The book 'Qaulul Qati' will later become a reference book for modern Jihad worshipers around the world on the legality of war against a regime that is considered apostate and not yet one hundred percent enforcing Islamic law such as Egypt, Indonesia, Libya and for example.
Egypt's Jemaah Islamiyah fiqh approach is the rule of the future Al Qaeda model that combating apostate regimes does not mean to forgive them ta'yin. They asserted that the condition of the apostate regime was almost the same as the condition of the Tartars using Elyasiq whose content was a joke.
In contrast to his colleagues the Egyptian Jihad Jamaah who denied Qaulul Qati 'through the Al-Jami thalabul Ilmis Syarief in the chapter on Faith and Kufr, which was written by his own emir Abdul Qadir bin Abdul Aziz that Jihad worshipers Ta'yin (individuals) .
This temptation caused the Egyptian Jamaah Islamiyah and the Egyptian Jihad Jamaah not to unite with manhaj's different reasons and ideology.
The Qaulul Qati 'reference belonging to Egyptian Jamaah Islamiyah does indeed take a lot from Majmu Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah, that fighting an apostate regime is the same as fighting ahlu riddah who is reluctant to pay zakat, or fighting ahlu Baghy, with his typical words
لو رأيتموني في صفهم وعلى رأسي المصحف فاقتلوني
"If you see me in their ranks and on my head there is the Qur'an then kill me."
Qaul above became very popular and was memorized by modern jihadists who would be allowed to fight a regime that was considered Apostate. but the qaul was actually born out of love from the ulama and the Muslims who were hesitant to fight the Tartar Regime because many were Muslim.
A number of trusted religious scholars in the Middle East with a site link at http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=327516 provide an explanation of the meaning of Ibn Taymiyah's words like this:
ابن تيمية رحمه الله لم يكفر التتر و يقينا ليس هناك عبارة صريحة في فتاويه على كثرة كلامه فيهم تصرح بكفرهم و ليس هناك مسلم عالم يستطيع أن يكفر التتر, فهم أمة كبيرة فيها المسلم و الفاسق و الكافر
إنما الذي حدث أنه أرادوا غزو الشام على عهده مرتين, ففي الأولى قابل ملكهم و كلمه ووعظه, و في الثانية أمر بقتالهم و قاتلهم. و القتال لايستدعي التكفير فقد يكون من باب دفع الصائل و قد يكون من إلزامهم بأحكام التي لم يلزموا أفرادهم بها أو لم يلتزموها.
و في النقل الذي ذكره الأخ الفاضل السابق أنهم من جنس الخوارج إشارة إلى عدم تكفيرهم, فالخوارج من فرق المسلمين.
و الموضوع له ذيول, أكتفي بهذا منه
"Ibn Taimiyyah Rahimahullah did not forgive (by ta'yin personal meaning) of Tartars and sure there is no expression that shorih (clear) in his fatwa even though many of his sayings about those who openly (shorih) forgive them (meaning only takfir by Amm). And there is not a single Ulama 'who has an image of Tartars, because they are a great nation, in which there are Muslims, faculties and infidels.
But what happened was that they wanted to fight Sham at his time twice. The first time, he met their king, talked with him and advised him. The second time, he ordered to fight and kill them. And fighting does not have to require forgiveness, because sometimes it enters the chapter on self-defense and sometimes because of their necessity with Islamic laws that are not prosecuted by their members.
And the excerpts mentioned by noble brothers beforehand that they belong to the type of khowarij, a sign that he did not forgive them. Because khowarij is part of you Muslims and the theme in that matter is very long. While this is enough first. "
Problems in strong and weak conditions.
There is a saying
لِكُلِّ مَقَامٍ مَقَالٌ وَلِكُلِّ مَقَالٍ مَقَامٌ
Every place has the right words, and in each word there is the right place.
This means that often we Jihadists do not understand the conditions when the fatwa comes out, and in what context does the fatwa speak, even though Ibn Taymiyah at that time had almost the same strength as the Tartars so he dared to challenge the war.
As for us, we will see some of his fatwas which give the Rukhsah waivers, namely in a weak state, as we will explain later in the Mardin fatwa.
