‫التفنيد المطلق على المداخلة‬

The Ultimate Refutation against the

Madākhila
Introduction

All praise and thanks are due to Allah. We praise Him, seek His help and His forgiveness. We
seek refuge with Allah from the evils of our own selves and from our bad deeds. Whomever
Allah guides, none can misguide him and whomever He misguides, there is no guide for him. I
testify that nothing deserves worship except Allah alone, with no partner and I testify that
Muhammad is His servant and Messenger ‐ may Allah send prayers upon him, his family, and
his companions.
As for the following:

Allah has sent Muhammad (‫ )صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬with guidance and the true religion. He sent him as a
mercy to the world, as an example for the workers, and as a proof against all the servants. He
(Muhammad) fulfilled the trust, conveyed the message, advised the Ummah, and he clarified for
the people all of what they need regarding the foundations of their religion as well as its detailed
matters. He left no good except that he clarified it and encouraged it, and he left no evil but that
he warned the Ummah from it so much so that he left his Ummah upon a clear, white path ‐ its
night as clear as its day. His companions traversed this path, shining and radiant. Afterwards,
the best generations took it from them in the same state until oppression frowned upon them
with the darkness of various innovations by which the innovators conspired against Islam and its
people. The people then wandered in confusion purposelessly, and they began building their
ʹAqīdah beliefs upon a spiderʹs web. However, the Lord upholds His religion with His close
helpers upon whom He bestows imān, knowledge, and wisdom by which they prevent these
enemies. They repel their plot back against their own throats. So no one ever comes out with
his innovation except that Allah ‐ and for this deserves praise and thanks ‐ destines to send
someone from Ahlus‐Sunnah who refutes and disproves his innovation and extinguishes it.
The Deviation

The Madākhila are named after Rabī’ al-Madkhalī and arose in the Arabian Peninsula in the
early 90s to act as a counterbalance to the growing criticism of the Saudi regime for their
acceptance of kuffar soldiers and bases in the Peninsula of Muhammad (‫)ﷺ‬. Seeing the
advantages of having henchmen who speak the language of Salafiyyah, the Saudi regime
steadily supported the movement, with Egypt and other Arab nations soon following to
delegitimatize their opponents and consolidate their hold on power. Today, however, their main
base lies not anywhere in the Arab world but in Europe (the headquarters in the UK), as public
support has waned for the Arab governments due to their tyranny; moreover, the original
defense of the Saudi regime evolved into a defense of all governments and leaders (except
ones the Saudi regime does not like). Thus Western intelligence agencies see them as a group
to be supported in the Crusader-led “war on terror

The central pillar of the Madkhalī movement is absolute obedience to governments, particularly
the Saudi regime, even if they rule by man-made law and ally with mushrikin against
muwahhidin. The Madākhila openly endorse such regimes and label anyone who disagrees and
denounces the actions of a regime as part of the Khawarij, the group that rebelled against ‘Ali
(‘alayhis-salam). Although there is agreement among scholars that ruling by another set of laws
in opposition to the Shari’ah is something that makes a Muslim become an apostate, the
Madākhila oppose this and stipulate a hidden rejection of the heart only known if the ruler
announces it. The same story plays out in relation to allying with mushrikin against Muslims.
However, usually not wanting the discussion to reach the core, the Madākhila are known for
attacking the person they oppose, instead of discussing the topic at hand. When they do
discuss, they try to frame the discussion regarding the apostate modern rulers within the
framework of oppressive Muslim rulers the Salaf forbade rebellion against.
Due to their extremism, they followed the habits of Ahl al-Bida' before them, so they further
divided into subsects. Those who sided with Rabī’ al-Madkhalī on some issues, and those who
sided with an Egyptian by the name of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribī.
The division started over Abul-Hasan's abstaining from declaring certain individuals innovators
(in addition to other things), and those who abstained from declaring Abul-Hasan an innovator
was grouped with him. This includes the Jordanian Madākhilah who claim to be students of
Shaykh al-Albānī (which has been declared a false claim, by some of those who were close to
the Shaykh, such as Ab ū Mālik Muhammad Ibrāhīm Shaqrah, an ex-Madkhalī).
The innovations of the Madākhila include

• Believing that legislating manmade laws, complete abstinence from ruling by the Shari'ah, or
resisting to rule by the Sharī'ah, seeking judgement from Taghut, are all just minor Kufr, that do
not exit the doer from the religion of Islām, except with Istihlāl. Istihlāl is to believe his sin to be
permissible. So they make the sins of major Kufr and major Shirk equal to lesser sins like
adultery, drinking alcohol, etc., by placing the condition of Istihlāl on the major Kufr, which only
exists as a condition for minor Kufr.

• Believing that actions of the limbs are not a pillar nor condition for the existence of Imān for
one to be ruled a Muslim. So for them one can never pray, give Zakāh, fast Ramadan, or do
Hajj, never do Wudoo', never get Tahārah, etc., and he would still be a Muslim, who's Islām can
save him from Hellfire eventually. They would label him a sinner, as for a Kāfir, then no. So they
have followed the Murji'ah of the past.

• Exaggerating the concept of excuse due to ignorance with regards to the rules of this life. So
for them they excuse the one who calls himself a Muslim (i.e., they judge him a Muslim), in all
situations, in all issues. So for them, there is no difference between the basis of Islām, the
matters that are known from the religion by necessity, that are less apparent or obvious. There
is no difference between one who was raised amongst the Muslims, or the one who was not.
There is no difference between the new Muslim, and others. All of them are always Muslims,
even if they fall into many types of obvious Kufr and Shirk, because of the "possibility" of
ignorance. This confusion amongst them also applies to the issue of Ta'w īl (misinterpretation) by
which (for example) they excuse many of the rulers who have pronounced their Istihlāl of their
legislating man-made laws.

• Believing that major Walā' (alliance/friendship) with the Kuffār is not major Kufr, unless the
person internalizes a Kufr intention, such as wishing to aid the religion of Kufr, or to destroy
Allah's Religion, etc. So if one were to lead the crusade against Islām, head it, support it by
wealth and blood, he would still be a Muslim, until he pronounces the internalized intentions of
Kufr. So they do not make the act itself Kufr, until this innovated condition is proven. • Believing
that Jihād cannot be Fard 'Ayn upon the whole Ummah. Also, related to Jihād, is believing that
Jihād is not permissible without an Islāmic state whose Imam directs it. Believing Jihād to be
forbidden without the permission of the Imam. All of this is regarding defensive Jihād. • Labelling
those who do Takfīr of the apostate rulers and their soldiers to be Khawārij or Takfiris. They
prohibit Khurooj against these apostate rulers, due to the fact that they rule them to be Muslims.
If they rule some of them to be Kuffar, they still prohibit it due to the fact it is not led by an Imam
(head of Muslim state).

• Belittling the importance of awareness of current affairs and events, saying that such is only for
the rulers and scholars, and that the laymen have no need for such. This foolish idea leads
many laymen to believe the rulers in their lands to be Muslims, because they are unaware of the
Kufr that he practices. So these laymen sometimes end up sacrificing themselves for the
apostate ruler by being his sincere servants and slaves.

• Testing people on their positions regarding certain individuals they have labelled innovators. If
the person agrees with them regarding their Tabdī' then he is befriended, if not, he is taken as
an enemy and belittled. The individuals they test people by, many times are labelled innovators
based upon some of the above misunderstandings. Example: 'Abdullāh 'Azzām said Jihād is
Fard 'Ayn, according the Madākhila this is an innovation, so he is an innovator. They ask Fulān
at the Masjid giving a lecture, what do you think of 'Azzām? He says he is good, then they
consider him an innovator, or hold him suspicious.

• They blindly follow the official government scholars on their stances towards their governments
and politics. So if the government scholars say peace with the Jews is fine in Palestine, the
Madākhila parrot his words. Note: Not all government scholars are Madākhila, but the
Madākhila blindly follow them in politics. Example, Ibn Bāz or Ibn 'Uthaymeen are not
Madākhila, although they might possibly have some branches of the Madkhalī fundamentals,
but the Madākhila blindly follow their opinions that are related to politics.

• Holding a few people to be scholars in what they call "Manhaj." Noone else can be questioned
on these "Manhaj" issues. These "Manhaj" doctors include Rabī’ al-Madkhalī', 'Ubayd al-Jābiri,
etc. They follow them blindly in issues of Jarh and Tabdi'.

The Madākhila tend to have a supportive position of the Saudi apostate regime, although they
are supportive of most of the apostate regimes in general. But due to the fact that some of them
do do Takfir of some of these regimes (Syria, Libya, etc.), they always are in agreement in
praising and supporting the Saudi regime by heart and soul. They are very quick and easy in
declaring people to be innovators, even over issues which are not innovation, rather from the
best of Islām! Like Jihād. As for things that are indeed innovation, if one falls into them, they
prohibit reading or praising anything that person wrote. For example, Sayyid Qutb had
innovations, but so did many many scholars of the past and present, who Ahl as-Sunnah, as
well as the Madākhila, both quote, such as Ibn Hazm, an-Nawawi, Ibn Hajr, etc. Yet they
absolutely prohibit to treat the books of Sayyid Qutb, or others like him in the same respect. Due
to the fact that they hold many of these apostate rulers to be legit Muslims rulers/governments,
and those who revolt against them to be rebellious Khawārij bandits, they permit allying and
befriending the apostate governments, even if that ends up in aiding these apostates against a
Muslim. This is probably the worst of the Madākhila’s crimes (for those who hold this position)
since it is apostasy, the apostasy of Mudhāharah (helping the Mushrikīn against the Muslims).
In the end, they tend to take positions that are favorable for Islām's enemies, harsh against the
Muslims, mimicking the Khawārij in their "killing of Islām's people."
The issue of not ruling by what Allah has revealed and an explanation of Kufr
Duna Kufr.

Legislation is for none but Allah only even the messenger of Allah (salallahu alayhi wasalam)
did not have the privilege to speak from his desires and legislate besides Allah.. so who are you,
oh you learned men who distort the dīn of Allah day and night, repeatedly for worldly interests
and whose eyelids do not close with any guilt at night.. and oh you who arrogantly absorb the
bātil of these deviant scholars like a sponge and do not refer back to the Quran and to the
message that our prophet (salallahu alayhi wasalam) came with.. listen and ask Allah to make it
reach your hearts for everything is right in front of our eyes but all it takes is to shake the rust off
your hearts with sincerity of seeking the haqq.

Sadly a topic that many are still closing their eyes upon, the kufr of the rulers that pretend to be
muslims, that cloak themselves in the attire of the muslims and pretend to support the dīn but
have waged war against Allah and Islam and the ummah. They have nevertheless committed
countless nullifiers of their Islam already. May Allah give us sincere understanding of the dīn and
of haqq so we can stay away from falsehood.

And lbn Hazm said: “There is no dispute even amongst two people from the Muslims that this
(i.e. the Injil) is abrogated and that whoever judges with the ruling of the Injil in a matter that
does not have a clear text from the revelation of the Shari‘ah of Islam, then, he is a kafir mushrik
who left the fold of Islam.” Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam, v. 5, p. 173.

Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) said:

“The one who forsakes the law that was revealed to Muhammad ibn ‘Abd-Allah, the Seal of the
Prophets (‫ )ﷺ‬and refers for judgement to any other law that has been abrogated, has
committed an act of kufr, so how about the one who refers for to al-Yasa (man-made laws of the
Tatars) and gives it precedence? The one who does that is a kafir according to the consensus of
the Muslims.”
Al-Bidayah wa’l-Nihayah, vol.13, p. 139
Shaykhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (rahimahullah) said: "If a person regards as permissible that on
which there is scholarly consensus that it is forbidden, or regards as forbidden that on which
there is scholarly consensus that it is permitted, or he alters a law on which there is consensus,
then he is a kafir and apostate, according to the consensus of the fuqaha’."
Majmu’ al-Fatawa, vol. 3, p. 267.

Ponder over how Shaykhul-Islam distinguished Istihlal & Istihram from altering the divine law.
Thus replacing the Shari'ah is Kufr irrespective of whether the ruler deems the changed law as
Halal/Haram. Nor did he place ascribing such law to the Shari'ah as a condition for Kufr.

Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said: “And whoever knows that he judges
between the people with some of them (non-Shari’i laws), and does not judge between them
according to the Book (Qur’an) and the Sunnah, then he is a Kafir.”
Minhaj al-Sunnah vol. 5, p. 132.

Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said,

“The term ‘Shari’ah’ is spoken by many people and does not differentiate between the Shar’
which has been revealed by Allah; and that is the Book (Qur’an) and the Sunnah, which Allah
sent His Messenger with; and this Shar’, it is not for anyone of the creation to leave it and no
one leaves it except a Kafir.”
Majmu’ al-Fatawa vol. 11, p. 262.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Al ash-Shaykh (rahimahullah) said,
"Perhaps you would say: 'If the one who judges according to man-made laws says: I believe that
this is false', this doesn't change the ruling, rather he is abolishing the Shari'ah completely. It is
like someone saying: 'I worship idols but I believe that they are false.' And if anyone is able to
migrate from a land where man-made laws are established (to an Islamic country), then it's
obligatory (to migrate)."
[Fatawa and letters of his eminance, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn 'Abdul-Latif Al
ash-Shaykh, v. 6, p. 189].

