The Tears Of Ibn Baaz: When Ibn Jibreen and Salmaan al-Awdah Debated Ibn Baaz.

Ibn Baaz on Scholars
Ibn Baaz (rahimahullaah) said:

“There is no happiness for the servant, nor guidance or salvation in this World or in the Hereafter except by having the utmost respect for the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His trustworthy Messenger (salallaahu `alaihi wassallam), [adhering to that] in belief, speech and action – to be steadfast and patient upon that until death..”

From The Tape Ad-Dam`at al-Baaziyah. (The Baazee Teardrop) i.e. The Tears of Ibn Baaz.
The story behind the tape:

The pious eminent Shaikh, the Imaam, the Scholar, `Abdul-`Azeez Ibn `Abdullaah Ibn Baaz (rahimahullaah) delivered a lecture to a group of teachers and students from the ‘Department of Sunnah and Foundations of the Deen’ at the University of Imaam Muhammad Ibn Sa`ood in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in early to mid 1990’s. In this lecture, he encouraged with seeking knowledge and giving da`wah. He is also spoke concerning his own Shaikh, the Muftee, Muhammad Ibn Ibraaheem Aalush-Shaikh (rahimahullaah), and the concern he would have over his students in terms of their learning and manners and other than that. And as Shaikh Ibn Baaz (rahimahullaah) remembered the manners, behaviour, knowledge and good treatment of Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Ibraaheem (rahimahullaah), Shaikh Ibn Baaz started to weep due to the immense love for his Shaikh. As he continued talking, he cried further until he can be heard on the audio tape weeping. For this reason, the one who recorded the lecture entitled it, “The Baazee Teardrop”, or maybe more eloquently in English, “The Tears Of Ibn Baaz.”

Once Shaikh Ibn Baaz finished his lecture, he took questions from those present, covering various topics such as the science of hadeeth, the ruling upon those who abandon the prayer, and so on. Side “A” of the audio tape finishes there. Then side “B” begins, and the crux of that revolves around the topic of: “The disbelief of the Rulers who exchange the Sharee`ah”. So the questions begin concerning the verse:

“And whomsoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed, then such are the unbelievers.” (al-Maa’idah)

So the one who introduced the lecture of Shaikhul-Islaam Ibn Baaz (rahimahullaah) was `Abdullaah Ibn Jibreen. This whole debate was orchestrated by those affected by ideas of Sayyid Qutb in the hope that they could convince or overpower Shaikh Ibn Baaz (rahimahullaah). From this discussion you will see how this Imaam of the Sunnah was not swayed by some of these heads of hizbiyyah, Qutbiyyah, and misguided political ideologies. Those most ardent here in front of Shaikh Ibn Baaz were the likes of Salmaan al-`Awdah, `Aa’id al-Qarnee, and others. The Shaikh remained steadfast, firm and resolute as they threw question after question knowing that his position was the truth, may Allaah have mercy upon him.

What is quite astounding is the fact that even after this and other discussions with the great scholars of the era, the likes of al-`Awdah, al-Qarnee, Safar al-Hawaalee, and even Ibn Jibreen did not take on board the guidance of these eminent scholars. So they became well-known for their defence of the Jihadist ideologues such as Sayyid Qutb, and embraced these false doctrines, teaching that to the youth. The end result of which was mayhem and chaos amongst the Muslim youth; the proliferation of street demonstrations, rebellious speeches from the pulpits, increase in terrorist plots, open belittlement and disrespect towards the Rulers, little attention paid towards teaching the youth the basics of Tawheed and Sunnah and great exaggerated emphasis placed upon entry into the political arena, parliaments and democratic elections. The fruits of this false doctrine we see in full fruition today within Muslim communities. This also shows the immense insight of the Scholars of the era that is not seen by the hasty agitators who seek to cajole the youth into wasting their lives in futile causes whilst those who direct them sit comfortably in their homes watching the anarchy unfold on the news channels.

So here is the first instalment of the transcript that I have translated. Please take time to read it carefully and also the notes I have added at the end to show clearly the correctness of the speech of Shaikhul-Islaam Ibn Baaz (rahimahullaah).

