Posted by Abu Iyaad
Translated
May 2002
Filed under Miscellaneous
Shaykh Ibn Jibrīn was a well-known scholar in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. However, in the early 1990s he got himself involved in the CDLR of Muḥammad al-Misʿary, a head of Ḥizb al-Taḥrīr who was stirring sedition, following the way of the Marxists, Communists, raising the flag of social justice. He also supported the activities of the Quṭbiyyah, Surūriyyah during the 1990s, in opposition to the Major Scholars who opposed and refuted them, with Shaykh al-Albānī declaring them “Khawārij of the Era”. Likewise, he sought to defend Ḥasan al-Bannā, the misguided Ṣūfī, caller to unity between Sunnah and Shīʿah and caller to unity of religions. He even advised Shaykh Aḥmad al-Najmī (رحمه الله), the great Salafi scholar, not to publish his refutation of Ḥasan al-Bannā. Shaykh Aḥmad al-Najmī refuted him and declared him (Ibn Jibrīn) and innovator. So this was the reality of Shaykh Ibn Jibrīn.
The reason for publishing this particular statement of his about the rulers and secular laws, is that given where he stood and his positions as mentioned above, his siding with the Quṭbiyyah, Surūriyyah, it is a refutation of those who accused the three Imāms, Shaykh al-Albānī, Shaykh Bin Bāz and Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn (and may others) of Irjāʾ because of their views in this matter based on tafṣīl (detail, distinction).
Note: Irjāʾ is to expel actions from īmān and to claim that īman is only what is in the heart, or what is in the heart and upon the tongue, and that actions do not enter into the reality of īmān, and therefore īmān cannot increase or decrease. Likewise, that kufr can only be through belief, through what is in the heart of juḥūd, takdhīb, istiḥlāl and the likes, and that kufr (that expels from the religion) cannot take place through actions of the limbs. However, this is false, since a man becomes a disbeliever by deliberately kicking the Qurʾān with knowledge and intent, or mocking the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) (without him having to believe it is lawful for him to do so), or prostrating to an idol and the likes. Similarly, the one who abolishes the entire Sharīʿah, from top to bottom, and puts in its place another law.
However, the Takfīrī Khārijties accuse anyone who holds the view of tafṣīl (detail) in the issue of ruling by other than what Allāh revealed, of legislating and acting by secular laws, to have expelled actions from īmān. They levelled this charge against Shaykh al-Albānī, Shaykh Ibn Bāz and Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn, until some among them, such as the Hāzimites among the Ḥaddādiyyah, accused some of these scholars with the Irjāʾ of Jahm bin Ṣafwān.
Shaykh Ibn Jibrīn said:[1]
It is known that al-kufr al-bawāḥ (manifest, clear kufr) is an open, outward matter, such as when he abolishes the teachings of Islām, or we see him for example, destroying mosques, or he fights the people of the mosques (i.e. those who frequent them), or he abolishes the [Sharīʿah] law courts, or he abolishes the religious lessons, for example, or we see him burning the copies of the Qurʾān, or that he orders for them to be burnt, and he promotes, assists the books of misguidance, the books of the Christians, and whatever resembles them, and he spreads them and makes reading them to be binding, or we see him erecting those things that are worshipped besides Allāh, such as idols and the likes. This is considered manifest, clear kufr.
As for the [types of] matters in which ijtihād can enter into, then we alluded to one of these types last night. And this is what the majority of the rulers (wullāt) are upon, from that which is called “judgement by the secular laws” (ḥukman bil-qawānīn), such as these laws, overwhelmingly, the affair pertaining to them is that they consider benefit (maṣlahah) in them, but they did not abolish the Sharīʿah with a complete abolition, such that they do not judge with anything from it at all. Since Allāh said, “And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed they are the disbelievers” (5:44-), so the likes of these, when they have this angle of approach, then we do not speak of their kufr, but we consider them to be in error, in this ijtihād which involves changing something from the legislation, even if it was by the path of ijtihād.
So for example, their permitting of zinā [in action, without making it ḥalāl], when it is with the consent of both parties,[2] and like their abandonment or the abolition of the ḥudūd, the punishment for stealing, or the punishment for false slander, or the punishment for drinking alcohol, or permitting alcohol,[3] and announcing the selling of alcohol, and whatever resembles that.
