Seeking Sacred Sunni Knowledge

Ottoman Fatwa: Whoever Reviles the two Shaykhs is a Kafir, Whoever declares Baraa' for the Madh-habs of Abu Hanifa and Shafi'i have Disbelieved

By Abul Layth

I recently stumbled upon a short treatise called, “Risalah fi takfir ar-rawafid” or ‘Treatise (or letter) regarding the declaration of disbelief upon those who revile the Sahabah’ written by Shaykh ul Islam Ahmad ibn Sulayman Ibn Kamaal Basha (Pasha in Turkish), well known as Ibn Kamaal  (d. 940 A.H.). I am not certain, but I think that Ibn Kamaal Basha was the teacher of the famous grand Shaykh of the Ottomans, Abu Su’ud (spelled Ebu Su’ud by some). It is interesting to note that the Ottomans referred to these rawafid as “Qizilbaash” – or those having a ‘red-head’, a term used to refer to the Safawid sect of raafidis who were prevalent in the times of the Turkish Ottomans. The following is a rough translation of an interesting excerpt from the treatise that I would like to share with the readers of Seekingilm. I would like to clearly state that this fatwa was revelant at the time of the Ottomans some 500 years ago, and may not be applicable in todays time for legal reasons one needn’t delve into within this medium. I have chosen to translate and upload this fatwa because I believe it holds historical, as well as academic relevance in the circles of the Sunnis or Muslim Traditionalists. Again, this fatwa must be taken in context and must be understood in the political sphere of 900 A.H. Now to the excerpt:

 

    “It has been mentioned in Al-Bazazziyyah ((A Hanafi work of law )) that whoever rejects (Ankara) the caliphate of Abu Bakr is a Kafir according to the Sahih view. And whoever rejects the caliphate of Umar then he is also a kafir according to the most correct view (asahh). It is also necessary to establish disbelief of the Khawarij because they declared ‘Uthman a disbeliever. It was mentioned in At-Taataarkhaaniyyah: “Verily, whoever rejects the khilafah of Abi Bakr then the correct view is that he is a kaafir, and the same ruling applies to Umar, and this is the most correct view of the scholarly statements (aqwal). The same ruling applies to whoever reviles the two Shaykhs as well. 

    ولو قال إني بريء من ومذهب أبي حنيفة رحمه الله عنه أو قال: أنا بريء من مذهب الشافعي يكفر  . ومن استحل حراما علم حرمته في دين الإسلام كشرب الخمر فهو كافر    

    And if someone were to say, ‘Verily I declare myself free from (بريء – disavowal) the madh-hab of Abu Hanifah or the Madh-hab of Imam Ash-Shafi’i then he has disbelieved, and whomever declares Halal the well known haram in the religion of Islam, such as the drinking of alcohol (khamr) then he is a kaafir.” [End quote from the treatise]

The Shaykh goes on to state that these individuals take the hukm of apostasy in the law.

This is the official Hanafi view according to the Hanafis shaykhs of the Ottomans. Several important points are mentioned in this treatise:

1) The permissibility of fighting the rawafid – specifically the Qizilbaash was given in this fatwa. 

2) The kufr of those who revile the companions or reject the khilafah of the two Shaykhs.

3) The kufr of the one who rejects the schools of Ahlus Sunnah, or declares himself free from them, and the hukm of apostasy be applied to them.

4) The kufr of one who declares what is known as haram in the religion of Islam – such as drinking alcohol – Halal.

5) There is a dissent in this view of the guild as alluded to by the Shaykh when he had to declare this was the “correct view” and the “most correct of the scholarly statements”. 

6) It is also interesting to note that this Ottoman Shaykh states, “And it is obligatory for the Sultan to declare Jihad against these disbelievers as Allah says,

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ جَاهِدِ الْكُفَّارَ وَالْمُنَافِقِينَ وَاغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَمَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ

“O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.” [9:73]

 

The application of this Hanafi Ottomanic fatwa in our times would rid the Muslim community of several different neo-Islamic sects, the names of such we will leave to the readers to decide.

 

The scanned pages of this treatis are available for download from Seekingilm.com in pdf format, hence you will be obliged to have Adobe Acrobat reader or other .pdf reading software:

Click the following link to download: Takfir on the Rafida

31 Responses to “Ottoman Fatwa: Whoever Reviles the two Shaykhs is a Kafir, Whoever declares Baraa' for the Madh-habs of Abu Hanifa and Shafi'i have Disbelieved”

  1. Irshaad says:

    As salaam alaikum brother,

    So according to this view it is not the shahada and the belief in it and the adherence to the Qur’an and the sunnah that makes one a Muslim but added to the shahada there must also be a belief in particular madhabs which originated long after the Prophet and after the 1st four caliphs.

    Such declarations sound like religious politics in full swing, like the Republicans in the American elections who are always eager to declare certain groups and people out of bounds – in effect pronouncing a secular takfir on them. Of course, this kind of takfir leads only to division and animosity and an internal paranoia among Muslims (some of whom begin to believe in the legitimacy of killing other Muslims) all of which will be exploited by others (for their benefit) and bring only harm to the Muslims. The application of the Ottomanic fatwa (as was suggested) in our time would lead only to further fitna in an already fitna riddled era. There are other routes to take in solving these matters – the route of takfir will surely backfire on those who take such an extreme path.

    By Rafida I assume you mean the Shia (Rafida was generally used as a derogatory term that was applied to Shias).

    May God increase us all in knowledge and understanding.

    wasalaam

  2. Abul Layth says:

    Wa’alaykum Salam,

    So according to this view it is not the shahada and the belief in it and the adherence to the Qur’an and the sunnah that makes one a Muslim but added to the shahada there must also be a belief in particular madhabs which originated long after the Prophet and after the 1st four caliphs.

    It is precisely the adherence to the Qur’an and the Sunnah that these opinions originate from.

    I certainly see the validity of the takfir on the one who “rejects” the madha-hab of the Sunnis. Some of the proofs could be:

    A)

    وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ الرَّسُولَ مِن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ الْهُدَى وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ نُوَلِّهِ مَا تَوَلَّى وَنُصْلِهِ جَهَنَّمَ وَسَاءتْ مَصِيراً

    “And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers – We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.”

    B) The Nabi(‘alayhis salaam) said: “Anyone who seperates himself from the jama’ah even the distance of a hand, then he has thrown off the yoke of Islam from his neck, unless he returns.”

    [Tirmidhi (Sunan, #2863), Abu Dawood (Sunan, #4758), Nasai (Sunan, #4872), Hakim (Mustadrak, #1534), Ahmad (Musnad, #16718, #21050), Abi Ya’la (Musnad, #7203), Bayhaqi (Sunan, #17081), Abdul-Razzaq (Musannaf, #20709)]

    In this case, the Jama’ah has united unanimously upon the validity of the four remaining schools, hence to seperate from them is as the Nabi (‘alayhis salaam) explained.

    By Rafida I assume you mean the Shia (Rafida was generally used as a derogatory term that was applied to Shias).

    It is not “me” who is saying this, it is Ibn Kamaal etc. Yes, they are a group of the Shi’ah, but not the entirety of the Shi’ah – and were certainly not the majority of the Shi’ah in 900 A.H.

  3. Abul Layth says:

    Also regarding Ijma’ go here: http://seekingilm.com/archives/237

    Was-Salam

  4. Usooli says:

    there is much soundness in this, because abu bakr and umar are Allah’s awliyyah, and of the generation whom Allah praised in His book the Quran, and so to hate them in a reviling manner, it is to have 3enad or hatred to what Allah loves, and this is jah’d, which puts one out of the fold of islam, and likewise a rejection of the Quranic praises of the sahabah..however it can be argued that most rawafid fall into this disgrace out of ignorance and wrong taweel which they are not aware, and so this holds as an excuse of not making takfeer of them in general… wallahu a3lam please correct me where i have errored..

  5. Abul Layth says:

    I certainly believe that they have the excuse of ignorance (‘Uthr bil Jahl) – a concept some fringe salafi groups reject.

  6. edin1 says:

    Assalamu `alaykum,

    Hmm… I recently watched some videos of Sheikh Atabek Shukurov Nasafi regarding aqida/kufr:
    http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=K4RIMA (see the “Aqida course”)

    and, from what I understood, he raises the bar of considering someone a kafir to: 1) rejecting anything from The Holy Qur’an 2) rejecting any tawatur Hadith.

    He even gives an example of someone accusing Abu Bakr, رضي الله عنه, of kufr.

    I originally stumbled upon the videos via:
    http://sheikhynotes.blogspot.com/2008/09/sheikh-atabek-shukurov-nasafi.html
    http://sheikhynotes.blogspot.com/2008/10/sheikh-atabek-shukurov.html

    The videos were produced by http://www.karima.org.uk , but the site is having some problems currently, so I couldn’t link to the videos on that site.

    Shayk Nasafi’s bio:
    http://www.aqf.org.uk/atabek.html

    Wassalaam,
    Edin

  7. Irshaad says:

    Salaam alaikum brother,

    A few points on takfir:

    You had said: “It is precisely the adherence to the Qur’an and the Sunnah that these opinions originate from.”

    - however, it is not adherence to the Qur’an and the sunnah that these opinions (of takfir) originate from, as neither the Prophet (s.a) nor the four Imams who originated the four madhabs have made such an explicit declaration of takfir (rather the opposite is true and the rush to support justifications of takfir is the questionable path as there are so many hadith that caution against this). Today there are many representatives of the four schools who stand out clearly and forcefully against declarations of takfir.

    - consensus is not consensus if it automatically excludes those Muslims who disagrees with that consensus or if it conveniently labels them as kafir to dismiss their viewpoint through semantic sleight-of-hand

    - there is no justification to declare takfir against those who declare the shahada, who pray towards the qibla, who fast, who pay zakat and sadaqa, who perform the salat and the hajj. If there are theological or political points of disagreement then use intellectual argument and bring your interpretations of the qur’an and hadith to refute that which offends you. But for the sake of our own safety in the hereafter we should refrain from takfir, especially when some Muslims use declarations of takfir as a legitimization for slaughter of other Muslims.