Ibn Jibreen asked:

The explanation of Ibn `Abbaas of the verse concerning the verse: “And whomsoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed, then such are the unbelievers,” that it is unbelief lesser than the unbelief that exits a person from Islaam (kufr-doon-kufr)?

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

So long as he does not make [that judging] to be permissible for himself. Meaning: he judges with bribery upon his enemy or in favour of his friend, then this is kufr-doon-kufr (unbelief which does not exit the doer from Islaam). However, if he makes judging by other than Revelation to be permissible, if he makes the abandonment of the Sharee`ah permissible, then he is an unbeliever with the major kufr [that exits him from Islaam]. So the verse refers to kufr-doon-kufr, similar to what was said by Ibn `Abbaas (radiyallaahu `anhumaa), Mujaahid and others.

An attendee:

That is a major problem at this point, may Allaah pardon you, that is the issue of exchanging the Sharee`ah Rulings with [foreign] constitutions…

Shaikh Ibn Baaz interrupts:

This is a point of investigation, if he does so (i.e. exchanges the Sharee`ah) making it permissible (istihlaal)…

The same attendee interrupts:

He may claim that he is not making permissible this act?

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

If he does so, making that permissible, then he has disbelieved [exiting Islaam]. But when he does so to please his people, or other than that, then it is kufr lesser than [major] kufr, that does not exit from Islaam. So it is obligatory upon the Muslims to fight [the one who makes permissible (istihlaal) exchanging the Sharee`ah] if they have the power to do so, so that he adheres to the Sharee`ah. So whoever changes the Religion, whether it be the Zakaat or other than that, then he is fought until he adheres.

The same questioner:

He has exchanged the Prescribed Punishments, he has exchanged the prescribed punishment for fornication and other than that.

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

Meaning that he does not establish the Prescribed Punishments (al-hudood), so he applies a discretionary punishment in place of execution.

Ibn Jibreen:

Or imprisonment.

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

Or imprisonment.

Questioner:

He institutes a constitution, may Allaah pardon you.

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

The origin is not declaring [major] kufr upon him until he makes that permissible. He is a sinner – he has committed a major sin and is deserving of punishment. It is kufr-doon-kufr until he makes that permissible.

Questioner:

Until he makes that permissible (istihlaal)??!! But whether someone has made something permissible is in the heart, and we do not know about that?!

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

That is right. If he claims that, if he claims that he has made that permissible (i.e. made it halaal).

Ibn Jibreen:

If he permits (makes halaal) fornication so long as both parties are pleased..

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

Yes, that is [major] kufr.

Ibn Jibreen completes:

A woman is free to do as she pleases with herself.

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

If they make that halaal with pleasure, then it is [major] kufr.

Salmaan Al-Awdah:

Even if he judges by an abrogated law such as the law of the Jews? And he obligates that upon the people, and he makes that into generalised legislation, and he punishes whoever rejects that with imprisonment, exile and death and such things?

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

Does he ascribe that to the Sharee`ah or not?

Salmaan Al-Awdah:

But he judges by it without commenting on it. He has made it a replacement!

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

If he ascribes this law to the Sharee`ah, then it is kufr.

Salmaan Al-Awdah:

Is that major kufr or lesser kufr?

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

It is major kufr if he ascribes that to the Sharee`ah, but if he does not ascribe that to the Sharee`ah and it is a law introduced legislated by himself, then it is not major kufr, such as the one who lashes the people without a legal Sharee`ah reason. He lashes the people or kills them due to his own whims and desires. He may kill some people due to his desires overcoming him.

Salmaan Al-Awdah:

May Allaah preserve you – so there is no distinction between a specific case with respect to an event that takes place, or a particular situation and between the situation wherein a ruler introduces a generalised law or constitution for all the people?

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

If he ascribes that [law or constitution] to the Sharee`ah, then he has disbelieved. But if he does not ascribe that to the Sharee`ah, and sees it as a law that is suitable for the people, whilst he holds that it is not Shar`ee – and that it is not from from Allaah, nor from His Messenger, then it is considered a crime, but it is not major kufr. That is what I believe.

Salmaan Al-Awdah:

O noble Shaikh, [but] Ibn Katheer cites in al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah the consensus (ijmaa`) upon the kufr of such a person, with major kufr.

