab (request) in this Aayah
whether it is a request to do (Talab ul-F’il) or a request to leave (Talab
ut-Tark) is represents a Talab Jaazim (decisive request) establishing the
obligation due to the Daleel (evidence) of Allah’s threat to the one who
opposes him with a painful punishment.
And Allah (swt) said:
فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ
حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي
أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا
But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until
they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute
among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you
have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission (An-Nisaa 65).
In this Aayah Allah (swt) negates the Imaan of
the one who goes to judgement to other than the Messenger in his actions. This
indicates the restriction to going to judgement to what the Messenger of Allah
(saw) brought alone and it indicates firm resolution in regards to taking from
anything other than what he (saw) has brought. This is all blatantly clear and
explicit in respect to being restricted to that which Islam has come with.
However, Allah (swt) did not find this
sufficient alone but rather He (swt) also explicitly forbade taking from other
than what he (saw) brought in terms of the Wahi from Allah. So Allah (swt) condemned
those who want to take judgement from other than what the Messenger (saw) came
with.
Allah (swt) said:
أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ
يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ آَمَنُوا بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ
قَبْلِكَ يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ وَقَدْ أُمِرُوا أَنْ
يَكْفُرُوا بِهِ وَيُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَنْ يُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا
Have you not seen those who claim to have believed in
what was revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you? They
wish to refer legislation to Taghoot, while they were commanded to reject it;
and Satan wishes to lead them far astray (An-Nisaa 60).
This is
explicit in regards to forbidding the going to judgement to other than what the
Messenger (saw) came with. It made that Dalaal (going astray) as it going to
judgement to Taghoot. This is whilst there are Ahaadeeth that make it explicitly
clear that the Halaal is what Allah has made Halaal and the Haraam is what
Allah (swt) has made Haraam. This means that what Allah has not made Halaal is
not considered to be Halaal and what Allah (swt) has not made Haraam is not
considered to be Haraam and as such can absolutely not be taken at all.
Salmaan
Al-Faarisi (ra) said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked about the fats,
cheeses and Al-Faraa’ (animal skin and fur) so he (saw) said:
الْحَلَالُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ
فِي كِتَابِهِ ، وَالْحَرَامُ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ فِي كِتَابِهِ
The Halaal is what
Allah has made Halaal in His Kitaab and the Haraam is what Allah has made
Haraam in His Kitaab.
Ad-Daaruqutniy recorded a Hadeeth ffrom Abu Tha’labah
that the Nabi (saw) said:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ فَرَضَ فَرَائِضَ
فَلَا تُضَيِّعُوهَا وَحَدَّ حُدُودًا فَلَا تَعْتَدُوهَا
Verily Allah has
prescribed obligatory acts so do not neglect them and He has set limits so do
not transgress them.
This is explicit in stating that it is not
valid to transgress and go beyond that which Allah has set as limits for us and
as such it is not valid for us to take from other than what the Messenger of
Allah (saw) came with.
Additionally the Hukm Shar’iy is the address of
the Shaari’ (legislator) attached to the actions of the ‘Ibaad (slaves) and the
Muslims are commanded to make the address of the legislator the judge in their
actions and to make their behaviours and conducts proceed in accordance to it.
So if they take that which does not contradict or oppose it or if they take
that which agrees with it, then they would have (in effect) taken from other
that the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy because they did not take it from it. Rather they
took what agreed with it i.e. that which resembled it or did not oppose it i.e.
that which did not clash with it. In these two circumstances they would not in
fact have taken what agrees with it i.e. what resembles it and they would not be
taking that which does not oppose it i.e. does not clash with it. And in these
two cases they would not have taken the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy itself. Rather they
would have taken other than it and other than the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy is not
considered the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy whether it contradicted it or did not
contradict it, and whether it agreed or did not agree. This adoption which they
would have undertaken would not therefore be and represent the adopting of a
Hukm Ash-Shar’iy. For example, marriage in accordance to the Shar’a is offer
and acceptance with the worded expressions of Nikaah and Zawaaj (marriage, in
the presence of two witnesses. If however two Muslims went to a Church and the
Priest conducted the marriage ceremony according to the Christian way whilst
employing the worded phrasing of Nikaah and Zawaaj (marriage), would they in
this case be considered to have married in accordance to the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy
or in accordance to other than it? Did they judge by what the Messenger of
Allah (saw) came with or did they go to judgement to what Christianity, which
has been abrogated by the Deen of Islam, came with? This incident agrees with Islam
and in accordance to their statement that it is permissible to take that which
agrees with Islam and what does not oppose Islam, then this marriage in
accordance to their view would be considered to be Saheeh (valid). This is
despite the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy making this marriage invalid (Baatil) from its
very basis and even if it agrees with or is in harmony with Islam. This is
because we have been forbidden from the origin from which this marriage has
come i.e. the Christian religion. We have been forbidden from the origin from
which this marriage came and that is going to judgement to other than what the
Messenger (saw) brought, which came in the speech of Allah Ta’Aalaa:
يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَتَحَاكَمُوا
إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ
They want to go to
Taghoot for judgement (An-Nisaa 60).