    “Whoever attributes kufr to a believer, he is like one who becomes an unjust murderer.” (Tirmizi and Bukhari)

    “Beware of blood and spilling it unlawfully, for nothing is more deserving of vengeance from God, greater in its consequence or more likely to (bring about) a cessation of blessing and the cutting off of (one’s appointed) term than shedding blood unjustly. God – glory be to Him – on the Day of Resurrection will begin judgment among His servants over the blood they have spilt. So never strengthen your position by shedding unlawful blood, for that is among the factors which weaken and enfeeble it, nay, which overthrow and transfer it. You have no excuse before God for intentional killing.” (Ali ibn Abu Talib)

    - Declarations of takfir have, in the past as well as in our time, been used as a political tool of division. Jurisprudential schools have sometimes battled in an undignified manner using takfir as a weapon – such a situation only brings harm to Muslims and shows that Muslims are as susceptible as non-Muslims to ideological/political infighting:

    “Some from the Asharis call the Hanbalis as kafir, and some Hanbalis call the Asharis as kafir. But their calling each other kafir is injustice because the belief of the trustworthy Imams of the Hanafis, Shafi`is, Hanbalis, and the Asharis, is that none of the people of the Qibla can be called a kafir.” (Dar as-Sa’ada wa Misbak as-Sayida)

    - Abu Bakr and Omar are absolutely to be respected for their roles as the first two caliphs – they ruled to the best of their capacity, according to their level of knowledge, they did so with sincerity and good intention and with a concern for guiding the Muslim community in the best manner according to their own level of understanding of what this entailed. The same is true for the founders of the four madhabs who strove to preserve religious knowledge and made it accessible for future generations. But even so, although this belief is a good and beneficial belief it is not one which is necessitated by the Qur’an and sunnah such that the absence of it automatically results in kufr.

    wasalaam

  8. Ibn Ajibah says:

    It is quite simple. In the context of Ottoman Turkey, the Hanafi and Shafi’ juridical schools represented the Shari’a. So, in effect, this fatwa is no different from a modern fatwa stating that to reject the Sharia is Kufr. How simple is that? Who, in Ottoman Turkey, would disavowal themselves from the Hanafi or Shafi schools? Most likely, it would be a secularist. An anti Madhabi would not declare Bara’ from the two schools as such; rather he/she would say that they dont believe in following them because they “are not infallible”.

  9. Abul Layth says:

    Bismillah,

    wa’alaykum Salam brother,

    however, it is not adherence to the Qur’an and the sunnah that these opinions (of takfir) originate from, as neither the Prophet (s.a) nor the four Imams who originated the four madhabs have made such an explicit declaration of takfir (rather the opposite is true and the rush to support justifications of takfir is the questionable path as there are so many hadith that caution against this). Today there are many representatives of the four schools who stand out clearly and forcefully against declarations of takfir.

    To deny the validity of takfir is to deny the divine law. To deny “declarations of takfir” is to deny the application of the divine law! Read any work of fiqh and such will suffice.

    consensus is not consensus if it automatically excludes those Muslims who disagrees with that consensus or if it conveniently labels them as kafir to dismiss their viewpoint through semantic sleight-of-hand

    Consensus is consensus when the Imams of Islam say it is.

    there is no justification to declare takfir against those who declare the shahada, who pray towards the qibla, who fast, who pay zakat and sadaqa, who perform the salat and the hajj. If there are theological or political points of disagreement then use intellectual argument and bring your interpretations of the qur’an and hadith to refute that which offends you. But for the sake of our own safety in the hereafter we should refrain from takfir, especially when some Muslims use declarations of takfir as a legitimization for slaughter of other Muslims.

    “Whoever attributes kufr to a believer, he is like one who becomes an unjust murderer.” (Tirmizi and Bukhari)

    There are actions that can remove one from Islam and Shaykhul Islam Ibn Kamaal mentions some in the above article.

    Abu Bakr and Omar are absolutely to be respected for their roles as the first two caliphs – they ruled to the best of their capacity, according to their level of knowledge, they did so with sincerity and good intention and with a concern for guiding the Muslim community in the best manner according to their own level of understanding of what this entailed. The same is true for the founders of the four madhabs who strove to preserve religious knowledge and made it accessible for future generations. But even so, although this belief is a good and beneficial belief it is not one which is necessitated by the Qur’an and sunnah such that the absence of it automatically results in kufr.

    Not true!

    From the Qur’an:

    Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward. (fath)

    The Kuffar are enraged by the Sahabah and it is ultimately a sign of kufr to hate them.

    Allah says:

    وَالسَّابِقُونَ الأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالأَنصَارِ وَالَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُم بِإِحْسَانٍ رَّضِيَ اللّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُواْ عَنْهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي تَحْتَهَا الأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَداً ذَلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ

    “And the first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhajireen and the An§ar and those who followed them with good conduct – Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment.”[9:100]

    To hate whom Allah loves is kufr, and in this specific case it is turning away from the Qur’an and its message.

    From the Sunnah:

    From Abdullah ibn Mughaffal who said,

    “Allah! Allah! My companions! Allah Allah My companions! Do not make the objects of insults after me. Whoever loves them, then it is out of love of me that he loves them. Whoever hates them, then it is out of hatred for me that he hates them. Whoever harms them has harmed me! Then he has Offended Allah, and whoever offends Allah He shall soon be punished!”

    [Reported by Ibn Hibban and he declared it Sahih. Also by At-Tirmidhi in his Sunan who said it is "Hasan Gharib".]

    The same is said for the Ansaar, “Whoever hates them, then Allah hates them!” [Bukhari and Muslim etc]

    Whoever hates the Nabi (‘alayhis salaam) is a kaafir! And it is so that whoever hates the companions, does in fact hate the Nabi and such nullifies his shahada.

    Also, Shaykh Gibril Haddad quotes the Mujtahid Imam At-Tabari as making takfir of the raafidhis as well.

    See here: http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e14.html

    Though apparently elsewhere Sidi Gibril believes that it is nifaq to hate specific ones from the companions, but to hate the whole of them is kufr:

    you had stated that slandering the companions does not make one kaafir. But sir, according to Imam Tahawi in his book ” Al Aqeeda “, he said:
    “We love the Companions of the Messenger of Allah but we do not go to excess in our love for any one individual among them nor do we disown any one of them. We hate anyone who hates them or does not speak well of them and we only speak well of them. Love of them is a part of Islam, part of belief and part of excellent behaviour, while hatred of them is unbelief, hypocrisy and rebelliousness. ”

    The words “hatred of them” means “hatred of all of them” because Allah Most High praised their generality. To hate some of them is nifaq because the Prophet said so precisely in relation to `Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, Ahl al-Bayt in general, Abu Hurayra, and the Ansar. And Allah knows best.

    http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e94.html

    Yet, Sidi Gibril quotes in another article the following,

    “It is said in Bazzaziyyah from Khulasa that a Rafidi if he slanders the Shaykhayn [Hadrat Abu Bakr and Hadrat Umar RaDiyallahu 'Anhuma] and damns them (swears at them) he is a Kafir. If he only holds Hadrat Ali (RaDiyallahu ‘Anhu) superior to him he is a heretic (Mubtadiy).” (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.293)

    And Ibn Abideen goes on explaining and debating at length about this and other such statements whether the slanderer of Sahaba is Kafir or not. If he is declared a Murtadd; is he executed or left off after Tawba; whether his Tawba is accepted or not and so forth. He also gives a reference to a book by Mullah Ali Qari who is reported to have opposed the position held as quoted from Khulasa above in it.

    Ibn Aabideen says, that even Khariji’s are not considered as Kaafirs: “It is mentioned in Fath al-Qadeer that the Khawarij who hold that it is permissible to kill Muslims and take away their belongings (loot their maal) and call as Kafirs to the Sahaba, the ruling regarding them among majority of the scholars (Jamhoor) and the people of Hadeeth is that they are considered as rebels (Hukm of Bughat)” (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.293)

    But yet Hadrat Ibn Abideen gives HIS verdict on page 294, vol.3: “Yes, there is no doubt in the kufr of he who caluminates (Qadhafa) Hadrat Aayisha RaDiyallahu Anha by accusing her of inchastity or refuses to believe that Hadrat Abu Bakr Siddiq was a Sahabi or believes in the deification (Uluuhiyyah) of Hadrat Ali RaDiyallahu Anhu or in that that Hadrat Jabrayeel Alayhis Salaam did a mistake in bringing the Wahy or the like, it is open KUFR obviously (Min al-Kufris SareeH) for it (such beliefs) opposes the Qur-aan.” further he says: “And the Rafidi who slanders the Shaykhayn RaDiyallahu Anhuma but yet DOES NOT calumniate Hadrat Aayisha RaDiyallahu Anha by accusing her of inchastity (Qadhf) NOR disbelieves that Hadrat Siddiq RaDiyallahu Anhu was a Sahabi etc., then it is not kufr and nor is it without Tawba but it is Heresy and Innovation (Dalal, Bid-ah) and the rest of the matter shall be discussed in the first part on rebels, Insha Allah (Bab al-Bigha)”

    Note here that Ibn Aabideen, is debating on the slander of Sahaba not the denial of the Khilafat of the Shaykhayn RaDiyallahu Anhuma.

    He says on page 310/ vol.3 – Bab al-Baghi:”It is clear from Kitab al-Musaayirah by consensus on the Takfeer (Ruling that someone is Kafir) of he who opposes the Basics of Religion (Usuul al-Deen) and the Obligatory matters [Matters which are obligatory to be believed in ] (Darooriyyat). For example that the universe (‘Aalam) is from eternity (Qadeem) [without a beginning] or in the refusal of the belief that people will be brought forth with their bodies on Judgement Day. (Hashr al-Ajsaad)”

    But then, we also have fatwas from other luminaries many of which I quote on the authority of Imam Ahmed Rida. (These can be found in the tenth volume of Fataawa ar-RiDawiyyah: pages 516-527 / Vol.10)

    It is said by Shaykh Barjandi in Sharah Niqaayah: “He who refuses to accept the Imamah of Hadrat Abu Bakr as-Siddiq RaDiyallahu ‘Anhu is a Kafir. Some opine that he is a Mubtadiy (a heretic) and not a Kafir but the truth of the matter is (As-SaH) that he is a Kafir. And so also is the case of he who refuses to accept the Khilafah of Hadrat Umar RaDiyallahu ‘Anhu. And this is the most correct ruling.”

    Fataawa Bazzaziyyah states: “It is Wajib to rule someone as a Kafir (Yajibu Ikfaarihim) who calls Hadrat Uthman, Ali, TalHa, Zubayr and Sayyidah Aayisha RaDiyallahu ‘Anhum Ajama’een”

    It is stated in Bahr ar-Raayiq (page.131) : “It is the most correct ruling (in this matter; As-SaH) that it is KUFR to refuse to accept/deny the Imamah of Hadrat Abu Bakr RaDiyallahu ‘Anhu and so also is the case in the refusal (of the Khilafah) of Hadrat Umar RaDiyallahu ‘Anhu”

    It is stated in Majma’ al-Anhur: “The RafiDi if he just holds Hadrat Ali RaDiyallahu ‘Anhu superior to Hadrat Abu Bakr (FaDDala) RaDiyallahu ‘Anhu, he is a heretic; and if he denies / refuses the Khilafah of Hadrat Siddiq RaDiyallahu ‘Anhu, he is a Kafir”

    It is said in Tahtaawi ‘ala Maraaqil FalaaH : “If one denies in the Khilafat of Hadrat Abu Bakr RaDiyallahu ‘Anhu he is declared as a Kafir. But the truth of the matter is that this applies to (those who deny the Khilafah of) Hadrat Umar and Uthman too (RaDiyallahu ‘Anhuma).”

