Extremism in Takfeer Part 3 of 13 – Principle Two

PRINCIPLE TWO

The issue of Takfeer is grave, so one should be cautious in this matter and not rush to pronounce the Muslim leaders as kaafirs. The issue of takfeer should be taken very seriously and not bear on emotional happenings. There is a great possibility the person being labelled may not deserve it.

EVIDENCE FOR PRINCIPLE TWO

Firstly to show that there is a possibility that a person may show apparent disbelief but really his heart is full of belief, and it would be very dangerous for one to pronounce takfeer upon him without establishing what he truly believes first. Allaah says:

“Whoever disbelieved in Allaah after his belief, except him who is forced thereto, whilst his heart is at rest with faith (imaan) but such as open their hearts to disbelief – on them is wrath from Allaah and theirs will be a great torment.”

[An-Nahl (16):106]

The statement of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam):

“He who says to his brother: O disbeliever, then it returns upon one of them.”

[Bukhaaree, Muslim and Muwatta Imaam Maalik]

Also his (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) saying:

“And he who accuses a believer of kufr then it is like killing him.”

[Bukhaaree]

Also his (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) saying:

“…..Except if you see clear open kufr, given to you as evidence from Allaah..”

[Muslim, An-Nasaa’ee]

And his (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) saying:

“if a man says the people are destroyed, then he has destroyed them…”

[Muslim]

Also his (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) saying:

“Everything of a Muslim is sacred to a Muslim: his property, honour, and blood. It is enough evil for a man to despise his Muslim brother.”

[Aboo Daawood: 4868]

And his (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) saying:

“I warn you of suspicion, for indeed suspicion is the most lying speech.”

[Agreed upon]

And his (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) saying:

“Whoever accuses a man of kufr, or says enemy of Allaah, and he is not that, then it returns upon him.”

[Agreed upon]

And his (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) saying:

“If anyone guards a believer from a hypocrite, Allaah will send an angel who will guard his flesh on the day of judgment from the fire of Jahannam; but if anyone attacks a Muslim, saying something by which he wishes to disgrace him he will be restrained by Allaah on the bridge over Jahannam till he is accounted for what he said.”

[Aboo Daawood: 4865]

And the saying of Shaykhul-Islaam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah):

“I am one of the most severe in forbidding that a person in particular be labelled with disbelief, or sin or disobedience until it is known that the proof has been established upon him….”

[Al Fatawa 3/229 and see Al Fatawa 3/282, 283 (a principle with Ahlus-Sunnah)]

Download this article in PDF

Extremism in Takfeer Part 3 of 13 – Principle Two

Advertisements

Extremism in Takfeer Part 2 of 13 – Principle One

PRINCIPLE ONE

This principle is to stand out for justice and not allowing one’s emotions, desires, hatred, and ignorance dictate the position one is going to hold regarding the issue of takfeer.

This principle dictates not allowing the poor situation of the Muslims around the world i.e., Palestine, Kashmir, Bosnia etc. dictate one’s position that is held, and to not allow one’s hatred for a people i.e. leaders of Muslim countries, make him unjust to them, even though we see from them manifest dhulm, fisq, and kufr.

EVIDENCE FOR PRINCIPLE ONE

The evidences for this principle are many. Of them is the statement of Allaah:

“And if you judge between the people, then judge with justice.” 

[An-Nisaa’ (4):58]

The verse orders fairness, justice, and equality with all people when making judgement between them, and not being just with some people and not with others.

Indeed Allaah ordered his messenger with a straightforward command to be just by His saying:

“…And I have been ordered to be just between you all.”

[Ash-Shoora (15):42]

Also Allaah has ordered the believers to be just by His saying:

“..Be just for it is closer to taqwa…”

[Al-Maa’idah (5):8]

And Allaah, the Most High also states:

“Verily Allaah orders with justice and the doing of good and kindness to relatives”

[An-Nahl (16):90]

Allaah has specifically ordered all the believers to be just in their speech by His saying;

“..And if you speak then be just even if it be with your own relatives”

[Al-An’aam (6):152]

Ibn Katheer said in the tafseer of this verse:

“Allaah orders to be just in actions and sayings with our near ones and our far ones and Allaah orders everyone to be just at all times and in all situations.”

So His order to be just in our actions is in His saying:

“Oh you who believe stand out firmly for justice as witnesses to Allaah even if it is against yourselves or your parents, or your kin..”

