Issue of Takfeer- Sheikh Assim al hakeem.

[Itqan Ullah]

These are some beneficial posts from Sheikh assim al hakeem's page I wanted to share here:

What is takfeer? It is labeling a Muslim as a kafir. People as mentioned in the Quran are either believers or disbelievers; 64:2. There are original disbelievers of kafir such as the Jews and Christians. There are also those who were Muslims and then apostated. When someone labels a Muslim as a kafir, this is as saying he is in hell. In the hadeeth, the Prophet salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam told u
s about a worshipper who used to advise his sinful brother not to sin. When he didn’t listen to him, he swore that Allah will never forgive him. Allah forgave the sinner and nullified all the worshipper’s good deeds because of that word he said. There is a huge difference between saying that a person committed an act of Kufr (disbelief) and saying that he is a kafir. I may see someone taking the Christians as allies. I would say that this is an act of Kufr but I wouldn’t label that individual as a kafir until the conditions are fulfilled, and I will talk about these conditions later.

There are four cases where an individual might be labeled as kafir. The first is hypocrisy where a person intends kufr but does not show it. The second is when the action itself is inexcusable because there is o other possibility but kufr. This is like when a person curses the Prophet or steps on the Quran. The 3rd is when the action Is kufr but it may nullify Islam and it may not. For example, Hatib may Allah be pleased with him sent a letter to the pagans of Makkah warning them that the Prophet salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam is coming to take Makkah. This act can be considered as taking allegiance with the disbelievers which nullifies Islam. However, when the Prophet salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam heard his excuse, he acknowledged that it was a sin but not something that nullifies Islam because Hatib fought in Badr and Allah forgave those who fought in Badr. I will elaborate more on this case and on the four case as well in the next post, in sha Allah.

In the story of Hatib, may Allah be pleased with him, by sending the letter to the pagans of Makkah, he has taken them as allies. If this was Kufr, fighting in Badr would not have helped him because Allah forgives everything except disbelief. Therefore, it is obvious that it was a sin and not Kufr and Allah has forgiven him because of fighting in Badr. Those labeling Saudi rulers with Takfeer are making a serious mistake that can throw them in hell. When Saddam conquered Kuwait and looted its property and raped women there, the Saudi rulers had no other choice to protect their people but to pay the non Muslim coalition forces to come and fight for them. The supreme council of scholars approved of that and issued its fatwa. The irony here is that those writing books about the Kufr of the rulers of Saudi Arabia didn’t write a single page about UK which they are living in and collecting their benefit pay check at the end of the month from. I am not defending the Saudi rulers as I have no affiliation with them. I have never worked for them or collected a single penny from them. I am not pleased with a lot of what they do but they are still my legitimate rulers who have my pledge of allegiance. I am forced by Islam to respect and obey them. The Prophet salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam told us that we can’t over throw them as long as they establish prayers and as long as we don’t see any blunt and clear Kufr being committed. This is the creed of Ahlu Sunnah wal Jama’ah.

^This one was followed by quite a bit of comments, So Sheikh clarified it again:

I am not a scholar! I try my level best to put the knowledge I have in simple English. However, I may fail sometimes in conveying my message. I will try again: taking the Kafir as allies can range between a major sin and Kufr. If you remember, there is a difference between saying that “this action is Kufr” and saying that this individual is Kafir. The Prophet salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam accepted Hatib’s excuse to show us that anyone who has a legitimate excuse, we must accept that from him. If we cascade this on the Saudi rulers, we can see that with the fatwa of the supreme council of scholars and with the Ijtihad of the ruler, no one can give them takfeer due to the benefit of the doubt. Another example is when Moa’th came from Yemen and he prostrated to the Prophet salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam. The Prophet didn’t say to him that you have done Shirk. The act from Moa’th was Kufr but the individual wasn’t labeled as a Kafir. By Allah, when you boldly say that the rulers of Saudi Arabia are Kafir, one of you will be Kafir. It is better to be safe than sorry, though I believe that some of our friends are blinded by the hatred and envy. Last point; let us keep our discussions on a high level of Islamic etiquettes. Let us display our Islam when we talk with those who differ with us.

 

[Itqan Ullah]

Excellent Book::: Warning Against the Fitna of Takfeer - Shaikh Al Albani (Rahimullah)

 

[Idris16]

Wallahi, let these individuals debate with the Scholars imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, they wouldnt even stand a chance, it is so easy to misguided people these days.

Those labeling Saudi rulers with Takfeer are making a serious mistake that can throw them in hell.

What's wrong with making takfir on some ruler who is above the words of Allaah and His Prophet by Saudi Law? Shaykh Abdulmuhsin Ubaykaan is a Saudi Scholar who defends the Saudi government but he didnt even dare to come for the debate with a shaykh even though he was accepting the debate. We have nothing to hide, if you want us to be 'guided' then come for a debate. But you can not and you will not come for debate because you know we will mention the fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah, Ulema Najd, Ahmad Shakir and the Shaykh of bin Baaz.

Could the moderators delete the book of Shaykh Albani rahimahullah? He has errors in Mas'alah Iman. He says in his book:

Therefore the kufr of belief does not have a fundamental connection with just actions, but it has a connection with the heart. And it is not possible for us to know what is in the heart of the faasiq (sinner) or the adulterer or the thief or the one who is a fornicator nor the one who takes interest, etc. Except if he confesses with his tongue what is in his heart. As far as his action is concerned then it is notification that he has opposed the Sharia', with a differing of action.

Shaykh Albani is comparing kufr actions with sinful actions less than Shirk/kufr, and Shaykh Albani says in order that Kufr actions become kufr akbar the person must admit what is in his heart. So according to this innovated belief, that means a ruler can ally with kuffar against Muslims and fight them as much as he wants and never become kafir unless he admits by his tongue that he is doing this to help the disbelievers to destroy islam or making istihlal i.e. considering the sinful action to be permissible.

Further proof of Shaykh Albani's error:

***deleted***

 

[Shishani]

Assalamu alaykum.

Ibn Taymiyyah, Shakir, Ibn Baz & others were on the same Aqidah, and that's not the Aqidah of Khawarij of this era.
Their books are available, and the lectures of our Ulamaa - including Ibn Baaz (who labeled as Khawarij those who made takfeer on KSA etc.), Uthaymeen and those who are alive their best students as al-Fawzaan and others.
About al-Albani: then he may have used somewhere not clear expressions, but he clarified them in other places, and the Ulama clarified them.
The one who will accuse him of irja and of being of the Murjiah, and that he doesn't make takfeer except in case of kufr of in i'tiqad etc. - he errs, and wrongfully ascribes it to the Shaykh, because his aqeedah is known.

And brother Idris16, we talked in private about these issues. You don't seem to take some advise, take it, it will benefit you insha-Allah!
For further discussion see PM.

Topic closed, we don't need discussions here where everyone is writing stuff in defence of his opinion, in the matters of aqeedah.