    Shaykh Allamah ibn Wahbaan said in his NaDHm al-Faraaid :

    Wa Man La’ana ash-Shaykhayni Aw Sabba Kaafirun Wa Man Qaala Fil Aydee al-Jawaarihi Akfaru! Wa SaHHaHa Bi Nakri Khilaafat il— al-Ateeqi Wa Fil Farooqi Dhaalika ADH-haru!

    He who damns the Shaykhayn – Hadrat Abu Bakr and Hadrat Umar RaDiyallahu ‘Anhuma – or slanders/insults them, he is a Kaafir; And he who said that (the meaning of) Hands (as mentioned in the Qur-aan: Yadullaha..) means physical hands (Jawaarihi; attributing Jism, body to Allah SubHanahu Ta’aalah) he is a bigger Kaafir! And it is also true that the refusal to accept the Khilafah of HaDrat Ateeq (Abu Bakr) and Hadrat Farooq (HaDrat Umar) RaDiyallahu ‘Anhuma is also a Kaafir as is obvious. (Mistakes of I’yraab if any are mine)

    It is stated in Sharah Aqaayid an-Nasafiyyah and Tareeqah al-Muhammadiyyah and Hadeeqah an-Nadiyyah that : “And to say that a Wali (saint/imam) is superior (AfDal) to a Nabi (prophet) is (manifest) Kufr.”

    Last but not least Ibn Aabideen himself says in his Uquud ad-Durriyyah (vol.1/page.92) when asked “what is the ruling (fatwa) regarding the RafiDis?” replies : “They are Kaafirs for they have collected (Jama’uu) different kinds of Kufr (in their beliefs) and he who withholds (tawaqqafa) pronouncing the ruling that they are Kaafirs is himself a Kaafir”

    http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=216&CATE=13

    And lastly from the above source:

    It is said in Fataawa Bazzaziyyah, Durar wa Ghurar, Fataawa Khayriyyah, Durr al-Mukhtar and Majma’ al-Anhur : “He who doubted in such a person (he, whose Kufr is obvious) and the fact that such a person would be tormented (Adhaabihi) has committed Kufr.”

    So the statements of Ibn Kamaal are in fact the solidified positions of the Hanafi school, and do stem from the Imams’ fiqh of the Qur’an and the Sunna, as I alluded to previously.

    Was Salam!
    Abul Layth

  10. Abul Layth says:

    It is quite simple. In the context of Ottoman Turkey, the Hanafi and Shafi’ juridical schools represented the Shari’a. So, in effect, this fatwa is no different from a modern fatwa stating that to reject the Sharia is Kufr. How simple is that? Who, in Ottoman Turkey, would disavowal themselves from the Hanafi or Shafi schools? Most likely, it would be a secularist. An anti Madhabi would not declare Bara’ from the two schools as such; rather he/she would say that they dont believe in following them because they “are not infallible”.

    I think there are two reasons that there is defect in your explanation:

    1) Contextually speaking, secularism did not exist in the time of Ibn Kamaal (900 A.H).

    2) If you choose to apply the above words regarding the madhhabs of Abu Hanifa and Ash-Shafi’i to the anti-madh-habis of our era, and for the record I did not do such a thing, then some anti-madh-habis reject the four schools entirely, calling them “evil sects” etc. I have heard such baatil with my own ears. “Reject”, in my personal experience with them, is in fact very applicable. Though I personally would not make takfir over this issue – but is assuredly rejection of the ijmaa’ of the scholars and could possibly lead to kufr.

    And what do you say of some from the “Ahlul-Hadis” baatil sect in India who declare their baraa’ against Abu Hanifah and his school, as well as reject his fiqh? I have read article upon article attacking his fiqh and labeling his madh-hab “deviance” etc etc. Generally though, they attack his strength in narrating – not an issue of takfir or even tabdi’.

    Those are my thoughts however.

  11. Irshaad says:

    As salaam alaikum brother,

    Thank you for your very detailed reply – I have a few more comments as well.

    You wrote: “To deny the validity of takfir is to deny the divine law. To deny “declarations of takfir” is to deny the application of the divine law! Read any work of fiqh and such will suffice.”

    - Nobody is denying its validity, only its questionable and often overeager application and the resulting divisiveness it generates. There are many historical instances and many recent instances of takfiri declarations – certainly the persons or groups who made these declarations believed they were correct but this does not mean they actually were correct (and some of these declarations have led to much harm and division and even bloodshed) – they were not infallible and their circumstances, their level of knowledge, their societal and madhhabi influences, their temperaments, all play a part in how they view other groups and pass judgments upon others. There is, among some, far too much emphasis upon this takfiri aspect of the law and far too loose an interpretation of a concept that requires a very fine and rigorous analysis. I see too eager a readiness to wield it as a sword against various groups, almost a kind of glee that if only we could apply the takfiri punishments on these deviants then they would get what they deserve and all would be well – it is not meant to be used in this manner – it is not meant to be a political tool or a theological hammer and attempts to use it in this manner will only result in self damage. This is not a new problem. It has arisen many times in Islamic history and many scholars have warned against the damaging misuse of this potent concept.

    You wrote: “Consensus is consensus when the Imams of Islam say it is.”

    Then it’s not consensus you mean but a judgement of some groups against others. You say Imams, but I gather you mean the later interpreters of the Imams of the four madhhabs – so it is the interpreter’s judgement, not the judgement of the Imams themselves.

    You quoted: “….As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them.”

    Indeed, this is a beautiful verse you have selected – it is describing some of the attributes of those who were true companions of the Prophet but it does not necessarily apply to every single person who accompanied the Prophet as clearly there were faithful companions and there were those who “worshipped on an edge” ready to either fall away or towards Islam and, as the Qur’an testifies, there were also hypocrites among them. Certainly the first four caliphs (and numerous others) were among the foremost of the companions and each acted sincerely according to their own level of knowledge. But there were also others such as those who participated in and approved of the slaughter of the Prophet’s grandson (Husayn) and his family and “who were filled with rage at them”. They satisfied this by shedding their blood. So is it permissible to do takfir on such as these? If not, then I would question the permissibility of pronouncing takfir on other Muslims who have done far less harm, who perhaps mistakenly, or perhaps through a mis-directed zeal speak badly about some companions or argue without knowledge about other matters. Argument, discussion, proofs, good counsel, education, yes – but not takfir.

    The rest of the quotes you provide from various scholars shows that there was not a consensus of opinion on declarations of takfir (and what precisely constitutes kufr) as rulings and the causes of the rulings differ from person to person and case to case. It does, however, show a fearful eagerness to condemn differing interpretations as either heresy or kufr. The most surprising quote was: “he who withholds (tawaqqafa) pronouncing the ruling that they are Kaafirs is himself a Kaafir” This is an illogical circular argument designed only to shut off all dissenting views – it turns upon its own axis and goes nowhere. It is akin to the neocon doctrine that labels someone a terrorist and then says anyone who tries to show that this person is not a terrorist is clearly also a terrorist. There is only one purpose to such statements and that is to shut down opposing views and to lock down minds.

    “So the statements of Ibn Kamaal are in fact the solidified positions of the Hanafi school, and do stem from the Imams’ fiqh of the Qur’an and the Sunna, as I alluded to previously.”

    They may be the solidified positions of Ibn Kamaal based on various interpretations and declarations and deductive attempts by others but what about Abu Hanafi himself?

    “He did not call as kafir anyone from among the people of the Qibla.”(Sharh Mawaqif)

    wasalaam,

    Irshaad

  12. Admin says:

    Nobody is denying its validity, only its questionable and often overeager application and the resulting divisiveness it generates. There are many historical instances and many recent instances of takfiri declarations – certainly the persons or groups who made these declarations believed they were correct but this does not mean they actually were correct (and some of these declarations have led to much harm and division and even bloodshed) – they were not infallible and their circumstances, their level of knowledge, their societal and madhhabi influences, their temperaments, all play a part in how they view other groups and pass judgments upon others. There is, among some, far too much emphasis upon this takfiri aspect of the law and far too loose an interpretation of a concept that requires a very fine and rigorous analysis. I see too eager a readiness to wield it as a sword against various groups, almost a kind of glee that if only we could apply the takfiri punishments on these deviants then they would get what they deserve and all would be well – it is not meant to be used in this manner – it is not meant to be a political tool or a theological hammer and attempts to use it in this manner will only result in self damage. This is not a new problem. It has arisen many times in Islamic history and many scholars have warned against the damaging misuse of this potent concept.

    Do you proof that “takfir” is not a political tool of the shari’ah? If, for example, a group such as the Mu’tazilah spring forth and they choose to slaughter the Muslims – while claiming to be Muslim – and they hold a belief of ultimate kufr (which they held several), why would it not be permitted in the law to place the Hukm of the shari’ah upon them?

    If, for example, a government that claims to be Islamic in nature, yet permits alcohol and permits usury as well as other kufristic acts, why would it be so outrageous for the scholars to step forward and apply the Hukm upon them?

    Quite frankly, it is necessary to implement our law, and we should not be like jews concealing some and implementing other parts of it.

    And yes I believe it unfortunate that it has been abused

    Originally you said:

    as neither the Prophet (s.a) nor the four Imams who originated the four madhabs have made such an explicit declaration of takfir (rather the opposite is true and the rush to support justifications of takfir is the questionable path as there are so many hadith that caution against this). Today there are many representatives of the four schools who stand out clearly and forcefully against declarations of takfir.

    This implying an attempt to nullify the application of the law. I agree, however, that it is the Imam of the Muslims of its judges and scholars who only have that right to apply the law.

    Then it’s not consensus you mean but a judgement of some groups against others. You say Imams, but I gather you mean the later interpreters of the Imams of the four madhhabs – so it is the interpreter’s judgement, not the judgement of the Imams themselves.

    Consensus is based upon the judgment of the Imams. By consensus we mean the consensus of those Sunni schools have flourished for 1200 years.