[An-Nisaa’ (4):135]

And Allaah has warned us not to be unjust, ever, in His statement:

“…So do not follow the desires lest you avoid justice…”

[An-Nisaa’ (4):135]

Ibn Katheer said in the tafseer of this verse:

“Meaning, do not let the desires and partisanship and hatred of a people cause you to be unjust in your matters and your affairs rather adhere to justness in every situation.”

So being just plays an important role when speaking about people, and it is more important when pronouncing takfeer.

Download this article in PDF

http://ahlalhadeeth.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/extremism-in-takfer-intro.pdf Extremism in Takfeer Part 2 of 13 – Principle One

Extremism in Takfeer Part 1 of 13 – Introduction

Introduction

Linguistically, ‘extremism’ is taken from the word Ghulu which means to go beyond the limit and measure. Ibn Faaris stated: “the letters Ghain, Laam, and the weak letter wow form a sound root that indicates ‘rising above and going beyond the appropriate measure.’ [Mujam Maqaayes al Lughah, section ghulu]

Technically according to the Qur’aan and Sunnah it means to go beyond the prescribed limits, in excess of the boundaries laid down by Allaah. Allaah makes this clear from His warning:

“Oh people of the book! Commit no excess in your religion nor say anything of Allaah but the truth…”

[An-Nisaa’ (4):171]

Islam has a balanced approach in all its commandments. It is a manifest characteristic within this religion. Allaah, the Most High says:

“Thus we have made you a nation justly balanced, that you maybe a witness over the people and the messenger a witness over yourselves.”

[Al-Baqarah (2):143]

Also He (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) said:

“Guide us to the straight path, the path of those whom you have favored and not of those whom deserve you anger or those who have gone astray.”

[Al-Faatihah (1): 6-7]

Here Allaah makes clear that Islam is a middle way, a balanced path between the two extremes of the Jews and the Christians. The Jews tried to kill their Prophet ‘Eesa (alayhis-salaam) and the Christians raised him to the level of God and worshipped him.

Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) said:

“You are the best nation raised for mankind..”

[Aali-‘Imraan (3):110]

Because we are balanced, moderate, we are just, we take the middle path. At- Tabaree (rahimahullaah) said:

“My opinion is that Allaah described them as being wasat (middle, balanced) due to their moderation and being balanced in religion. They are not from those who go to the extreme of the Christians who practice monasticism and in what they said about the person of Jesus. Nor are they from those who are lax in the practice of their religion, such as the Jews who altered the book of Allaah, killed their prophets and lied in speaking about their Lord. Instead they (the nation of Muhammad) are the people of balance and moderation in the religion. Allaah described them in that manner because the most beloved of matters to Allaah are those that are balanced and just.”

[At-Tabaree Jaami al Bayaan vol 2, p6]

Ease In Islam

The religion of Islam is built upon ease – ease is a foundation this religion is constructed upon. One of the reasons Allaah sent his messenger Mohammad (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) was to relieve the people from the chains which had captured the previous nations. Allaah states:

“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet who they found mentioned in their tawraat (Torah) and Injeel (Gospel) … he releases them from their heavy burdens and from the fetters (bindings) that are upon them…”

[Al-Araaf (7):157]

And Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) states:

“..and has not laid upon you in religion any hardship…”

[Al-Hajj (22):78]

Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) also states:

“Allaah wishes for you ease and does not wish for you hardship.”

[Al- Baqarah (2):185]

Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) also mentions:

“Allaah does not want to place you in difficulty, but He wants to purify you..”

[Al-Maa’idah (5):6]

So the religion is made easy and Allaah wishes for us every ease and no hardship. Abu Bakar al Jasaas said: “since hardship is also restriction and tightness and He has denied about Himself that He desires hardship for us. It then permissible to use the apparent meaning of this verse as evidence to deny hardship and to establish the flexibility in every matter concerning which people differ related to the laws that come from the texts. Therefore if anyone argues in favor of aspects that are hardship and difficulties, the clear meaning of this verse will defeat them.” [Ahkaam al Qur’aan vol 2 p39]

Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa salaam) said:

“Verily the religion is easy. No one overburdens himself in the religion except that it overcomes him (and he will not be able to continue).”
[Al-Bukhaaree and An-Nisaa’ee]

Different Forms of Extremism

Extremism comes in a number of different forms. From them we find extremism related to beliefs and actions. We are discussing here extremism as it relates to contemporary Muslims, their deviation and call to deviation which leads to going beyond the boundaries set by Allaah. Such deviations then have an immediate or long term consequences on themselves and fellow Muslims and the ummah as a whole.