The expressions of these out-of-place Jihadists have been expressed by Syaikh Al-Maqdisi himself; "I have witnessed many young people who quoted a number of statements by Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and some preachers of Najdiyyah in Takfir affairs from the statements of the ulama, they understood that people did not show hostility towards unbelievers or expressed their self-relinquishment. , it must be forgiven. The young mennot tolerating because of the weak condition and not recognizing anyone as a Muslim, even though he prayed, fasting, claimed to be a Muslim, until he announced that he was detached from the taghout, even though he was in a weak condition. This is a clear understanding and error, which has led to the emergence of adherents of the ghuluw attitude throughout the world. "(Published by Mimbar Tauhid wal Jihad Abu Muhammad Al Maqdisi, 15 Dhul Hijjah 1435)
Shaykh Usamah Rahimahullah once said "Sometimes some of the brothers postulate with sharp words spoken by some salaf radhiyallahu hum anhum. These words are spoken in conditions of strong Islam and have a ruling country. While our condition is currently different. Therefore we must pay attention to the difference between strong and weak conditions. Then it arrived at Hal 'The thing that was needed in this period was that we should convey the truth to the community with the easiest and most gentle expression. ”(Minutes of Ba'da Isytisadiyyin ila Syaikh Nasr Al-Wuhasy / Letters From Abottabad)
Syaikhul Islam Ibn Taimiyyah rahimahullah once issued a fatwa known as the Mardin fatwa (Majmu Fatwa Juz 28 on page 240), it should be noted that the Mardin region (now Turkey) was controlled by the Tartars and Elyasiq was implemented, along with the fatwa:
سئل رحمه الله عن بلد ماردين هل هي بلد حرب أم بلد سلم؟ وهل يجب على المسلم المقيم بها الهجرة إلى بلاد الإسلام أم لا؟ وإذا وجبت عليه الهجرة ولم يهاجر ا وساعد أعداء المسلمين بنفسه أو ماله ، هل يأثم في ذلك؟ وهل يأثم من رماه بالنفاق وسبه به أم لا؟
Ibn Taimiyah Rahimahullah was asked about the land of Mardin. Is the territory a war or peace? Are Muslims who live there required to migrate to other Muslim countries? If they are obliged to emigrate and fail to do so, and if they help the enemies of Islam with their souls and property, do they sin to do it? Is it a sin that accuses them of being hypocrites and slandering them verbally?
فأجاب
الحمد لله. دماء المسلمين وأموالهم محرمة حيث كانوا في ماردين أو غيرها. وإعانة الخارجين عن شريعة دين الإسلام محرمة ، سواء كانوا أهل ماردين ، أو غيرهم. والمقيم بها إن كان عاجزًا عن إقامة دينه ، وجبت الهجرة عليه. وإلا استحبت ولم تجب. ومساعدتهم لعدو المسلمين بالأنفس والأموال محرمة عليهم ، ويجب عليهم الامتناع من ذلك ، بأي طريق أمكنهم ، من تغيب ، أو تعريض ، أو مصانعة. فإذا لم يمكن إلا بالهجرة ، تعينت. ولا يحل سبهم عمومًا ورميهم بالنفاق ف بل السب والرمي بالنفاق في الكتاب والسنة ، فيدخل فيها بعض أهل ماردين وغيرهم. وأما كونها دار حرب أو سلم ، فهي مركبة: فيها المعنيان دار السلم التي تجري عليها أحكام الإسلام ، لكون جندها مسلمين. ولا بمنزلة دار الحرب التي أهلها كفار ، بل هي قسم ثالث يعامل المسلم فيها بما يستحقه ، ويعامل الخارج عن شريعة الإسلام بما يستحقه
Ibn Taimiyah answered:
All praise is only for God. blood and property of Muslims must not be disturbed, whether they live in Mardin or anywhere. Helping the enemies of Islam is haram, whether those who help are residents of Mardin or others. People who live there, if they cannot worship according to the Shari'a, then they are obliged to migrate. If instead, it is better to move but they are not required for that. It is forbidden for them to help the enemies of the Muslims with their souls and possessions. They must reject it in any way they can, such as disappearing, avoiding or trying to flatter. If the only way is to migrate, then that is what they must do. Haram to defame and accuse them of being hypocrites. Mocking and accusing the hypocrites must be based on the Qur'an and Sunnah arguments and this applies specifically to a few people, whether they are residents of Mardin or any population.
Whether the territory is a region of war or peace, this is a complicated situation. The area is not a peaceful residence where Islamic law is enforced and guarded by Muslim forces. The area is also not to be fought because the population is not an infidel. The region is in the third group. Muslims who live there must be treated based on their rights as Muslims, while non-Muslims who live there and are outside the jurisdiction of Islamic law must be treated according to their rights. finished
See Ibn Taymiyyah still call it the Muslims, but it is still permissible to fight them in Sham when they have power.
Elyasiq's status
The first elyasiq is indeed mixed law
أن «الياسا» خليط ملفّق من اليهودية والنصرانية وشيء ؛ كما سيأتي من قول الحافظ ابن كثير نفسه.
Elyasiq was a mixture of Jews, Nasharo and some from the Islamic religion and mostly from Jengiskhan lust as explained by Ibn Katsier himself (in bidayah wa Nihayah 11/13).
Maybe if in Indonesia it could be the Criminal Code, customary law, religious law etc.