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

Maybe he intended if one ascribes that to Sharee`ah.

Salmaan Al-Awdah:

No! He said: The one who judges by other than the Sharee`ah of Allaah, even a Sharee`ah that was revealed but abrogated, then he is a unbeliever. So how about the one who judges with other than that: with the opinions of the humans? There is no doubt, such a one is an apostate.

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

Even if he said that. Ibn Katheer is not infallible. This requires thought and insight. He can be wrong. Him and other than him. Most of what is reported as ijmaa` is not ijmaa`.

Ibn Jibreen:

They introduce these laws in replacement of the Sharee`ah. They say: This law is better and more beneficial for the people. And they ascribe that to the regulations of the Sharee`ah.

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

This is kufr on its own. If he said: This affair is better than the Sharee`ah, or the same as it, or he says that it is permitted to judge by other than what Allaah has revealed, then that is major kufr.

An attendee:

Those who declare the constitution to be kufr and they say: the people are not declared to be unbelievers. Meaning, they make that distinction in their writings, so they say: The constitution is a kaafir, but we do not call individuals unbelievers.

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

If he makes permissible judging by other than what Allaah has revealed, then it is unbelief, even if that refers to a person. Meaning he himself has committed kufr. It is said: So and so is a kaafir, if he makes permissible (halaal) to judge by other than what Allaah has revealed, or if he makes halaal fornication – and similar to that which is considered as kufr, such as whoever the Sahaabah declared to unbelievers specifically, those who abandoned [Islaam]. Musailamah is declared as an unbeliever specifically. Talaihah before he repented was declared an unbeliever. Likewise for the one who mocks the Religion is declared an unbeliever specifically. Whoever is found to have nullified his Religion is declared an unbeliever specifically. As for killing, then that is a different matter, meaning killing requires repentance [and one does not exit Islaam].

An attendee:

However, if he ascribes that to the Sharee`ah, is it not judged that that he is from the liars (al-kaadhibeen).

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

Yes, from the liars.

[Some unclear speech. Then, a few questions later]:

`Aa’id al-Qarnee:

Ok Shaikh, some of them say: Umar (radiyallaahu `anhu) left off the prescribed punishments in the year of the famine?

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

This ijtihaad of his has a valid reason because a person may be forced to take something or steal out of necessity.

Salmaan Al-Awdah:

The evidence for the fact that the kufr mentioned in the Qur’aan is lesser kufr: “…such are the disbelievers.” What is the indication that shows that there in this verse a restriction [to lesser kufr]?

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

It is taken to mean that [one is a kaafir] if one makes the judgement by other than Revelation permissible (halaal), in the most correct saying. If it understood to mean other than making it halaal and what Ibn `Abbaas (radiyallaahu `anhumaa) said, that it is understood to mean kufr lesser than the kufr that exists one from Islaam. Otherwise the origin would be that they unbelievers.

One of the debaters:

There is no evidence for that in the speech of `Ibn Abbaas. There is not in his speech that one makes judging [by other than Revelation] permissible.. (unclear)

Salmaan Al-Awdah interjects:

Yes, meaning what makes us change the text from what is apparent?

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

Because he has made that judging permissible for himself. Likewise, the unbelievers who judge by other than what Allaah has revealed. They judge that the dead animal is halaal to eat, and what is similar to that. However if Zaid or `Amr (i.e. Muslims) were to judge with bribery, do we say that is kufr?! They do not become disbelievers with that. Or that he judges that Zaid should be killed without due right based on his whims? No, he does not become an unbeliever due to that judgement of his.

[After a short silence] Ibn Baaz:

So upon the principle. Making something haraam or making something halaal has great significance. For example, the fornicator, does he fall into major disbelief?

Salmaan Al-Awdah:

No, he does not fall into disbelief.

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

But if he were to say, “It is halaal [to fornicate]?”

Salmaan Al-Awdah:

Then he has disbelieved.

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

There you have it.

Salmaan Al-Awdah:

Yes, he has disbelieved [by making it halaal] even he himself does not fornicate.

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

[Yes], even if he [himself] does not fornicate [but holds it to be halaal].