Therefore everything and anything where the Asl
(origin) has been forbidden is Baatil (invalid) and Haraam to take. This
marriage described above would therefore be Baatil and similar to that would be
the civil marriage in addition to everything where the origin has been
forbidden which would be Baatil and Haraam to take. So it is Haraam to take
that which Islam has not come with whether it agrees with Islam or does not
agree with it and whether it opposes Islam or does not oppose it. This is
because, in addition to and above the fact that we have been commanded to take
what the Messenger (saw) has commanded us and to leave that which he has
forbidden with its understanding that we cannot take from other than this, an
explicit forbiddance has also come in respect to taking what the Messenger
(saw) did not bring or come with i.e. to take a matter that the Messenger (saw)
did not come with. This is supported by many other explicit Ahaadeeth that
establish this forbiddance. ‘Aa’ishah (ra) said that the Messenger of Allah
(saw) said:
مَنْ
أَحْدَثَ فِي أَمْرِنَا هَذَا مَا لَيْسَ مِنْهُ فَهُوَ رَدٌّ
Whoever brings into
our affair that which is not from it, then it is rejected.
And in another narration from her (ra):
مَنْ عَمِلَ عَمَلًا
لَيْسَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْرُنَا فَهُوَ رَدٌّ
Whoever does an
action that is not upon our affair then it is rejected.
Al-Bukhaari recorded from Abu Hurairah (ra)
from the Nabi (saw) that he said:
لَا تَقُومُ
السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى تَأْخُذَ أُمَّتِي بِأَخْذِ الْقُرُونِ قَبْلَهَا شِبْرًا
بِشِبْرٍ وَذِرَاعًا بِذِرَاعٍ فَقِيلَ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ كَفَارِسَ
والرُّومِ؟ قَالَ: وَمَنْ مِنَ النّاسِ إلَّا أُوْلئِكَ
‘The hour will not
happen until my Ummah follow the generations that preceded her, hand span by
hand span, arms length by arms length’. It was asked: ‘O Messenger of Allah,
like the Persians and the Romans? He (saw) said: ‘And which people other than
those would it be’.
Al-Bukhaari also relates from Abu Sa’eed
Al-Khudriy (ra) from the Nabi (saw) that he said:
لَتَتَّبِعُنَّ
سَنَنَ مَنْ كَانَ قَبْلَكُمْ شِبْرًا بِشِبْرٍ وَذِرَاعًا بِذِرَاعٍ ، حَتَّى
لَوْ دَخَلُوا فِي جُحْرِ ضَبٍّ لَاتَّبَعْتُمُوهُمْ قُلْنَا : يَا رَسُولَ
اللَّهِ ! الْيَهُودُ وَالنَّصَارَى ؟ - قَالَ فَمَنْ ؟
You will surely the
ways of those who came before you, hand span by hand span, arms length by arms
length to the extent that if they were to enter in to a lizard’s hole you would
follow them into it. O Messenger of Allah! The Jews and the Christians? He
(saw) said: Who else?
These texts are explicit in forbidding the
taking from other than ourselves. The first Hadeeth states: ‘Then it is
rejected’ whilst the other two Hadeeth include within the meaning of the
forbiddance. So taking the western laws represents taking from other than Islam
and it represents a following of those who are like the Persians, Romans,
Christians and Jews as it represents a following of the English, French and
Americans amongst others. For this reason it is Haraam to take them regardless
of whether they are in agreement with Islam or they do not agree, oppose it or
do not oppose it. Taking it is Haraam.