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Al ash-Shaykh (rahimahullah) said in his Fatawa, v. 12, p. 280:
"As far as the saying, 'Kufr Duna Kufr,' it is when the judge makes judgement to other than Allah
with the firm conviction that it is disobedience. He believes that the judgement of Allah is the
truth, but he left from it in one matter. As for whoever ordered and placed man-made laws to be
binding, then it is Kufr, even if they said, 'We sinned and the judgement of the Revealed Law is
more just.' This is still Kufr that removes one from the religion."

From this we learn that there is no contradiction between the statements of 'Ulama wherein they
said whoever rules by other than what Allah revealed is a Kafir, and those in which they said he
doesn't become a Kafir if he recognizes this is disobedience and falsehood. Such quotes are
about different matters.

Verily, one judges by whims once in a dispute by leaving the judgement of Allah whilst his
authoritative source of judgement is the Shari'ah (e.g. he questioned the integrity of witnesses
while they are just, or he placed a condition which was not present, or he mentioned an
impediment that does not exist, and similar to that) has committed minor Kufr.

As for seeking judgement from man-made law, or promuglating man-made law i.e. making it
binding upon people, then this is major Kufr that exits a person from the fold of Islam. And Allah
is the One from whom help is sought!

As-Sam’ani (d. 489 H - rahimahullah) wrote the following in his Tafsir:

“ ‘And whoever does not judge by what Allah revealed - then it is those who are the kafirun.’
Al-Bara ibn ‘Azib said - and it is also the opinion of al-Hasan [al-Basri] - : the ayah is in regards
to the mushrikin. Ibn ‘Abbas said: the ayah is in regards to the Muslimin; and what is meant is
kufr duna kufr. Know that the Khawārij inferred from this ayah and said whoever does judge by
what Allah revealed is a kafir. Whereas, Ahlus-Sunnah said: he does not disbelieve for leaving
(tark) the ruling. The ayah has two interpretations. First, whoever does not judge by what Allah
revealed by going against and rejecting [it], then those are the kafirun. Second, whoever does
not judge by what Allah revealed in totality, then it is those who are the kafirun. And the kafir is
one who abandons every ruling that Allah revealed and is not a Muslim.”
Thus, the statement of ibn Abbas (RA) concerning Kufr Duna Kufr is about leaving
(Tark) the implementation of a law from Allah, and know that leaving the implementation
of a law in an issue is not the same as seeking judgement (Tahakum) from a Taghut or
other than the law of Allah, nor is it the same as replacing (Istibdal) the Shari'ah with
other than the law of Allah. Another benefit we learn from this Tafsir is that leaving the
implementation of Shari'ah in totality (like the Secular governments of today) is major
Kufr.
Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (‫ )رحمه هللا‬said:
“And it is known that whoever removes an order or a forbiddance (from Sharī`ah), which Allah
sent His Messenger (‫ )صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬with, then he is a kafir by the agreement of the Muslims,
the Jews and the Christians.”
[Majmū’ al-Fatāwā li Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah 8/106].
What did Ibn ‘Abbas mean by Kufr Duna Kufr?

We know from Ibn ‘Abbas (‫ )رضي هللا عنه‬that making judgements in specific situations in kufr
asghar. Such is the situation of the two groups of Sāhabah (‫)رضي هللا عنهم‬. They were committing
a major sin, fighting against other Muslims.

As a result of the infighting between the Sāhabah, the misguided khawārij stepped out and
made takfīr on the Sāhabah (‫)والعياذ باهلل‬. they (the khawārij) said: 'This fighting between the
Muslims is kufr, and the Sāhabah are kuffar because Allāh said:
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the
disbelievers."

Those filthy Khawarij had the corrupt belief that this Ayāh could be applied on the one who
doesn’t follow Allāh’s commands in his own personal matters. And so the Khawārij gave this
noble Ayāh from the speech of Allāh ‫ ﷻ‬, and used it with a distorted interpretation. They used
this Ayāh, which is about judging, against those who were disobedient (Fasiq). Disobedient
meaning: “not following Allāhs commands (committing sins)”, it doesn’t mean “Not ruling by that
which Allāh has revealed.”

A person in authority, is a judge and leader. An individual who has the ability to govern the
people, and decide what his people are allowed to or not. The Fāsiq, however, doesn’t decide
for a whole country, he makes his own decisions. He is not a leader, nor is he judge. The
Khawārij did not differentiate between the judge (murtad) and the Fāsiq, and said that the
infighting was kufr. They said this because the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Abusing a Muslim is Fusūq
and killing him is kufr” [Sāhīh al-Būkhārī, Kītāb al-īmān, Hadīth 48]

But, we know this is kufr asghar, because of the saying of Allāh (tabarāka wa ta’ala):
"And if two parties of believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them." [49:9].
In this Ayāh, Allāh called them Mu’mīnīn! Meaning the infighting between the Sāhabah was not
kufr Akbar, but kufr asghar. The khawārij had the Ayāh in surat al-Ma’idah to argue that the
Sāhabah weren’t judging by the shar’īah of Allāh, when the reality is they had just committed a
sin. They hadn’t judged by the shar’īah in a specific matter. So, Ibn ‘Abbas (‫ )رضي هللا عنه‬was
clarifying this to those Khawārij. Yes, it’s kufr, however it isn’t the kufr that you are thinking of.

Muhammad Ibn Ibrāhīm (‫ )رحمه هللا‬stated: in regards to what is said to be kufr duna kufr, it is
when one judged by other than the shar'īah of Allāh with the belief that he is disobedient and
that the sgar'īah of Allāh is the truth; then this is when it comes from him once or so. As for
whoever ordered and placed man-made laws to be binding, then, this is kufr even if they say
they’re mistaken and the sharia of allah is better.
[Fatawa wa risā’il vol.12 p.280]

And yes, the Ayāh is surat al-Ma’idah also can be used to describe kufr asghar. However that is
in specific scenarios and personal situations
The excuse of Ignorance
Indeed, from the matters where differences and mistakes have increased is the issue of ‘al-‘udhr
bil-jahl (excuse due to ignorance)’ in asl ad-din (the foundation of the din). Many who view the
ignorant who commits major shirk is excused, makes the basis and reason for that his affiliation
to Islam and his claim that he is from the Muslimin. Therefore, if he worshipped other than Allah,
made du‘a to other than Allah, sacrificed to other than Allah, and was raised upon that since his
birth till his death and would profess with his tongue: “I am a Muslim,” he would consider him to
be from the Muslimin. But if he worshipped other than Allah, made du‘a to other than Allah,
sacrificed to other than Allah, and would profess with his tongue: “I am upon the way that Allah
has commanded me to be upon,” he would not excuse him. This is without any doubt a
contradiction.

If the comparison between the grave-worshippers and the idol worshippers is brought to his
attention, and not excusing either one of them due to ignorance, he makes the affiliation to Islam
the difference [between the two]. Due to this affiliation he rules upon the idol worshipper with
kufr and judges the grave worshipper with Islam. ‘Affiliation to Islam,’ if it meant solely ascribing
to Islam without the rest of the obligations, then, it is a ruling without any proof; and if it means
ascribing to the din of Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, whether that affiliation was to the Islam
which Muhammad (‫ )ﷺ‬was sent with or to Judaism or Christianity or other laws which the
Messengers were sent with, the one who says this statement must rule the ignorant ones
among the Jews and Christians and other than them with Islam. Because they attribute
themselves to the din of Allah which He ordered them to follow and fell into nullifiers due to
ignorance. And whoever excuses them has disbelieved, left fold of Islam, and denied the
authentic and explicit textual evidences.

In effect, he must rule upon the mushrikin of Quraysh with Islam before the advent of the
Messenger of Allah (‫)ﷺ‬, because they said, according to what they claimed and assumed,
that they are upon the way Ibrahim (‫)ﷺ‬. They had some obligations and rulings taken from
him such as Hajj, circumcision, exalting the rites. They acknowledged that Allah is the Lord with
no partners with Him in creating, sustaining, bringing to life, and causing death. However, they
committed shirk with Allah, by worshipping others so they can bring them closer to Allah,
believing that Allah has permitted them to be an intermediary on His behalf and between Him
and His creation. Allah is high exalted from what they claim.

The grave worshipers are exactly like them in all respects, except that the grave worshippers
attribute themselves to the Seal of the Prophets while the other ignorant ones attributed
themselves to Ibrahim (‫)ﷺ‬. Both are equal. The grave worshippers will have no benefit in
following the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬or adhering to some of his obligations in the din, just as the kuffar of
Quraysh had no benefit in following Ibrahim (‫ )ﷺ‬or adhering to some of his obligations in the
din.

Affiliation to Islam differs in some angles with affiliation to the way of Ibrahim, and some of the
obligations which they abide by in worship differs, more or less, but it does not make a
difference in the affirmation of iman and kufr and acknowledging the rububiyyah of Allah. Both
parties are disbelievers in Allah; outside the fold of Islam; emitted from the din…

In fact, the grave-worshippers claim that what they are doing is what Allah and His messenger
(‫ )ﷺ‬has ordered, similar to the statement of the mushrikin in time of ignorance, as Allah, the
Exalted and Majestic, said about them:
‫َوِإ َذا َف َعلُوا َفا ِح َش ًة َقالُوا َو َج ْد َنا َع َل ْي َها آ َبا َء َنا َوهَّللا ُ َأ َم َر َنا‬
“And when they commit abomination, they say, ‘We found our fathers doing it, and Allah has
ordered us to do it’ ”
Surah al-A’raf: 28

This is the proof of the overwhelming majority of the mushrikin amongst the grave-worshippers
today. I met with one of the major leaders from the people of shirk performing ‘umrah. He used
the same proof of the first kuffar and said: “It is not allowed for you to rebuke what the people
(i.e., grave-worshippers) are practicing, because they took it from their fathers, and there’s no
doubt that they (also) took it from their fathers, and the successors took it from the Salaf. So,
then, it (is taken) from the Messenger of Allah (‫)ﷺ‬.” This is exactly what is mentioned in the
ayah about the proofs of the mushrikin in two distinct ways:

1. That they found their forefathers practicing it.

2. That Allah has ordered them to do it.

Hafidh ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) stated: “And they believe that the practice of their forefathers is
traced back to a command from Allah and the law.” And even though this is in the context of an
abomination, which was interpreted as being their tawaf around the Ka’bah naked, it is
indicative of the practice of their forefathers being cited as an evidence. It is their assumption
that the practice of their forefathers is stemmed back to a legislated matter from Allah.

This mistake, as it occurs with some of the opponents in the issue of ‘al- ‘udhr bil-jahl’, from the
students of knowledge, occurs in abundance from the laymen in excusing the stubborn
individual that ascribes himself to Islam. Thus they do not declare takfir of the one who ascribes
himself to Islam, at all. As a matter of fact, I heard from some of those who were called “Du‘at
as-Sahwah” (revivalist preachers), when was asked about the likes of Hafidh al-Asad and the
Arab tawaghit amongst the apostate rulers, flip and turn to the point of saying: “I do not declare
takfir upon whoever says he is a Muslim.” This is a mindless misconception.

If this was the path of guidance and truth, then why did as-Siddiq bother with fighting
Musaylamah and those with him, to the extent that the best of the Sahabah, among the reciters,
scholars, and people of the Quran, went out and were killed! The majority of those whom the
scholars have ruled upon with kufr among the murtaddin were those whom the overwhelming
majority of them attributed themselves to Islam and refused to be labelled with other than it.

The matter reaches to the level of implication that the one who says: “I am upon the din of
Musa,” or says: “I am upon the din of ‘Isa,” among the Jews and Christians, does not disbelieve.
And this flows forth from the depths of misguidance and far off from the din of Allah, the Book of
Allah, and the Sunnah of His messenger (‫)ﷺ‬. If it is said: “This is not acceptable, for they
disbelieved after the advent of Muhammad (‫ )ﷺ‬and the abrogation of their ways.” This
necessitates that if they attributed themselves to Islam after the advent of Muhammad (‫)ﷺ‬
and remained upon what they were brought up on, their ignorant ones would be excused and be
Muslim. And it would also imply that their ignorant ones were all Muslim believers before the
advent of the Prophet (‫)ﷺ‬, and only disbelieved due to his advent; and this is obviously invalid
and false.

What we just mentioned does not mean that we say there is no difference at all between the one
who ascribes himself to Islam and the one who does not ascribe to it among the mushrikin. But
simply the affiliation of a person to Islam after he has disbelieved had Islam affirmed outwardly
upon him. Thus if he did not adhere to its rulings, or he committed acts of kufr that nullify the
foundation of tawhīd, then, he is judged with apostasy. However, as for the disbelieving groups
that are raised upon this (i.e., shirk), affirming Islam for them due to their affiliation to Islam has
two statements among the scholars. Some of them view that Islam is affirmed for them due to
the affiliation, with apostasy being affirmed [after] due what they commit from actions of kufr,
while others view that they are kuffar asliyyin (originally disbelievers), and that their affiliation to
Islam is just like the affiliation of the mushrikin of Quraysh to the way of Ibrahim; and this is what
is correct because what has preceded in not differentiating between both affiliations.

Now let’s take a look at the leading Najdi scholars say, and what their madhab is pertaining to
the excuse of ignorance.

The leading scholars of the da’wah since Imam, al-‘Allamah, Shaykh Muhammad ibn
‘Abdil-Wahhab to the present day have agreed, without exception, on the absence of an excuse
for ignorance in major shirk – whether it is slaughtering for other than Allah; seeking refuge and
calling on the dead; spells that involve worship to other than Allah; or shirk with Allah in
legislation. Indeed, they label him a mushrik even if he was ignorant or had a misinterpretation
or was a blind follower.

This was the view of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhab and it was the view of his sons, ‘Abdullah
and Husayn, plus that of Hamad ibn Mu’ammar and ‘Abdul-‘Aziz al-Husayn. And these were the
leading scholars after Shaykh Muhammad. It was also the view of the second mujaddid, Imam,
al-‘Allamah ‘Abdur-Rahman ibn Hasan in his essays in Ad-Durar; and Majmu’ as-Rasail
wal-Masail is a witness to that. He was supported in this by his student Shaykh ‘Abdullah Aba
Butayn. It was also the view of Imam, al-‘Allamah ‘Abdul-Latif ibn ‘Abdur-Rahman, the third
mujaddid, and his brother Ishaq ibn ‘Abdir-Rahman supported him in that with his valuable book
Takfir al-Mu‘ayyan. ‘Abdullah and Ibrahim, the sons of Shaykh ‘Abdul-Latif, carried this view and
were supported in that by Shaykh ibn Sahman. Then Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim and his
students [also held and supported that view] – as far as I know, without any differing opinion.
Then upon that was the scholars ‘Abdullah ibn Humayd and ‘Abdul-‘Aziz ibn Baz – may Allah
have mercy on them both – and the members of the Lajnah ad-Daimah headed by Shaykh
‘Abdul-‘Aziz ibn Baz – may Allah have mercy upon him. And upon that is our Shaykh,
al-‘Allamah, Humud ibn ‘Uqla ash-Shu‘aybi – may Allah have mercy upon him.

You will not find any of them differing in this. So where is he who differed among them?

Differing only came later from those who abandoned the books of the leading scholars of the
da’wah and thought they saw extremism in them. Even if they have high ranks in universities
and graduated from them, they are the ones who confuse people in this issue and understood
from the words of ibn Taymiyyah other than what he intended on the subject related to major
shirk. It was noted many times by the leading scholars of the da’wah in their transmission from
ibn Taymiyyah, when he speaks about the people of bida’ and whims that they have an excuse
of ignorance and misinterpretation. They then applied that with regards to major shirk. They did
not realize and understand that ibn Taymiyyah made a distinction between these two matters.

And so he said in his fatawa,

“The label mushrik is established before the Message due to him equating others with his Lord
and committing shirk with Him.”
cf. Majmu’ al-Fatawa, v. 20, p. 37-38
See also his words in Ar-Radd ‘ala al-Bakri and on the juhhal (ignorants) from the Tatar who
worshiped other than Allah; he calls them mushrikin and worshipers of other than Allah, even
with their ignorance.

For those who want to look further at their words, I recommend them the following books:

1) Kitab ar-Risalah al-Mutamimmah li-Kalam Aimmah ad-Da’wah fil-Jahl fi ash-Shirk al-Akbar.

2) Kitab al-Jama’ wat-Tajrid Sharh Kitab at-Tawhīd (Bab: al-Khawf min ash-Shirk).

3) Kitab at-Tawdih wat-Tatammat ‘ala Kashf ash-Shubahat (fi ar-Rabi’ al-Ula minhu).

Understanding the speech of the Najdi scholars pertaining to the issue of Udhr Bil-Jahl can be
tricky, so lets go over it together and clarify some confusion. The sons of Shaykh Muhammad
ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhab and Hamad ibn Nasir said in Ad-Durar (v. 10, p.136-8) when asked: “When
the believer in Allah and His messenger says or does something that is kufr while being ignorant
of that, he is not declared takfir of until the Prophetic proof is established against him. If he was
killed and this was his situation before the spread and appearance of this da’wah, what should
be done?”
They responded: “If he was performing kufr and shirk due to his ignorance and the absence of
anyone to alert him, we do not judge him with kufr until the proof is established against him.
However, we not not judge him to be a Muslim. (Shaykh ‘Ali al-Khudayr commented upon this
stating: “Notice here he is not ruled with islam and not labeled a Muslim.”)

“Instead, we say: this action of his is kufr that makes one’s wealth and blood licit, even though
we do not rule upon this individual due to the absence of the proof established against him.
(Shaykh ‘Ali al-Khudayr commented: “Meaning the label of kufr and the rulings of kufr from
being killed or fighting or punishment. But in regards to the label of shirk and what follows it from
a lack of asking forgiveness for him, it is not negated.”)

“It is not said: if he is not a kafir then he is Muslim. No; we say: his action is the actions of the
kuffar, and ruling absolutely upon this individual directly depends on the reaching of the
Prophetic proof. The people of knowledge have made mention ashab al-fatarat (those who live
in a time of widespread ignorance of what the Messengers brought) will be tested on the Day of
Resurrection. They did not make their ruling the judgement of the kuffar nor that of the abrar
(righteous).”

Shaykh Hussayn and ‘Abdullah, the sons of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhab, said in Ad-Durar
as-Saniyyah (v. 10, p. 142) about the one who dies before this da’wah and was unaware of
Islam (tawhīd) and those actions [of shirk] which the people today performed while the proof
was not established, what is the ruling?

They replied: “Verily, whoever dies from the people of shirk before this da’wah reaches him, the
ruling upon him, if he is known for performing shirk, embraces it, and dies upon that, then from
the apparent he has died upon kufr. (Shaykh ‘Ali al-Khudayr comments: “Notice before they
labeled him a mushrik due to him performing shirk and embracing it. The statement ‘died upon
kufr’ meaning shirk, and that is due to what they say after it: ‘sacrificing is not done on his
behalf…’. These are the rulings of the mushrikin. ‘It is not [befitting] for the Prophet and those
who believe to ask Allah’s forgiveness for the mushrikin, even though they be of kin…’.”)

“He is not supplicated for, sacrificing is not done on his behalf, nor is charity. As for the actual
reality of his affair, then it is left to Allah (ta’ala). If the proof was established upon during his life
and he was obstinate, he is a kafir outwardly and inwardly; and if the proof was not established
upon him, his affair is left to Allah (ta’ala).” (Shaykh ‘Ali al-Khudayr commented: “Notice they did
not label him a Muslim.”)

Here they affirmed his apparent kufr.

Shaykh ‘Abdul-‘Aziz, the judge of ad-Dir’iyyah, in Ar-Rasa’il wal-Masa’il an-Najdiyyah (v. 5, p.

576) said in response to a question posed to him about the believer in Allah and His messenger,
if he says or does something that is kufr while being ignorant of that, is he not declared takfir of
until the Prophetic proof is established against him?

He stated: “If he was performing kufr and shirk due to his ignorance and the absence of anyone
to alert him, we do not judge him with kufr until the proof is established against him. However,
we not not judge him to be a Muslim. (Shaykh ‘Ali al-Khudayr commented upon this stating:
“Notice here he did not label him a Muslim, not to speak of a muwahhid or mumin. The negation
of kufr does not imply the affirmation that he is a Muslim. And this is concerning all their
speech.”)
“Instead, we say: this action of his is kufr that makes one’s wealth and blood licit, even though
we do not rule upon this individual due to the absence of the proof established against him. It is
not said: if he is not a kafir then he is Muslim. No; we say: his action is the actions of the kuffar,
and ruling absolutely upon this individual directly depends on the reaching of the Prophetic
proof. The people of knowledge have made mention ashab al-fatarat will be tested on the Day
of Resurrection. They did not make their ruling the judgement of the kuffar nor that of the abrar
(righteous).”

As for Shaykh ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhab, he has an independent work on this
entitled Al-Kalimat an-Nafi’ah fi al-Mukaffirat al-Wafi’ah. It is found in Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah (v.
10, p. 149). He mentioned within it the speech of al-‘ulama al-mujtahidun from the scholars of
the four schools of thought in relation to a Muslim disbelieving and apostatizing, and that the
first matter they begin the section on the ruling of the apostate is major shirk and takfir of them
and its people and the absence of their excuse of ignorance.

Additional clarification not from Shaykh ‘Ali al-Khudayr’s book:

To elaborate and explain further on what is meant here is that there is a distinction made
between the asma (labels) and ahkam (rulings) of the din before the hujjah and after the hujjah
in relation to that which nullifies asl ad-din. So the one who performs major shirk and major kufr
which nullifies asl ad-din is given the general label of kufr and shirk (i.e., a mushrik kafir).
However, the ruling that these labels imply is suspended and attached to the hujjah (i.e., the
ahkam of the Hereafter), as there is no punishment until after the hujjah. As for the ruling in this
world, then it is based upon what is apparent, and what is apparent is shirk and kufr.

Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) explains:

Verily, Allah separated between what is before the Message and what comes after it in regards
to asma and ahkam, and also gathered them together… Thus the label ‘mushrik’ is established
before the Message due to him performing shirk with his Lord and sets up with Him another ilah
and rival before the Messenger. So these asma are established [before the Message]. Likewise
the label of jahl (ignorance) and jahiliyyah, and it is said “jahiliyyah” and “jahil” before the coming
of the Messenger. As for punishment, then, no. And turning away from obedience, like His
saying, “He neither believed, nor performed salah, rather he belied and turned away,” is only
after the coming of the Messenger. Similar to that is His saying about Fir‘awn, “He belied and
disobeyed.” Thus this was after the coming of the messenger to him as He (ta‘ala) said, “Then
he (i.e., Musa) showed him the great signs, but he belied and disobeyed.” And He said, “But
Fir‘awn disobeyed the messenger” (See Majmu’ al-Fatawa, v. 20, p. 37-38).

For further reading refer to: Al-Mutammimah li-Kalam A’immah ad-Da’wah fi Masa’il al-Jahl fi
ash-Shirk al-Akbar, fasl: Naqualat tawdihat min Kalam Tullab ash-Shaykh Muhammad ibn
‘Abdil-Wahhab, (Awla) al-Mubashirin Lahu al-Mulazimin Lahu.
Ibn Taymiyyah in relation to takfir and it’s asma (labels) and ahkam (rulings)

The average Madkhalīs such as “Dawah” man, his team and others who are not from the people
of knowledge and who do not know the methodology of ibn Taymiyyah in relation to asma
(labels) and ahkam (rulings), crop statements out of context, interpreting them based on their
own [lack of] knowledge and understanding. If they don’t want to read the 37 volumes the works
of ibn Taymiyyah are compiled in to gather his words in order to understand them properly and
how he intended them to mean, they could have at least read the speech of the people of
knowledge who know the manhaj (methodology) of ibn Taymiyyah, having studied it extensively
for years on end.

Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said, showing his censure of scholastic theologians (ahlul-kalam)
and what they fell into:
“And if this was in matters that are obscure, then it is said that he is mistaken and misguided.
The evidence not having been established upon him in which he would disbelieve if he were to
forsake it. However, that which groups of them fall into is in relation to clear matters where
everyone knows it is from the din of the Muslims. In fact, the Jews and the Christians know that
Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was sent with them and the one who opposes them is
a disbeliever. Examples include his injunction to worship Allah alone with no partner with Him
and his prohibition from the worship of anything besides Allah from the angels, prophets, the
sun, the moon, the stars, idols, etc. These are indeed the most apparant features of Islam,
along with his commanding the five salawat and ordaining them and exalting their status. Other
examples include his hostility to the Jews, Christians, mushrikin, Sabians, and Magians, and his
prohibition of fawahish, riba, alcohol, gambling, etc. Then you find many of their heads falling
into these matters; thus becoming murtaddin” (Majmu‘ al–Fatawa, vol. 4, p. 54).

This is a clear text from Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah acknowledging a number of matters:

(1) his distinction between someone who comes with kufr in matters that are clear and obvious
and between matters that are obscure;
(2) his description of whoever comes with kufr that is from the obscure matters before the proof
is established: that he is misguided and mistaken, but not a kafir;

(3) his description of whoever comes with kufr that is from the clear matters, that is: apostasy
and leaving Islam;

(4) his mentioning of what falls under clear matters – those being:
1. Tawhīd; and it is the command to single out Allah with worship.
2. Shirk; and it is giving acts of worship to other than Allah.
3. Things that are known by necessity to be from the din, like the obligation of salah, the
prohibition of alcohol, and enmity to the religions of kufr.