Salmaan Al-Awdah:

We desire, our eminent father, concerning the verse: “And whoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed..” So the Judgement is connected to the abandonment of judging [by what Allaah has revealed].

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

“Judging by other than what Allaah has revealed”, meaning, making that halaal to do. It is understood in that light.

Salmaan Al-Awdah:

This restricted understanding is taken from where?

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

From other evidences that prove that. Evidences that prove that the sinner [who judges with sin] is not judged to have committed [major] kufr. So long as he does not make that sin halaal, he does not become a kaafir.

[unclear question]..

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

A faasiq (open sinner), dhaalim (transgressor) and kaafir.

[He is a kaafir] only if he makes that [sin] permissible (halaal). Or that he views that the Judgment [of Islamic Law] is unsuitable, or he holds that judging by other than the Islamic Law is better. So the point here is that the issue revolves around whether he makes it permissible [to judge by other than the Islamic Law]. Or the one who goes further than merely claiming that it is halaal, he claims it is better than the Judgement of Allaah. However, if he judges by other than what Allaah has revealed due to his whims, then he is a sinner just like the one who fornicates due to following his whims and desires and not holding that fornication is permissible. Or the one who is undutiful to his parents, due to following his whims, or one who kills another due to his whims – these are sinners. However, if he kills another holding that to be permissible, then he has disbelieved. Or the one who disobeys his parents whilst holding it permissible to be undutiful to them, or the one who fornicates whilst making that halaal, then he has disbelieved. It is based upon this that we go against the Khawaarij. We separate and distinguish ourselves from them and between us and them there is huge gulf – otherwise, we would have fallen into that which they fell into. So this is what resembles the Khawaarij, this affair of broad sweeping generalizations.

Salmaan Al-Awdah:

This affair is an issue for many of the brothers, so there is no problem if we take some time?

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

No problem. It is important, hugely important.

Salmaan Al-Awdah:

You mentioned the affair of takfeer (i.e declaring to be an unbeliever) of the sinner or the one who falls into major sin. This is not the point of differing.

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

No. What is the issue, the main issue of the Khawaarij? That is the underlying cause of the Khawaarij. It is indeed these broad generalizations – they abandon the restrictions and they take to broad generalizations and by that, they declare people to be unbelievers. The Prophet (salallaahu `alaihi wassallam) said regarding them: “They will shoot out of Islaam, and they will not return to it.”

Salmaan Al-Awdah:

The fornicator and thief, O Shaikh…

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

They are disbelievers according to the Khawaarij.

Salmaan al-`Awdah:

With the Khawaarij. However, Ahlus-Sunnah are agreed that they are sinners.

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

Yes, so long as they do not make those sins permissible.

Salmaan al-`Awdah:

They do not exit Islaam.

Shaikh Ibn Baaz:

So long as they do not make [those sins] halaal.

To be continued… inshaa’Allaah.

Explanatory Notes:

Imām Ibn ʿAbdul-Barr  (died 463H) said:

“The scholars are in agreement that tyranny and oppression in rulership is from the major sins for the one who purposely, knowingly does that; and many severe texts have been reported from the Salaf regarding that. Allāh, the Mighty and Majestic, stated:

‘And whosoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, such are the unbelievers (kāfirūn).’[1]

And:

‘And whosoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, such are the wrongdoers (dhālimūn).’[2]

And:

‘And whosoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, such are the disobedient (fāsiqūn).’[3]

These were revealed concerning the people of the Book (the Jews and Christians). The Companions Hudhaifah and Ibn ʿAbbās  stated, ‘These [verses] are general upon [all of] us.’

They also said, ‘It is not the disbelief (kufr) that takes the person out of the Religion if a person from this Ummah was to do that (i.e. judge by other than what Allāh has revealed), unless he disbelieves in Allāh, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers and the Final Day.’

And this meaning has been narrated from a group of scholars in their explanation of the Qurān; from them Ibn ʿAbbās, Tāwūs and ʿAtā.’”[4]

 


[1] Al-Mā’idah: 44.

[2] Al-Mā’idah: 45.

[3] Al-Mā’idah: 47.

[4] At-Tamhīd of Ibn ʿAbdul-Barr, 5/74-75.