It should not be said that certain things
happened that were not from the time of the Messenger (saw) or from the time
before and no Hukm (ruling) was brought for them. As a result of this it is
permissible to take and adopt them based on the statement of the Messenger
(saw):
وَمَا سَكَتَ عَنْهُ فَهُوَ عَفْو
And what it has
been silent upon then it is pardoned
This is also in addition to the statement that
‘the origin of things is Ibaahah (permissibility)’. This cannot be said because
the speech (Qawl) of the Messenger (saw) does not mean what the Shar’a has
remained silent upon with the meaning that it has not explained and clarified
it. How perfect is Allah for this to be the case because the Shar’a did not remain
silent about matters where it did not explain its Hukm. Indeed the Shar’a the
Hukm (judgement) for every matter and there exists no reality except that it
has a Hukm and there is no incident except that it has for it a Hukm
(judgement). It is not right for a Muslim to say that the Shaar’i (legislator)
has been silent over a thing or matter and has not clarified and explained its
Hukm after reading the speech of Allah (swt):
الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ
دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ
دِينًا
Today I have
completed your Deen for you and perfected my favour (or blessing) upon you and
I have chosen for you Islam as a Deen (Al-Maa’idah 3).
And His (swt) speech:
وَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ
تِبْيَانًا لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ
And we have
revealed upon you the Book as an explanation of every matter and as a guidance,
mercy and glad tidings to the Muslims (An-Nahl 89).
Therefore it is not right or valid for anyone
from amongst the Muslims to hold the view that some realities are devoid of a
Shar’i ruling where it is viewed that the Sharee’ah has completely neglected
it. Viewing that it has no Daleel from the Kitaab or the Sunnah attributed to
it or an ‘Illah Shar’iyah (Legal reasoning) that has come in an explicit text
or by way of Dalaalah (implication) or Istinbaat (extraction) or Qiyaas
(analogy) that alerts the Sharee’ah by way of a certain Daleel or sign
(Amaarah) to the Hukm for some of these realities. This in regards to providing
the Hukm in terms of it being obligatory, recommended (Mandoob), Haraam,
Makrooh, Mubaah, Baatil, Faasid or a Sabab, Shart or Maan’i etc... It is not permissible for any Muslim to hold
this view because by doing so he will be finding fault in the Sharee’ah by
saying that it is incomplete and he would permit going to judgement to other
than the Shar’a which is in opposition to the speech of Allah (swt):
فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ
حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ
But no, by your
Lord, they will not believe until they go to you for judgment (An-Nisaa’ 65).
If the Shar’a had not come with the Hukm
(according to this view) and the Muslim then took a Hukm that the Shar’a had
not come with, then he would have judged by other than the Shar’a and this is
not permissible. As such the claim that the Shar’a did not come with Ahkaam
(rulings) for every incident means permitting going to judgement to other than
the Shar’a, because the Shar’a (in their view) did not come with it, is a false
and invalid (Baatil) claim.
Therefore the meaning of the Hadeeth ‘And
what it has been silent upon then it is pardoned’ is not that the Shar’a
has not explained the Hukm. Rather its meaning is that the Messenger (saw)
addressed his Sahaabah (rah) and said to them in meaning: ‘Take what the text
has brought and do not ask about other than that so that it does not become
Haraam for you’. This is like his speech (saw):
ذَرُونِي مَا
تَرَكْتُمْ فَإِنَّمَا هَلَكَ مَنْ كَانَ قَبْلَكُمْ بِكَثْرَةِ سُؤَالِهِمْ
وَاخْتِلَافِهِمْ عَلَى أَنْبِيَائِهِمْ . فَإِذَا نَهَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ شَيْءٍ
فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ . وَإِذَا أَمَرْتُكُمْ بِأَمْرِ فَأْتُوا مِنْهُ مَا
اسْتَطَعْتُمْ
Do not push me to tell you more than I have told you.
Those who came before you were destroyed because they asked too many questions
and argued with their Prophets. So if I have forbidden you from something then
keep away from it and if I have commanded you with something then do it to the best
of your ability (Muslim).
The meaning
therefore of: ‘What it has been silent upon’ is that which he has not
forbidden, so do not ask me about it as Allah (swt) has pardoned it and lifted
it from you, so do not make the weight and burden heavier upon yourselves and
do not seek to do so. The evidence for this is found in the full text of the
Hadeeth as he (saw) said: ‘And do not search for them’.
