Downloaded from: www.justpaste.

it/1iq74

Confusions about Takfeer !?!

There are certain confusions among the people about Takfeer in general, particularly about Takfeer Al
Mu’ayyan – i.e. declaring a particular person to be Kafir by name.

Confusion 1

The first confusion stems from the fact that the Sahabah and the Tabi’een did not declare takfeer upon the
people nor upon the rulers of the Umayyad Caliphate during its time despite the fact that the state used to
have some oppression and fusq etc, therefore some people claim that the ruling of Al Sa’ud or Al Subaah in
Kuwait does not differ in ruling with the times of the Umayyad caliphate and so we similarly cannot make
takfeer on them or their rulers.

The response to this baseless confusion emerges from three different angles; firstly, that no single sane
mature person can possibly deny that what occurred of oppression in the time of the caliphs of Banu
Umayyah never reached the enormity of any one of them legislating any law not based on the Shari’ah; nor
did they ever replace any Shari’ah rules, furthermore, the walaa’ of the Umayyad Khilafah and the khulafah
of Banu Ummayah and their Baraa’ were never except for the sake of Allah and to the Deen of Allah (swt) i.e.
for Islam. Moreover, it has never been proven that any single ritual act during the Umayyad Khilafah was
ever negated or completely suspended and in particular the obligation of Al Jihad fee sabilillah.

Bearing in mind, we must differentiate between the pillars of the ruling system (i.e. the Khilafah which was
never compromised) and the defections on the individual personalities of any ruler (e.g. some corruption,
oppression, harshness or injustice against oppositions) in the times of Bani Umayyah. In Saudi Arabia today
however, the very pillars of the ruling is not based on Shari’ah!

The second response to this confusion, is that it is not in fact true that the great Sahabah or the Tabi’een
ever consented to the ruling of any fasiq or zaalim. It is proven that large numbers of the sahabah and the
Tabi’een condemned the oppression and the corruption of khulafah from among Banu Umayyah and there is
the well known rejection of Sa’eed ibn Musayyab and Sa’eed bin Jubair and Qutaibah ibn Muslim against the
Khilafah of Abdul Malik bin Marwaan and in particular against the oppression of Al Hajjaj. It is reported by ibn
Hajar Al Asqalaani that,

“To rise against the oppressor is the manhaj of the Salaf” [Tahzeeb Al Tahzeeb v2
p288]

The matter at hand is not Imaarah of the oppressors or their oppression, rather it is about regimes who have
declared Kufr bawah, regimes that have allowed the kufr to prevail and have legalized and legislated kufr
rules, regimes that have replaced the Islamic rules with international laws and other kufr legislations, and
that have negated the ritual acts such as Al Jihad, regimes that arbitrate to the taghout United Nations and
it’s laws – states such as the Saudi Regime, Al Subbah and indeed all other regimes in the Muslim lands.

The third response, is that throughout the history of the Islamic Caliphate, whenever Muslims were found
rising against the ruler, it was never because of the system nor because of the prevailing of any kufr Bawah,
rather it was because of corruption that had never even reached the level of kufr nor because of dismantling
the Shari’ah; yet the Ulema of the Salaf still rose against the corruption, considering it as a munkar that must
be changed by the hand and that must be rejected.
Nowadays however, the leaders have become apostate, the kufr law prevails and the Shari’ah has been
dismantled and become only a slogan in their ruling – this is a greater Munkar than that of the past in the
times of Banu Ummayah; yet today, the Bitana of the Tawagheet (i.e. the government preachers) condemn
anybody that rises to remove the Kufr and to change great Munkaraat with his hand or his tongue, claiming
that it is the form of rebellion that Islam has forbidden during the time of the legitimate Islamic state.

Furthermore, it is well known among the classical scholars that if the ruler orders the people to do any
matter that is disobedience to Allah, whether to perform what is forbidden or to leave what is obligatory, it is
forbidden to obey them in that matter, whether it is a legitimate ruler or not. This is because of the general
rules that,

“There is no obedience to the creation in disobedience to the Creator.”

