A fatwa of Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah

as-salamu alaikum sayyidi,

jazaakumallah khairan. some very good points were made.

It is exactly point 3b that i am interested in.

and there is another aspect as well:

what of the one who stays silent? i presume he too would come under point 5 you mentioned?

sidi, it would be great if you could please scan up the relevant section specific to point 5 you mentioned?

good point brother. for example, some of mufti desai's earlier statements pertaining to istigatha were extreme and, as you say, there was no room for any ta'wil of the statements of the awaam. thankfully, he seems to have softened his stance of late, however, [probably as a result of people's protestation] although I still do not agree with his stance: http://askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=eeb4a9bf1f260e6639291d948b96ece4 Also, I don't see why in that fatwa he has made a distinction between 1) mawlid/ saying ya rasul allah and 2) saying 'ya rasulallah madad' because the deobandis i've spoken to say their deobandi elders also accepted the `asl al jawaz of Istigatha but forbade it due to Sadd al Dhara'i. [Allah knows best]. But yes, I agree with the point you have made above.

was-salam

 

it is a slippery slope. such ta'wil can be done for any fitna. for example, ismayil dahalwi wrote 'mar kar mitti meiN milne wala huN' which, according to urdu idiom means: 'i shall die and rot away'. the 'muftis' make a ta'wil for this: here it means to touch the dirt. that is, when one dies and is placed in the grave, the earth touches the body. etc, etc. [i am not making this up; this is a real ta'awil by a deobandi mufti]

suppose a man calls another 'haywan'; ashraf ali for example. and then makes ta'awil that 'haywan' is a generic word for living beings. that is why humans are called as 'speaking beings' or 'haywan e naTiq'. so there is nothing wrong to call ashraf ali a 'haywan'.

you can check 'mufti' ibn adam and 'mufti' ibrahim desai for many such ta'wils.

----
if one is just, they must ask whether ta'awil should be made only for the elders of deoband? why don't they accept ta'awil for common people whom they slam with shirk/polytheism or bid'ah at every opportunity?

a principle of fiqh is touted in this regard: 'sadd adh-dharayi' / to close the door of evil. even the deobandi scholars have acknowledged that common parlance is taken into account for fatawa, not lexical hair-splitting.

----
the reason why i have presented an EXCERPT of ibn taymiyyah's fatwa is because alahazrat is routinely accused of being takfiri, hasty in takfir [alaHazrat made takfir of ashraf ali years AFTER the book hifz al-iman was printed. during this period which, he kept sending ashraf letters to recant or do ruju'u] and so forth.

the book as-Sarim al-maslul is comprehensive on the subject and later ibn abidin refers to it extensively in his 'tanbih al-wulati wa'l Hukkam'.

----
curiously, the phrase 'man shakka fi kufrihi wa adhabihi' is quoted as alaHazrat's words. actually, many muftis of Haramayn in their attestations wrote this quoting from qaDi `iyaD's shifa.

----
the matter is very simple:

1. insulting the Prophet sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam is riddah/apostacy. al-`iyadhu billah.

2. if anyone disregards this ruling for a blasphemer KNOWINGLY, he is together with him in his riddah.

3. examine the statements for blasphemy and you have two possibilities:

a. it is a clearly blasphemous statement
b. it is unclear and ambiguous
​

4. in case of 3a. there is no doubt of the rulings 1 and 2 even if the blasphemer did not intend to insult.

5. in case of 3b. it is pending examination - and if a ta'awil can be found for it. i suppose, a mufti can be forgiven if he makes the wrong ta'awil; but the original ruling that the first person who blasphemed stands.

----
Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

Explaining the rulings

To make tawīl in evident kufr is kufr as well. See al-Imām Anwar Shāh al-Kashmīrī's "ikfār al-mulhidīn fī zurūriyāt ad-dīn"; pages 10-11; 1984 edition of "dār al-kutub al-'ilmiyyah", Peshawar, Pakistan.

Therefore, the ruling of anyone in support of evident kufr through explanations and paraphrases will not be accepted by the sharī'ah. The supposed explanations and paraphrases are themselves evidence of the kufr (if not then the corruptness [to state the least]) of the original text because if it were not evident kufr then it would not require hyperboles and exaggerations to define its meanings.