Speaking about two situations the kafir will be in, ibn Taymiyyah states:
“However, pure heedlessness can not occur except in regards to someone whom the Message
hasn’t reached, while the punishable kufr can not be applied upon him except after the reaching
of the Message” (ibid, vol. 2, p. 78).

Thus he clarifies the kafir who is truly ignorant is not ruled with the type of kufr that comes with
being punished in this world and the next.

“Know that the issues of takfir and tafsiq are from the matters of labels and rulings (al-asma
wal-ahkam) which the threats are attached to in the akhirah, and alliance and enmity, and killing
and inviolability, etc., in this abode. For indeed Allah has obliged Paradise for the believers and
made Paradise forbidden to the kafirin” (ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu’ al-Fatawa). Notice how he
equates takfir to certain rulings to be applied in the two abodes. As for labels (asma), that is at
times seperate; and what is “meant by the labels of the din here are, for example, mumin,
Muslim, kafir, fasiq, etc.” (al-Harras, Sharh al-Wasitiyyah). And like what was highlighted in the
beginning, takfir is essentially a ruling on a particular reality and label. And so a mushrik kafir
could be exempt from takfir when it carries this usage (i.e., they are exempt from the ruling of
punishment until the proof is established against them).

“Allah undoubtedly made a distinction between what is before the Message and what is after it
in relation to asma and ahkam, and [also] combined between them,” Shaykhul-Islam ibn
Taymiyyah explained. “And that is proof against two sets of people: against those who said
actions are not good or obscene [before the Message], and those who said they are deserving
of punishment…” (ibid, vol. 20, p. 37).

And after mentioning that Allah described people before the coming of the Message with labels
such as dhalim, taghi, mufsid, he stated: “that indicates that actions are abhorrent and obscene
before the Messenger comes to them, [but] they are not deserving of the punishment except
after the Messenger comes to them due to His statement: ‘And We would not punish them until
We sent a messenger’. ” Then he (rahimahullah) said, “Thus the label of mushrik is affirmed
before the Message; for indeed, he commits shirk with his Lord and equates others with Him
and sets up with Him another object of worship and sets up rivals before the Messenger. Thus
these labels are established [before the Message]…but as for punishment, then no” (ibid, vol.
20, p. 38).

This methodology ibn Taymiyyah is outlining is based on observing the texts. Allah (ta‘ala) said,
narrating what Sulayman’s hūpoe said about Bilqis and her people, “I found her and her people
worshiping the sun instead of Allah…” A number of ayat later Allah (ta‘ala) labels them with kufr
saying, “And that which she used to worship besides Allah has prevented her [from tawhīd], for
she was from kafirin people” (an-Naml). So even though they were ignorant, they were still
kafirin mushrikin.
Displaying the implementation of this principle upon those who commit shirk while claiming to be
Muslim, ibn Taymiyyah speaks of those who seek from the dead what should only be sought
from Allah, like forgiveness and sustenance, etc. and that it is shirk forbidden by Allah and His
messenger and in opposition to the din of all the Messengers; in fact, it is the shirk which the
Messenger and his companions fought against. Then he says if the doers are excused due to
ignorance and the proof not having been established upon them, “those who believe in the
Messenger, when it is clarified to one of them the essence of what the Messenger brought, and
it is clarified that he is a mushrik, he repents to Allah and renews his islam…” Qa‘idah ‘Adhimah,
p. 70, Dar al-‘Asimah

So even though they were excused due to their ignorance and the proof not having been
established against them, they were still mushrikin as they were committing shirk with Allah. And
when speaking about grave-worshippers, their levels, and what they say and do, he stated:
“worse than that is his saying: forgive me, and I repent to you, like a group of the ignorant
mushrikin do” (Majmu’ al-Fatawa, vol. 1, p. 351).

Thus, although they are ignorant, they are mushrikin nonetheless. Moreover, when speaking
about the various degrees those who visit the graves fall into, he said, “the first of them: that he
asks him to fulfill a need, such as asking him to remove his illness or disease of his livestock, or
to eliminate his debt, or to avenge his enemies for him, or to protect himself, his family, and his
livestock, and similar to that for which no one has the ability to do except Allah (‘azza wa jall).
This is clear shirk. It is compulsory that whoever does so repents. He either repents or is killed”
(ibid, vol. 27, p. 72).

This could really go on and on for pages and pages. But this should be sufficient in order to at
least get an idea of the principle of Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. And it is this principle that
Imam ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhab and the ‘Early Najdiyyah’ followed.
The issue of not ruling by what Allah has revealed section 2

A translation and analysis of two controversial verdicts from Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah
regarding groups that fail to abide by laws of Islam.
One of his [Ibn Taymiyyah] controversial verdicts, or more precisely, three of
his controversial verdicts, have to do with the Mongols who invaded the
Levant beginning in December 1299. The invasion prompted panic and
confusion in the masses, with some writing to ibn Taymiyyah on what to do.
Consequently, over the span of time the Mongols threatened the Islamic
world, he released three verdicts known in English literature as the three
“anti-Mongol fatwas”. Therein, ibn Taymiyyah outlined the obligation to
fight such a group as the Mongols, and why that is so. The controversy
stems from the Mongols claiming to be Muslims at that time; in addition,
they have been, and still are, employed by contemporaries to show the
modern Arab regimes and other so-called Islamist groups are apostates
that should be fought. Thus to check the veracity of such usage, an accurate
translation of two of the verdicts will be presented and analyzed, allowing
the reader to judge for themselves, as well. On the whole, Western scholarship regarding ibn
Taymiyyah, and the “anti-Mongol fatwas” in particular, are woefully ignorant. One notable
exception is a paper entitled The Mongol Invasions of Bilād al-Shām by
Ghāzān Khān and Ibn Taymīyah’s Three “Anti-Mongol” Fatwas by Denise
Aigle. She paints the historical background in which the verdicts were
issued and does an excellent job of analyzing them, particularly the second of the three. What’s
interesting about the context of the verdicts is that not only did the Mongols claim to be Muslims
at the time, but their leader, Ghazan Khan, claimed to be a champion of Islam - none of which
fooled ibn Taymiyyah. She and others contend the first verdict issued in this sequence of events
happens to be the last in the sequence in which they are gathered in ibn Taymiyyah’s Majmu’
al-Fatawa (all three are found one after the other in volume 28: pp. 501-9; 509-43; 544-53).
What appears to this author, however, is the order of issuance is indeed the order they are
found in Majmu’ al-Fatawa, with the high likelihood of the third verdict being a summarized
version of the longer second. But apart from delineating the verdicts from each other (ex. the
first verdict; the second verdict; the third verdict), the dates are of little importance to the subject
matter. So to keep it simple, the method used herein is to follow the order in which the three
verdicts appear in Majmu’ al-Fatawa (the first verdict being pp. 501-9, etc). On the Arabic side of
things, it is arguably due to Usamah ibn Ladin’s
frequent references of ibn Taymiyyah that sparked renewed interest in the West. And before
him, a certain Muhammad ‘Abdus-Salam Faraj, a member of the group that assasinated Anwar
Sadat, peaked the interest of some Western academics with his work The Neglected Duty,
where he quotes at length from the second “anti-Mongol” verdict. Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah
also weighs heavily in the curriculum and writings of a certain state State, which partly relies on
these “anti-Mongol fatwas” in its fight against the modern Arab regimes and so-called Islamist
groups. All of this led Western, non-Muslim, scholars with their so-called moderate colleagues,
such as Michot and al-Qardawi, to attempt to “reclaim” ibn Taymiyyah from the “extremists”. As
absurd as that sounds, it was tried. And as alluded to above, by the end of this treatise we
should be able to tell who is closer to ibn Taymiyyah, at least in the regard of citing the
“anti-Mongol fatwas” in today’s context for religious backing and legitimacy. The translation of
the first and third verdict are found below, both of which are juridical in nature; while the second
verdict, half-judicial, half-historical, is left out due to its length and the third verdict having
captured its main points. Both verdicts are translations of its Arabic counterparts found in the
twenty eighth volume of Majmu’ al-Fatawa, the 1425/2004 edition, easily accessed online. The
first verdict can be found on
pages 501-9 and the third on pages 544-51, respectively.

Translation of Majmu’ al-Fatawa, pp. 501-9:

Q: What do the leading jurists of the din say about these Mongols who came in the year 699
and perpetrated the famous killing of Muslims, enslaved some of them, plundered any Muslim
they found, desecrated the sanctity of the din, humiliated the Muslims, disrespected and
debased the mosques - in particular in and around bayt al-maqdis (the mosque in Jerusalem) -
took the wealth of the Muslims and a large amount from the treasury (bayt al-mal), imprisoned
Muslim men and expelled them from their homes? Despite this, they claim to adhere to the two
testimonies of faith and that it is prohibited to fight against their army because of their assertion
they follow the foundation of Islam and thus are pardoned for the eradication of Muslims: is it
permissible or obligatory to fight them? And whichever one it is, from which aspect is it
permissible or obligatory? Please advise us.