There is no doubt, that this is a great sin, however there could be, for example, excuses for them, those in which they consider themselves to be justified (i.e. excused in that).
So for example, they excuse themselves from this by saying that in their land they have those people who are not Muslim, and that being severe upon them will make them flee.[4] So when they have an angle of approach, then Allāh will reckon them, but, in any case, there is no doubt that if we judged by the Sharʿ (legislation), and implemented its teachings, there would be sufficiency in this and much good.
Notes
01 Whilst it is certainly true that there exist secular laws in almost all Muslim lands, in varying degrees, it is rare to find a Muslim ruler, who systematically abolished the entire Sharīʿah and put in its place something else. This is because most of the secular laws found in Muslim countries got there through colonialism and imperialism and have been there for a long time. The only example that can be given is that of Kemal Ataturk who was not a Muslim but a Doenmeh Jew, from the offspring of the followers of Sabbetai Tzevi, a 17th century Jewish Mystic who claimed to be the Messiah and later accepted Islam out of taqiyyah (deception), in order to protect himself, whilst concealing his Jewish heritage. He was followed in that by a couple hundred families, whose offspring became known as the "Doenmeh". It was these people who later formed the "Young Turk" movement that deposed the Sultan, and from them was Kemal Ataturk who subsequently came to power and did what he did to Turkey.
02 The point here is that the methodology advocated by the Takfīriyyah, Quṭbiyyah, Surūriyyah over the past four decades, which they actively called to, and enticed the youth into, is a Leninist-style revolution, which is to remove the current ruler(s), as Sayyid Qutb advocated in “Fi Ẓilal al-Qurʾān” (3/1451) and this first requires mass takfīr. Thus, they wish to make takfīr upon the situation predominant in many Muslim lands of the presence of secular laws, but to effect this, they need to make use of the sayings of the Scholars that speak of a ruler systematically abolishing the entire Sharīʿah, and instituting a completely new law to replace it. However, it is hard to find a Muslim ruler who has done this, rather most rulers have come to power in the situation that the secular laws already exist.
03 For this reason, you see that very same Scholars whose words they use on the issue of systematically abolishing the Sharīʿah and placing another law in its place actually refute these people in their takfīr and their misguidance, and certainly do not agree with them in their mass, blanket takfīr of the rulers in certain lands, like what they do with the rulers of the Gulf countries, using this particular issue. This proves that the attachment of these people to what the Scholars speak of regarding a ruler who systematically abolishes the Sharīʿah and puts another law in its place is an attachment through which they can lead the people into agreeing with their takfīr of the situation predominant in most Muslim lands of the presence of secular laws to varying degrees and for which those rulers were not necessarily responsible for instituting. None of the Scholars are with them, neither in their takfīr of certain rulers, like those in the Gulf, nor in their revolutionary manhaj, which is their true and intended goal behind this issue.
04 These affairs lead to greater evil than the one they attempt to end, and ultimately, and it benefits the predators and vultures among the non-Muslims who lie in wait to take advantage of civil strife. Further, the rulers are a manifestation of the people, and Allāh places rulers over people in accordance with what they deserve. Likewise, the safety and security provided by the Sharīʿah, in its laws, in its prescribed punishments, these are only removed from the people through their own sins and disobedience, and this occurs by way of rulers, and by way of other means (such as colonialism, imperialism), all of which is from the wisdom and justice of Allāh.
And so the situation of rectification is more complex and is multifactorial, whereas the Takfīrīs are tunnel-visioned and single-minded, and see that only the rulers are to be scapegoated for all the ills and evils of the ummah and the domination of the enemies.
Footnotes
1. Cassette: Sharḥ Lumʿat il-Iʿtiqād, No 7, Tasjīlaat at-Taqwā, Riyaaḍh.2. Meaning, they permit this, but not out of the claim or belief that it is lawful in the Sharīʿah.
3. Meaning, allowing its consumption, not out of the claim or belief that it is lawful in the Sharīʿah.
4. Meaning, that in order not to lose out on tourism, or expanding the economy, whereby non-Muslims are given residential permits or visas, or to cater for diplomats and the likes, they allow certain things and place regulations for them, such as consumption of alcohol, so that they are not discouraged from applying for these visas for residence, or tourism, or to maintain diplomatic relations and the likes.
