Questions & Answers
Are Kufr and Shirk the same
Kufr and Shirk are equal, they are not same but have the same
result. Whoever leaves the Salāh has become Kāfir, and in
another hadīth, whoever left Salāh has become Mushrik, some
times he would say Kaffir some times Mushrik, some people might
say they use two different words, but the answer is he used two
different words with the same meaning, has been included for
emphasis, used in the way of language rather then meaning, how
do they have different meaning in the language, so Kufr in
Arabic means, the one who conceals and rejects, whereas shirk is
makes associations, so you can see there is different in meaning
in Arabic language.
Is it allowed to call a Muslim Tāghūt or is such a term restricted only
to the Kuffar and Mushrikeen who fulfil its criteria?
In the Arabic language, Tāghūt is an oppressor who has exceeded
its limits. So whoever commits oppression and tyranny, which is
less than the level of Kufr Akbar, can be linguistically called
Tāghūt i.e. the one who has exceeded his limits. And we have
texts from some of the Salaf calling Hajaaj as Tāghūt without
making Takfīr upon him. This term is only the linguistic meaning
and does not carry the meaning of a Kāfir who is worshipped
besides Allah (swt). If on the other hand, a person commits
oppression and tyranny that reaches the level of Kufr, then by
branding him Tāghūt it takes the (Shari’ah) meaning of the Kāfir
who is worshipped besides Allah (swt) as well as the linguistic
meaning of the one who has exceeded his limits. Therefore, in
order to be able to distinguish which meaning the Aalim or
scholar is relating to when he mentions Tāghūt, it is necessary
that one looks at the whole context such a term is being
mentioned and the evidences presented that can specify the
meaning. Whenever one finds the word Tāghūt and related words in
any text from the Qur’an or Sunnah the meaning intended is
always of the one who is Kāfir and worshipped besides Allah (swt).
And Allah (swt) knows best.
Implementing Shariah Through Tāghūt ?
There is no problem in going to the Tāghūt and saying come back
to Islām and come back to ruling by what Allah (swt) has
revealed, this message is for everyone the Rulers and the
general Muslims. However to think that going to this Tāghūt or
thinking that the Khilāfah will come through this is a very weak
and dreamful understanding which will bear no fruits. This group
has for sixty or seventy years have been asking them the Tāghūt
to implement the Shariah yet nothing has happened or
materialised as it is empty talk unfortunately. This is not the
time for this type methodology, we are not in the time of having
tribal leaders who will support you or even armies or things
like this. In our reality we have states that have secret agents
and spies everywhere and we are unable to seek the authority the
way these people say that the Messenger (saw) sought the
authority as that reality does not exist. These rulers that are
in charge of our countries have systems in place and everything
there to make sure that they stay in power and educate the
people in such a way, so how can we even dream of asking them to
implement the Shariah when their whole purpose is to do all
their can to keep themselves and their Kufr in place. This Dīn
cannot be supported except by those who carry it. Even the
Messenger (saw) used to called them to Islām first and made sure
they carried it before asking for any type of Nussrah (support).
The same way he (saw) offered them not any material gain but he
(saw) offered them Jannah in exchange for security and
protection the way they give it for their families, even some of
them they offered to become Muslims and give the Messenger (saw)
material support but put conditions that after him (saw) passing
away they take the authority back, the Messenger (saw) did not
accept this from them. The point that is being made is that the
only people who will support this Dīn are those who believe in
it carry it and work for it already not those who are fighting
against such people (i.e. the Armies, Police of the Tāghūt).
What is the meaning of Ilah ? How does it differ from Tāghūt ?
Ilah means the object of worship and whether it has the right to
be worshiped, if it has the right then it is Allah (swt) if it
does not then it is Tāghūt. Someone might say I am God I am the
Ilah (i.e Firawn) but he does not have the right to be
worshipped so in reality he is Tāghūt, any man can come and say
I am God but in reality is he really so? Is he able to give life
and take life? Is he able to control the universe? does he have
the attributes of Allah (swt)? He is just a great false claimer
of himself. So when we speak of Tāghūt it has no right or is
worthy of being worshipped, followed, obeyed etc. One of the
names and attributes of Allah (saw) is al-Ilah, so if you see
the word Ilah on its own it always means Allah (swt) (the one
worthy of being worshipped).
Do you have to fight against a Tāghūt (ie. Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf)
Just because Ulemā' called Hajjāj Ibn Yusuf Tāghūt does not mean
you have to fight him. The Messenger (saw) said when asked about
by the Sahābah what to do when they (the rulers) go beyond their
boundaries, they should be obeyed even if the oppress you
unless you see Kufr-Buwah. So just because you call someone
Tāghūt does not mean you have to fight him unless the level of
Tughya reaches Kufr or Shirk Akbar. Even regarding Hajjāj some
of the Ulemā' have made Takfīr upon him i.e. the Ulemā' from
Shām and they used to say It is strange that our brothers
from Iraq do not see Hajjāj as a Apostate, look how the
people of knowledge have Adhāb when they have differences
amongst each other, they did not say look at these Tāghūt
Worshippers in Iraq, they used to have differences but referred
to them people as brothers in the kindest manner.