He answered: All praise belongs to Allah. Every group that resists adhering to one of the
apparent and widespread (mutawatir) laws of Islam amongst these people (i.e., the Mongols) or
others must be fought until they abide by its laws, even if they pronounce the two testimonies of
faith and adhere to some of its laws, just as Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and the Companions (may Allah
be pleased with them) fought those who refused [to give] the zakah. The jurists after them
agreed upon this after ‘Umar’s previous debate with Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them
both). Thus the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) agreed on fighting over the
rights of Islam in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah. Likewise, the narrations of the
Khawārij have been proven on the authority of the Prophet (‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬from ten routes. He
reported that they are the worst of creation, along with his statement: “You will belittle your
prayer and fasting compared to theirs.” So it is known that merely clinging to Islam while not
adhering to its laws does not drop fighting; fighting is obligatory until the din, all of it, is for Allah
and until there is no more fitnah. Thus whenever the din is for other than Allah, fighting is
obligatory. Therefore, any group that abstains from some of the obligatory prayers or the fast [of
Ramadan] or the Hajj, or resists abiding by the prohibition regarding blood, wealth, alcohol,
adultery, gambling, and incest, or from adherence to jihad against the kuf ar or taking jizyah
from the People of the Book, and other obligations and prohibitions of the din no one has any
excuse to deny and leave, and where one who rejects their obligatory status disbelieves, then
the resisting group (at-taifah al-mumtani’ah) is fought on account of it, even if it acknowledges it.
And regarding this, I do not know of any disagreement amongst the scholars. Rather, the jurists
only differed over the resisting group if it insists on leaving some recommended acts, such as
the two rak’at of Fajr, the adhan and iqamah, for those who do not view it as obligatory, etc. Do
you fight the resisting group for leaving them or not? As for the obligations and prohibitions
mentioned before, there is no dispute about fighting over them. According to the best scholars,
they (i.e., the Mongols and other groups that fail to abide by a law or laws of Islam) are not like
the rebels (bughat) who break away from the leader or disobey him, such as the people of the
Levant with the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him).
They disobey a particular leader or splinter away from his rule. As for those mentioned, they are
outside of Islam in a similar status as those who resisted the zakah and the Khawārij whom ‘Ali
ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) fought. And because of this ‘Ali’s fight against the
people of Basrah and the Levant differed from his fighting the
people of Nahrwan. His relationship with the people of Basrah and the Levant was the
relationship of a brother with his brother, in contrast with the Khawārij. There are established
traditions from the Prophet (‫ (صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬supporting the consensus of the Companions
vis-à-vis the fighting of as-Siddiq [against those who resisted the zakah] and fighting the
Khawārij, unlike the fitnah that occurred with the people of Basrah and the Levant. The texts
prove what they prove (i.e., who was in the right), yet the Companions and their followers
differed. However, some of the leading jurists believe the rebels who should be fought are those
who secede from the leader with a valid interpretation, not those who disobeyed him; while
others considered both categories as rebels. In any case, there is a clear difference between
rebels and the Mongols. I do not know of any disagreement over the obligation to fight those
who do not adhere to the apparent and widespread (mutawatir) laws of Islam. Once this
principle is established, then these people being asked about, whose army includes kuf ar from
the Christians and mushrikin, alongside people affiliated with Islam, and they form the majority
of the army, who utter the two testimonies of faith if requested and exalt the Messenger: very
few of them pray, while those who fast Ramadan far outnumber those who pray; the Muslim is
valued more so than others, and the righteous Muslims are respected. They have some parts of
Islam with them, and they differ in relation to it; however, what the majority of them are upon,
and over which they fight, includes the abandonment of many laws of Islam, or even most of
them. First, they oblige Islam but do not fight whoever leaves it. Rather, whoever fights for the
Mongol state they honor and leave alone, even if he was a kafir enemy of Allah and His
messenger. And whoever rebels against the Mongol state they deem it permissible to fight him,
even if he was amongst the best of Muslims. They do not wage jihad against the kuffar, nor
humble and enforce the payment of jizyah from the People of the Book; they do not prohibit their
army from worshiping what they want, whether the sun, moon, or anything else. Rather, based
on what is apparent, the Muslim in their view is the just and righteous or someone who does
voluntary deeds amongst the Muslims, and the kafir, according to them, is the same as the fasiq
amongst the Muslims or someone who leaves voluntary deeds. Likewise, their commoners do
not prohibit the blood and wealth of the Muslims except if the ruler prohibits it from them, that is:
they do not adhere to leaving it. But if he forbids them from it or other things they obey him
because he is the ruler, not for the sake of the din. The majority of them do not adhere to the
performance of the obligations: not the prayers, nor the zakah, nor the Hajj, et al. They do not
commit to ruling amongst themselves by the ruling of Allah. Instead, they judge according to
their laws that agree with Islam at times and oppose it at other times. The only
one who adhered to the laws of Islam was Shezberoun, who displayed from the laws of Islam
what was common amongst the people. As for these, they entered it and did not abide by its
laws. Fighting this type of people is compulsory according to the consensus of the Muslims; and
those who know the din of Islam and the truth of their affairs would not doubt that. For indeed,
the state they are in and the din of Islam can never be joined together. If the Kurds, Bedouins
and others of the countryside who do not abide by the law of Allah must be fought, even if their
harm does not touch the people of the cities, then how about these people? Yes, one must
follow the legal path in his fight: from calling them to adhere to the laws of Islam if the call to
[abide by] the laws did not reach them, just as the belligerent kafir is first invited to the two
testimonies of faith if the call did not reach him. If the one who fights them does so from the
perfect angle, and it is the goal, vis-à-vis pleasing Allah, raising His word, establishing His din,
and obeying His messenger [then that is best. But if not, they should still be fought] even if there
are oppressors amongst them and those with corrupt intentions, fighting for leadership or to
infringe against them in some matters. The corruption of not fighting them is more harmful to the
din than fighting them in that manner. Likewise, it is necessary to fight them to ward off the
greater of the two evils by committing the lesser one. Indeed, this is one of the principles of
Islam that should be observed. For this reason,
amongst the principles of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah is fighting alongside every Muslim,
whether he be righteous or an open sinner. For verily, Allah will support this din with corrupt men
and people lacking ethics, as the Prophet (‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬informed us about. If fighting cannot
be fulfilled except alongside corrupt leaders or alongside an army who are mostly immoral, two
things must take place: either the abandonment of fighting with them, which necessitates the
conquest of others who are a larger harm in respect to the din and dunya, or fighting with the
corrupt leader, thereby repelling others and establishing most of Islam’s laws, even if it’s not
possible to establish all of them. This is what is required in this instance and everything similar
to it. In fact, much of the battles and conquests that took place after the Rightly-Guided
Successors (al-khulafa ar-rashidin) did not occur except in this way.
It’s proven on the authority of the Prophet (‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬that he said: “Good will remain tied to
the forehead of horses till the Day of Resurrection.” This authentic hadith further proves the
meaning of what Abu Dawud narrated in his book: “Fighting will continue from the time Allah
sent me until the last of my community fights the Dajjal. It will not be invalidated by the
oppression of the oppressor nor by the justness of the just.” And what was expounded upon
from his statement: “There will not cease to be a group of my community triumphant on the
truth; they will not be harmed by those who oppose them till the Day of Resurrection.” In
addition to the other texts that Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah, amongst all the groups, agreed to
act upon vis-à-vis waging jihad against those who deserve to be fought alongside the righteous
and corrupt leaders - in contrast to the Rafidah and Khawārij who left the sunnah and
community. This, even though he (‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬is reported to have said: “Verily, after me will
come leaders: whoever endorses their deceit and supports them in their oppression is not from
me nor I from them, and they will not meet me at the Pond (al-hawd). But whoever does not
endorse their lies and does not support them in their oppression, then he is from me and I am
from him, and he will meet me at the Pond." If a person comprehends what the Prophet (‫صلى هللا‬
‫( عليه وسلم‬commanded of jihad carried out with the leaders till the Day of Judgment, and what he
forbade in terms of aiding them in their oppression, he would know the moderate way, the pure
din of Islam, is waging jihad against those who are deserving, such as those people being
asked about, alongside every leader and group closest to Islam, if waging jihad against them is
only possible in such a manner, being careful to avoid helping them in any disobedience to
Allah. Rather, he obeys them in what is obedience to Allah and does not obey them in
disobedience to Allah, as there is no obedience to creation in disobedience to the Creator. This
is the path of the best of this community, past and present. And it is obligatory for every
duty-bearer (mukallaf). It is the middle path between the path of the Haruriyyah and their likes
who, due to a lack of knowledge, follow the path of corrupt piety, and between the path of the
Murjiah and
their likes who follow the path of complete obedience to the leaders, even if they are not
righteous. We ask Allah to help us and our Muslim brothers in what He loves and is pleased with
from statements and actions. And Allah knows best. May the peace and blessings of Allah
descend upon our prophet, his family, and his companions.
Analyzing the First Verdict
This is the most common of three verdicts and in all likelihood, as mentioned previously, the first
issued after the Mongol aggression in the Levant. It is important to note ibn Taymiyyah was not
asked: is it permissible to fight the Mongols? The permissible status was a given. Instead, he
was asked whether it is simply allowed or compulsory; said another way: is it sinful to not fight
them? The general themes in his reply consist of:

(1) stressing the obligation to fight such a group as the Mongols;

(2) defining the resisting group (taifah mumtani‘ah), and how the Mongols fall into that category;

(3) outlining the difference between rebels (bughat) and the taifah mumtani‘ah;

(4) the mention of a principle amongst

Ahlus-Sunnah regarding jihad and fighting alongside leaders

Ibn Taymiyyah opens his answer by establishing a legal rule. This rule states it is compulsory to
fight “every group that resists adhering to one of the apparent and widespread laws of Islam…
even if they pronounce the two testimonies of faith.” Highlight every, because with that it is
evident his verdict applies outside the Mongol context if the shoe fits, contradicting those who
contend otherwise. He emphasizes this with his statement: “amongst these people (i.e., the
Mongols) or others,” and again a few lines later: “any group.” His proof behind this principle is
the agreement of the Sahabah to fight those who refused to give the zakah and the narrations
concerning the obligation to fight the Khawārij, both in accordance to the injunction in the Quran:
“Fight them until there is no more fitnah and the din is completely for Allah” (8:39), a verse he
doesn’t mention in this verdict, but does in the third. To help clarify what this type of group looks
like he gives practical examples: abstaining from the establishment of the prayer or any of the
pillars of Islam; failure to abstain from agreed upon prohibitions like usury and alcohol; failure to
adhere to agreed upon obligations like jihad against the kufar and enforcing the jizyah, are just a
few examples of what makes a group a taifah mumtani‘ah and compulsory to fight. “Regarding
this,” ibn Taymiyyah says of the obligation to fight the taifah mumtani‘ah, “I do not know of any
disagreement amongst the scholars.” And throughout his answer he emphasizes that the
obligatory status to fight such a group is agreed upon, stating at one point: “Fighting this type of
people is compulsory according to the consensus of the Muslims; and those who know the din
of Islam and the truth of their affairs would not doubt this.” Next he clarifies this type of group is
not fought like how rebels are fought; instead they are fought as the Khawārij and those who
refused to
give the zakah were fought. In Islamic law, rebels are defined as “a group of Muslims that rebel
against a legitimate leader due to a valid interpretation. They do not become kuffar merely for
rebelling because they did not rebel except with a valid interpretation; they are not even deemed
sinful according to some scholars” (ibn ‘Uqla). The designation is important due to the
jurisprudence related to both: rebels are only fought if they begin fighting after efforts to
reconcile have been employed; their dead are washed and buried with the Muslims; their
fighters who flee in the course of battle are not pursued; their wounded are not killed; and their
women and children are not enslaved. The opposite applies for the taifah mumtani‘ah. Many
opined, erroneously, that ibn Taymiyyah viewed the Mongols as Khawārij due to him likening the
way they are fought to the Khawārij. This has caused confusion vis-à-vis ibn Taymiyyah’s ruling
on the Mongols because of the difference of opinion found amongst the Salaf regarding the
Khawārij: are they apostates or not? The Sahabah did not consider the Khawārij to be
apostates, while they did consider those who refused to give the zakah as apostates. Ibn
Taymiyyah speaks about this and both groups in the longer of the three verdicts. There he gives
the Khawārij ‘Ali fought a distinct category, saying, The speech of ‘Ali and others regarding the
Khawārij indicates they are not kuffar apostates from the foundation of Islam. And this is
reported from the leading scholars such as Ahmad and other than him. But their ruling is not like
the ruling of the people of the Camel and Siffin. Rather, they are a third category. This is the
most correct of the three opinions regarding them. Thus the Khawārij ‘Ali fought have their own
category. The category the Mongols fall under is the category of those who resist abiding by a
law of Allah like the payment of zakah and, as he will mention in the coming verdict, the
prohibition of usury. To make this clear, that is, are the Mongols Muslims or not? he says about
them: “the state they are in and the din of Islam can never be joined together,” indicating they
are apostates. The fact that he likens them to the Khawārij is only to draw attention to the
obligation to fight such a group. Because if the Khawārij were fought, even though their prayer
and fasting trumped the prayer and fasting of the Sahabah, then what of those, like the
Mongols, who are much worse than them? The obligation to fight them is greater. Alluding to the
fact fighting alongside the Mamluks, even if some of them are fighting for power amongst
themselves, is the lesser of the two harms in the face of not fighting the Mongols, ibn Taymiyyah
highlights a principle of Ahlus-Sunnah: fighting alongside Muslim leaders even if they are
corrupt. Thus for Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, refraining from fighting apostates is a greater
evil (mafsadah) than fighting with corrupt leaders, in contrast to popular opinion today. He
highlights fighting will continue until the Day of Judgment and that there will always remain a
group from the community of Muhammad (‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬fighting for the truth. “This,”
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah says in closing and is worth reflecting over, “is the path of the
best of this community, past and present. And it is obligatory for every duty-bearer (mukallaf). It
is the middle path between the path of the Haruriyyah and their likes who, due to a lack of
knowledge, follow the path of corrupt piety, and between the path of the Murjiah and their likes
who follow the path of complete obedience to the leaders, even if they are not righteous.” It is no
wonder various scholars applied this verdict to modern realities. Not due to a failure to
understand the context, but for precisely the opposite: understanding the context in which they
were issued. The similarity between the Mongols in ibn Taymiyyah’s time and the regimes in the
Muslim world today are striking: they refrain from implementing some or most laws of Islam;
they do not wage jihad against the kufar, instead allying and fighting with them against Muslims;
they do not enforce the jizyah on the People of the Book within their states, nor force apostates
to repent, instead making the Muslim and kafir equal in status. All these points and others ibn
Taymiyyah mentioned found with the Mongols, whom he stressed it is necessary to fight to
remove their evil, are found with modern
regimes.
Translation of Majmu’ al-Fatawa, pp. 544-51

Q: He (may Allah have mercy on and be pleased with him) was asked about soldiers who
refrain from fighting the Mongols, claiming that amongst them are [Muslims] who have been
forced to go out [and fight], and if one of them flees [from battle], should he be pursued or not?