    But there were also others such as those who participated in and approved of the slaughter of the Prophet’s grandson (Husayn) and his family and “who were filled with rage at them”. They satisfied this by shedding their blood. So is it permissible to do takfir on such as these?

    And what companions took part in the slaughter of Imam Al-Husayn ‘alayhis salaam? None!

    The “if” clauses you have presented do not nullify the opinion stated in the article. Such application is left to the Imams. We here are not talking about exact application, rather, we are discussing principles. Something maybe apostasy, yet the one who does such is not an apostate. Again, principles in this article are being mentioned, not application of them.

    The rest of the quotes you provide from various scholars shows that there was not a consensus of opinion on declarations of takfir (and what precisely constitutes kufr) as rulings and the causes of the rulings differ from person to person and case to case. It does, however, show a fearful eagerness to condemn differing interpretations as either heresy or kufr. The most surprising quote was: “he who withholds (tawaqqafa) pronouncing the ruling that they are Kaafirs is himself a Kaafir” This is an illogical circular argument designed only to shut off all dissenting views – it turns upon its own axis and goes nowhere. It is akin to the neocon doctrine that labels someone a terrorist and then says anyone who tries to show that this person is not a terrorist is clearly also a terrorist. There is only one purpose to such statements and that is to shut down opposing views and to lock down minds.

    I agree there is ikhtilaf. That does not mean that the opinion is null and can not be implemented. Again, it is a principle, not application that was mentioned in the article, so these claims for “what it is” and “what it is not” is not even applicable to the topic at hand nor relevant in discussing Usool.

    They may be the solidified positions of Ibn Kamaal based on various interpretations and declarations and deductive attempts by others but what about Abu Hanafi himself?

    “He did not call as kafir anyone from among the people of the Qibla.”(Sharh Mawaqif)

    This is a general statement and not pertinent to this specific statement. For example what of one who would urinate on the Qur’an yet faced the qiblah in prayer? What of one who denied belief in ‘Isa yet faced the Qiblah? What of one who denied belief in the angels yet faced the Qiblah?

    Furthermore, “Ahlul-Qiblah” has preconditions such as shahada, iman etc. So it is not “literal” but an allusion to “Muslims”. So what he is saying is that he did not make takfir of “Muslims”. Right! And there are nullifiers of Islam, so if one has fell into such then one is no longer from “Ahlul-Qiblah” – or a Muslim and hence has the Hukm applied to him. So this is a general statement that no one from the Sunnis or the madh-hab of Abu Hanifah disagrees with. Rather, we are discussing SPECIFIC matters of eemaan and kufr not discussing making takfir on “Muslims”.

    Jazakum Allahu Khairan.
    Abul Layth

  13. Irshaad says:

    Salaam alaikum brother,

    You wrote: “Do you proof that “takfir” is not a political tool of the shari’ah? If, for example, a group such as the Mu’tazilah spring forth and they choose to slaughter the Muslims – while claiming to be Muslim – and they hold a belief of ultimate kufr (which they held several), why would it not be permitted in the law to place the Hukm of the shari’ah upon them?”

    Takfir is not necessarily the best tool to use in such circumstances. When the Khawarij were doing takfir against Muslims and slaughtering them (since the takfir made it halal, in the Khawarij view, to shed Muslim blood) Ali was urged by some to also do takfir on the Khawarij or to label them apostates because of their extreme views and actions. He refused even while he fought to subdue them, both intellectually through showing the problems in their ideology, and physically through preventing them from carrying out attacks on Muslims. Though they were misguided in the extreme, the seriousness of pronouncing takfir on a group is yet more serious. It is necessary to exercise great caution even when dealing with groups who violate certain principles of the religion. Of course shari’ah can be applied but this application requires careful judgement and wisdom.

    You wrote: “And what companions took part in the slaughter of Imam Al-Husayn ‘alayhis salaam? None!”

    Well, Umar bin Harith Makhzumi was said to be one one of the sahaba involved in the detainment and killing of Muslim bin Aqeel, a companion of Imam Husayn. Umar bin Harith was one of the sahaba who settled in Kufa – he was acting on the orders of Ibn Ziyad – but Allah knows best (Ibn Khatir/Tabari/Dhahabi).

    As well, look at the companions who were slaughtered by other Muslims at Karbala – does this take those who killed them (or who supported the killing) out of Islam and into kufr? Should we declare takfir on all who were involved. And what about people like Mu’awiya who fought against Ali and who implemented a practice of cursing Ali from the pulpit. Since this is the cursing of a companion and one of the four caliphs, should we consider Mu’awiya to be a kafir? What is the opinion about the caliphate of Mu’awiya and Yazid considering their attitudes towards and actions against the family of the Prophet (s.a.)? If Muslims begin to play a game of takfir then it has serious implications and repercussions for an entire era of Islamic history. Ali’s reticence to pronounce takfir even under extreme circumstances contained a deep wisdom. The foolish takfir wars that have periodically erupted between various groups or madhhabs is indicative of the fact that takfir has (and continues to be) misused and abused.

    You wrote: “Again, it is a principle, not application that was mentioned in the article, so these claims for “what it is” and “what it is not” is not even applicable to the topic at hand nor relevant in discussing Usool.”

    Well, the only reason I made any comment at all is because an application of the principle was called for – specifically, the desire to see the revival of an Ottoman fatwa declaring that some Muslims (such as the Shia) are kafir – with all the repercussions that accompany such a declaration. As if this would accomplish anything except more division and disaster for Muslims.

    You wrote: “we are discussing SPECIFIC matters of eemaan and kufr not discussing making takfir on “Muslims”

    If the person is not a Muslim then there is no need to make takfir on them – but if one group or madhhab declares another group or madhhab of Muslims to be kafirs and then says that the punishment of apostasy should be applied on them or jihad should be declared against them, then that is takfir.

    May God increase us in knowledge.

    wasalaam,

    Irshaad

  14. Admin says:

    Takfir is not necessarily the best tool to use in such circumstances. When the Khawarij were doing takfir against Muslims and slaughtering them (since the takfir made it halal, in the Khawarij view, to shed Muslim blood) Ali was urged by some to also do takfir on the Khawarij or to label them apostates because of their extreme views and actions. He refused even while he fought to subdue them, both intellectually through showing the problems in their ideology, and physically through preventing them from carrying out attacks on Muslims. Though they were misguided in the extreme, the seriousness of pronouncing takfir on a group is yet more serious. It is necessary to exercise great caution even when dealing with groups who violate certain principles of the religion. Of course shari’ah can be applied but this application requires careful judgement and wisdom.

    Not proof.

    You wrote: “And what companions took part in the slaughter of Imam Al-Husayn ‘alayhis salaam? None!”
    Well, Umar bin Harith Makhzumi was said to be one one of the sahaba involved in the detainment and killing of Muslim bin Aqeel, a companion of Imam Husayn. Umar bin Harith was one of the sahaba who settled in Kufa – he was acting on the orders of Ibn Ziyad – but Allah knows best (Ibn Khatir/Tabari/Dhahabi).

    That did not answer the rhetorical question. Furthermore, we demand asanid / chains for these “historical” narratives.

    As well, look at the companions who were slaughtered by other Muslims at Karbala – does this take those who killed them (or who supported the killing) out of Islam and into kufr?

    Possibly. None of this has anything to do with the principles stated above however.

    Should we declare takfir on all who were involved. And what about people like Mu’awiya who fought against Ali and who implemented a practice of cursing Ali from the pulpit. Since this is the cursing of a companion and one of the four caliphs, should we consider Mu’awiya to be a kafir?

    There is not authentic proof that he cursed Ali from the pulpit. The issue of mu’awiya is mixed with hundreds of fabrications and weak ahadith.

    Yazid considering their attitudes towards and actions against the family of the Prophet (s.a.)?

    Yazid was cursed and reviled by some of the scholars – I believe Ibn Al-Jawzi being one of them. Again there are many fabrications and weak ahadith regarding the matter, and as Imam Ahmad did, so will I – that is to keep their affair with Allah: read:
    http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e83.html

    If Muslims begin to play a game of takfir then it has serious implications and repercussions for an entire era of Islamic history. Ali’s reticence to pronounce takfir even under extreme circumstances contained a deep wisdom. The foolish takfir wars that have periodically erupted between various groups or madhhabs is indicative of the fact that takfir has (and continues to be) misused and abused.

    All of that does not change the truth. Misapplication of a principle does nullify the principle.

    Well, the only reason I made any comment at all is because an application of the principle was called for – specifically, the desire to see the revival of an Ottoman fatwa declaring that some Muslims (such as the Shia) are kafir – with all the repercussions that accompany such a declaration. As if this would accomplish anything except more division and disaster for Muslims.

    They did not make takfir of the shi’a. They made takfir of the rafida. Do not attempt to put words into the Imams mouth. As for the rafida being kuffar, then such is a position of Imam Malik as well as others.

    You wrote: “we are discussing SPECIFIC matters of eemaan and kufr not discussing making takfir on “Muslims”
    If the person is not a Muslim then there is no need to make takfir on them – but if one group or madhhab declares another group or madhhab of Muslims to be kafirs and then says that the punishment of apostasy should be applied on them or jihad should be declared against them, then that is takfir.

    Takfir based upon the Usool of the religion is when an apostate is judged to be so. That is all. No Muslim is being called a kaafir within the above fatwa.

    Was-salam,
    Abul Layth

  15. Irshaad says:

    Salaam alaikum brother,

    You said: “Misapplication of a principle does nullify the principle.”

    Although I think you meant to say “Misapplication of a principle does not nullify the principle.”

    Yes, but as I have mentioned in my previous replies, those who have misapplied the principle to disastrous effect in the past and the present, were all convinced that they were applying it in a correct and justified manner. This is why it is important to be aware of the extreme caution and reticence applied to this concept by people like Ali and to keep that in mind when we discuss this concept. As long as Muslims are casual about labeling each other as kafirs, this state of affairs will lead only to the satisfaction and advantage of the non-Muslims.

    “They did not make takfir of the shi’a. They made takfir of the rafida.”

    I am pleased to hear that there is no takfir against the Shia. What then is the definition of Rafida – who do you include under this umbrella term? So as you have indicated in your reply, there is no takfir against the Shia and therefore the majority of the Shia (the twelver Shias) are not considered part of the Rafida and neither jihad, nor calling them kafirs and other derogatory names, nor other types of harm are permissible against them – correct?

    wasalaam

  16. Abul Layth says:

    Although I think you meant to say “Misapplication of a principle does not nullify the principle.”

    Isn’t it strange that humans can understand one another even though their thoughts are not always materialized properly?