An adequate example would be Ghulām Ahmad al-Qādiyānī's homemade concocted definition of "khātam an-nabiyyīn" from 33:40 [al-qurān] implying that it is to be understood in a metaphorical sense whilst at the same time conveniently claiming prophet hood for himself and instructing his followers to understand his [false] prophet hood to mean sainthood!

It must be noted that the followers of Ghulām Ahmad al-Qādiyānī present Muhammad Qāsim an-Nānowtawī's "tahzīr an-nās fī asar ibn 'abbās" as evidence for their ill-conceived claims.

Therefore, regardless of how plausible the explanations may seem, they will nevertheless not be taken into account as long as the condemned text consists of evident kufr.

However, if the text in dispute contains interpretable meanings away from kufr then kufr will not be proclaimed; rather, benefit of the doubt will be afforded thus explaining the exalted sayings of the scholars of the al-ahnāf pertaining to the 99 meanings of kufr and 1 meaning of non-kufr contained in any such statement.

As for the statement of al-Imām Ibn Taymiyyah which is "and whosoever doubts in the disbelief and torment [of the blasphemer] has himself committed disbelief" and other similar statements (see al-Imām al-Baraylawī's "husām al-haramayn 'alā manhar al-kufr wa al-mayn"), there are reasonable explanations. [Thus, one explanation is that:]

There is a distinct context for such clear-cut rulings, which is that the ruling only applies when the person doubts the kufr of the blasphemer and/or torment *after* being aware of the evident kufr.

The same ruling applies if the issue is of the actual text being blasphemous and not the author(s) as is the case with Ismā'īl ad-Dihlawī whose repentance was made known amongst some circles.

This was one of the sustainable reasons that led al-Imām Ahmad Ridā Khān al-Baraylawī to proclaim Ismā'īl's burnable book "taqwiyah al-īmān" as blasphemous but stayed silent on the kufr of Ismā'īl ad-Dihlawī which is a manifest dalīl of his forbearance and carefulness in such controversial and delicate issues (see "al-kowkabah ash-shihābiyyah fī kufriyyāt abī al-wahhābiyyah"; the image of the front page from my personal copy is attached).

Finally, to summarise; the general ruling is that to affirm sincerely all the fundamentals of dīn is īmān (belief) and to reject even one is kufr (disbelief). No tawīl will be made in the latter case.

Yāsir al-Hanafī.

 

as-salamu alaikum akhi,

I can understand why a Qadi may give such a ruling based on that statement. But, that is not my question. What if a Mufti gives a ta'wil or a plausible explanation [what some here may say an 'excuse'] of the said statement whereby he feels takfir would not be required - is he too now to be considered a kafir?

 

as-salamu alaikum

jazakallah khair sidi abu Hasan for what was a very useful read.

i would like to know if what ibn taymiya (rh) mentioned is a widely accepted principle.

shaikh gf haddad [may Allah preserve him] on sunnah.org said the following:


it is still unacceptable to say: "he who doubts in the kufr of X is also a kaafir" except in very, very clearcut cases such as idolatry -- we seek refuge in Allah.

Even then, there is a difference between the kufr of X in saying a particular statement tantamount to kufr, and his being a kafir. There is a great difference.

What about those who are unclear about it for various reasons, such as not ascertaining the exact meaning of X's words?

Are we going to be like Abu al-`Ala' al-Bukhari who declared: "he who doubts in the kufr of Ibn `Arabi is also a kafir, and he who calls Ibn Taymiyya Shaykh al-Islam is a kafir"? Is it not better to be like Mulla `Ali al-Qari who said that in such cases the best course is silence?

The rule is: "We do not declare as disbelievers any of the People of the Qibla other than upon denial of a mass-transmitted article of Islamic Law."


end of quote

see also what Ustadh Abdullah mentioned when referring to the Habashis at the following link

click here


so sidi I do feel this principle which Ibn Taymiya referred to needs further elaboration and explanation.

insha'Allah I will try and ask shaikh gf haddad for further comment as well.

Allah knows best.

was-salam

 

We keep hearing from those who revile ÁlāHazrat that he was harsh and attempt to ridicule his fatwa. On the fatāwā of takfir of a certain group of people – inspite of their ‘scholar’ credentials - ÁlāHazrat Imām Ahmed Riđā Khan was following the consensus of this ummah. This assertion of ours has been dismissed summarily. Hence, I find it fit to remind such people, of the opinion of those people whom they consider as an authority.