He answered: All praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of creation. Fighting the Mongols who came
to Sham is compulsory according to the Book and Sunnah. Allah says in the Quran: “Fight them
until there is no more sedition (fitnah) and the din is completely for Allah” (8:39). “The din” here
means obedience (ta’ah). Thus if some of the din is for Allah while some is given to other than
Allah, fighting is obligatory until the din is completely for Allah. This is why Allah (‫( جل جالله‬said:
“O believers! Fear Allah, and give up outstanding usury (riba) if you are believers. If you do not,
then beware of a war with Allah and His messenger!” (2:278-9). This verse was concerning the
people of Ta’if when they entered Islam and committing themselves to prayer and fasting, but
refrained from leaving usury. Allah clarified they are warring against Him and His messenger if
they do not stop dealing in usury. Usury was the last thing forbidden by Allah, and it is money
taken with the consent of its owner. So if it is compulsory to wage jihad against those people
hostile to Allah and His messenger, then what of those who abandon many laws of Islam, or
most of them, like the Mongols? Muslim scholars have agreed that if the resisting group
(at-taifah al-mumtani’ah) abstains from some of the apparent and widely accepted duties of
Islam, then it must be fought. If they pronounce the two testimonies of faith yet abstain from
prayer, zakah, fasting the month of Ramadan, the Hajj to the Ancient House, or from ruling
between themselves by the Book and Sunnah, or from the prohibition of immorality (fawahish),
alcohol, incest, or they permit taking life and wealth without right, usury, gambling, or [abstains]
from jihad against the kuf ar, or enforcing the jizyah on the People of the Book, and so on from
the laws of Allah, then verily, they are fought over it until the din is completely for Allah. It’s
established in the two books of authentic narrations that when ‘Umar debated Abu Bakr over
those who resisted [giving] the zakah, Abu Bakr said to him: “How can I not fight those who
abandon the rights Allah and His messenger enjoined, even if he embraced Islam, such as
zakah? Indeed, zakah is its (i.e., wealth) right. By Allah, if they prevent me from a rope that they
used to give to the Messenger of Allah (‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬I will fight them for withholding it.” “By
Allah,” ‘Umar said, “as soon as I saw that Allah had opened the chest of Abu Bakr to fight, I
knew it was right.” And it is established in the authentic book of narrations from multiple routes
that the Prophet (‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬mentioned the Khawārij and said: “You will belittle your prayer,
fasting, and recitation compared to theirs. They recite the Quran yet it does not go beyond their
throats. They will pass through Islam as an arrow passes through prey. Kill them whenever you
meet them, for indeed, in killing them is a reward with Allah on the Day of Resurrection. If I were
to meet them, I would kill them as ‘Ad was killed.” The Salaf and leading scholars agreed to fight
them. The first to fight them was the Commander of the Faithful, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be
pleased with him), and the Muslims continued fighting [them] in the days of the Umayyad and
‘Abbasid caliphates alongside the leaders, even if they were oppressive; al-Hajjaj and his
deputies were [even] among those who fought them. All the leading scholars of the Muslims
order to fight them. However, the Mongols and their likes are greater in terms of deviations from
the law of Islam than those who resisted [paying] the zakah, the Khawārij, and from the people
of Ta’if, those who abstained from abandoning usury. So whoever doubts vis-à-vis fighting them
is the most ignorant of people of the din of Islam. When it is compulsory to fight them, they
should be fought even if there are those under compulsion amongst them by the agreement of
the Muslims. “O Messenger of Allah! I was forced to come!” al-‘Abbas said when captured on
the Day of Badr. “Your outward appearance was against us,” the Prophet (‫صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬
(replied. “As for what lies inside, it is for Allah [to judge].” The scholars agreed that if the army of
kuf ar uses Muslim prisoners of war as human shields and the Muslims fear harm if they do not
fight, then they should be fought even if that leads to the killing of the Muslim human shields.
But if the Muslims don’t fear harm, then there are two famous views of the scholars vis-à-vis the
permissibility of fighting if it leads to the killing of those Muslims. In any case, if those Muslims
are killed, they are considered martyrs (shuhada), and the obligatory jihad is not left for the sake
of someone who, if killed, is a martyr. Indeed, if the Muslims fight the kuffar, whoever is killed
amongst the Muslims is a martyr, and whoever is killed for the benefit of Islam while not
deserving to be killed, he is also a martyr. It is established from the Prophet (‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬in
the two books of authentic narrations (i.e., Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) that he said: “An
army from the people will attack this house (i.e., the Ka’bah), but when it reaches the desert all
of them will be swallowed by the earth.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah! And if some of them
are forced?” “They will be resurrected based on their intentions,” he said. So if the punishment
Allah inflicted on the attacking army hit those under compulsion and those not, then what of the
punishment Allah inflicts them with through the hands of the believers, as Allah (‫( جل جالله‬said:
“Say, “Are you waiting for anything to befall us except one of the two best things: [victory or
martyrdom]? But we are awaiting Allah to afflict you with a torment either from Him or at our
hands” (9:52). We do not know who is under compulsion, and we do not have the ability to
differentiate. So if we kill them by Allah’s command, we would be rewarded and excused, and
they would be raised based on their intentions. Thus whoever was forced with no ability to
resist, he will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection based on his intentions. If he is killed
for the sake of establishing the din, that would not be greater than the killing of the Muslim
soldier. But if one of them escapes and runs away, some people make the fight against them
equal to fighting rebels with a [valid] interpretation. [A question is,] if it was a resisting group, is it
permissible to pursue the one who flees, kill their captives, and finish off their wounded? The
scholars have two famous views. Some said it should not be done because the caller of ‘Ali ibn
Abi Talib called out on the Day of the Camel: “Do not follow one who flees, nor finish off the
wounded, nor kill the captive.” Others said it can be done because there was no resisting group
on the Day of the Camel, and the purpose of the fighting was to repel them. So when they were
repelled, there was no need for that, like the case of repelling an armed robber; and it was
reported that on the Day of the Camel and Siffin their situation was different from that. So
whoever considers them (i.e., the Mongols) amongst those with a valid interpretation, applies
these two views to them. However, what’s correct is that they are not amongst the rebels with a
valid interpretation because their interpretation has no basis. Rather, they are amongst the
category of the rogue Khawārij, those who resisted the zakah, the people of Ta’if, the
Khurramites, and their likes, who fought based on what they left from the laws of Islam. This
issue has confused many jurists. Those who wrote on “fighting the rebels” made the fight
against those who resisted the zakah, the fight against the Khawārij, ‘Ali’s fight against the
people of Basrah, and his fighting against Mu‘awiyah and his followers, all part of the command
to fight the rebels; and they subdivided the matters based on that, according to those who held
that view. However, they were mistaken. Rather, what is correct is what the leading scholars of
hadith and the sunnah and the people of the Prophet’s City are upon, such as al-Awza‘i,
ath-Thawri, Malik, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, et al., in differentiating between this and that. ‘Ali’s
fighting the Khawārij is established by clear texts from the Prophet (‫ صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬,(with the
agreement of the Muslims. As for the fighting on the Day of the Camel, etc., the Companions did
not agree. In fact, some of the greatest Companions shunned it, such as Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas,
Muhammad ibn Maslamah, Usamah ibn Zayd, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, et al., and there was no one
after ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib in the armies better than Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas. The authentic narrations
from the Prophet (‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬stipulate that it was necessary to reconcile between the two
groups, not fight against each other, as proven in Sahih al-Bukhari when he gave a talk to the
people and said: “This son of mine is a leader that Allah will allow to reconcile between two
noble groups of believers.” Thus Allah reconciled the people of Iraq and the people of Sham
with al-Hasan. The Prophet (‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬considered the reconciliation through him one of the
merits of al-Hasan, with the fact al-Hasan relinquished the matter and handed the affair to
Mu‘awiyah. So if fighting was commanded without leaving the khilafah and reconciling with
Mu‘awiyah, the Prophet (‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬would not praise abandoning what was ordered and
doing what he did not command, nor would he have commended him for leaving what was
better and doing what was lesser. Thus it is known the action of al-Hasan was what was
beloved to Allah and His messenger; and it was not fighting. It is established in Sahih
[al-Bukhari] that the Prophet (‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬placed al-Hasan and Usamah on his lap saying: “O
Allah! I love them, so love them and whoever loves them.”
(side note: This is actually the wording found with at-Tirmidhi; al-Bukhari has the same wording
minus the ending “and whoever loves them”.)

The effect of the love of Allah’s messenger (‫ (صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬was evident when they hated to fight
in the fitnah. Indeed, Usamah abstained from fighting either of the two groups; likewise with
al-Hasan who constantly advised ‘Ali not to fight. And when the matter came to him, he did what
he advised his father to do, may Allah be pleased with them all. It’s also established from him
(‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬in Sahih [Muslim] that he said: “A rogue group will appear when there is
dissension amongst the Muslims. The closer of two groups to the truth will fight it.” This rogue
group was the Khawārij, and ‘Ali fought them. This is confirmed by the rest of the narrations
which command to fight the Khawārij, and it is clear that fighting them is what Allah and His
messenger love and that those who fought with ‘Ali were closer to the truth than Mu‘awiyah and
his followers. Even though they were closer to the truth, the Prophet (‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬did not
command fighting one of the two groups as he did with the Khawārij. Rather, he praised
reconciliation between them It’s proven from the Prophet (‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬that fighting in times of
strife is disliked and cautioned from it. Amongst those authentic narrations is his statement:
“There will come strive where the sitting is better than the standing and the standing better than
the walking and the walking better than the running.” And he said: “A time will come where the
best wealth of a Muslim will be sheep which he takes to the top of mountains and valleys,
fleeing with his din from the strife.” Strife is like the wars between Muslim leaders and groups,
although each group adheres to the laws of Islam, as what happened with the people of the
Camel and Siffin: they only fought due to confusion and matters that arose. As for fighting the
Khawārij, the resistors of zakah, and the people of Ta’if who did not forbid usury, they are fought
until they enter into the established laws from the Prophet (‫صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬.( Thus if they are a
resisting group, there is no doubt it is permissible to kill their captives, pursue those who flee,
and finish off their wounded. If these people are residing in their lands as they are, the Muslims
should go to their lands to fight them until the din is completely for Allah. Indeed, these Mongols
do not fight over the din of Islam; they fight people until they enter into their obedience. So
whoever obeys them is left alone, even if he was a mushrik, Christian, or Jew; and whoever
does not, they take as an enemy, even if he were amongst the prophets and righteous. Allah
commanded the Muslims to fight His enemies, the kuf ar, and to ally with His believing servants.
And thus it is obligatory for the Muslims amongst the armies of Sham, Egypt, Yemen, and the
Maghrib, all of them, to cooperate in fighting the kuf ar and not to fight each other merely for
leadership and whims. So the least these Mongols can do is fight the kuffar amongst them and
refrain from fighting the Muslims and to cooperate while fighting the kuffar. No one fights
alongside them (i.e., the Mongols) without compulsion except a fasiq, or an innovator, or a
zindiq, such as the heretic Qaramitah the Rafidah, and the Jahmiyyah amongst the Pantheists;
and their blind followers amongst those who affiliate to knowledge and din are worse than them.
Indeed, the Mongols are ignorant, blind following whoever they think well of. And because of
their misguidance, they follow the misguidance that lies against Allah and His messenger,
substituting the din of Allah, not forbidding what Allah and His messenger forbade, and not
adhering to the din of truth. And if I were to describe everything I know about them, the
discussion would be prolonged. In sum, their path (madhhab) and the din of Islam cannot be
combined. And if they displayed the upright din of Islam, the one He sent His messenger with,
they would have been guided and obeyed: like the victorious group (at-taifah al-mansurah). It’s
established from the Prophet ( ‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬that he said: “There will always be a group
amongst my community triumphant upon truth; they will not be harmed by those who oppose
them nor by those who betray them till the establishment of the Hour.” And it’s established from
him in Sahih [Muslim] that he said: “The people of the maghrib will always continue to be
triumphant.”... The Prophet (‫( صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬said this while in the Prophetic City, so what lies
west to it is the maghrib, such as Sham and Egypt, and what lies east to it is the mashriq, such
as the Jazirah and ‘Iraq. Thus the Salaf would call the people of Sham: the people of the
maghrib, and they would call the people of Iraq: the people of the east (mashriq). What I
mentioned in this of narrations and legal evidence is elaborated
on elsewhere. And Allah knows best.
Analyzing the Third Verdict

As mentioned previously, this is likely to have come after the first verdict. It also appears that it
is either a summarized version of the longest of the three “anti-Mongol” verdicts, that being the
second, as in the latter he expounds on the same points herein. Herein, the question revolves
around the Mamluk soldiers who were taken captive and forced to fight. Moreover, the question
surrounds what to do in the event the Mongol army flees from battle: should they be pursued or
allowed to flee? If they are simply Muslim rebels, they would not be pursed; but if they are
considered outside the fold of Islam, they would not be given that privilege. Shaykhul-Islam ibn
Taymiyyah answers by relating the legal rule vis-à-vis groups that resist aspects of Islamic law:
that they must be fought until they comply with the laws of Islam. In addition to the two
examples mentioned in the first verdict, he mentions a third historic group that fits within this
mold: the people of Ta’if who did not adhere to forbiddance of usury. According to ibn
Taymiyyah, fighting such groups is compulsory according to the consensus of Muslim scholars.
On top of that, the Mongols are much worse and resist more than one law of Islam; so the
obligation to fight them is greater, and only someone ignorant has any doubts about that, says
ibn Taymiyyah. If that is so, what of the scholar who legitimizes this type of group and wars
against those who carry out the obligation of fighting them? “Their blind followers amongst those
who affiliate to knowledge and din are worse than them,” that is, worse than the Mongols
themselves, as they should know and act better, ibn Taymiyyah relates later in his answer.
Having established this legal principle, ibn Taymiyyah addresses the crux of the matter: those
Mamluk soldiers forced to fight alongside the Mongols. He states the obligation to fight is not
suspended due to the possible presence of forced soldiers in the opponent's camp, citing the
incident of al-‘Abbas in the battle of Badr and that this position is according to consensus. To
further prove this, he mentions the issue of human shields (tatarrus) and how the scholars
agreed the enemy is still fought even with the presence of Muslims used as human shields.
Tatarrus made it into the vocabulary of Western scholars’ writings when Abu Yahya, a leading
scholar for al-Qa‘idah in the time of Usamah ibn Ladin, released an essay regarding the subject.
In sum, those forced to fight and those used as human shields, if killed during the rage of battle,
are considered martyrs, and the obligatory fight is not nullified due simply to the possible death
of people considered martyrs if killed. What this shows is the establishment of Islamic laws, or
the lack of the establishment of Islamic laws, warrants the shedding of blood and that the
sanctity of the din is given precedence over the sanctity of the self. And so, ibn Taymiyyah
relates, since there is no ability to investigate who is forced and who is not, judgement should
be based on
what is apparent and the fight should continue until the din is solely for Allah. Like in the
previous verdict, ibn Taymiyyah makes it a point to clarify the difference between bughat and the
taifah mumtani‘ah. And the reason he stresses the difference is because the issue had become
confusing to people, including many scholars. As ibn Taymiyyah said above: This issue has
confused many jurists. Those who wrote on “fighting the rebels” made the fight against those
who resisted the zakah, the fight against the Khawārij, ‘Ali’s fight against the people of Basrah,
and his fighting against Mu‘awiyah and his followers, all part of the command to fight the
rebels… However, they were mistaken. Rather, what is correct is what the leading scholars of
hadith and the sunnah and the people of the Prophet’s City are upon, such as al-Awza‘i,
ath-Thawri, Malik, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, et al., in differentiating between this and that. “Thus if they
are a resisting group, there is no doubt it is permissible to kill their captives, pursue those who
flee, and finish off their wounded,” he says after mentioning some proof for the differentiation.
He even states the Muslims should initiate the fight against them in their lands “until the din is
completely for Allah.” And this is all because the taifah mumtani‘ah, and therefore the Mongols,
are treated as belligerents (muharibun), not rebels. Ibn Taymiyyah reprimands the Mongols
sharply for not fighting for the sake of the din of Allah, but for power instead, similar to modern
regimes who fight over their communitys’ interests and not over the din of Allah. “In sum,” ibn
Taymiyyah concludes, “their path (madhhab) and the din of Islam cannot be combined,”
clarifying once more he considered the Mongols as disbelievers. Closing in a similar manner as
the first, he reminds there will remain a group from the community of Muhammad (‫صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬
(fighting for the truth, and that those who fight groups like the Mongols are the most deserving of
that honorific title: the victorious group (taifah mansurah).