    I am pleased to hear that there is no takfir against the Shia. What then is the definition of Rafida – who do you include under this umbrella term? So as you have indicated in your reply, there is no takfir against the Shia and therefore the majority of the Shia (the twelver Shias) are not considered part of the Rafida and neither jihad, nor calling them kafirs and other derogatory names, nor other types of harm are permissible against them – correct?

    The fatwa is clear. “Who” the rafida are is also answered in the above fatwa. So if there are shi’a who do not do those actions, then it is the belief of the vast majority that they are Muslims. I find it strange indeed that there was a SPECIFIC type of shi’a mentioned in the fatwa that performed “rafd” – the Qizilbaash. This seems to me, and I could be wrong, to imply that they were a fringe group who were raafida shi’a, and that the “shi’a” in principle were not rafida in 900 A.H – and thus they were given a distinct title/labeling.

    As for the shi’a today, then I am not fluent in their the “whose” who. What I can say is that if there are shi’a who fall into the categories mentioned in the Ottomanic fatwa above, then it certainly would be fair to say that they would have been deemed kuffar – after of course proper judgement were applied on an individual basis.

    But that is speculation, and only assumption. And peace and blessings be upon The Nabi his family and followers amin!

    -Abul Layth

  17. Katib says:

    Assalamu alaikum Br Abul Layth
    I am writing to you these few words for the sake of the Muslim unity. For the love of the Prophet Muhammad, and for the love of our great companions, Abu Bakr, Umer, and the others, and for the love of our great scholars such as abi hanifa, ibn hanbal and others. And not for the love of this Shiek whom you quoted “Ibn Kamal’ who has issued written treatise of hate. Please do not be offended for my sincere and honest opinion. I must say that you have come a long way in your search for the truth. Your spiritual journey began form Christianity and to being a Muslim through adopting the wahabi-salafi branch of Islam, and then you left wahabism to become traditionalist as you describe. Perhaps you should continue in your journey to advocate peace, tolerance and new dimension of Islam which is compatible to our world today.
    First I would like to mention, for the sake of the argument, that I do not subscribe to any Muslim sect nor I find myself not obliged to subscribe to any Muslim sect. Perhaps this would make me kafir in your view based on what you have presented, and this is ok with me because I know that God is not obliged to abide by Man’s judgments. Please know that none of these honourable companions have advocated the notion that suggests that rejecting the companions as spiritual leaders would take a Muslim out of the fold of Islam. Rather they taught that what constitute a Muslim is the declaration of Shahada; “no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”; no mention of the Sahaba, hanfi, hanbali, or shfi’i. It is clear from our history that none of the Sahaba have ruled to declare anyone who utters the “shahada” to be a kafir. But it seems such rulings have been issued by people other than the Shabah themselves. It make you wonder why is it that the people whom are related directly to the dispute do not declare a Muslim to be kafir nor propose such declaration similar to that of “Ibn Kamal the turkish” In fact history tell us that the beloved Abu Bakr have said upon his nomination as the first khalifa; “”O people, I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you. If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right.” This is what Muslims need today; we are in desperate need for Abu Bakr’s teachings of freedom of expression; “if I do wrong, set me right.” and not intimidation and suppression of the human intellect. We are in desperate need for the teaching of Ali when he dealt with those who raged war against him; through this event he taught us how to be tolerant with those who oppose us and he also taught us to be very careful in shedding the blood of anyone who unify God when he stated, to his followers in respect to the khawarij who have rejected his judgment and leadership, and raged war against him, that he said “do not kill the khawarij after me, because know that the one who seeks the truth but fails to achieve is not the same as someone who seeks falsehood but succeeds in achieving his objectives” It is worth noting here that Ali bin abi Talib did not shed the blood of those who rejected and fought against him. This kind of teaching we need today and not of “Ibn Kamal, the Turkish”
    I also would particularly commend the comments given by Br Irshaad which seems to be very reasonable and informative.
    Know that all of the takfeer fatwas which are deducted by our past respected scholars are subjective and not necessarily to be taken as obligatory divine laws for all Muslims to adopt. I believe that no one have the authority to nullify any Muslim’s faith except the Prophet of Islam and the person himself. If a Muslim renounces his faith then he is declared kafir no dispute about it. Having said this, after reading some of your writings I sensed some level of sincerity on your part but I find you gotten caught in the terrible negative teachings of our Muslim doctrine. You have been able to free yourself from the grip of the Wahabi sect. And I would expect to see you sooner or later to move on to a more moderate vision of islam. Never stop searching for more possibilities and opinions. Muslims today are so disunited among themselves. In fact I find your former people, the Christians, are more united than the Muslims and have moved away from the takfeery philosophy, which have caused the loss of lives of many Christians in the name of Jesus. Our Muslim history is filled with wars, divisions, killings, takfeers of each others. Do not take these Muslim scholars as sacred people but they are subject to error. Even the great companion Abu Bakr had confirmed this notion when he said “if I do wrong, set me right.”” He did not want people to take him as infallible rather he gave them the authority to question his judgment. You seem to take “ibn Kamal” as sacred and his judgment can not be challenged in the 21 Century. Ibn Kamal verdict is not binding to all Muslims nor the fatwas of any other Muslim scholar.
    You seem to put too much weight to the notion of “ijma’” or “consensus” but know that this notion have become very relative in light of the many Muslim sects, such as, wababis, Salafis, shafi’s, hanbalis, Malikies, Shi’a, and much more Muslim sets. This follows that there is no more real meaning to the notion of “ijm’a” because every sect or group would use this argument then we end up with a real problem and that is who are those “ijma’” Perhaps, the bin ladin group refer to the “ijma’ but we know the majority of Muslims are not in agreement to his vision and fatawas. And the same logic goes with the rest. Hence “ijma’” no longer have the real value of what it implies and that is the majority or consensus. No more majority in the Muslim community rather our Muslim community today consist of multitudes of minorities.

    Allow me to comment on some of your points;
    You said; “6) It is also interesting to note that this Ottoman Shaykh states, “And it is obligatory for the Sultan to declare Jihad against these disbelievers as Allah says,يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ جَاهِدِ الْكُفَّارَ وَالْمُنَافِقِينَ وَاغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَمَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.” [9:73]”
    Comment: “This verse is addressed to the messenger of Allah and not to the Sultan of the ottomans, as it is clearly states; “O Prophet!”9:73
    It seems the Sultan of the Ottomans found it very convenient to manipulate this verse to subdue and destroy those who threatened his kingdom. Just like the recent Muslim criminal elements, who have been committing crimes against those who oppose them in opinions, in the name of Islam.
    You said; “The application of this Hanafi Ottomanic fatwa in our times would rid the Muslim community of several different neo-Islamic sects, the names of such we will leave to the readers to decide.”
    Comment; “Although you tried to distance yourself from this fatwa in the beginning of your post, when you stated; “Again, this fatwa must be taken in context and must be understood in the political sphere of 900 A.H.” but unfortunately, at the end of this post, you seem to have fallen in the trap of these kinds of deviated Muslim teachings. Hence, you seem to advocate this kind of thinking which inevitably implicate you in the terrible consequences that these instigative teachings could cause, should your wish for the implementation of this fatwa comes true. Accordingly, the implementation of such fatwa would lead to sectarian wars and the loss of lives of many “unifiers” who share the same Qibla, Quran and the love of the same prophet”
    You said; “2) The kufr of those who revile the companions or reject the khilafah of the two Shaykhs.
    Comment; What about the other two Khulafa, namely Uthman and Ali. How come they are not included in the ruling of the status of kufr. Why is it only that rejecting the two “Shaikhs”, the first and the second “khalifa” namely Abu Bakr and Umar, would merit an apostate status, and not so in respect to Uthman and Ali. In other words such ruling does not consider the rejection of Utham and Ali as an act which merit the status of kufr.
    Furthermore, you mentioned also that ““Risalah fi takfir ar-rawafid” or ‘Treatise (or letter) regarding the declaration of disbelief upon those who revile the Sahabah’; if we were to honor such teachings and take them as a sacred laws and abide by them then we are definitely getting ourselves into a big dilemma. In other words this treatise seems to suggest that anyone who revile the Sahaba earns the status of disbelief or kufr, then this follows that this treatise would pose a serious challenge to the integrity of the honourable lady ‘aisha, the Prophet’s wife, and many honorable companions of the prophet. Because, according to history and all of the Sihah that the honourable lady ‘aisha, the honourable companions ‘Talha, alzuybyr and many others, have indeed rejected and reviled the forth khalifa Ali bin abi talib; and their rejection was not only limited to verbal rejection rather it escalated to military conflict. Now does the writer of this treatise consider Ali from among the Sahaba, if he does then this would seriously attack the integrity of these great Muslim personalities, such as alsayyida ‘aisha, tal’ah and alzubyr and others. What is really interesting here is that the forth khalifa himself, Ali, did not declare those who went against him and rejected him as leader, such as ‘aisha, talha and alzybyr as kafirs and history tells otherwise. So when the person who is relevant in this issue, Ali, did not issue a takfeer fatwa against those who rejected him then I believe it is not within anyone’s jurisdiction to put their nose in such affaires. Can anyone suggest that the writer of this takfeery treatise “Ibn Kamaal” is more knowledgeable than the honourable companion Ali bin abi talib. Well it seems that, according to the followers of this Sheikh and this kind of teachings, this Sheikh “Ibn Kamaal” has more knowledge than Ali. In addition, what about Mu’awiya bin abi Sufyan, he had rejected the Sahabi Ali bin abi talib, then according to this logic of “Ibn Kamal’, that he should earn the status of kufr or what status should he earn.“
    May God bless you
    Katib

  18. Abul Layth says:

    Wa’alaykum Salam Katib,

    I will not be responding to your post as it is to long to deal with, and quite frankly loaded with batil I don’t feel like addressing.

    Thank You,
    Abul Layth

  19. Ibn Ahmad says:

    May Allah bless you Sayyid Katib. You raised some very beneficial points to ponder upon. Also, I felt nothing but kindness in your words. BarakAllhu Feek.

    Your Brother
    Ibn Ahmad

  20. Irshaad says:

    Salaam alaikum,

    There have been many interesting and beneficial points raised in this discussion thread – and a great deal of sincerity displayed by all commenters.

    Ghazali had written a treatise which provides an interesting approach to the one of the questions raised here – that of the importance and place of madhhabs within the larger context of religious belief and knowledge. Ghazali’s treatise Mizanal Amal (The Scales of Action) contains a discussion of the concept of madhhab. In it Ghazali outlines three levels of madhhab which, in a sense, parallels the three primary levels through which the human nafs can ascend (nafs ammara, nafs lawwama, nafs mutma’inna).