We will first research the extremism in the issue of takfeer (declaring a Muslim as a disbeliever or excommunication). It is a major contemporary problem amongst Muslims and has immediate and long term effects on them. It not only affects just those who go to extremes in this field but it affects the general people and even the non-Muslims.

VERSES FROM THE QUR’AAN:

So the mother of all these verses concerning “Takfeer” is the verses of Surah Al-Maa’idah where Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) informs us:

“..And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed such are the disbelievers (kaafiroon).”

[Al-Maa`idah (5):44]

“..And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed such are the Oppressors (dhaalimoon).”

[Al-Maa`idah (5):45]

“..And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed such are the disobedient (faasiqoon).”

[Al-Maa`idah (5):47]

“Do they seek the judgement of the days of ignorance and who is better in judgement than Allaah for a people who have faith.” 

[Al- Maa’idah (5):50]

Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) said instructing His prophet:

“And so judge between them by what Allaah has revealed and follow not their vain desires…..”

[Al-Maa`idah (5):48]

And Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) said also to His messenger:

“Surly we have sent down to you the book in truth that you may judge between men with that which Allaah has shown you…”

[An-Nisaa’ (4):105]

Also Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) has ordained that:

“Indeed the ruling is for none, except Allaah..”

He, the Most High repeats this statement in similar words, in different places:

“..The judgement is for none but Allaah…”

[Yusuf (12):40 & 67]

Also His (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) saying;

“It is not befitting for a believing man or women that if Allaah and His messenger have judged in a matter that they have a choice in it..”
[Al-Ahzaab (33):36]

” But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission. ”

[An-Nisaa’ (4):65]

“.. and with them He sent the Scripture in truth to judge between people in matters wherein they differed..”

[Al-Baqarah (2):213]

PROPHETIC AHADEETH

His saying (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam):

“If a man says to his brother O kaafir then one of them is a kaafir.”

[Agreed Upon]

And his saying (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam):

“You did indeed judge amongst them with the judgement of Allaah
the greatest the sublime.”

[Agreed Upon]

From Adiy ibn Haatim (a former Christian) who said:

I came to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) with a gold cross around my neck and he (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) said:

“O Adiy, throw this idol away from yourself.”

And I heard him reading from Sura Al-Baraa’a (At-Tauba):

“They took their scholars and their monks as lords other than Allaah…”

He (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) said:

“They did not actually worship them. Rather it was their practice that if they declared something lawful they took it as lawful and if they declared something unlawful they forbid it.”

[Hasan – At-Tirmidhee]

Also his (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) saying:

“If a man was called a kaafir or enemy of Allaah, and he was not any of them then it is not except that the curse is returned upon the one who said it.”

[Agreed upon]

And his (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) saying:

“There is no obedience to the creation if it means disobedience to the creator.”

[Saheeh – Musnad Ahmad]

Also his (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) saying:

“The difference between us and between them is salaat, so whoever abandons has disbelieved (kafara).”

[Ahmad]

Also his (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) saying:

“Whoever swears by other than Allaah has indeed disbelieved or associated partners.”

[Saheeh At-Tirmidhi]

So the question that remains to be answered after reading all these verses and ahadeeth is does this mean that any Muslim that does not judge by what Allaah reveals is an unbeliever, kaafir, outside the fold of Islam? And how do we understand all these Qur’aanic verses and Prophetic ahadeeth?

The answer to this will follow in chapter two, in shaa’ Allaah.

The issue of takfeer cannot be correctly understood except by first thoroughly comprehending all the principles of the Shari’ah that are involved. So we will lay down for the noble reader a set of principles which are within our ability.

When we say that a Muslim is a Kaafir, or disbeliever what we have essentially done is removed Imaan (faith) from him, saying that he no longer believes in the six pillars of Imaan. Saying that he does not believe in Allaah, the Angels, the Books, the Messengers, life after death, and predestination is not something easy or trivial. Rather it is something extremely dangerous if we are wrong in our accusation (see principle 2 below). So in order for us to take someone out of the realms of Imaan we have to know what Imaan is and what its constituents are.

So in the course of these lessons we will explain Imaan as understood correctly, by Ahlus-sunnah wal-jamaa’ah, and then explain the deviated explanations of it.