إِنَّ اللَّهَ فَرَضَ فَرَائِضَ فَلَا تُضَيِّعُوهَا ، وَنَهَى
عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ فَلَا تَنْتَهِكُوهَا ، وَحَدَّ حُدُودًا فَلَا تَعْتَدُوهَا ،
وَعَفَا عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ رَحْمَةً بِكُمْ لَا عَنْ نِسْيَانٍ فَلَا تَبْحَثُوا
عَنْهَا
Verily Allah has
prescribed obligatory acts so do not neglect them, He has forbidden things so
do not contravene them, He has set limits so do not transgress them, He has
pardoned matters out of mercy to you and not out of forgetfulness so do not
search for them.
The
forbiddance is therefore related to searching into them and it does not mean
that there are matters in which Allah (swt) has not explained and clarified
their Hukm.
As for
making deductions by the principle (Qaa’idah): ‘The origin of things is Ibaahah
(permissibility)’. Then this specifically relates to things and not actions.
The things that are present in existence are permitted for us due to the
general texts of the Qur’aan:
وَخَلَقَ
لَكُمْ مَا في الأَرْضِ جَمِيعاً
And He created for
you all that is in the earth
كُلُوا واشْرَبوا
Eat and drink
These are amongst other texts indicating that
the origin in regards to them (things) is Ibaahah (permissibility) due to the
generality of the texts. Therefore for a thing to be Haraam it is essential for
there to exist a text that makes it Haraam because the general permissibility
covers everything whilst exempting a thing from the generality to make it
Haraam requires a text that exempts it. The principle of: ‘The origin of things
is Ibaahah’ is therefore based upon this.
As for Af’aal (actions) then the origin in
regards to them is restriction and adherence to the address of the legislator.
Therefore, if the legislator (Ash-Shaar’i) has brought its permissibility the
action would be Mubaah and if the Shaar’i has not come with its permissibility
then it is essential to search for its Hukm within the Adillah Ash-Shar’iyah
(The legislative evidences). Therefore the origin in regards to actions is not
Ibaahah (permissibility) but rather it is the restriction and adherence to the
Hukm Ash-Shar’iy.
Someone could argue that the invention of the
nuclear bomb is an action, drawing war plans is an action and going to the Moon
is an action, all of which do not contradict and oppose Islam, and as such we
can adopt them because they agree with Islam and do not contradict with it.
Adopting it would represent adopting that which does not contract Islam and it
would be an adoption of what agrees with Islam. The answer to this is that
there is a difference between the thoughts related to the ‘Aqa’id (beliefs) and
the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah and between the thoughts related to sciences, arts,
manufacturing, inventions and similar matters. This is because the thoughts
related sciences and arts (skills) etc... are permitted to take if they do not
contradict with Islam whereas the thoughts related to the ‘Aqaa’id and the
Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah are not permitted to be taken except from that which the
Messenger (saw) came with i.e. the Kitaab, the Sunnah and which these two have
guided to (Ijmaa’ and Qiyaas). The Daleel for this is what Muslim related from
the Nabi (saw) who said:
إِنَّمَا أَنَا
بَشَرٌ ، إِذَا أَمَرَتْكُمْ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ دِينِكُمْ فَخُذُوا بِهِ ، وَإِذَا
أَمَرْتُكُمْ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ رَأْيِي فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ
Verily I am only a man, if I have commanded you with a
matter from your Deen then take it and if I command you with a matter from my
opinion then I am only a man.
And also the
Hadeeth related from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) and Anas (ra) who both narrated that the
Nabi (saw) passed by a people who were grafting their palm trees and so he said
to them that it would be ok if they did not practise this technique. They
followed his advice and the produce was poor. So he (saw) passed by them and
asked them about what had happened to the palm trees and they told him (saw)
that we followed what you had told us. So He (saw) said:
أَنْتُمْ أَدْرَى بِأُمورِ دُنْيَاكُمْ
You are more aware of the affairs of your Dunyaa.
Another
evidence has been reported by the writers of Seerah when they related that when
the Nabi (saw) went out to meet the Mushrikeen in the Ghazwah of Badr. He descended
at the nearest water (wells) of Badr and Al-Hubaab Bin Al-Mundhir (ra) said to
him: ‘O Messenger of Allah, has this location been revealed to you by Allah
Ta’Aalaa so that we cannot move forward or move back from its position or is it
(from the matters) of opinion, war and intrigue (planning)?’ He (saw) said:
بَلْ هُوَ الرَّأْيُ وَالحَرْبُ وَالمَكِيدَة
Indeed it is
opinion, warfare and intrigue (cunning, plotting).