—-

Ibn Taymiyyah (3/267 of Majmūʿ ul-Fatāwā):

“And when a person declares a unanimously agreed unlawful matter to be lawful or a unanimously agreed lawful matter to be unlawful or replaced the Sharīʿah (baddala ash-Sharʿ) – that [from it] which is agreed upon – he is a disbeliever, an apostate by agreement of the jurists. And it is with regards to the likes of this that the following (verse) was revealed, according to one of two opinions: ‘And whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then they are the disbelievers’ (al-Mā’idah 5:44) – meaning that he declares it to be permissible to rule by other than what Allah has revealed.”

Imām an-Nawawī said in Sharh Sahīh Muslim (12/229):

“And as for revolt – meaning against the rulers – and fighting them, then it is forbidden by unanimous agreement (ijmāʿ) of the Muslims, even if they are sinful oppressors. And the Prophetic narrations are abundantly overwhelming with the meaning that I have mentioned. And Ahlus-Sunnah are united that the ruler is not to be removed, on account of his sinfulness.

As for the angle that has been mentioned in some of the books of jurisprudence of some of our associates, that he is to be removed, and which is quoted from the [deviated] Muʿtazilites, then this is an error on behalf of the one who says it and is in opposition to the unanimous agreement. And the Scholars have said that the reason for the prevention of his removal and the forbiddance of revolting against him is due to what arises from that of tribulations, and shedding of blood, and also corruption that is evident. Hence, the harm from his removal is greater than from him remaining in place.”

Due to the weightiness of this affair, the great learned Scholar and jurist Shaikh Ibn ʿUthaimīn (rahimahullaah) stated an advice to the Muslims:

And that which I hold is that the youth should not occupy themselves with the likes of this matter, whether a ruler is a disbeliever or not a disbeliever and whether it is permissible for us to rebel against him or not. The youth must occupy themselves with the worship that Allāh has made binding upon them, or has made recommendable to them, and they should abandon what He has made forbidden for them, either due to its being disliked or being prohibited. They should rush towards making agreement between themselves and to have unity; and they should know that having disagreements in the affairs of the religion and knowledge occurred during the times of the Companions, however it did not lead to separation – [due to the fact that] their hearts were one and their methodology (manhaj) was one.

As for what is connected to the issue of ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed, then it is, as occurs in the Mighty Book (Qurān), divided into three types: that which is disbelief, that which is oppression and that which is sinfulness – all in accordance with the various reasons upon which each judgment is made:

1. So if a person judges by other than what Allāh has revealed due to following his desires, alongside his knowledge that the truth lies in what Allāh has decreed, then such a one does not disbelieve, however he is either a sinner or an oppressor.

2. When he legislates a general ruling which the nation [adopts and] traverses upon, and he considers this to be of benefit, and he is caught up in it, then he does not disbelieve either, because many of the rulers have ignorance of the knowledge of the Sharīʿah and the one who does not know the Sharīʿah ruling is often by their side, and they (the rulers) consider such a one to be a great scholar, and opposition [to the Qurān] occurs as a result of all of this.

3. And if he knows the legislated Sharīʿah, however he judges by this (his own law) or he legislates this [law] and then makes it a code of law (dustūr) to be followed by the people, believing that he himself is an oppressor in all of that, and that the truth is what has come in the Book and the Sunnah, then we are not able to declare such a one to be a disbeliever.

4. But we do declare as a disbeliever the following:

i. The one who holds that legislation other than Allāh’s is more appropriate for the people to be upon.

ii. Or the one who believes that this legislation is equivalent to the legislation of Allāh, the Mighty and Majestic.

It is this one who is a disbeliever because he is a denier of the statement of Allāh, the Blessed and Almighty, “Is not Allāh the Best of all Judges?” and also His saying, “Is it the judgment of the times of ignorance they seek? And who is a better judge than Allāh for a people of sure faith?”

Then [even] these matters do not mean that when we declare someone to be a disbeliever, that it is now obligatory to rebel against him, since great evils result from this rebellion…”[1]


[1] Source: From an audio recording dated Tuesday, 22nd Rabīʿ al-Awwal, 1420H, taken from: takfiris.com

>>You can download the full tape from here<<

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed