Jahlul h'aal and jahlul hukm from abu baraa's note(voting issue)

Part-1 Shirk Akbar from al masaa'il al jaliyyah, does not have an excuse of ignorance or interpretation. Including the one who sought arbitration to Taghoot or the one who legislated man-made laws. Whoever votes for an MP legislator, has disbelieved. This is Takfeer Naw' to apply that to an individual requires investigation and checking for excuses and preventions of takfeer (remember ignorance is not the only excuse in the ahkaam of Takfeer). However, if someone was duped into voting without realising what the 'x' on the ballot paper really represented and didn't know that by voting for an MP, he was appointing a legislator - this is maa 'ammat al-balwah - the person will be excused for this ignorance - that is because he did the action while being deceived about its reality. However if he knew that voting for an MP is selecting a legislator instead of Allah and he did it anyway, he is kafir even if he didn't know that choosing a legislator is shirk. Part-2 If someone stepped on the Qur'an - that is Kufr Akbar ---a) if he said 'I didn't know disrespecting/mocking the Qur'an was kufr, I was just joking' - he is still kafir, Allah (swt) says, "Are you mocking Allah, His verses and His messengers? Don't make excuses, you are kafir after you had imaan." b) if he said, "Astaghfirullah, I didn't know that it was the Qur'an, I thought it was the constitution of Bangladesh that I was stepping on." This type of ignorance is an excuse. Similarly if someone votes for an MP - that is Kufr Akbar ----a) if he said 'I didn't know voting for a legislator was kufr' - he is kafir and has no excuse of ignorance. b) if he said 'I didn't know MPs were legislators or that voting was a way of choosing them, I heard that if you put an 'x' next to the light bulb picture then they will bring electricity to my village so I put it - if I knew the election was about legislation Iwould never have done that as it is shirk' - he is excused because of his ignorance. He didn't know what Voting was - that type of ignorance is an excuse.

(Mohammad Moussa : i understood from a taalib al ilm that if you are voting in a election without knowledge then you are excused because you didnt know that it was shirk Al Akbar and you thought it was a good niyyah because of helping the muslims. What is your opinion? Abu baraa:This is one of two: a) the one who didn't know what voting was and thought it was only seeking benefit for Muslims e.g. like applying for housing benefit. and did n't know that voting is choosing a legislator. b) the one who knew that voting was actually choosing a legislator instead of Allah but didn't know that was shirk akbar and thought it was allowed to take a legislator besides Allah for the benefit of Muslims. a) is excused but b) is Kafir and has no excuse)

JURY it is not allowed to do jury service, all the threats are a bluff, the jury service is a form of legislation, it is Shirk Akbar .
[Abu Baraa: The jury are judges, they make a decision in a case of arbitration - i.e. a dispute between two decided by the jury, when they declare a verdict based on man-made laws (and the entire jury system is a man-made system far from Islam) that is a form of legislation and judging by other than what Allah revealed. They are Taghoot .] [Allen Martin: Is there any proofs the Prophets are Alive in their graves? Abu Baraa: Yes they are alive in their graves in the barzakh, while they are all dead in the dunya except Isa ibn Maryam who will return and die in the dunya in the future. Abu Baraa: barzakh is the life between death and the day of judgement. NOT between heaven and hell. Those Muslims who have good and bad deeds may be punished by Allah for a while if He wishes and then they will enter paradise after that, or they could be forgiven if Allah wishes. But the disblievers will be in hellfire forever ]

WHY DIDN'T IMAM AHMED MAKE TAKFEER ON THE RULER? ====================================== Why didn't Imam Ahmed make takfeer on the khulafaa' who imprisoned him for saying the Qur'an is not creation when clearly Imam Ahmed declared the jahmi belief that the Qur'an is creation as kufr Akbar that takes you out of Islam? IS QUR'AN CREATION? =============== No. The Qur'an is the real word of Allah revealed to His slave Muhammad, in the Arabic language. It is worship to recite, written in the Uthmani script

and transmitted by multiple chains. WHO SAID IT WAS CREATION? ==================== The Mu'tazilah were a sect that had a number of deviations because of their rationalizing the aqeedah and denying things found in the text because of rational arguments. Among them there were the extreme Mu'tazilah like Jahm bin Safwaan and Muhammad ibn Karraam. One of the beliefs of Jahm bin Safwaan that took him out of the fold of Islam is his saying that the Qur'an is NOT the word of Allah - he contended that it is impossible for Allah to have words or voice without to be reliant on a throat, voice box, breathing etc like the creation so he decided that Allah has no words and the Qur'an is only a creation of Allah sent to Muhammad (saw). This kufr belief was openly rejected and refuted by the salaf and Jahm bin Safwaan was executed as an apostate in 128 hijri. Following this the Mu'tazilah adapted his belief and tried to reconcile jahmi beliefs with some of the problematic refutations. The Qur'an is described as kalaam ullah in the Qur'an clearly and so cannot be denied, however the mu'tazilah still have a ration based belief that sees the possibility of Allah having audible words problematic. They started to say that the Qur'an is Kalaamullah nafsi - metaphorically the word of Allah, suggesting that it is the words that Allah inspired Jibreel with in meaning but which were then pronounced and articulated by Jibreel to Muhammad and then Muhammad to the people. Therefore the Qur'an IS the word of Allah metaphorically, but the real words spoken by Jibreel and Muhammad using their tongues, throat, organs etc, and written down by hands, ink, parchment etc are all creation. This is still deviation, however as it does not deny that the Qur'an is the word of Allah, it is not the same clear takzeeb as the Jahmi beliefs - as such the scholars gave the excuse of interpretation. Many other sects also adopted this belief such as the Ash'aris. These sects still exist today. This deviation was adopted by some of the khulafaa in the time of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal and declared it the official creed and punished scholars who refused to say it. Imam Ahmed was among them and he refused to change his opinion and forbade the khalifah from this bid'ah. However as this was not the same as the open kufr of Jahm bin Safwaan, he did not declare him to be a kafir. It is not as some people claim that Takfeer on rulers is Haram even if they

commit clear kufr. That is a fallacy and rejected. Nobody is safe from Takfeer if they commit kufr akbar without any excuse, whether scholar, ruler or lay person.
[Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah: Also the murjiah of today like to use Imam Ahmad ibn hanbal as a example that we can't rebel against the taghut rulers that we have in muslim lands but if I'm not mistaken Imam Ahmad bin naser who was a companion of imam Ahmad ibn hanbal did rebel against the ruler who said the Quran isn't kalamullah and Imam Ahmad ibn hanbal praised him for that. Can you shed some light on that please akhi Abu Baraa Abu Baraa: There are two dangerous paths when it comes to takfeer 1) making takfeer hastily or out of partisan, anger, hawaa or without verification or knowledge - including to make takfeer on sins. 2) giving it up completely even for the one eligible for it because of his act of Kufr Akbar with all its conditions. The middle path ========= Ahl Al Sunnah Wal Jama'ah do not make takfeer because of sin nor without verification, but they make takfeer on the one who commits apostasy without any valid excuse - that is vital and many Shari'ah rules are dependant on takfeer that are suspended if this duty is given up. Takfeer is part of our Aqeedah, Tawheed and the foundation of Islam. Abu Baraa: Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah, In fact, some of the salaf had the opinion that it was allowed to rise against hte ruler even if thy were not kafir, because of a crime, bid'ah they committed. Among them even some sahabah. Zubaer Ibn Shaheed: In the book AlSunnah 4 Alkhallal: Imam Ahmad passed by the grave of the Ma'moon (leader during his time) & said, "This is the grave of a Kafer".]

There is a big difference between the MUSLIM rulers of the past who did not commit apostasy and the APOSTATE rulers of today who rule by manmade laws. Although it is true that Takfeer is a matter of ijtihad and so someone could be unsure about a persons reality and so holds back from speaking up, if someone praises the tawagheet despite knowledge of their ruling - he is not a trustworthy source of knowledge. There are many ahadith and sayings of the salaf warning us from government preachers - scholars at the gates of the rulers (i.e. even Muslim rulers if they are oppressors) let alone tawagheet rulers. The mistakes in aqeedah of the khulafaa before including the mu'tazili rulers in the time of Ahmed was NOT kufr akbar, or known by necessity. But the kufr of the rulers today is Shirk Akbar from al masaa'il jaliyyah - clear cut and known by necessity. It has no excuse of ignorance nor ta'weel and a mufti who gave him fatwa for his kufr ruling is like a rabbi or priest taken as a lord instead of Allah - also not an excuse.

A scholar cannot be an inheritor of the prophets without inheriting their mission "We sent every nation a messenger calling them to worship Allah and keep distance from Taghoot." As such the comparison between the khulafaa of banu umayyah/banu abbas with the tawagheet of today is incorrect.
[Abu Baraa:We say every mushrik is kafir but not every kafir is a mushrik. It is true that someone can be kafir but not mushrik, but every Mushrik is a kafir. Al Shirk is the greatest Kufr and Zulm. However someone could believe and establish tawheed and worship only Allah sincerely, however he does not believe in Muhammad (Saw) as the final Messenger and so he becomes kafir. Abdullah Al Kurdi: But does that mean, that if someone who is a muslim and has aslul imaan and then commits major clear shirk, that we call him a mushrik without iqaamatul hujjah? Abu Baraa:However I would differentiate between saying 'no iqaamatul hujjah' and saying 'no bayaan ul hujjah' - because there HAS been iqaamatul hujjah but in a different way. The reason why we make bayaan ul hujjah is because Allah (swt) says, "We will not punish people until we send them a messenger." So the matter of kufr/shirk can be seen as 3: 1) Matters NOT known by necessity, that only a few people know about - Allah said about it, "Ask ahl al zikr if you do not know" - so there will always be some matters that the majority of people are expected to be ignorant of. These matters can be excused by ignorance until the hujjah reached them. 2) Matters known by necessity, that which are clear cut and agreed in the muhkamaaat divine texts that cannot be misinterpreted or hidden to the ordinary people. This will not normally be given the excuse of ignorance except in cases where the matter could ONLY be known by revelation and the person was obstructed from the knowledge or the message reaching them e.g. new muslims living far away from the Muslims. 3) Matters from the main foundations of the Deen, such as Shirk Akbar from al masaa'il al jaliyyah, this matter is known to the people BEFORE revelation i.e. even if no nabi is sent, you have knowledge of Tawheed as a principle - to worship ALlah alone. To illustrate my point - some matters can only be known through revelation e.g. the names of the angels, description of jannah, jahannam, attributes of Allah, names of the books unless revelation reached you about this - how can you be punished for disbelieving in or being ignorant about it? However OTHER matters are known to you by fitrah - Allah has given you knowledge about it without any nabi or divine book and has negated the excuse of ignorance. Allah (Swt) says, "When Allah took from the children of Adam from his back all his descendants, and made them testify against themselves, 'Am I not your Lord?' they said, "Indeed we testify!" in case you say on the day of judgement "We were IGNORANT about this!" [EMQ