Download this article in PDF

http://ahlalhadeeth.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/extremism-in-takfer-intro.pdf Extremism in Takfeer Part 1 of 13 – Introduction

Deconstructing the EDL Mission Statement Part 1

EDL state:

“…we believe that they reflect other forms of religiously-inspired intolerance and barbarity that are thriving amongst certain sections of the Muslim population in Britain: including, but not limited to, the denigration and oppression of women, the molestation of young children, the committing of so-called honor killings, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and continued support for those responsible for terrorist atrocities…”

I reply:

Firstly, it is not ethical or correct in any way to say that molestation of young children, honor killings, support for terrorist atrocities, oppression of women are religiously inspired. What the EDL are suggesting in this part of their mission statement is that Islam teaches and practices them.

This is an insult to the religion of Islam and Muslims who practise it. Here are some pointers for you to think about regarding these accusations. I have put together my immediate thoughts but will place links below each refutation for a more detailed and further reading.

Molestation of young children:
Before Islam came, marrying young girls was the practice of people and tribes of that era. During the period when the Prophet (s) was sent this was the continuous general practice and culture of the people. The reason they practised marrying young was because girls would mature at around 7-10 years old. They would have periods, mature attitudes, and were ready for having children at that age. They were able to take care of the household, work and communicate like an 18 year old today. You will find this in any good history book.

Secondly, no one during that era made this claim which you are making, that the Prophet ‘molested young girls’. If it was a crime or unethical at that time, the non-Muslims in that period would have vilified the Prophet Mohammed for that action in particular, but they did not. Only many years later, when it was considered socially taboo and the social dynamics had changed, did society begin to criticise this.

Thirdly, it was only something recommended, not something obligatory from our religion. Hence, no Muslims practise it now; girls this day and age are not mature and ready for marriage at that age.

Fourthly, look at how homosexuality was viewed in the 70’s and 80’s – slogans like ‘kill the homos’ were common and homosexuality was not tolerated at all, but now it’s considered intolerant not to tolerate it. With time, social dynamics change, so people change and, likewise, behavior changes also.

In the 1880s, the age of consent in some countries was 7 and in others it was 10. In the 1920s, the age of consent in Scotland and Spain was 12. In 2007, in Spain and Argentina, the age of consent was 13 see (1). So be careful not to throw stones whilst you live in a glass house.

Honor killings:
This is prohibited in Islam. Allah says in the Quran: “whoever takes the life of one soul has taken the life of the whole of mankind” (Chapter 5). He also says “and do not take the life of anyone which Allah has made sacred”. So how did you attribute the cultural practices of some Muslims to the religion Islam?

To say honor killings are religiously inspired is a gross misinterpretation of Islam. Furthermore, what about the honor killing that goes on here in the UK amongst non-Muslims i.e., Raoul Mout (2)? We do not claim this is inspired by Christianity. Women are being killed by their partners for changing their status on facebook to ‘single’ (3), or by adding their photos on facebook (4). In this country, two women are killed every week through domestic violence (5) – honor killing in the culture of Great Britain. So, again, don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house.

Support for terrorist activities:
You will never find Islam calling or supporting such activitities. The Quran explicitly prohibits this. So to say this is religiously inspired is a gross misinterpretation of Islam. Just take a look at the work this Islamic organisation is actively doing to speak out against terrorism (6, 7). This is just one Islamic organisation; there are many all over UK refuting and condemning terrorism. Furthermore, when terrorism inspired by western democracy or communism or Zionism appears, why is it you simply turn a blind eye (8, 9,10).

Oppression of women:
I take it you mean by this the covering up of her body and face, i.e. burka, or hijab. This is not oppression; it is freedom! Ask any Muslim woman if she wants to wear this attire or if she feels oppressed wearing it. Here in the UK, Muslim women have more freedom than in some countries, so if you see a woman in a burka here in the UK it’s almost guaranteed that she is doing this of her own free will. Your problem with the burka is here in the UK. So it’s not oppression, it’s that women are expressing their right to wear what they choose! It’s their democratic liberal right to dress and look how they like. To force them to take off the burka or face veil is oppressing them. So it seems your intolerance is the real oppression of Muslim women and not Islam.

Barbarity of the 7th century understanding of Islam:
To say that is to say that Islam is a barbaric religion, period. This then means that, by default, all Muslims are barbaric without exception, because Islam was revealed in the 7th Century, and it has never been more pure in its teachings at any one time more than that time.

These days, Muslims have added practices to the religion that were not from it; we reject all additions and subtractions, for that matter. Muslims take offence to this claim that Islam is barbaric. The main aims and goals of the shariah are five – to protect life, property, honor, religion, and intellect. Some scholars add freedoms of speech and actions – how can this be barbaric! Anyone with common sense will agree these are moral values that all religions and ways of life with decency will protect.