If for example two particular groups of Muslims have difference
over whether someone is Apostate or not and there become
doubtful matters on it, the two parties should not be quick to
make Takfīr on each other, if both have evidences for their side
they should be patient with each other and not be at each others
throats especially at a time of Fitnah, specifically if this
person for example if a person comes and he is Tāghūt but his
Kufr is not clear cut that everyone can say yes he is Kāfir or
not, in this juncture we should have patience with each other
and try and bring down the fire attacking each other in terms
of students and Ulemā' accusing and attacking each other of
following Tāghūt etc. We need to be careful and not be quick in
declaring each other Kufār i.e. he does not make Kufr in Tāghūt
he is Kāffir, we need to be careful in this and need knowledge
in this when you want to make these type of statements, but we
just mentioned specifically two parties whom are people of
knowledge who have Dalīl, evidences, explanations etc.
What is the re-conciliation between the Hadīth, I have been
ordered to fight the people until they say 'Laa-Ilaaha-Illallah',
and the Ayah which says There is no compulsion in the Dīn?
This is very important topic to enter but also very huge, to do
justice to it we need to give details, but in the time we have
we will try to summarise it InshaAllah. The word an-nass
in the Hadīth means every people and is not specified to anyone.
The first explanation is you fight all people except the Jews
and Christians and pagans until they pay Jizya. Sso when these
people enter into the Islamic State and they pay Jizya and have
the security of the state then the ayah applies to them There
is no compulsion in the Dīn. The evidence for
this when someone becomes for Apostate we do not say There is
no compulsion in the Dīn and leave him at that. The
ayah is specifically for certain people whom Allah (swt)
prescribed it to, the Messenger (saw) said whoever apostates
in the Dīn then kill him, there is no freedom in Islām to
become an apostate and leave the Dīn of Islām. So when the Jew
or Christian or Pagan enter into the protection of the Islāmic
state then the ayah of no compulsion comes upon them and are not
compelled to say 'Lā-Ilaha-Ilallah' and the Ahkām of fighting
and killing on these people is suspended in these circumstances.
And this description we said of not fighting them when they pay
Jizya will stop when Isa (as) comes and will kill the pigs and
stop the Jizya. In that situation there will be two choices to
fight us or to become Muslims. The Messenger (saw) warned us
their will be no more Jizyah at that time we will have to fight
until they become Muslims, fighting will continue until the big
fight Isa (as) and Dajjāl and that will be the last time of war
ever between right and wrong and the whole earth will become
under the domain of Islām.
Qawul-us-Sahābī
There is no doubt that the Ijmā' of the Sahābah is Hujjah. Any
one who rejects this it is as if he has rejected the Qurān and
the Sunnah. If there is any dispute between the Sahābah i.e. one
Sahābī says one thing and another Sahābī says another you look
to see which one is closer to the text of Qurān and Sunnah and
take that. The one who is closer to the Qurān & Sunnah that
becomes Hujjah for you and if you disagree with the other
Sahābah and do not take what they said then there is nothing
wrong with that.
What if many Sahābah said something and we do not know any one
who opposed this. And we do not know if their statements are
opposing the Qurān and Sunnah?
We say; The strongest opinion is we have to follow their
statements in this because the Messenger (saw) ordered us to
stick to the way of the Companions for which there are many
evidences.
What if we have Abu Bakr and Umar (ra) are on one on side and
all the others on the other ?
The foundation of Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jama'ah is that the Qurān and
Sunnah is the first basis and then whatever follows takes its
status after that. So whatever is closest to the Messenger (saw)
comes first, we agree that anything that opposes the Qurān and
Sunnah even if it is the Companions we reject it. So when we get
to the situation where they dispute but none of them go against
Qurān and Sunnah then we take in rank i.e. Abu Bakr (ra) Umar (ra)
etc, if they differ with any of the Companions who came after
him we take their (Abu Bakr & Umar (ra)) statements. If the
people who where Muslim before the conquering of Makkah differ
with those who came after the conquering of Makkah we take the
first statements of the ones who come first. If there was
dispute between the first generation and the second generation
we take the understanding of the first, this is the meaning of
following Salaf. Whoever does not take it as such then he is not
Salafi, if he favours the statements of the Ulemā' of today to
that of the Salaf then he is not Salafi regardless if he claims
so.