Conclusions

1. Any group that does not abide by an obvious ruling of Islam, not
solely a pillar of Islam like zakah, should be fought until the din is
completely for Allah, by consensus of Muslim scholars.
2. It is not a condition that the resisting group reject the obligation or
prohibition of whatever clear ruling/s they fail to abide by.
3. There is a stark difference between a resisting group and Muslim
rebels.
4. The resisting group is considered an apostate group, in contrast to
Muslims rebels.
5. Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah considered not fighting apostate
groups a greater evil than fighting with corrupt leaders. Said
another way: given the options of fighting with a corrupt leader or
not fighting, fighting with a corrupt leader is the lesser of two evils.
6. The cause that warranted fighting the Mongols, which is resistance
to abide by clear Islamic laws and rulings, is present in the modern
Arab regimes and so-called Islamist groups in the Islamic world.
7. There will always be a Muslim group fighting for the truth, and
those who fight groups that resist abiding by aspects of Islamic law
are the most deserving to have the narrations of the Prophet (‫(صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬
concerning the taifah mansurah apply to them.
8. Fighting apostate groups with any Muslim leader is from the
methodology of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah.
9. Amongst the characteristics of the Murjiah is uncritical obedience to
rulers, even if they are corrupt.
Between following the evidences and blind following the scholars

Shaykh Sulayman Al Alwan as asked (refer to Bayna Itba' ad-Dalil wa Taqlid al-Aimmah)
“What is the ruling concerning two who differ in a fiqh matter? Is it right of every individual to
take the words of the imam of his madhhab, or should they research the matter and look into the
evidences? Inform us of the ruling, and may Allah reward you greatly.”

So I answered them: If there isn’t any clear evidence in a matter and the ruling of a matter is
based on ijtihad, then it is on the Muslim to follow the one whom he thinks is the most
knowledgeable and pious from the people, and there is no blame on him if he does that. As for
the matter where there is evidence, then it is not allowed for a Muslim to take the words of his
imam if those words go against the evidence. Instead, it is on him to leave the words of his
imam, whoever he may be, if the evidence has reached him, and this is obligatory on the entire
creation. Indeed, the words of the scholars are in need of evidence and not vice a versa. For the
words of the scholars help to understand the texts and explain the matters and so forth. As for
the words of the scholars being an authority over the words of Allah and His messenger, then
none of the scholars have ever stated this. Instead, this goes against the Quran, the Sunnah,
and the consensus of the Muslimin, since Allah has commanded us to follow His Book and to
obey His messenger in many places in the Quran. Allah has said:

…and obey Allah and the Messenger so that you may receive mercy.”

And Allah said:

“Say: Obey Allah and obey the Messenger.”

And Allah said:

“Let those who contradict his orders beware lest a trial or a painful punishment befall them.”

And Allah said:

“O you who believe! Obey Allah and His messenger, and do not turn away from him while you
are able to hear. And do not be like those who say: ‘We have heard,’ but they do not hear.
Verily! The worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and the dumb, those who
do not understand.”

The scholars (rahimahumullah) used to advise their students not to blindly follow. Instead they
made it binding on them to take the evidence since this is what is obligatory and a must for all
the Muslimin. So if the evidence reaches someone then he must follow that evidence and leave
whatever opposes that evidence. Allah has said: ْ

“Follow what has been sent down unto you from your Lord, and do not follow any protectors
besides Him. Little do you remember.”
And Allah even bore witness to the guidance of the one who obeys His messenger, as is
mentioned in surah an-Nur:

“And if you obey him you will be guided.”

So whoever leaves the evidences for the words of Abu Hanifah or Malik or ash-Shafi‘i or
Ahmad, then he has gone against a principle that the Muslimin have all gathered upon. Imam
ash-Shafi‘i (rahimahullahu ta‘ala) stated:

“The Muslimun have all agreed that if a sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) has
reached someone, it is not befitting that he leave it for the saying of anyone.”

And Imam Malik (rahimahullahu ta‘ala), said:

“There is no one after the Prophet (sallallahu allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), except that their words
may be accepted or rejected.”

As for those who are fanatics in following the imam of the particular madhhab, then this goes
against the guidance of the predecessors, and is in opposition to what the aimmah of those
madhahib were upon – since they were all agreed upon the dispraise of blind following and
fanaticism. Verily, it is obligatory on the Muslim to go with the evidence, whether it be with the
Maliki school, or the Hanafi school, or the Shafi‘i school, or the Hanbali school, or the Dhahiri
school, or any other school. As Allah did not confine the truth to any of these madhahib, since
the scholars of these schools were men, who were capable of being correct and also making
mistakes. They were not infallible from mistakes and errors. Imam ash-Shafi‘i (rahimahullah)
said:

“There is no one among us who has not had a sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu
‘alayhi wa sallam) elude him or have one slip his mind; so no matter what rulings I have made or
fundamental principles I have proposed, there will be in them things contrary to rulings of the
Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). Therefore, the correct ruling is according to
what the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, and that is my ruling.”

Verily, the scholars (rahimahumullah) have disputed on many matters in the din. From the
rulings concerning purification, salah, zakah, fasting, hajj, selling, divorce, dhihar (saying to
one’s wife that she is like the back of his mother), and other things. While none of these
scholars, who were firm in knowledge, ever said that it was allowed for every individual to take
from where he pleases, concerning the different schools, without looking into the evidence, the
exception being the blind follower who is not able to research into the evidences. If it was
permitted for every Muslim to follow his desires and pick and choose from all these different
opinions and sayings, then the din would be made up of these various schools of thought, and
the Book and the Sunnah would be of little benefit. And we seek refuge with Allah from this!
So I say that which all the Muslimin have agreed upon: that it is obligatory to take all matters of
dispute back to the Book and the Sunnah, according to the understanding of the scholars of the
early generation, looking into their words, and into their reasonings behind certain decisions on
matters after looking into the evidences. For example, the scholars have disputed on the
matters of what nullifies your purification. Like eating camel meat, touching a woman without
sexual contact, and things that exit the body from other than the two private areas. For some
have said that these things that exit nullify your purification and at the same time are impure.
Verily, every imam had a saying about these matters. Concerning the eating of camel meat,
Malik, Abu Hanifah, and ash-Shafi‘i, were of the opinion that it does not nullify your purification.
But, on the other hand, Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) was of the opinion that it did. And this was
also what ibn Hazm preferred. The correct opinion concerning this, is the madhhab of Imam
Ahmad, since there are two authentic ahadith from the Prophet that prove that the eating of
camel meat nullify your purification. One of them is the hadith of Jabir ibn Samurah in Sahih
Muslim, and the other is the hadith of al-Bara collected by Abu Dawood, at-Tirmidhi, and others.

As for the touching of the women or embracing or similar to this, then Imam ash-Shafi‘i was of
the opinion that touching a woman nullifies your purification whether it is with passion or not.
And Abu Hanifah was of the opinion that unconditional touching does not nullify your
purification. And Malik and Ahmad in one narration were of the opinion that it does not nullify
your purification except with passion. Thus for the one who examines the various evidences in
this matter will find that the Hanafi school is the closest to the correct opinion. And in one
narration, this opinion is also accredited to Imam Ahmad and is also the preference of
Shaykhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. Since there has not reached us any evidence that is
authoritative in proving that touching nullifies the purification whether with passion or without. So
in the absence of evidence, we return to the origin which is that the purification is not nullified.
And the madhhab of Abu Hanifah is clearer on this issue than the other schools, since it has
been narrated to us that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) kissed his wives, left to the
salah, and he did not make wudu. While, at the same time, it is not narrated to us that it was
with or without passion. Even though there is some problem with the authenticity of this hadith.
It was narrated by Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi, and ibn Majah, by the way of Waki’, on the authority
of al-A’mash, on the authority of Hubayb ibn Abi Thabit, on the authority of ‘Urwah, on the
authority of ‘Aishah, but there is deficiency in it, as Hubayb did not hear it from ‘Urwah. But there
are other ahadith that are authentic concerning this matter. And Allah knows best.

As for the things that exit from the body like blood and other things, then the madhhab of Imam
Ahmad says that these things nullify your purification. But the madhhab of Imam ash-Shafi‘i
says that any of these absolutely do not nullify your purification; and this is the correct opinion,
which is also supported by Imam Malik and in one narration from Imam Ahmad. And this is the
conclusion that ibn Taymiyyah and many others came to, since there is no evidence that
anything which exits from your body, other than the two private areas, nullifies your purification.

So these examples that I gave, are to show that the truth is not limited to a specific scholar,
group, or school of thought. Verily, the Muslim is not commanded to follow and stick to a specific
school of thought. Instead, he should seek out the truth, as every school of thought is correct in
some things, and mistaken in others, as the school of the Hanabilah are correct in many rulings
in the matters of this din, likewise the Shafi‘iyyah, the Malikiyyah, and the Ahnaf. While, at the
same time, Imam ibn Hazm was alone in some of his opinions which actually are the correct
opinion.

Many of the scholars differed due to the availability of the evidences, distinguishing between the
authentic and the weak, between the things that abrogate and are abrogated, and between the
unconditional and the specific. So the one who is in the right follows the one who has the truth
with him without being biased. Likewise he opposes the mistakes without slandering or
defaming someone’s person, or putting him at a low level, since these scholars were striving to
reach the correct opinion, and whether they were correct or incorrect, they will be rewarded
either way. So after this, it is not obligatory on anyone to follow one of these scholars. And
whoever thinks this has strayed far away from the correct path. Verily, it is not obligatory to
follow anyone except the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), since his saying is
all truth and he does not speak from his own desire. As for any others from the scholars and the
aimmah of the various schools of thought, then we don’t take from their words except what
agrees with the truth. And this is a serious matter that none deem important except the one who
wishes to be guided and save his soul from falling into evil. How many are the ones who claim
to have knowledge and are busy writing, except that they are fanatics headed for destruction,
and blind followers. They are angered by those who go against their particular imam but are not
angered by those who go against the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. So
the correct one is he who makes the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His messenger the ruling
over all sayings. Even if those who disagree, disagree with him and accuse him of heresy.

Indeed, it has become a common practice of those who blindly follow and are fanatics, to label
those who differ with them as heretics and astray. And this is the status of every liar, and the
one who is a deviant from the truth and the straight path, since when he is unable to provide the
proof and the evidence he resorts to these types of tactics. Verily, there is evidence in the Book
of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), that the truth will have
many enemies fighting against it, trying to prevent it from being manifest. They come with
various molds that support their intellects, and satisfy their desires. For the person on the truth,
he should put all his efforts into it so as not to be shaken away from this truth that he is on. He
should call others to this truth and Allah will provide him with help and support. And he will
remain victorious as long as he is trying to give victory to the din and the truth, with full sincerity
to Allah and there will not cease to be aid from Allah as long as he stays on this way. Allah has
said:

“As for those who strive hard for Us, We will surely guide them to Our paths. And verily, Allah is
with the muhsinun.”

Allah has also said:

“O you who believe! If you help [in the cause of] Allah, He will help you, and make your foothold
firm.”
And whoever Allah helps then that is indeed enough against the evil of His enemies. But the
help will not come until there are first two things:

Sincerity to Allah in both sayings and actions.