As for the penal law of taking a life for a life – is it not better to be severe in taking one person’s life in order to save many lives than put hundreds of others’ lives at risk? Just look at the fear that spread around the UK during the time of the Yorkshire ripper in the past and the recent Raoul Mout rampage, just to mention a few.

Exposing the Western Barbaric way of life 2011

EDL further claim:

“… the 7th century interpretation of Islam are antithesis of western democracy…” they also say: “ it (Islam)runs counter to all that we hold dear within our British liberal democracy…”

I say:

Let’s take a glimpse at our dear, western democratic values. The political values of liberalism have caused the very social decay being witnessed today. In February 2009, the Children’s Society (11) launched the report ‘A Good Childhood: Searching for Values in a Competitive Age’ (12), which presented evidence stating that “Britain and the U.S. have more broken families than other countries, and our families are less cohesive in the way they live and eat together. British children are rougher with each other and live more riskily in terms of alcohol, drugs and teenage pregnancy, and they are less inclined to stay in education. This comes against a background of much greater income inequality: many more children live in relative poverty in Britain and the U.S.” [11] The report also supports this article’s conclusions that social breakdown and decay is due to the premise of liberalism – individualism.[ (13)]

Child Abuse
The atomistic trends in modern liberal societies have affected the treatment towards the most vulnerable. The seventeen months of torture and agony inflicted on ‘Baby P’ is probably one of the worst stories of child abuse in the UK. The baby was found dead after months of torture with broken ribs and a broken back (14). In the UK, according to NSPCC research, 7% of children experienced serious physical abuse at the hands of their parents or carers during childhood (15). In the US, an estimated 3.6 million children were accepted by state and local child protection services as alleged victims of child maltreatment for investigation or assessment.

Treatment of Women
Liberalism’s political values have affected the way British society treats women. According to Amnesty International (UK) (16), 167 women are raped everyday in the UK. Domestic violence accounts for nearly a quarter of all recorded violent crime in England and Wales – one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime and one incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute. The UK is not alone in its maltreatment of women; in the US, a woman is raped every 6 minutes and battered every 15 seconds (16).

So let the EDL take a good look at their mission statement and realise they live in a glass house, so they should not throw stones.

I could not transfer the links (i.e. numbers in the brackets) from my word document. If anyone wants the word version of the above text, please let me know.

Evidence for the Principle: Taking the Lesser of the Two Harms

 

From the greater objectives of the shariah is to increase good, to establish it, and reduce evil in order to remove it. However, life does not always bring to us pure good and pure evil such that we can abandon the evil and act upon the good. Sometimes in our lives we are faced with situations where we have to choose between two goods or two evils. Sometimes, situations may have some good and some bad in them, but we have to choose between them. So what does a Muslim do in such circumstances?  In some cases, a Muslim will find himself in a situation where whatever good he chooses, evil will result! Common sense will tell him to choose the lesser of the two evils because, if his objective is to do good, then choosing the lesser of the evils is the closest to the good.

 

If a person says: ‘I will never act on any evil, period’ then he is forgetting that there may be times when he does something that is generally good but the circumstances around that good dictate it to have an evil outcome. This person would have been actually doing evil but without realising, or he could be doing that which is further away from good and closer to evil.

 

The existence of this principle – ‘choosing the lesser of the two harms’ – is proof of the perfection of this religion and proof that it is suitable for every time and place.

 

So where did this principle come from?

 

1. In Surah Hud, verse 77 – Allah most high told us about a situation where the Prophet Lot had to choose between two evils, and he chose the lesser of the two.

 

“…and his people came rushing towards him, and they had been long in the habit of practising abominations. He said: “O my people! Here are my daughters: they are purer for you (if ye marry)! Now fear Allah, and cover me not with shame about my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?”

 

So he offered his daughter to protect his guests whilst he knew it was evil. The tribe was evil, him marrying his daughter to them was evil but he chose that rather than them raping his guests (as he thought would happen), so he took the lesser of the two evils in his view. (Abdul Hameed al Balaali in his book fiq of dawah fi inkar al munkar p143-144)

 

2. In surah Nisaa verse 25, Allah most high instructed the believers to marry their believing slave girls if they feared zina. This was not allowed before this verse was revealed.

 

“…If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess. And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another. Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers according to what is reasonable. They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours. When they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

 

So marrying a believing slave girl is better than zina.Here, Allah teaches us to take the lesser of the two evils. Marring a slave was considered bad, and zina is considered bad. However, zina was the worse of the two evils.