Re-mentioned in Majmu 'Fatawanyes:
في «مجموع الفتاوى» (28/523): «يجعلون دين الإسلام كدين اليهود والنصارى, وأنها كلها طرق إلى الله, بمنزلة المذاهب الأربعة عند المسلمين, ثم منهم من يرجح دين اليهود أو دين النصارى, ومنهم من يرجح دين المسلمين».
"In the Majmu Fatawa Ibn Taymiyah vol. 28 p. 523, they made dienul Islam as diverse as Judaism and Nasharo because all of them were the way to Allah. as in the four schools in Islam, then among them sometimes they prioritize Jews, Nashoro or prioritize the Muslims. "This is because they were amirably disfellowshipped by Ibn Taymiyah.
But in general Ibn Taymiyah called them Muslims in many places.
بل غاية كثير من المسلمين منهم من أكابر أمرائهم ووزرائهم أن يكون المسلم عندهم كمن يعظمونه من المشركين من اليهود والنصارى كما قال أكبر مقدميهم الذين قدموا إلى الشام وهو يخاطب رسل المسلمين ويتقرب إليهم بأنا مسلمون. فقال هذان آيتان عظيمتان جاءا من عند الله محمد وجنكسخان, فهذا غاية ما يتقرب به أكبر مقدميهم إلى المسلمين أن يسوي بين رسول الله وأكرم الخلق عليه وسيد ولد آدم وخاتم المرسلين وبين ملك كافر مشرك من أعظم المشركين كفرا وفسادا وعدوانا من جنس بخت نصر وأمثاله
"Even most Muslims among them, their position in the eyes of prominent people in the ranks of commanders and ministers is that the Muslims according to them are the same as the idolaters they glorify from Jews and Christians. That was as said by their highest envoy to the Muslims who came to Sham when he spoke with the envoys of the Muslims and claimed that they were also Muslims to attract the sympathy of the Muslims. The envoy said: These two people are great verses from God, namely Muhammad and Jangkis Khan. This is the most maximal method used to attract the sympathy of the Muslims by their highest envoy, namely to equate between the messengers of Allah, the noblest creature, the leader of the sons of Adam and the closing of the apostles with a polytheist infidel king, among the most unbelieving, most corrupt idolaters and the most dhalim type with Nebuchadnezzar and people like him. "(source quoted from the book Hukmu Juyusy was Syurtoh fie Duwal, p. 17)
However, Syaikhul Islam still refers to them as "Muslims in some places, Muslim leaders,
For example in his speech:
كذلك وزيرهم السفيه الملقب بالرشيد يحكم على هذه الأصناف ويقدم شرار المسلمين كالرافضة والملاحدة على خيار المسلمين أهل العلم والإيمان حتى تولى قضاء القضاة من كان أقرب إلى الزندقة والإلحاد والكفر بالله ورسوله بحيث تكون موافقته للكفار والمنافقين من اليهود والقرامطة والملاحدة والرافضة على ما يريدونه أعظم من غيره ويتظ اهر من شريعة الإسلام بما لا بد له منه لأجل من هناك من المسلمين "أ.ه.
"Likewise their ignorant ministers whom they are working with Ar Rasyid, he has power over all these groups and prioritizes the ugly Muslims such as Rafidlah and the Atheists rather than the good Muslims, those who have knowledge and faith , to the extent that they appoint their supreme judge from the person closest to zakah, atheism and disbelief to Allah and His Messenger, where the suitability of the kafirs and munafiqs of the Jews, Qaramithah, Atheists and Rafid is what they want it is greater than others, and they manifest themselves with Islamic law which must be revealed because of the presence of Muslims there. "
Also as he said:
فمن دخل في طاعتهم جعلوه وليا لهم وإن كان كافرا ومن خرج عن ذلك جعلوه عدوا لهم وإن كان من خيار المسلمين. وَلَا يُقَاتِلُونَ عَلَى الْإِسْلَامِ وَلَا يَضَعُونَ الْجِزْيَةَ وَالصَّغَارَ. بل غاية كثير من المسلمين منهم من أكابر أمرائهم ووزرائهم أن يكون المسلم عندهم كمن يعظمونه من المشركين من اليهود والنصارى
"Then whoever wants to obey them, they will certainly make them leaders even though he is an infidel. Whereas those who defected they regarded as their enemy, even though the person included people both among the Muslims, they did not fight in the name of Islam or abort jizyah and humiliation (for unbelievers who paid jizyah), even most Muslims among them, the position they are in the eyes of para superior of the commanders and ministers is that the Muslims according to them are the same as the idolaters they glorify from Jews and Christians. "(This is the quote of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah from a book written by Shaykh Athiyyatullah rahimahullah in Hukmu Juyusy was Syurtoh fie Duwal 16-17)
From some of these qaul and conditions, it can be concluded that the state of Indonesia is similar to Tartar, this opinion is similar to that of Egyptian and Al Qaeda Jamaah members. namely fighting differently from giving takfir verdicts ta'yin (individuals), while fighting it is very conditional depending on the strength of the Islamic movement today.