All the Sahābah agreed that anyone who leaves Salāt are Kāfir
but the ones who came after that differed on this issue. I am
surprised about the Salafiyyah of today who say they follow the
majority in that leaving Salāt is not Kufr even though that
opposes the understanding of the Sahābah. And they say that the
latter opinion makes more sense and is more wiser, this
contradicts what they claim about being Salafiyyah.
If there are five Sahābah on one side and one Sahābī on the
other, again we start by looking which statement is closest to
the Qurān and Sunnah, you may see that both of their statements
are based on the Book and the Sunnah and its difficult to
outweigh between the two, you then look to the one who became
Muslim first i.e. If Abu Bakr, Umar & Ali (ra) where on one side
and all the Sahābah on the other we take them first and foremost
as the Messenger (saw) told us specifically to take example from
them and the evidences for this are many.
Another way of distinguishing as well is that the Messenger
(saw) made Dua for specific people like Ibn Abbās (ra) for
understanding of the Qurān and its explanation and he Ibn Abbās
(ra) was given that. If Ibn Abbās (ra) differs with anyone else
we take his sayings above other Companions. There are other
issues we look at as well, how many battles they fought etc we
only use these things when we get to a point when they are equal
in everything. Allah (saw) says Those who fight in our path
we will show them the right path. Jihad here takes the
general meaning and not just that of fighting. This ayah is a
Maki ayah i.e. was revealed in Makkah before fighting had been
legislated, hence carries both meanings of fighting and the
general meaning of Jihad. Imām Ahmad and others from Ahlul-Ilm
explained this is also for the Mujhaidīn who are fighting in the
front lines. When in those times the Ulemā' used to differ
amongst themselves they used to go to the front lines to the
people of Jihad and ask them as they are the ones who Allah (swt)
says in the ayah he will guide them to the right path, so if you
want to fix your problems go to the Ulemā' of Jihad, they will
be able to do so.
There are many matters which are looked at when going into the
Statements of the Sahābah and is a very detailed subject which
requires lessons on itself i.e. itself Usūl-ul-Ahlus Sunnah
Wal-Jamā'ah.
How did the Sahābah have differences if it so clear that we must
follow the Qurān and Sunnah and those directly after it. ?
We say; They had differences because they believed their
understanding and Ijtihād was closer to the Qurān and Sunnah
then the other. The first thing is to follow Qurān and the
Sunnah. If something is confirmed in that and is correct we must
follow that and we do not need to follow anything else other
then that. There is no doubt when it comes to following the
Qurān and Sunnah the Sahābah where the most strict in this
Manhaj. When we have no answer within the Qurān and Sunnah then
we go into the chain of following the Sahābah as briefly
explained. Imām Ahmad when giving Fatāwa would first go to the
Qurān and Sunnah and if the matter is explained and answered
within that he would not go to anything else. If not found in
the Kitāb & Sunnah he would go to Sayings of the Sahābah and if
he could not find it then he would make Ijtihād.
We understand the Qurān & Sunnah on the understanding of the
Companions, so when we read the Ayahs and the Sahābī say this is
the meaning of the ayah we follow that. This is different to the
Sayings of the Sahābah. The sayings of Sahābah and
understanding of Sahābah are two different things, we take their
understanding of the texts first, their statements are their
Sunnah, what they said what they did etc. Their maybe
differences on the Statements of the Sahābah and as well with
their understanding and as mentioned whatever is closest to the
Qurān and Sunnah is what we take. And Allah (swt) knows best.
Mufti of Tāghūt
We have mentioned before that Tāghūt can come in
Sharī and Linguistic meanings. The one who is worshipped other
then Allah e.g. the one who says I am Allah and you have to rule
by what I say, this person is Tāghūt by one of the
meanings. The second
meaning is the linguistic meaning the one who has gone beyond
his boundaries, beyond the rights, beyond what Allah (swt) has
allowed him to do and in this one his actions may lead him to
Kufr or his actions may be classed as Tughyān but not Kufr. Not
every oppression is Kufr and not every Tughyān (going beyond the
boundaries) is Kufr as well. Bearing these meanings in mind it
depends of the relationship the Muftī has with the Tāghūt and
whether the Tawhīd is effected. Is the Tāghūt of the Hukām so
clear without doubt? Is there no way of giving Ta'wīl because it
is so obvious? and you have to look at what that Muftī does in
relationship to that Tāghūt. Does he give fatwa for him in every
single matter and allows everything the Tāghūt does? or does he
only give a few Fatāwa in small matters? If you look for the
Muftī is he always with the leader? Or is it that every few
months he goes and they have a meeting etc? If the Shaykh
beautifies the Kufr that the Ruler does and gives him Fatāwa
which allow him to do this Kufr, if the Shaykh is doing that
then he takes the same meaning of Tāghūt as the ruler himself.