    These three levels of adherence to a madhhab are:

    1. madhhab in the sense of Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi, Malaki etc. doctrinal teachings
    2. madhhab as a deepening of one’s intellectual and spiritual understanding of religion – an inner movement allowing the beginning of the emergence of and the eventual establishment of iman within one’s consciousness – the exact method involved in this stage can vary from person to person
    3. madhhab as the full flowering of this iman within the heart – the experiential awareness of spiritual realities – a transformation of one’s inner world through nearness to God and of one’s actions into those most reflective of an inner ihsan state

    He also outlines the obstacles inhibiting the traversing of this ladder of madhhabs that a seeker may encounter – the hardest step is to rise above the first stage of madhhab. And the first stage is only seen in the correct perspective after the other stages have been traversed. I have quoted a few small excerpts from this interesting work of Ghazali below:
    ————-

    From “The Scales of Action”:

    “Every fully accomplished person has three madhhabs. As for “madhhab” in the first sense, that is the way of one’s forefathers and ancestors, or the madhhab of one’s teacher or of the people of the town where one grows up. This differs according to towns and countries, and according to the teachers concerned. Thus someone who comes under the influence of an Asharite or Mutazilite or Shafi’i or Hanafi has the passionate clinging to that madhhab implanted in his soul…. So people say that “His madhhab is Asharite” – or Mutazilite, Shafi’i , or Hanafi – and the meaning of this is that he is passionately attached to it, i.e., that he supports the group of those parading this cause by assisting them, just as the members of a tribe support one another.

    Now the source of this passionate attachment is the eagerness of some group (the later practitioners and enforcers of this madhhab) to seek influence by getting the masses to follow them.

    The second (meaning of) madhhab is what is appropriate in (moral or spiritual) guidance and teaching, to whoever comes seeking to learn or to be guided. Now this cannot be specified in only one way, but rather it differs according to the pupil, so that each pupil must be confronted (in his learning) with what his understanding can handle….So “madhhab” in this sense changes and varies; with each person it is according to the capacity of his understanding (and his understanding may grow and expand).

    The third (meaning of) madhhab is what a man believes in his innermost self, between himself and God, such that no one other than God – may He be exalted! – is aware of it. He does not mention it except to someone who is like himself in his awareness of what he has become aware of, or else who has reached a stage where he is capable of becoming aware of it and understanding it. But this (requires) that the disciple be naturally intelligent, that the inherited belief he grew up with (or which he acquired through teachers) and became attached to not be deeply rooted in his soul, and that his heart not be so thoroughly impregnated with this belief that it cannot be erased from it.

    The pupil is like paper that has been written on and which the ink has penetrated so that it can sometimes only be removed by burning the paper and destroying it. The (spiritual) constitution of such a person has been corrupted, and one must despair of setting it right. For everything that is mentioned to him that is different from what he has heard (perhaps in his youth or from his teachers) does not persuade him. Indeed he tries vigorously not to be convinced by what is mentioned to him, and seeks to push it away. So even if such a person strained his attention and tried his very utmost to understand, he would only come to doubt his own understanding. How could it be otherwise, since his (unconscious) aim is to push it away and to not understand it?

    ….Moreover, they are also agreed in being passionately attached to the madhhab of their father, their teacher, or the people of their town. So if someone should happen to mention his madhhab, what use is that to you? For the madhhab of another person is different from his, and none of them has a miracle which would give his side precedence (despite what they may believe)…..

    So put aside being concerned with (the lower level of) madhhabs, and seek the truth by way of inquiry and reflection so that you may become the master of a madhhab (ie., of your own spiritual way) – and so that you do not become like the image of a blind man heedlessly accepting a leader to guide you to a Way, while all around you there are a thousand (other) leaders like yours, all calling out to you….(Qur’an 5:77).

    For there is no way out except by relying on attachment to God (a nafs sincerely attached to God); “Take what you see, and forget what you heard/When the Sun has risen, what need have you of Saturn?”
    ————-

    May God increase us in beneficial knowledge.

    wasalaam

  21. Admin says:

    In Response to Katib’s post:

    Assalamu alaikum Br Abul Layth

    wasalam

    And not for the love of this Shiek whom you quoted “Ibn Kamal’ who has issued written treatise of hate.

    Rather, it is a treatise stating what he certainly believed to be the Hukm based upon proofs. If he errored

    he receives reward, and if he is correct than two as stated by the Nabi (‘alayhis salaam).

    Please do not be offended for my sincere and honest opinion. I must say that you have come

    a long way in your search for the truth. Your spiritual journey began form Christianity and to being a

    Muslim through adopting the wahabi-salafi branch of Islam, and then you left wahabism to become traditionalist as you describe. Perhaps you should continue in your journey to advocate peace, tolerance and new dimension of Islam which is compatible to our world today.

    Islam is a truly fluid religion, Alhamdulillah. However, what you believe may be compatible may not be what

    billions of others believe may be compatible. A “new” dimension of Islam is not needed to be compatible

    with post-modernity. It is not Islam that needs to be compatible, but rather it is the paganism and hedonism of post-modernity that need to be compatible with Islam. As Allah says, “Verily the religion to

    Allah is Islam…” It is not any post or pre modern “ism” that you believe Islam needs to be compatible with.

    Thus, the premise of your statement and the secondary arguments thereafter , in my view, are baatil and baseless. Furthermore, there are constants in our religion that are unchangeable, and some of those
    constants may interfere with post-modernity and the capitalistic paganism that corrupts our world today.

    First I would like to mention, for the sake of the argument, that I do not subscribe to any

    Muslim sect nor I find myself not obliged to subscribe to any Muslim sect.

    Such is disdain for the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah of our Sayyid Muhammad (‘alayhis salaam)!

    1) Allah ta’alaa states

    وَمَنْ يَتَوَلَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا فَإِنَّ حِزْبَ اللَّهِ هُمُ الْغَالِبُونَ

    “And whoever takes Allah and His messenger and those who believe for a guardian, then surely the Hizb of

    Allah are they that shall be triumphant.” [5:56]

    لا تَجِدُ قَوْمًا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ يُوَادُّونَ مَنْ حَادَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَلَوْ كَانُوا آبَاءَهُمْ أَوْ أَبْنَاءَهُمْ أَوْ إِخْوَانَهُمْ أَوْ عَشِيرَتَهُمْ

    أُولَئِكَ كَتَبَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمُ الإِيمَانَ وَأَيَّدَهُمْ بِرُوحٍ مِنْهُ وَيُدْخِلُهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ

    وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ أُولَئِكَ حِزْبُ اللَّهِ أَلا إِنَّ حِزْبَ اللَّهِ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

    “You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having affection for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred. Those – He has decreed within their hearts faith and supported them with spirit from Him. And We will admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they abide eternally. Allah is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him – those are the party of Allah . Unquestionably, the party of Allah – they are the successful.” [55:22]

    2) There are also ahadith that discuss ta’ifah mansurah etc. Ibn ‘Abbas (r) also called those who follow the Sunnah “Ahlus Sunnah”. And lastly, the hadith of the 73 sects all of them in the fire save for one is further proof that ascription to that sect is necessary for salvation.

    Perhaps this would make me kafir in your view based on what you have presented, and this is ok with me

    because I know that God is not obliged to abide by Man’s judgments.

    I don’t care what you believe. You are insignificant, just as I am, and our opinions do not truly matter in the grand scale of things.

    Please know that none of these honourable companions have advocated the notion that

    suggests that rejecting the companions as spiritual leaders would take a Muslim out of the fold of Islam.

    Rather they taught that what constitute a Muslim is the declaration of Shahada; “no god but Allah and

    Muhammad is his messenger”; no mention of the Sahaba, hanfi, hanbali, or shfi’i. It is clear from our

    history that none of the Sahaba have ruled to declare anyone who utters the “shahada” to be a kafir. But it

    seems such rulings have been issued by people other than the Shabah themselves.

    Herein lays the disagreement. From one perspective I could forward a view of the Hanbali madh-hab, and

    may I note that the schools of fiqh are not SECTS – they are understandings of law that are based upon the

    Qur’an and the Sunnah and are thus part of ONE SECT – Ahlus Sunnah, that the Sahabah did make takfir of

    those who abandoned Salah, a view that has many proofs for it. Or I could also forward how Allah ta’alaa

    made takfir of those who judge by other than what Allah has revealed – and here I intend tashri’. Both

    previously said types of people may say the shahada, but such does not avail them because of the proofs

    of the law. I agree that the one who says the shahada is principally Muslim, however, there are actions as

    well as beliefs that can nullify one’s shahada. Examples:

    1) One defecating on the Qur’an, yet still says the Shahada.
    2) One says the Shahada yet bows to an idol of Krishna with the intent of worshipping it.
    3) One abandoning the laws of Islam:

    وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْـزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ

    5:44

    and the list of possibilities goes on.

    This is what Muslims need today; we are in desperate need for Abu Bakr’s teachings of freedom of

    expression; “if I do wrong, set me right.” and not intimidation and suppression of the human intellect.

    Are you serious? Not paying Zakah is freedom of expression yet Abu Bakr fought them until they were

    subdued. Musaylimah’s lies were freedom of expression, yet he fought to slay him as well!

    Freedom of expression? Once you have signed the pact with Allah ta’alaa, you give up your freedoms and

    submit to Allah wholly – hence “Muslim”.

    We are in desperate need for the teaching of Ali when he dealt with those who raged war

    against him; through this event he taught us how to be tolerant with those who oppose us and he also

    taught us to be very careful in shedding the blood of anyone who unify God when he stated, to his

    followers in respect to the khawarij who have rejected his judgment and leadership, and raged war against

    him, that he said “do not kill the khawarij after me, because know that the one who seeks the truth but fails

    to achieve is not the same as someone who seeks falsehood but succeeds in achieving his objectives” It is

    worth noting here that Ali bin abi Talib did not shed the blood of those who rejected and fought against

    him.

    What history do you read? Firstly ‘Ali ‘alayhis salam fought those who insurrected against him, including

    therein our mother ‘A’ishah! Jamal ring a bell? See Siyar and others for proofs.

    Secondly, what do you say of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib declaring that those who said he was their Lord who created them , a group who testified to the shahadah, be burnt at the stake?