The Islamic movement which is affiliated with Daulah Islamiyah (ISIS) actually Ta'yin each individual, and they do not even see their weak condition. very different from Ibn Taymiyyah Manhaj who still details Tartars.
The difference is very striking if Ibn Taymiyah used to have power in Egypt and Syria which in fact was Asya'iriyyah's faith and praised him as Thoifah Mansurah in his day, but Islamic Jihadist movements in general today have no armed forces (in fact in Indonesia) even accusing Asya's group 'Iriyyah as the majority in this country as a heretical group, Ahlu Ta'wil who was convicted by the infidels Jahmiyah.
However, Syaikhul Islam still refers to them as the Minals of Muslims and the Muslim community,
For example in his speech:
كذلك وزيرهم السفيه الملقب بالرشيد يحكم على هذه الأصناف ويقدم شرار المسلمين كالرافضة والملاحدة على خيار المسلمين أهل العلم والإيمان حتى تولى قضاء القضاة من كان أقرب إلى الزندقة والإلحاد والكفر بالله ورسوله بحيث تكون موافقته للكفار والمنافقين من اليهود والقرامطة والملاحدة والرافضة على ما يريدونه أعظم من غيره ويتظ اهر من شريعة الإسلام بما لا بد له منه لأجل من هناك من المسلمين "أ.ه.
"Likewise their ignorant ministers whom they are working with Ar Rasyid, he has power over all these groups and prioritizes the ugly Muslims like Rafidlah, also Atheists rather than the good Muslims, the knowledgeable people and believers, to the extent that they appoint their supreme Judge from the person closest to zakah, atheism and disbelief to Allah and His Messenger, which is appropriate for the kafirs and munafiqs of the Jews, Qaramithah, Atheists and Rafidlah with what they want is greater than others, and they manifest themselves with Islamic law which must be revealed because of the presence of Muslims there. "
Also as he said:
فمن دخل في طاعتهم جعلوه وليا لهم وإن كان كافرا ومن خرج عن ذلك جعلوه عدوا لهم وإن كان من خيار المسلمين. وَلَا يُقَاتِلُونَ عَلَى الْإِسْلَامِ وَلَا يَضَعُونَ الْجِزْيَةَ وَالصَّغَارَ. بل غاية كثير من المسلمين منهم من أكابر أمرائهم ووزرائهم أن يكون المسلم عندهم كمن يعظمونه من المشركين من اليهود والنصارى
"Then whoever wants to obey them, they will certainly make them leaders even though he is an infidel. Whereas those who defected they regarded as their enemy, even though the person included people both among the Muslims, they did not fight in the name of Islam or abort jizyah and humiliation (for unbelievers who paid jizyah), even most Muslims among them, the position they in the eyes of the chief commanders and ministers were that according to them the Muslims were the same as the idolaters they glorified from Jews and Christians. "(Syaikhul Islam quoted from his book Shaykh Athiyyatullah Rahimahullah Hukmu Juyusy was Syurtoh fie Duwal pp. 16-17)
From some of these qaul and conditions, it can be concluded that the state of Indonesia is similar to Tartar, this opinion is similar to that of Egyptian and Al Qaeda Jamaah members. namely fighting differently from giving takfir verdicts ta'yin (individuals), while fighting it is very conditional depending on the power that the Islamic movement has today.
The Islamic movement which is affiliated with Daulah Islamiyah (ISIS) actually kafir each individual, even they do not see their weak condition. very different from the Ibn Taymiyyah Manhaj who only allowed war when in strong conditions, see Mardin's Fatwa above.
The difference is very striking if Ibn Taymiyah used to have power in Egypt and Sham which in fact was the faith of Asya'iriyyah and praised him as Thoifah Mansurah in his era,but the Jihadist Islamic movement in general today does not have armed forces (in fact, as in Indonesia) and even accuses the Asya'iriyyah group as the majority in this country as a heretical group, Ahlu ta'wil who is sentenced to the infidel Gahmiyah.
The conclusion of this paper is that Shaykhul Islam ibn Taymiyyah was not anti-asyairiyyah. even called it Thoifah Mansurah in his day.
Syaikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah did not condemn unbelievers as takyin as ISIS today who has not established an upright government in Islamic law.
The fatwa of Syaikhul Ibn Taymiyyah who had power in Sham and was sufficient to confront the Tartars was different from the fatwa of Mardin which was weak and permissible, while the Islamic Jihad movement today did not have enough strength to fight.
Waallahu alam bisshowab.
Loading...
About RBNS Movie
0 comments:
Post a Comment