He (Al-Hubaab) said: ‘O Messenger of Allah,
this is not the right place to descend, so arise with the people until you come
to the nearest water source of the people as I know the abundance of its water
and that it will not run out. So we should descend there and then cave in all
of the other water sources (wells) from the middle. Then we should build a
basin upon it and fill it with water so that we can drink and they cannot. Then
the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘You have provided indication by way of
opinion’.
All of these texts are evidence indicating
matters that are not from the ‘Aqaa’id (beliefs) and Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah. If
these matters do not contradict with Islam where a text has not come forbidding
it, then these are what we (can) adopt if it is in agreement to Islam and does
not oppose it. If there is a text forbidding it then we do not take it because
the Shar’a has forbidden it. The areas of the Funoon (arts/skills), ‘Uloom
(sciences), manufacturing, inventions and areas that are similar to these can
be taken if they are not contrary to Islam. So Tasweer (making pictures) is an
art from the Funoon which is not from the Aqeedah and not from the Ahkaam
Ash-Shari’iyah and as such we can adopt it if it is not contrary to Islam.
However a text has come to forbid it and as such we do not take it. Drawing a
picture of a human, animal or bird which all possess a Rooh (spirit) by hand is
Haraam upon the Muslims because the text has come forbidding it. The Messenger
of Allah (saw) said:
كُلُّ مَصَوِّرٍ فِي النَّارِ
Every picture maker
is in the fire.
And he (saw) said:
الَّذِينَ يَصْنَعُونَ هَذِهِ الصُّوَرَ يُعَذَّبُونَ يَوْمَ القِيَامَةِ
Those who produce
these pictures will be punished on the Day of Judgement.
This is therefore a Nass (text) forbidding the
Tasweer and so the drawing by hand, despite being an art, is contrary to Islam
due to a text coming forbidding it. It is therefore Haraam and it is not
permissible for a Muslim to draw a picture or sculpt anything that possesses a
Rooh. As for the Tasweer (Making pictures) with a camera then this is Mubaah
(permissible) because it is not the making of pictures by the work of the man
but rather it represents the transference of the very same thing (image). It
does not fall under the mentioned forbiddance and as such is Mubaah because it
is a Fann (art) which is permitted to take and adopt as long as it is not
contrary to Islam. The same applies in respect to agriculture, sea navigation,
draw war plans/tactics and inventions as a whole and those areas which resemble
them (in nature). This therefore is what is permissible if is not contrary and
against Islam. If however it is from the matters of the ‘Aqaa’id (beliefs) and
Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah then it is not valid to be taken unless it is done in
accordance to what the Messenger of Allah (saw) brought from Allah i.e. all
actions have to be undertaken in accordance to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah.
O Muslims!
This is the reality of Islam. So what the Wahi
came with represented in the Kitaab and the Sunnah is Islam and it is the
Shar’a. What the Wahi did not bring is not the Shar’a and it is not from Islam.
Therefore anything that does not have a Daleel from the Kitaab and the Sunnah
or what these two evidences have guided to as sources of evidence (Adillah i.e.
Ijmaa’ and Qiyaas), would represent the thoughts of Kufr, whether they were
contrary to Islam or were not contrary and whether they agreed with it or did
not agree. The Muslims must therefore beware of anyone bringing to them the
deception of taking that which agrees with Islam or an action that does not
contradict with Islam. This is because it represents a dangerously slippery
slope that leads to the abandonment of Islam and to the acceptance of the Ahkaam
and thoughts of Kufr. It is also a dangerous slope that leads to swerving away
from Islam and deviating from its path/method (Tareeqah). Indeed the Muslims
must know that everything that agrees with Islam and everything that is not
contrary to Islam are thoughts and rulings of Kufr and that it is absolutely
not Halaal to take them at all. They must be outright rejected and indeed it is
obligatory for them to be fought ferociously and fiercely opposed. This is
because it is a terrible deception and trickery used to bring the rulings of
Kufr upon the Muslims and as a means to divert them from the path of guidance,
the path of Islam.
Damascus 20th Rabee’u-th-Thaaniy
1386
07/08/1966
Comments