    Narrated ‘Ikrima:Some Zanadiqa were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it,

    saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the

    statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’” [Sahih Al-Bukhari]

    In the Sharh of this hadith Ibn Hajr quotes the following:

    وَزَعَمَ أَبُو الْمُظَفَّر الْإِسْفَرَايِنِيّ فِي ” الْمِلَل وَالنِّحَل ” أَنَّ الَّذِينَ أَحْرَقَهُمْ عَلِيّ طَائِفَة مِنْ الرَّوَافِض اِدَّعَوْا فِيهِ الْإِلَهِيَّة وَهُمْ السَّبَائِيَّة وَكَانَ كَبِيرهمْ عَبْد اللَّه بْن سَبَأ يَهُودِيًّا ثُمَّ أَظْهَرَ الْإِسْلَام وَابْتَدَعَ هَذِهِ الْمَقَالَة , وَهَذَا يُمْكِن أَنْ يَكُون أَصْله مَا رَوَيْنَاهُ فِي الْجُزْء الثَّالِث مِنْ حَدِيث أَبِي طَاهِر الْمُخَلِّص مِنْ طَرِيق عَبْد اللَّه بْن شَرِيك الْعَامِرِيّ عَنْ أَبِيهِ قَالَ : قِيلَ لِعَلِيٍّ إِنَّ هُنَا قَوْمًا عَلَى بَاب الْمَسْجِد يَدَّعُونَ أَنَّك رَبّهمْ , فَدَعَاهُمْ فَقَالَ لَهُمْ وَيْلكُمْ مَا تَقُولُونَ ؟ قَالُوا : أَنْتَ رَبُّنَا وَخَالِقنَا وَرَازِقنَا . فَقَالَ : وَيْلكُمْ إِنَّمَا أَنَا عَبْدٌ مِثْلُكُمْ آكُلُ الطَّعَام كَمَا تَأْكُلُونَ وَأَشْرَبُ كَمَا تَشْرَبُونَ , إِنْ أَطَعْت اللَّهَ أَثَابَنِي إِنْ شَاءَ وَإِنْ عَصَيْته خَشِيت أَنْ يُعَذِّبنِي , فَاتَّقُوا اللَّه وَارْجِعُوا , فَأَبَوْا , فَلَمَّا كَانَ الْغَد غَدَوْا عَلَيْهِ فَجَاءَ قَنْبَر فَقَالَ : قَدْ وَاَللَّهِ رَجَعُوا يَقُولُونَ ذَلِكَ الْكَلَام , فَقَالَ أَدْخِلْهُمْ فَقَالُوا كَذَلِكَ , فَلَمَّا كَانَ الثَّالِث قَالَ لَئِنْ قُلْتُمْ ذَلِكَ لَأَقْتُلَنَّكُمْ بِأَخْبَثِ قَتْلَة , فَأَبَوْا إِلَّا ذَلِكَ , فَقَالَ يَا قَنْبَر اِئْتِنِي بِفَعْلَةٍ مَعَهُمْ مَرِّرُوهُمْ فَخُذَّ لَهُمْ أُخْدُودًا بَيْن بَاب الْمَسْجِد وَالْقَصْر وَقَالَ : احْفِرُوا فَأَبْعِدُوا فِي الْأَرْض , وَجَاءَ بِالْحَطَبِ فَطَرَحَهُ بِالنَّارِ فِي الْأُخْدُود وَقَالَ : إِنِّي طَارِحكُمْ فِيهَا أَوْ تَرْجِعُوا , فَأَبَوْا أَنْ يَرْجِعُوا فَقَذَفَ بِهِمْ فِيهَا حَتَّى إِذَا اِحْتَرَقُوا قَالَ : إِنِّي إِذَا رَأَيْت أَمْرًا مُنْكَرًا أَوْقَدْت نَارِي وَدَعَوْت قَنْبَرَا وَهَذَا سَنَد حَسَن , وَأَمَّا مَا أَخْرَجَهُ اِبْن أَبِي شَيْبَة مِنْ طَرِيق قَتَادَة ” أَنَّ عَلِيًّا أُتِيَ بِنَاسٍ مِنْ الزُّطّ يَعْبُدُونَ وَثَنًا فَأَحْرَقَهُمْ ” فَسَنَدُهُ مُنْقَطِع , فَإِنْ ثَبَتَ حُمِلَ عَلَى قِصَّة أُخْرَى , فَقَدْ أَخْرَجَ اِبْن أَبِي شَيْبَة أَيْضًا مِنْ طَرِيق أَيُّوب بْن النُّعْمَان ” شَهِدْت عَلِيًّا فِي الرَّحْبَة , فَجَاءَهُ رَجُل فَقَالَ إِنَّ هُنَا أَهْل بَيْت لَهُمْ وَثَن فِي دَار يَعْبُدُونَهُ فَقَامَ يَمْشِي إِلَى الدَّار فَأَخْرَجُوا إِلَيْهِ بِمِثَالِ رَجُل قَالَ فَأَلْهَبَ عَلَيْهِمْ عَلِيٌّ الدَّارَ ”

    Basically Al-Muthaffar Al-Isfaraaini in his Al-Milal Wal Nihal states that these Zanaadiqah were in fact a group from the Rawafid called the As-Saba’iyyah, their leader being Abdullah ibn Saba’, who declared ‘Ali to be their Lord, creator, and sustainer!

    Ali had them killed and burnt!

    Know that all of the takfeer fatwas which are deducted by our past respected scholars are subjective and

    not necessarily to be taken as obligatory divine laws for all Muslims to adopt. I believe that no one have the

    authority to nullify any Muslim’s faith except the Prophet of Islam and the person himself.

    No proof have you for your claim. Imam ‘Ali nullified the above groups Islam, that was his Hukm upon them. Who then are you to come some 1300 years later and act as if you know what can and can not be applied by the law and the Hukkaam? These people still called themselves Muslims, and they still said the Shahada, though they nullified it with their paganistic faiths – not due to declaration!

    Our Muslim history is filled with wars, divisions, killings, takfeers of each others. Do not take these Muslim scholars as sacred people but they are subject to error. Even the great companion Abu Bakr had confirmed this notion when he said “if I do wrong, set me right.”” He did not want people to take him as infallible rather he gave them the authority to question his judgment. You seem to take “ibn Kamal” as

    sacred and his judgment can not be challenged in the 21 Century. Ibn Kamal verdict is not binding to all

    Muslims nor the fatwas of any other Muslim scholar.

    could you tell me where I said his judgement was sacred? Could you tell me where I even said I subscribe to his verdict please?

    You seem to put too much weight to the notion of “ijma’” or “consensus” but know that this notion have

    become very relative in light of the many Muslim sects, such as, wababis, Salafis, shafi’s, hanbalis,

    Malikies, Shi’a, and much more Muslim sets.

    The four schools are not sects and there is no one in the history of Islam that ever called them such. This shows your ignorance of what they are! They are schools of law that all have the same two major principles: Qur’an and Sunnah. They are part of ONE sect: Ahlus Sunnah. As for consensus, then they all agree upon its foundation based upon the verse of the Qur’an:

    وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ الرَّسُولَ مِن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ الْهُدَى وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ نُوَلِّهِ مَا تَوَلَّى وَنُصْلِهِ جَهَنَّمَ وَسَاءتْ مَصِيراً

    “And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers – We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.”

    And other ahadith saying that the Umma would not be united upon dalalah etc.

    See: http://seekingilm.com/archives/237

    What is sad is that you can not give me an example of a Sunni scholar declaring Ijmaa’ of Ahlus Sunnah on an issue of fiqh when ijmaa’ of the 4 schools was not established! The point here is that the remaining 4 sunni schools are what declare consensus of the Muslims, as they are the “way of the believers” that can not be united upon misguidance!

    You said; “6) It is also interesting to note that this Ottoman Shaykh states, “And it is obligatory for the

    Sultan to declare Jihad against these disbelievers as Allah says,يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ جَاهِدِ الْكُفَّارَ وَالْمُنَافِقِينَ وَاغْلُظْ

    عَلَيْهِمْ وَمَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be

    firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.” [9:73]”

    Comment: “This verse is addressed to the messenger of Allah and not to the Sultan of the ottomans, as it

    is clearly states; “O Prophet!”9:73

    Al-’Ibarah bi Umoom al-lafth, la bi khusus as-sabab, and such is the principle utilized by the Ottomans here. I did not say I agree with their usage, and I did not say that I disagreed, I simply said that it was “interesting to note”. That is all!

    You said; “The application of this Hanafi Ottomanic fatwa in our times would rid the Muslim community of several different neo-Islamic sects, the names of such we will leave to the readers to decide.”

    Comment; “Although you tried to distance yourself from this fatwa in the beginning of your post, when

    you stated; “Again, this fatwa must be taken in context and must be understood in the political sphere of

    900 A.H.” but unfortunately, at the end of this post, you seem to have fallen in the trap of these kinds of

    deviated Muslim teachings. Hence, you seem to advocate this kind of thinking which inevitably implicate

    you in the terrible consequences that these instigative teachings could cause, should your wish for the

    implementation of this fatwa comes true. Accordingly, the implementation of such fatwa would lead to

    sectarian wars and the loss of lives of many “unifiers” who share the same Qibla, Quran and the love of

    the same prophet”

    I simply said that if this were applied in our times many neo-islamic sects would be removed.

    1) I have not applied this fatwa on anyone.
    2) You are being stupid in claiming that I have done such.

    You said; “2) The kufr of those who revile the companions or reject the khilafah of the two Shaykhs.
    Comment; What about the other two Khulafa, namely Uthman and Ali. How come they are not included in

    the ruling of the status of kufr. Why is it only that rejecting the two “Shaikhs”, the first and the second

    “khalifa” namely Abu Bakr and Umar, would merit an apostate status, and not so in respect to Uthman and

    Ali. In other words such ruling does not consider the rejection of Utham and Ali as an act which merit the

    status of kufr.

    I do not know what their stance is on Uthman and ‘Ali alayhima as-salaam. Such was not explicitly mentioned in the treatise.

    Furthermore, you mentioned also that ““Risalah fi takfir ar-rawafid” or ‘Treatise (or letter) regarding the

    declaration of disbelief upon those who revile the Sahabah’; if we were to honor such teachings and take

    them as a sacred laws and abide by them then we are definitely getting ourselves into a big dilemma. In

    other words this treatise seems to suggest that anyone who revile the Sahaba earns the status of disbelief

    or kufr, then this follows that this treatise would pose a serious challenge to the integrity of the

    honourable lady ‘aisha, the Prophet’s wife, and many honorable companions of the prophet. Because,

    according to history and all of the Sihah that the honourable lady ‘aisha, the honourable companions

    ‘Talha, alzuybyr and many others, have indeed rejected and reviled the forth khalifa Ali bin abi talib; and

    their rejection was not only limited to verbal rejection rather it escalated to military conflict.