 

3. In Surah Nahal verse 106, Allah most high allowed us to utter words of disbelief when faced with life threatening situations.

 

“…Anyone who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith..

 

So it is also clear here that Allah allowed the believers to utter words of kufr in circumstances where his life is threatened or even in situations less than that but that would cause him great difficulty. So the Muslim here would choose the lesser of the evils. The first evil is the threat of death, torture, or extreme hardship and the second evil is uttering kufr whilst your heart is full of faith.

 

4. Salautil Khowf (the prayer of fear): dhohr prayer is generally four rakat; when the Muslims are in the situation of war, they do not have to pray in one jamat – they can make two jamats, whereby one guards the other whilst they pray and then the two groups swap. In addition to that, the four rakats are reduced to two. So here you can see when the circumstances change, the hokum (ruling) changes also.

 

The enemy attacking is one evil and the second is shortening the prayer from four to two. Allah allowed us to take the second of shortening the prayer, which would not be allowed otherwise.

5. In Surah al Baqara verse 73 – Allah most high explains we are allowed to eat dead meat if we are forced by necessity:

“He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, then he is guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

 

And in Surah al Anaam verse 119:

 

“Why should ye not eat of (meats) on which Allah’s name hath been pronounced when He hath explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you – except under compulsion of necessity?”

 

So one evil is eating dead meat and the second is the compulsion. So the lesser of the to evils is eating the dead meat.

 

 

Allah says in Surah al Hajj verse 78,

 

“…He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion…”

6. Ibn Nuaas mentioned in page 100 of his book ‘Tanbee al Gaafileen..

 

“If you saw a man waiting to rape a women but he found some wine and became busy  drinking it and you knew if you were to prevent him from the wine he would stop drinking but would then catch the woman and you knew you would be unable to stop that, then you would not stop him from drinking wine in order to prevent a greater harm.”

 

Here you can see the great scholar Ibn Nuaas putting the principle in practice.

 

7. Ibn Taymiah mentioned in his fatwa

 

…that once he and his students went out to forbid the evil as they conducted this regularly. When they were out one day, they came across some tatar (enemies of Muslims who would rampage, pillage and kill Muslims). They were all sleeping and drunk. Ibn Taymiah’s students said let us take them now, kill them all; they are all asleep, we could take them by surprise. Ibn Taymiah said no, let us head back to our city quickly without them awakening. When they got back, they asked him why he had ordered that and he said because fighting and killing them was an obligation but what they would do to the nearby village afterwards would be far worse than what we would have done to them.

 

So this principle of taking the lesser of the two evils is an important principle to be used in all fields especially in regards to politics, jihad and society. However, the benefits and harms must be weighed up in the light of the shariah

 

Taking the lesser of the two evils is an established principle from the principles of usool of fiqh, and there are conditions which must be fulfilled before it is exercised from them:

 

  1. One should not deliberately place oneself in such a situation where one has to use such a principle, as it is disliked for one to embark upon any prohibited matter.
  2. The principle is only to be used when there is no way of avoiding one of two prohibitions.
  3. Then the least evil one is chosen as the one which is least harmful and least in opposition to the shariah.
  4. When the circumstances which dictate this principle to be used disappears, then the acting upon it must be stopped immediately according to another principle: “what is permitted in necessity is rendered nullified with the disappearance of the neccessity”
  5. The benefit from acting upon the lesser of the two evils must be greater than the evil which is trying to be avoided.
  6. There must be no other way to prevent the evil before acting upon the lesser of it.
  7. One must use the minimum of the evil in order to fulfill the necessity

 

Indeed, I could cite many more evidences to prove the validity of this principle, however, time does not allow me to, but this should suffice any intelligent person.

 

And Allah knows best.

EDL Claim the Quran Teaches Terrorism

Smite at their Necks

The non Muslim hate preachers out there who often claim the Quran is a book of terror, that it orders the death and destruction of all non-believers, one of the most common verses they use to prove their argument is verse 4 of Surah Muhammad which is the 47th Surah in the Noble Quran.

The verse reads:

Therefore, when you meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are you commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.”

The non-Muslims hate preachers quote this and claim this is the verse of terrorism and murder. But is that the case? Or is it the same case as always, that the non-Muslim hate preachers are simply being dis-honest with themselves, and their fellow people, deliberately twisting the true meaning of these verses. Seeking to show some verses and hide others. We shall expose their sly and unjust claims.