Depending on such details the judgment is dependent, this is the
general ruling and comment upon the matter. And Allah (swt)
knows best.
Is there permit for Tahākum under duress ?
This is an important question and it is important for the
Muslims and needs to be addressed. You need to know that Tahākum
which takes you outside the fold of Islām has specific
conditions, one of these being that you have Sultān which is
ruling by Islām and you leave going to judgment in that and go
to the Tāghūt and this is one that will take you outside the
fold of Islām. The second condition being if you are pleased
with the rule of Kufr even when there is no rule of Islām and
this counts as Kufr which takes you outside of Islām. Another
issue is if you go to just get your rights then this is not one
that will take you outside of Islām. This faced the Sahābah at
the time when they went to Ethiopia and they stood in front of
Najāshi and they lived under his rule and the king was a Kāfir
and was not Muslim. This is not regarded as Tahākum to Tāghūt
but there are two points we need to clarify to people. If the
ruling is against the Hukm of Allah (swt) then you cannot go to
that for judgment. This is a very touchy subject but is very
important because we living under in it, if there is something
small like £10 then he should not really start going to the
Kufār to attain that as it is minor and is something that you
can hack and live with. But if you told me you went to Kufār to
get it back I would not say that is not Kufr or shirk, but its
better for you not to go through the courts for that. The
scholars have made point which you need to be aware of. You have
legislative laws i.e Halal & Haram etc, Qawanīn , and this
should only for Allah (swt) then you have administrative laws
which are different to the Shariah of Allah (swt). There is no
harm in following these type of laws for your benefit, the most
important thing is that these laws do not oppose the Shariah of
Allah (swt).
Interfaith
The word itself is rejected and is falsehood and anyone who
wants it is rejected, like the one who wants you to unify
between Tawhīd and Shirk, Īmān and Kufr, the one who wants this
type of Interfaith, he has removed the whole purpose for which
the Messengers & Prophets where sent for. Allah (swt) sent the
Messengers to call people to worship Allah (swt) alone and not
to do Shirk and not to take each one of us as lords besides
Allah (swt). The one who forbids and allows this message is what
we need to bring to the people, not the one they want to bring
and compromise. The people of Kufr basically want us to comprise
and come together, the people who have no religion they want us
to come down to their level, they want legitimacy, if we are on
the Haq how can these people sit with us, we lose the
understanding of what is Haq and what is Falsehood, there must
be distinction between the two. The divine way Allah (swt) has
created this world, as we mentioned is there will be clash
between good and evil, this distinction has been there since the
time of Adam (as) and we cannot fix this till the day of
Judgment. So if a country announces an Islamic state and society
what will be the civilised response of the western nations?
straight away they will send their fighter planes and rockets
and bombs. The are the ones who continue the war against Islāmic
civilisaion so why do we want to stop our side of the what Allah
(swt) has said, They will continue fighting you until
you change your Dīn, and if they can they will try and
change your Dīn. The problem with the Ulem is they don’t
read the Quran, and if they do they do not understand it.
Scholars
The problems of the people are from two angles form the Rulers
and the scholars. If the Ulemā where really sincere and done
their obligation the people be with them. Because the Ulemā do
not do their duty and theirs only a few left who speak the
truth, when they speak they are caught easily. If every area or
place had a thousand Ulemā speaking the same speech the same
words what would be the situation of the oppressor over us,
everything would change if we had Ulemā speaking in droves. That
is why we always ask and seek and request the Ulemā to come back
to their obligations in relation to the Dīn and the Shariah of
Allah (swt). If the Ulemā where upon truth then you would not
see this imbalance, in our reality you will find one Ālim he
stands for the truth and there is three hundred Ulemā standing
with the Tāghūt against him then how can people want to trust
and follow and refer to him. If only we could unite the Ulemā on
one understanding and one speech in relation to this important
matter then it would become easier and easier InshāAllah. The
effect of the Ulemā upon change is greater then that of the
Hukām himself, unfortunately the Ulemā today defend the Hukām
and not the Dīn and this is the reality we are living in and
there is no power or might except with Allah.
Can we take good and leave the bad from the books of government
scholars or is it better to leave them completely?
We say; The job of the Muslim is always to look for the truth,
where ever he finds the truth he should take it. The truth is in
the Qurān and Sunnah irrespective of who says it or carries it
or brings it. If you cannot find anyone else apart of this
person who you know is associated with the Tāghūt then you can
take from his book but in awareness. You do not take anything
from these type of people which is related to reality i.e.
Tawhīd in relation to the rulers. It is possible you can take on
matters of Siyaam, Salāh, Taharah etc but just generally be
careful when taking the Ilm even on these matters. Unfortunately
these type of scholars even when they talking about Taharah or
Wudhu they will enter something in relation to the Tāghūt.