    1) Maybe you could show us, authentically, where ‘A’ishah actually REVILED Imam ‘Ali, the same with Talhah, and the same with Zubayr. I demand an isnad for each.

    2) As for their military conflict, then such was due to the fact that they believed – based on their own ijtihad – that Imam ‘Ali was in error for not implementing the Hadd on the murderers of Imam Uthman. Such in their view warranted military action – though there is no proof that they deemed Imam ‘Ali a kaafir. Rather they fought him in an attempt to force his hand.

    I certainly believe they were wrong, but based upon the hadith of the Nabi (‘alayhis salam) they will be rewarded for their ijtihad – even though they were wrong!

    3) Such an analogy, in my view, is baatil. That is because the Sahaba were forgiven for their errors for their previous spiritual accomplishments by the tongue of the Nabi – and hence pardon is granted by Allah ta’alaa and His Messenger to all of them.

    Now does the writer of this treatise consider Ali from among the Sahaba, if he does then this would seriously attack the integrity of these great Muslim personalities, such as alsayyida ‘aisha, tal’ah and alzubyr and others. What is really interesting here is that the forth khalifa himself, Ali, did not declare those who went against him and rejected him as leader, such as ‘aisha, talha and alzybyr as kafirs and history tells otherwise.

    Neither side made takfir of one another. You have no proof and I demand an authentic chain! If not, you are a liar and the premise of your argument is null!

    So when the person who is relevant in this issue, Ali, did not issue a takfeer fatwa against those who rejected him then I believe it is not within anyone’s jurisdiction to put their nose in such affaires. Can anyone suggest that the writer of this takfeery treatise “Ibn Kamaal” is more knowledgeable than the honourable companion Ali bin abi talib. Well it seems that, according to the followers of this Sheikh and this kind of teachings, this Sheikh “Ibn Kamaal” has more knowledge than Ali.

    Apparently it is you who thinks they have more knowledge than Imam ‘Ali, as it is you who have abandoned his principles as proven earlier.

    In addition, what about Mu’awiya bin abi Sufyan, he had rejected the Sahabi Ali bin abi talib, then according to this logic of “Ibn Kamal’, that he should earn the status of kufr or what status should he earn.“

    And what is your proof that he REJECTED Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib ‘alayhis salam?

    May God bless you
    Katib

    And guide you and I Amin

  22. Syed Atif Shaharyar says:

    Dear all,

    My question is that the fatawa should be made according to Quran and sunna, if anyone is saying that rejecters of shaikhain is kafir then what is the real position of shakhain in Quran, Hadis and sunna and why Imam Ali (AS.) rejected the Kalafat when he was ask to obey shakhian and Hazrat Usman did accepted and followed the khilafat after Hazrat Umar
    It Means Imam Ali naoozubillah Kafir?

    Thanks Syed Atif Shaharyar

  23. Abul Layth says:

    wasalam,

    There is not authentic proof that Imam ‘Ali (‘alayhis Salaam) rejected the Khilafah of ‘Umar or ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan. On a side note, I recommend that when you “hear” reports from people you strive to verify the route in which that information came to you – in other words utilize the science of hadith and the sub-science of ‘Ilm Ar-Rijal.

    This is the Qur’anic prescript.

    Was-Salam,
    abul layth

  24. Haider says:

    if rejecting the caliphate of abu bakr and umar was kufr, wud it then be fair to say that sahabah who never gave allegiance to the first 2 caliphs are kaafir? and what kind of foolishness is it to make takfir of someone who rejects abu hanifahs and imam shaafis madhab!? they arent even companions there just scholars, nothing else. The only people who Allah made it fard to love is Ahlulbayt in the quran wen Allah s.w.t says : “Say (O Muhammad(s)) i ask no reward excpet you love my nearest of kin” i wholeheartedly REJECT the usurpation of the right of imam ali alaihisalaam. he was the best amongst the companions, eny1 who hates him abuses him or carrys enmity towards him is a KAAFIR. and if u say ppl who hate abu bakr and umar are hell bound u shud think agen brother. Fatima hated them according to sahih bukhari and she is not hell bound rather she is THE LEADER OF WOMEN IN PARADISE :) wasalaam

  25. Abul Layth says:

    Well Haider not giving someone bay’ah does not mean you reject his Imamate. As for the Ottoman fatwa making takfir of those who reject Imams Abu Hanifah and Imam Ash-Shafi’i, then they are doing that based upon the premise that it is “leaving the jama’ah” as there is scholarly consensus upon their schools being truth. So by rejecting Ijma’ you in fact reject truth, and by extension leave the “jama’ah”.

    She did not “hate” them, though she was upset for the issue of inheritance, even though the Prophet Muhammad (‘alayhis salam)’s words take precedence to Fatimatuz-Zahraah (‘alayha salam).

    Yes it is waajib to love Ahlul Bayt, and “hating” them is hating our beloved master Muhammad (saaws). Also, whoever rejects the khilafah of Imam ‘Ali ‘alayhis salam also falls beneath the same ruling.

    As for the case of all of the sahabah then they have divine forgiveness for their mistakes, and may Allah have eternal mercy upon them all amin!

  26. Haider says:

    umar called the Prophet a.s delirious! And abu bakr robbed the land of fadak. and tell me, if Ali respected and accepted abu bakr n umar n uthmans caliphate then why didnt he fight jihad under thei rule even though jihad is a major obligation. And why dont ahlulsunnah record hadith from imam jafar as sadiq, imam musa kazim,

  27. Abul Layth says:

    A single report in Sahih al-Bukhari will refute you:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    Fatima the daughter of the Prophet sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allah’s Apostle had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. On that, Abu Bakr said, “Allah’s Apostle said, “Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of (the Prophet) Muhammad can eat of this property.’ By Allah, I will not make any change in the state of the Sadaqa of Allah’s Apostle and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle, and will dispose of it as Allah’s Apostle used to do.” So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not task to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband ‘Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect ‘Ali much, but after her death, ‘Ali noticed a change in the people’s attitude towards him. So Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. ‘Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet’s death and Fatima’s death). ‘Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, “Come to us, but let nobody come with you,” as he disliked that ‘Umar should come, ‘Umar said (to Abu Bakr), “No, by Allah, you shall not enter upon them alone ” Abu Bakr said, “What do you think they will do to me? By Allah, I will go to them’ So Abu Bakr entered upon them, and then ‘Ali uttered Tashah-hud and said (to Abu Bakr), “We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the good what Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah’s Apostle .”

    Thereupon Abu Bakr’s eyes flowed with tears. And when Abu Bakr spoke, he said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is to keep good relations with the relatives of Allah’s Apostle is dearer to me than to keep good relations with my own relatives. But as for the trouble which arose between me and you about his property, I will do my best to spend it according to what is good, and will not leave any rule or regulation which I saw Allah’s Apostle following, in disposing of it, but I will follow.” On that ‘Ali said to Abu Bakr, “I promise to give you the oath of allegiance in this after noon.” So when Abu Bakr had offered the Zuhr prayer, he ascended the pulpit and uttered the Tashah-hud and then mentioned the story of ‘Ali and his failure to give the oath of allegiance, and excused him, accepting what excuses he had offered; Then ‘Ali (got up) and praying (to Allah) for forgiveness, he uttered Tashah-hud, praised Abu Bakr’s right, and said, that he had not done what he had done because of jealousy of Abu Bakr or as a protest of that Allah had favored him with. ‘Ali added, “But we used to consider that we too had some right in this affair (of rulership) and that he (i.e. Abu Bakr) did not consult us in this matter, and therefore caused us to feel sorry.” On that all the Muslims became happy and said, “You have done the right thing.” The Muslims then became friendly with ‘Ali as he returned to what the people had done (i.e. giving the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr).

    Imam Al-Bayhaqi also narrates via his chain nearly the same occurrence.

    was-salam

  28. Haider says:

    that doesnt refute me. rather it refutes your initial statements! you have clearly shown how fatima disliked abu bakr and how imam ali buried her alone and didnt even invite abu bakr to the funeral. According to your own “rules” that whoever reviles abu bakr and umar and rejects their caliphate is a kaafir, you have just indirectly made takfeer of the leader of women of paradise.

  29. Abul Layth says:

    She did not reject their Caliphate and you have no authentic proof! :)

    It refutes you on multiple grounds -

    1) Imam Ali (‘alayhis salam) gave bay’ah to the khalifah Abu Bakr (‘alayhis salam) and was thus pleased with him, unlike what you claim.

    2) Imam ‘Ali ‘alayhis salam being the only one to perform the Salah and bury her does not mean that Fatimah (‘alayhas salam) rejected his khalifate.

    3) This shows the love and respect the Imams had for one another, unlike you have portrayed in your evil comment.

    Lastly, Seekingilm, including myself, do not necessarily make takfir of the one who rejects their caliphate. Conditions must be met for takfir, and not all those who hold this view meet those conditions. I quoted this fatwa only to show that this was the opinion of the Ottoman jurists.

    was-salam.

  30. Haider says:

    salaam thanks for reply, may i ask a question. What is the stance of ahlulsunnah and the traditional scholars of ahlulsunnah with regards to the concept of tawassul and is saying “ya ali madad” or “ya hussain” considered as forms of polytheism in the traditional though of AhlulSunnah?

  31. Abul Layth says:

    As for tawassul, there is no disagreement amongst Ahlus Sunnah about its permissibility. As Imam Taqiy As-Subki stated, the one who innovated forbiddance on this issue was Ibn Taymiyyah, and no one prohibited prior to him.

    You can read the discussions pertaing to this issue in the tawassul section:

    http://seekingilm.com/archives/category/fiqh-jurisprudence/tawassul

    As for saying ya Ali madad or “ya hussain”, then the intention of the speaker must be sought.

    There are two articles on Ma’rifah that state the Sunni position:

    http://marifah.net/articles/Madad-HabibUmar.pdf

    A better fatwa, taken from the Mawsu’at Yusufiyya that discusses the issue of saying Madad is here:

    http://www.marifah.net/articles/almadad-yusufkhattarmuhammad.pdf

    Sayyiduna Ash-Shaykh Yusuf Khattar Muhammad is a Faqih of the Sunnis!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Two Have Been Afflicted Because of their Followers: Ja’far and Ahmad and some Translated works of Benefit Regarding the Matter of Creed: Seeking Ilm (Knowledge) - [...] individual wrote these words in response to the recent article posted here that quotes Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Kamal …
  2. irshaad.net : Discussion on takfir - [...] A website called Seeking Ilm recently had a post about an Ottoman fatwa pronouncing takfir (one group of Muslims …
  3. Muslim extremism; some insights on its root causes.-part 2 « Katib - [...] Oct 29, 2008, Abul Layth [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>