Let us analyse this verse to see if it does truly preach terrorism or not. The part that the non-Muslims hate preacher uses the most with this verse is when it reads:

Therefore, when you meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks…”

The verse is referring to battle, and war, that in a battle, when we meet the unbelieving army that we should aim for the neck. Is that terrorism, is that barbaric? Off course not, this is very logical, and this is the harsh reality of wars and battles, people get killed, and people go into a battle and war with the intention of killing their enemy. If an army gives you instructions on how to attack your enemy during combat, would that be classified as terrorism? Of course it wouldn’t, so why is it classed as terrorism or barbarity when the Quran gives Muslims instructions on how they should fight during a battle with an enemy?

So therefore there is nothing wrong with this part of the verse, it does not preach terrorism, or barbarity, not even close…try another one!!

The second part of the verse that the non-Muslim hate preacher has a problem with is when it reads:

“…bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom…”

What exactly is wrong with this command? Logically after a battle there is a winner and a loser, and obviously after a battle several enemy combatants will come into the hands of the opposition, and logically they will be taken in as prisoners and held for ransom. Is this cruel? Is this barbarity? Not even close, this is the simply the harsh reality of war, in war and battle you risk death, and you risk capture, this is the reality of such events.

Furthermore, why do they not notice that the verse even says the prisoners can be released out of generosity or ransom! A ransom is not the only means of freedom, a Muslim has two options, either let the person go out of your own generosity, or if you want, you can get a ransom out of the prisoner.

So in conclusion this verse preaches no terrorism, it preaches no barbarity, all it gives are commands for the Muslims on how they should fight their enemy during battle, and what they should do with any prisoners they have.

Is the word ‘Salafi’ a Modern Contemporary Term?

The Term ‘salafi’ was used by the Prophet (s) himself

‘Aisha reported: We, the wives of Allaah’s Prophet (s) were with him (during his last illness) and none was absent there Fatima, who walked after the style of Allah’s Messenger (s) came there, and when he saw her he welcomed her saying: You are welcome, my daughter. He then made her sit on his right side or on his left side. Then he said something secretly to her and she wept bitterly and when he found her (plunged) in grief he said to her something secretly for the second time and she laughed.

I (‘A’isha) said to her: Allah’s Messenger has singled you amongst the women (of the family) for talking (to you something secretly) and you wept. When Allah’s Messenger (s) recovered from illness, I said to her. What did Allah’s Messenger (S) say to you?

Thereupon she said: I am not going to disclose the secret of Allah’s Messenger (s)

When Allah’s Messenger (s) died, I said to her: I adjure you by the right that I have upon you that you should narrate to me what Allah’s Messenger (s) said to you.

She said: Yes, now I can do that (so listen to it). When he talked to me secretly for the first time he informed me that Gabriel was in the habit of reciting the Qur’an along with him once every year, but this year it had been twice and so he perceived his death quite near, so fear Allah and be patient (and he told me) that he would be a befitting SALAF for me and so I wept as you saw me. And when he saw me in grief he talked to me secretly for the second time and said: Fatima, are you not pleased that you should be at the head of the believing women or the head of this Ummah? I laughed and it was that laughter which you saw.[1]

Narrated ‘Aisha:
 He added, ‘But this year he (referring to Gabriel due to hadith in Sahih Muslim above) reviewed it with me twice, and therefore I think that my time of death has approached. So, be afraid of Allah, and be patient, for I am the best SALAF for you (in the Hereafter).’ “

Fatima added, “So I wept as you (‘Aisha) witnessed. And when the Prophet saw me in this sorrowful state, he confided the second secret to me saying, ‘O Fatima! Will you not be pleased that you will be chief of all the believing women (or chief of the women of this nation i.e. my followers?”[2]

Ibn Taymiyah (rh) said: 

“There is no criticism for the one who proclaims the way (madhab) of the SALAF, who attaches himself to it and refers to it. Rather, it is obligatory to accept that from him by unanimous agreement (Ittifaaq) because the way (madhab) of the SALAF is nothing but the Truth (Haqq).”[3]

 

Imam Abu Haneefah (rh) said:  

 

“Stick to the athaar (narrations) and the way of the SALAF and beware of newly invented matters, for all of it is innovation.”[4]

 

Imam Ad Dhahabee (D.748H) said:

 