*********************
The First Chapter: Those who insult RasūlAllāh şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam – be it a Muslim or a disbeliever must be executed.

It is ruled by unanimity [ijmāá] that he who insults [the Prophet] must be executed.

This is the madh’hab of most scholars [áāmmatu ahl al-ílm]; Ibn al-Mundhir[1] says : ‘The scholars are unanimous in the opinion that the punishment for an insulter [of the Prophet şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam] is execution.’ [2]

Among those who hold this opinion are Mālik, Layth, Ahmed, Is-ĥāq and this is the madh’hab of Shāfiýī.[3]

It is attributed to Númān[4]: ‘They must not be executed.’ That is, their polytheism is worse [apparently the discussion is regarding the kafirs until now]

It is reported from Abū Bakr al-Farisi – a Shāfiýī scholar – that the muslims are unanimous in their opinion that the punishment for the blasphemer [sābb] is death whereas those who slander others should be whipped. This unanimity of [ijmāá] that he mentions is either the unanimity of the foremost muslims [şadr al-awwal] among the Companions and their followers [as-şaĥābah wa’t tābiýīn] or that the unanimity is in the ruling that ‘a muslim guilty of such crime should be executed’.

This is why Qāđī Íyāđ said specifically: The ummah is unanimous in the ruling that a Muslim who insults or denigrates [mutanaqqişihi, sābbihi] the Prophet şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam should be executed.

This unanimity on the apostacy and capital punishment for such a person is reported by many others.

Imām Is-ĥāq ibn Rāhwiyyah, a great scholar has said: ‘Whosoever insults Allāh, or His Messenger or rejects anything from the Qur’ān or kills a prophet is a Kāfir even if he holds fast to everything else revealed by Allāh’ [man sabba Allāh aw sabba rasūlahu aw dafa-á shayyan mimmā anzala Allahu ázza wa jall aw qatala nabiyyan min anbiyāyi’llāhi ázza wa jall: annahu kāfirun bidhālika wa in kāna muqirran bi kulli mā anzala Allāh]

Al-Khaţţābi [5] says: ‘I do not know any Muslim who differs on this matter [of executing a blasphemer]

Muĥammad ibn Saĥnūn [6] said: ‘The scholars are unanimous that the blasphemer of the Prophet şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam and the denigrator [shātim, mutanaqqiş] is a disbeliever [kāfir] and severe warnings of Allāh’s torment for such a person have been reported.

And the ruling of this ummah is that he should be executed; and whosoever doubts in the disbelief and torment [of the blasphemer] has himself committed disbelief. [wa man shakka fī kufrihi wa ádhābihi kafar]

[Şārim al-Maslūl álā Shātim ar-Rasul şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam, Ĥafiž Ibn Taymiyyah pg. 31-33]

--------------------
Footnotes:

1. Abū Bakr Muĥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mundhir an-Naysābūrī – d. 318 AH.

2. Al-Ijmāá pg. 144

3. Imām Mālik ibn Anas,
Layth ibn Saád ibn Ábd ar-Raĥmān al-Fahmī al-Mişri
Imām Ahmed ibn Ĥanbal
Is-ĥāq ibn Ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Mukhallad al-Marwadhi (known as Ibn Rāhwiyyah)

4. Imām Abū Ĥanīfah Númān ibn Thābit al-Kūfī

5. Aĥmed or Ĥamad ibn Muĥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al-Khaţţāb al-Khaţţābī al-Bustī [see here]

6. Abū Ábdullāh Muĥammad ibn Ábd as-Salām Saĥnūn ibn Saýīd at-Tannūkhi, al-Qayrwāni al-Māliki – d. 265 AH

7. i am sure some of them may find refuge in attacking me by saying that i 'quote from ibn taymiyyah when it suits me'. i have already explained on this forum earlier that i held an extreme position earlier which i have revised. there is nothing wrong in revising one's opinion when one learns that they have been wrong. rather the blame is on those who remain adamant and refuse to accept the truth. also, this doesn't mean that i have become a great fan of hafiz ibn taymiyyah or that i follow him. again, my opinion is of least consequence but i am just clarifying my position.