In fact the leader who rules by different than what Allah has revealed is apostate Kafir and, islamically it is
as if he was non-existent; therefore it is not obligatory and is in fact prohibited to obey him in any matter
even in matters that are permissible (Mubah) as he is completely illegitimate and virtually non-existent as
far as Islam is concerned. Looking to the Classical Scholars we find that they used to disagree about the
obligation of obeying the oppressors or the Faasiq in their oppression, this is because obedience to him was
originally obligatory, whereas there is originally no obedience to illegitimate rulers. The issue at hand in the
times of the classical scholars was not concerning the legitimacy of the state like we face today, rather their
concern was only for some minor corruption. Whereas today the apostate taghout in Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Kuwait etc and their apostate regimes and governments is the central reason for rising against the state, in
order to remove the kufr and install the shari’ah.

Confusion 2

Some of those who defend the regimes in Muslim Countries, and in particular those who legitimize the Saudi
Regime refer to the original rules in relation to the obedience to a Khalifah and to Ulil Amr under the pretext
of the saying of Allah,

“O you who believe! Obey Allah Obey the messenger and ulil amr from among
you…” [EMQ 4: 59]

And the evidence that obliges to:

“Listen and obey even if it is appointed over you a slave from Abyssinia.”

And other ahadith that order us to:

“Obey the ruler even if he lashes you or takes your money.”

However they ignore many other evidences or distort them or they take them out of context, or they will
even refer to evidences not on the manhaj of Ahl Al Sunnah Wal Jama’ah just to prevent takfeer upon those
regimes. However the manhaj of Ahl Al Sunnah Wal Jama’ah is to combine between all the evidences, to
outweigh and balance them in order to prevent any imaginary contradictions and in order not to ignore any
single divine text.
Therefore we are obliged to take all that has been mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah according to the
understanding of the sahabah (ra) and to follow it, and we are obliged to follow and act upon whatever the
sahabah, the salaf Al Saalih said. First of all when we look to the ayah in which Allah (swt) says,

“O Believers obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you …”

We find that Allah (swt) continues in the same verse,

“…and if you differ in any matter, then refer (or return/arbitrate) back to Allah and his
messenger…” [EMQ 4: 59]

And as for the ahadith they refer to, they are of three categories,
(i) The first category is understood as what is apparent from it – to obey the rulers without any restriction
and to be patient with his oppression and ignorance e.g. it is reported by Abdullah ibn Umar that the
messenger (saw) said,

“Whoever withdraws the hand of obedience (i.e. bay’ah) will meet Allah with no excuse, and
whoever dies without on his neck allegiance (bay’ah) he will die the death of jahiliyyah.” [Saheeh
Muslim]

And the hadith reported in Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of Hudhaifah that the prophet (saw) said,

“There will be after me rulers who will not follow my guidance nor my traditions and
there will be among them a man with the heart of the shayateen in a human body,”
Hudhaifah said, “What should I do if I am in that time ya rasulullah?” The prophet (saw)
said, “listen and obey even if your back has been lashed and your money has been
taken.” [Bukhari and Muslim]

(ii) The second category of Ahadith obliges us to disobey the rulers if he disobeys Allah, it is reported in the
hadith of Abdullah ibn Mas’oud that the prophet (saw) said,

“There will be after me people in charge, they will extinguish the Sunnah and innovate
Bid’ah and they will delay the salah from its time.” He asked, “What should I do in that
time?” He (saw) said, “Are you asking me O son of umm ‘Abid what to do? Verily, there
is no obedience to the one who disobeys Allah.” [ibn Majah]

(iii) The third category encourages us to obey the rulers with certain conditions i.e. if he rules by Islam and
never declares any explicit kufr, otherwise the Ahadith encourages us to rise the sword and fight against the
ruler. As reported by Abdullah ibn Mas’oud in Saheeh Muslim that the prophet (saw) said,
 “There is no nabi that Allah sent before me, except that he had from his ummah
supporters and companions who follow his traditions and obey his order, and there will
always be after them successors who differ with those who were before them, they will
say what they do not do and they will do what they have not been ordered. Whoever
struggles against them with his hand is a believer and whoever struggles against them
with his tongue is a believer and whoever struggles against them with his heart is a
believer and there is no atom of Imaan after that.” [Saheeh Muslim]

It is reported by Imam ibn Rajab Al Hanbali in Jami’ Al Uloom p304 that he said,

“That Hadith is an evidence that jihad against the ruler by the hand is part of changing the
Munkar.”

Also, in the famous hadith of Ubadah ibn Saamit as recorded in Bukhari and Muslim, that he said,

“We pledged to rasulullah to listen and obey in ease and in hardship, in what we like or
dislike, in health or sickness, and to favour others and not to challenge people in
authority unless we see explicit kufr with a divine evidence from Allah.” [Bukhari and
Muslim]

And in another narration

“…and not to rise against people in authority and to speak the truth wherever we are
and not to fear from – for the sake of Allah – any consequences.”

And it is reported in the hadith of Anas that the messenger (saw) said,

“Listen and obey, even if it was in authority over you an Abyssinian servant whose head
is like a raisin as long as he established the book of Allah. [Bukhari]

And the hadith of Saheeh Muslim reported by Awf bin Maalik that the messenger of Allah (saw) said,

“The best of your Imams are those whom you love them and they love you, you pray for
them and they pray for you, and the worst of your Imams are those that you hate them
and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.” We asked, “O rasulullah,
shouldn’t we rise against them?” He (saw) said, “No, as long as they establish the
salah among you, no, as long as they establish the salah among you, no, as long as
they establish the salah among you.” [Muslim]

These three categories of the ahadith clearly orders us to obey with a decisive pre-requisite condition that it
cannot be fulfilled unless the obedience is for the Deen of Allah and for the sake of Allah otherwise we must
rise against the law whenever the explicit kufr prevails; we should also bear in mind the complete consensus,
which is known from Islam by necessity that obedience to any Muslim ruler is restricted not to have any form
of disobedience to the creator and moreover we must remember that there is consensus of all the classical
scholars that there is no obedience to the kafir rulers in any matter whatsoever.

It has been reported that the debate of one the great Imams of the tabi’een Abu Haadhim with Sulayman bin
Abdul Malik one of the people of authority, regarding the ayah, “obey Allah and obey the messenger
and those in authority among you.” [4: 59] , Sulayman said,

“Didn’t Allah order you to obey me when Allah said, “… and those in authority among you” Imam
Abu Haadhim replied “hasn’t your right of obedience been taken back from you when you differ
with the truth? When Allah (swt) says, “… and if you dispute in any matter, refer back to Allah and
his messenger.” [Tafseer Al Bahrul Muheet v39 p278]

The above evidences are more than sufficient to nullify the legitimacy of any regime which declares or
prevails any kufr bawah e.g. arbitration to the taghout of United Nations, alliance with non-Muslims against
Muslims and like the rulers who do not establish the deen and the salah. Therefore the claim that Saudi
Arabia or other regimes in Muslim countries are legitimate regimes and the claim that the rulers are
legitimate leaders is complete distortion and is only covering the truth with falsehood.

Confusion 3

The third confusion is that some people of knowledge say that some of the ruling by other than what Allah
revealed is not the kufr that will take you out of the fold of Islam unless he makes Istihlal in his heart or that
he declares explicitly that he makes istihlal. Bearing in mind that this distortion about Istihlal has not been
widespread except in this last generation and has been attributed only to late contemporary government
scholars or learned people of the Murji’ah; those who put a pre-requisite condition for any form of Istihlal,
(i.e. permitting the haram and disobedience) that it must be in the heart, whether the action was kufr or sin.
This Distortion can be answered from different angles; firstly, the innovation that the istihlal must be in the
heart has no evidence or root in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Rather, the original rules are that any action
described as kufr in the Qur’an and Sunnah is Kufr regardless of Istihlal in the heart; this is one of the most
important pillars of the aqeedah of Ahl Al Sunnah Wal Jama’ah who believe that the Imaan is the Sayings,
actions and conviction together, who believe that the sayings and actions, being the apparent pillars of the
Imaan is enough for us to judge regardless of the hidden pillar (i.e. the conviction in the heart.) which cannot
be seen or verified.

Ahl Al Sunnah Wal Jama’ah do not separate between the apparent sayings and actions and the hidden
conviction in the heart; we are obliged to judge only by the apparent sayings and actions and that is
sufficient for us – this is the understanding of the Sahabah whom under the leadership of Abu Bakr Al Siddiq
fought against those who refused to pay the zakat simply because of their refusal to pay and not because
they made any istihlal in their heart. Sheikh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said,

“The Sahabah who fought against those who refused to pay the zakat never asked “do you agree
that it is obligatory or do you deny it?” that was not the issue, rather Abu Bakr Al Siddiq said to
Umar ibn Khattab, “By Allah if they stop giving even the saddle of the camel which they used to
give to rasulullah as zakat, I will fight them for not paying it.” What made the permissibility to fight
the people and call them apostates was only because they refused to pay the zakat and not to do
with the permissibility in their hearts, rather the majority of those who were called apostates and
whose lives and properties were violated by Abu Bakr used to believe in the obligation of the zakat
but simply became stingy and did not want to pay it to Abu Bakr. This is recorded that they were
fought against by the sahabah and their women and children were taken as sabi and their wealth
as booty, and it was testified that their dead are people of hellfire and they were labeled as people
of apostasy.”

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Ibraheem described their claim similar to the one who worshipped idols while
believing that worshipping them is falsehood, he said,

“Anyone who rules by man-made law and says “I believe that it is falsehood” it (his saying) has no
value, rather he is withdrawing (or isolating) the shari’ah and it is equivalent to someone saying “I
worship the idols but I believe it is falsehood.” [Fattawa Muhammad ibn Ibraheem v6 p198]

Therefore, conditioning any actions of kufr or actions of Haram or sin with the action of istihlal of the heart is
very dangerous as it implies that any form of kufr actions or saying such as swearing at Allah and his
Messenger or humiliating the book of Allah or wearing the cross or performing prostration to the idols or
promoting homosexuality or arbitrating to the man-made law or any other similar explicit kufr deed is not in
fact kufr unless he/she believes in his heart that it is permissible. This would mean that you cannot call the
one who worships idols kafir because maybe in his heart he believes that the idols are falsehood. In this
case, we could never account anybody and all boundaries of the Hudud will be dismantled as we would have
to hold back from any criminal as he/she may hold hatred for it in his heart – verily, this is the highest form
of Irja’ and distortion of the deen.

Secondly, not implementing the Shari’ah and allying with the kuffar against Muslims, arbitration to the
Taghout of the United Nations, permitting Riba transactions, establishing interest dealing banks and other
actions committed by the Regimes in the Muslim lands (including the Saudi Regime) have all been described
in Islam as being Kufr deeds; they are great crimes in Islam, greater than the kabaa’ir which have not
similarly been described as kufr e.g. zina, alcohol, highway robbery etc these have been described only as
prohibited.

Similarly refusal to pay the zakat to Abu Bakr was described as kufr; despite the fact that they confessed
that they believed it to be obligatory, Abu Bakr fought against them as apostates. In contrast, fighting
against the Khawaarij was a form of punishment and was called fighting against the people of innovation not
fighting against apostates.

Moreover, we should note that making takfeer on a particular person or not, does not change the reality that
the Regime and it’s actions are kufr and contradict to Islam and rising against it is an obligation according to
personal capability.

Thirdly in response to this confusion we must remember, that the Muslim is obliged as a matter of obedience
to Allah (swt) to work to establish the shari’ah and the pillars of the great Islamic authority (i.e. Al Khilafah)
regardless of whether he calls the individuals of the regime or the ruler Kafir or not, that is because
implementing the shari’ah and retaining the sovereignty only for Allah and establishing the walaa to the
believers and the baraa’ against the kuffar is obligatory upon the Muslims according to their personal
capability; whereas, making the individual takfeer to the people involved in the governments is irrelevant to
our duty after the shari’ah has described their regime or their ruling to be Kufr. This is because this type of
regime has not legitimacy for its very existence and any defense of it is illegitimate and has no excuse.
Despite the fact that some deviant people, whether Murji’ah or Mutawaqqifah, refrain from calling the leader
of certain Kufr Regimes kafir, the very description of the regime is enough to oblige the rising against it; it is
not an excuse that some people find difficulty to make takfeer by name on a ruler that anyone can stop
working for the Shari’ah. Unfortunately, the problem with these people – whether from government
preachers or the defeated secular people – those who put the condition of istihlal in the heart on the takfeer,
is that they go further even to praise them and their regimes and to give them every legitimacy and sanctity
and that they even go to the extreme to not only praise his actions and his transactions but they will call him
‘ulil amr’ and attack and label those who rise against them as khawaarij and give the regimes the excuses to
violate the sanctity of the lives and honour of the Mujahideen and even their families. These confusions are
some of the diseases of the Irja’ which exist today among the Muslims that must to be challenged and
tackled.

BY OUR RESPECTED USTADH ABU BARAA' (HAFIDHULLAH)

@Ummar_ibn_Taymiyah