“It is authentically related from ad-Daaraqutnee that he said: There is nothing more despised by me than ‘ilmul-kalaam (innovated speech and theological rhetoric). I say: No person should ever enter into ‘ilmulkalaam, nor argumentation. Rather, he should be SALAFEE (a follower of the Salaf).”[5]

Adh-Dhahabee also said concerning the biography of Muhammad Ibn Muhammad al-Bahraanee, “He was a good SALAFEE with respect to the Religion.”[6]

He also said about Imaam Abul-Abbaas bin Majd al-Maqdisi, “He was reliable and trustworthy, intelligent, SALAFI and pious…”[7]

 

 

 


[1] Sahih Muslim, The Virtues of the Companions (Book 31), CHAPTER: THE MERITS OF FATIMA, DAUGHTER OF ALLAAH’S APOSTLE (SALLALLAAHU ALAYHI WA SALLAM), No. 6004]

[2] Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, The Book of Asking Permission, No. 5885]

[3] Majmoo al-Fataawaa 4:149

[4] Related by as-Suyootee in Sawnul-Mantaq wal-Kalaam (p.32)]

[5] Siyar 16/457]

[6] Mu’jamush-Shuyookh (2/280)]

[7] Siyar 23/118]

 

The Islamic Terrorist Threat

The Islamic Threat

In recent years, a great deal of attention in the media has been given to the threat of “Islamic Fundamentalism”. Unfortunately, due to a twisted mixture of biased reporting in the Western media and the actions of some ignorant Muslims, the word “Islam” has become almost synonymous with “terrorism”.

However, when one analyses the situation, the question that should come to mind is: do the teachings of Islam encourage terrorism?

The answer: certainly not! Islam totally forbids the terrorist acts that are carried out by some misguided people. It should be remembered that all religions have cults and misguided followers, so it is their teachings that should be looked at, not the actions of a few individuals.

Unfortunately, in the media, whenever a Muslim commits a heinous act, he is labelled a “Muslim terrorist”. However, when Serbs murder and rape innocent women in Bosnia, they are not called “Christian terrorists”, nor are the activities in Northern Ireland labelled “Christian terrorism”. Also, when right-wing Christians in the U. S. bomb abortion clinics, they are not called “Christian terrorists”.

Reflecting on these facts, one could certainly conclude that there is a double-standard in the media! Although religious feelings play a significant role in the previously mentioned “Christian” conflicts, the media does not apply religious labels because they assume that such barbarous acts have nothing to do with the teachings of Christianity. However, when something happens involving a Muslim, they often try to put the blame on Islam itself — and not the misguided individual.

Certainly, Islamic Law allows war – any religion or civilization that did not would never survive – but it certainly does not condone attacks against innocent people, women or children. The Arabic word “jihad”, which is often translated as “Holy War”, simply means “to struggle”. The word for “war” in Arabic is “harb”, not “jihad”.

“Struggling”, i.e. “making jihad”, to defend Islam, Muslims or to liberate a land where Muslims are oppressed is certainly allowed (and even encouraged) in Islam. However, any such activities must be done according to the teachings of Islam. Islam also clearly forbids “taking the law into your own hands”, which means that individual Muslims cannot go around deciding who they want to kill, punish or torture. Trial and punishment must be carried out by a lawful authority and a knowledgeable judge.

Also, when looking at events in the Muslim World, it should be kept in mind that a long period of colonialism ended fairly recently in most Muslim countries. During this time, the peoples in these countries were culturally, materially and religiously exploited – mostly by the so-called “Christian” nations of the West. This painful period has not really come to an end in many Muslim countries. The majority of Muslim countries are still controlled by the non-Muslims through agencies such as the World Bank, the IMF and the UN. These agencies, in effect, control the economies of many Muslim countries. The weapon of sanctions is used when a Muslim country steps out of line, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths through starvation. Failing this, they resort to carpet bombing of entire Muslim cities to impose their ‘new world order’.

Also, through the media, people in the West are made to believe that tyrants like Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Moamar Qaddafi in Libya are “Islamic” leaders — when just the opposite is true. Neither of these rulers even professed Islam as an ideology, but only used Islamic slogans to manipulate their powerless populations. They had about as much to do with Islam as Hitler had to do with Christianity!

In reality, many Middle Eastern regimes which people think of as being “Islamic” oppress the practice of Islam in their countries.

So suffice to say that “terrorism” and killing innocent people directly contradicts the teachings of Islam, yet Muslims are the biggest victim of terrorism or, to be more precise, state terrorism. The 650,000 deaths in Iraq since the US led invasion is testimony to that.