7:172] Therefore the one who commits Shirk Akbar from the clear matters - has disbelieved and the hujjah has been established against him from before his birth and no excuse of ignroance will be accepted for him, and that is no oppression against him as he testified against himself already. Abdullah Al Kurdi:Point three is the point I want to speak about. If I understand it correctly there is no difference between someone who has aslul imaan and someone who doesn't if they both commit major shirk after it? Also, which acts of shirk akbar are considered the "clear matters", do you have a list? Did ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim hold the same belief on all these points? Abu Baraa: Yes this is correct - if someone was born or embraced Islam but was ignorant of the fact that Allah alone can be worshipped or he worshipped other than Allah, he is Mushrik and Kafir and no excuse is given to him for his ignorance of the hukm of worshipping other than Allah. The matter is agreed among ibn taymiyyah, ibn qayyim and all scholars of the salaf, even most of the misguided sects such as the asha'irah and maaturidiyyah did not differ about this.Shirk Akbar from al masaa'il jaliyyah includes the apparent worship of the limbs offered to other than ALlah. such as sujud, ruku', du'a, slaughtering, tahaakum, tawaf also includes to claim other than ALlah is the Lord, Creator, Giver of Life and death etc and similar things.Include in that the one who claims the knowledge of ghaib, the ability to legislate, etc. Abdullah Al Kurdi: Then what about this aayah in Soorat al-A'raaf verse number 138: And We took the Children of Israel across the sea; then they came upon a people intent in devotion to [some] idols of theirs. They said, "O Moses, make for us a god just as they have gods." He said, "Indeed, you are a people behaving ignorantly. Abu Baraa: Yes - Al Jahil is the same as Al Kafir - the one who is completely ignorant of Tawheed/Islam, is a kafir. Thankfully the anbiyaa taught and corrected bani israel time and again everything they committed shirk - that was a favour on them. Abdullah Al Kurdi: What is the proof for "jaahil" meaning the same as "kaafir" in this verse, is that in the tafaseer? Abu Baraa: Az-Zumar [39:64] , Al-Qasas [28:55] , Al-Furqan [25:63], Allah uses the term to refer to the Kuffar in many verses, plus the one who is ignorant of Tawheed is Kafir Assli. Al-Baqara [2:13] Al-Baqara [2:118] [10:55] Abu Baraa: Note: This does not mean that we do not consider OTHER excuses / preventions of takfeer when applying this hukm to an individual - just means that there is no excuse of ignorance or interpretation for Shirk i.e. if he made ijtihad that worshipping an idol was allowed or he didn't know that worshipping an idol would make him kafir - this would not be an excuse for him and we would still call him kafir. This does not mean that we make rushed Takfeer Mu'ayyan on anybody. That is a separate question and topic. But as Takfeer Naw' - takfeer of the type of kufr and people, we say "Anybody who commits shirk akbar from masaa'il jaliyyah is Mushrik Kafir even if the message never reached him." Al Jahl is two types - one that takes you out of Islam and one that does not:

1- Jahl in matters of Asl Al Deen will make us consider the person Kafir - because his fitrah is a hujjah against him, 2- Jahl in matters NOT known by fitrah that require a messenger and is known by necessity is a sin if he ignored it but not kufr - Allah (swt) says, "So that the people can have no hujjah against Allah after the messengers" - it is a sin if they did not know it despite knowledge being available because the prophet (saw) said "Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim." 3- Jahl in matters NOT known by necessity is not a sin as nobody can know everything and knowledge about obscure matters requiring ijtihad or special tools such as Arabic are fard kifayah on the Ummah and not every individual will be accounted for that. 4- Jahl in dunya/kufr matters such as astronomy, advanced mathematics, agriculture, astrology etc are entirely permissible and there is no sin or reward associated with it.]