In accordance with the guidance of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam).
So if these two conditions are met then nothing can oppose him, even if they were to all come
together from the east and the west. Allah has said:

“If Allah helps you, none can overcome you; and if He forsakes you, who is there after Him that
can help you? And in Allah [alone] let believers put their trust.”
We believe solely in Allah and disbelieve in international law

Resorting to what is called “international law” from the calls that are echoed by some politicians,
is intended to mean resorting to man-made laws the West created in order to impose its political
hegemony and intellectual vision on the peoples of the world. And because of the widespread
circulation of the term in the media, some Muslims – with extreme regret – use this term without
realizing its serious creedal implications and dimensions. And it has increased recently after the
criminal court ruling on the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Thus we are pleased
to present this detailed study to clarify the truth of these astray lawsuits, and the legal position
towards them.

One of the most dangerous things Muslims suffer from today is what their enemies from the
unbelievers and hypocrites do of misleading and misguiding to the point this has become one of
the prominent features of our contemporary reality. The seriousness of this matter has reached
the extent to which some of the people of knowledge have been deceived, as well as the
general public and masses, by what the wolves in sheep’s clothing do in terms of manipulation
of terms and overturning facts and presenting them in decorative molds, putting them in various
media with intensity and repetition until the ears become normalized with them and repeated by
many Muslim children – sometimes out of malice and other times out of ignorance and neglect.

What increased the danger was the negligence of many scholars to confront these ambiguities,
many of which affect the core of ‘aqidah, the pillars of tawhid, and the ummah’s identity and
character. If the scholars do not fulfill their duty to remove this confusion and clarify the path of
the criminals, there will be sedition on earth and great corruption.

Among the dangerous kufri terms the international media use, followed by many media outlets
in Islamic countries who have no creativity, which scholars must expose, explain, and clarify its
danger to ‘aqidah, is the term “international law”. Whereas today it is being proposed
extensively, asking for the consolidation of this pagan term in the minds of the people by calling
them to “respect of international law”, sometimes to “prohibit deviations from international law”,
and other times to “abide by the decisions of international law”. So what does this taghuti term
mean?

Muslim land is being occupied and invaded in the name of “international law”.

“International law” aims to appeal and adhere to a statutory law established by the major kafirah
states that govern the relations of states in the world according to their legislation, standards,
customs, and interests. This man-made law was promulgated by the unbelieving countries that
formed the United Nations after their victory in World War II – America, Britain, and Russia –
while France and China joined them later. They formulated their laws based on their interests
and those of their allies in dividing the world into spheres of influence. So it placed what is called
“the United Nations Charter” to have the first reference in every issue of the world, whereby
“international law” is derived from its judgments and decisions and relies on it in disputes,
conflicts, and procedures.
The enemy now uses this term to pass whatever he wants to the countries of the world,
especially the countries of the Islamic region. Muslim land is being occupied and invaded in the
name of “international law”. They support this or that trend in the name of “international law”,
fight the callers [to Allah] and the mujahidin in the name of “international law”, and whoever
deviates from that is outside of “international law”! One of the greatest examples of this is the
consecration of the Jewish occupation in Palestine in the name of “international law”.

The Ruling on this Taghuti Term in Light of the Islamic ‘Aqidah

The ruling on a thing is a branch of its depiction. Therefore, before we explain the ruling of Allah
(‘azza wa jall) on this term, we must know the most important thing on which it is based, which
was previously indicated in that it is based on the Charter of the United Nations and its laws that
all countries of the world abide by, including the countries of the Islamic region. So what are the
most important provisions of this charter to which the countries of the world are judging by and
is called international law?

The Charter of the United Nations is a taghut and a law unlike any ordinary statutory law and is
not just a founding document of the United Nations Organization, as its framers have made it
much greater than that. International law experts and jurists declare clearly and frankly the
Charter is the highest order of international treaties and the greatest principle of international
law! Thus Article 103 of this Charter itself stipulates that: “In the event of a conflict between the
obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their
obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter
shall prevail.”

This means that it is not permissible for any state committed to this charter to conclude any
international agreement or choose and be bound by a law between it and another country
whose provisions contradict the rules and provisions contained in the United Nations Charter,
even if it is the law of Allah, the Mighty and Powerful!

…the United Nations is an organization that has been subject to Jewish-Crusader influence
since its establishment…

And it is known no country can become a member of the United Nations until it declares its
commitment and respect for this charter and recognizes and submits to it. The procedures for
joining the United Nations are summarized in that the country wishing to join the United Nations
submits a request to the Secretary-General of the international organization, and that request is
accompanied by a declaration of acceptance of a commitment to the Charter of the United
Nations. The same applies to dismissal from the United Nations, as “Article Six” of the Charter
stipulates the General Assembly may dismiss a member if he continues to violate the principles
of the Charter.

This clause applies to anyone except the major countries that originally set up the United
Nations to care for their interests, and therefore they have the right of veto guaranteeing this to
them, the head of them being America, which looks after the interests of the Jewish state
through it. Rather, the Charter and the United Nations have become policemen guarding the
interests of these two countries at every level – even the blind do not dispute this.

In any case, the United Nations is an organization subject to Jewish-Crusader influence since its
establishment, and whoever reviews its divisions and departments and the names of those in
charge of it knows this with certainty1. It is what oversaw the division of Palestine in 1947 c.e.,
and this organization alongside its various departments and agencies challenge the din of Islam
and the laws of the Qur’an, clearly and openly; and its name (the United Nations) is one of the
greatest evidence of union, advocation, support, and cooperation of the countries participating
in it. Those who call for international law, commit to it, respect it, and implement its decisions
turn a blind eye to these irrefutable facts.

Dr. Ali al-‘Ulyani, in his book The Importance of Jihad, explains this matter very clearly, as he
mentions some of the provisions of the Charter of the Nations upon which international law is
based; and we present some of them here. He (may Allah the Most High preserve him) says:

It’s mentioned in the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “…the advent of a
world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief…” This phrase is a
recognition and endorsement for the freedom of atheism (ilhad – which includes all deviance),
the nonexistence of jihad against apostates, and not frightening the kuffar; we seek refuge with
Allah from the consequences of these rights.

It states in Article 2: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as…religion (din).”

I say: Allah did not make the believer like the kafir in everything, but for the believer a treatment,
and for the kafir a treatment. Rather, the believer is treated one way, and the kafir is treated one
way. And whoever reviews the rulings of the people of the dhimmah in Islam knows the
difference between the rights of a Muslim and the rights of a kafir, but where are those who
reflect over the words of Allah and the words of His messenger?

Article 8 states: “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national
tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.”

I say: It is not permissible for a Muslim to resort to courts that do not rule by the Quran and
Sunnah. Allah (ta’ala) said: “If you differ about something, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if
you believe in Allah and on the Last Day; that is better and fairer in the end” (an-Nisa, 59).

Article 18 states: “Everyone has the right to…change his religion or belief…”

Article 21 states: “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.”
I say: The choice of the people of the halli and ‘aqd (lit. people of loosening and binding, i.e.,
those qualified to make a judgment affecting the ummah at large) – from the scholars, leaders,
and commanders of soldiers who adhere to the Quran and Sunnah – is what the appointment of
the Caliph is based, not a mob of unqualified people. And the government is limited to the law of
Allah; it is not permissible for it to rule by whims or ignorance. A Muslim does not take any
legislation except from Allah.

Article 29 states: “It is not permissible under any circumstances to exercise these rights in a
practice that contradicts the objectives of the United Nations.”

I say: Indeed, most of the objectives of the United Nations must be violated. Because opposing
the denizens of Hell is a necessity of the straight path; and according to this, it appears that
submitting to the regulations of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights is like submitting to Roman law or submitting to the Yasiq which the Tatars ruled by. Thus
it is a taghut that legislates for human beings through itself. We ask Allah to restore Muslims to
their true din and guide the United Nations to Islam.

The Purposes and Principles of the United Nations Organization stated the following:

1 – To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective
measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of
acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and
in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of
international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2 – To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights
and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen
universal peace;

3 – To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic,

social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human
rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or
religion; and

4 – To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common
ends.

As for the terrible conspiracy practiced by the United Nations against the ruling of jihad, this is
evidenced by what was legislated by the International Law Commission of the United Nations,
as it was stated in its taghuti legislation in the first article. They obligated every country to
observe the provisions of international law. This is not permissible, because the duty of the
Muslim state to observe the provisions of the Quran, not the provisions of laws established by
humans. And in Article 2 they obligated states to settle the dispute peacefully while observing
the provisions of the law. This is an obligation that is not required by Allah. Rather, the Muslim
state gives the kafir state a choice between three: either Islam, the protection-tax (jizyah) while
subjugated, or to fight – unless the Muslim state is weak; then it has the right to offer a
temporary truce, as in the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. In Article 5 they obliged states not to
acknowledge any regional expansion taken from the methods of war; and this is not permissible
in Islam. Rather, what the Muslims conquer through jihad is their property. And in Article 8 they
require states to treat persons under their rule according to the human rights declared by the
United Nations, including freedom of atheism and the equalizing of Muslims with kuffar; and this
is not permissible in Islam. In Article 9 they obligated states to submit to all international treaties
and everything from international law. It is not permissible for a Muslim to adhere to anything
except the rulings of the Quran and treaties that contain provisions in Islamic law in contrast to
what is in international law. It is not permissible for Muslims to substitute what is inferior for what
is better. And in Article Ten they obligated states to never resort to war, except in the case of
defense if an armed force attacks their territory. This is annulling one of the types of jihad, which
is offensive jihad (jihad al-ibtida wa-talab).

Thus it is evident what the United Nations International Law Commission legislated is contrary
to the ruling of jihad in Islam. May Allah lead us to the path of guidance and wisdom and restore
the Islamic ummah to the source of its glory and imminence: the Book of the Lord of Creation
and the Sunnah of the Trustworthy Guider, may Allah pour blessings and peace on him and all
his companions2.

The Shari’ah Ruling Regarding These International Charters and Laws

After examining the most important provisions of international law emanating from the laws of
the United Nations, we come to know the rule of Allah regarding them: Allah (‘azza wa jall) says:
“Whoever disbelieves in the taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy bond
that will never break. And Allah is the All-Hearing All-Knowing” (al-Baqarah, 256). And He
(subhanahu) says: “Verily, We sent to every community a messenger [proclaiming], ‘Worship
Allah and shun the taghut’” (an-Nahl, 36). Allah (‘azza wa jall) illustrates in these two verses that
tawhīd and true servitude to Allah (‘azza wa jall) is only valid through disbelief (kufr) in the
taghut and the avoidance of it and worshiping Allah (‘azza wa jall) alone.

Moreover, kufr in the taghut was placed before and over the command to believe in Allah (‘azza
wa jall), because belief in Allah is only valid with kufr in the taghut. The taghut is everything that
makes the slave exceed his limit in relation to worship, following, or obedience. Shaykh
ad-Dawsari, may Allah the Most High have mercy on him, said during his elaboration of Ayah
al-Kursi:

Taghut is derived from tughyan, and it is [what] transcends the limit. It is said, “The water tagha,”
if it rises above the height of man thus drowning him. Therefore, everything which exceeds the
limit Allah has set from the obligation to worship Him (subhanahu) and to refrain from His limits
by adhering to His law, then it exceeded that and sought to be an object of worship and not a
worshiper through any type of form, be it through deception and fraud, or subjugation and terror,
or legislation and codification regarding the legal and illegal; it is a taghut one must disbelieve in
through hatred and enmity towards, distancing himself from it and hating whoever loves and
aides it. Belief in Allah is absolutely not valid except through kufr in the taghut.

Whoever calls to the principle nationality (i.e., nationalism) in which the Muslim unites with the
astray sects or to a materialistic doctrine from the Jewish schools of thought, he is among the
tawaghit (pl. of taghut) which one is required to disbelieve in, hate and have enmity towards,
and avoid their calling points. The one who achieves kufr in all the types of taghut, and has
achieved belief in Allah by restricting love to Him, for His sake and for His path, and by hating all
that Allah hates in terms of any person or action, he has grasped the most trustworthy bond3.

Is following the taghut international law and obeying its laws anything but belief in them?
However, we are commanded to disbelieve in them. Allah (‘azza wa jall) said: “Have you not
seen those who claim to believe in what was sent down to you and what was sent down before
you? They wish to go for judgment to the taghut while they have been ordered to disbelieve in it.
And Shaytan wishes to lead them far astray” (an-Nisa, 60). Hafidh ibn Kathir says in his
interpretation of this verse: “The ayah censors whoever turns away from the Book and Sunnah
and seeks judgment from other than them from falsehood – that is what is intended by ‘taghut’
here.”

Are the people of knowledge aware of their role and the heavy trust placed on their shoulders?

And ibn al-Qayyim says in I’lam al-Muwaqqi’in: “Whoever litigates to or judges by something
other than what the Messenger brought has judged according to the taghut and litigated to it.”

And ash-Shanqiti says in the interpretation of surah ash-Shura from his Adwa al-Bayan: “Every
litigation to other than the law of Allah is litigation to the taghut.”

Indeed, disbelief in the taghut and belief in Allah is the cornerstone of the word tawhīd – there is
nothing deserving of worship except Allah. It is the din of our prophet, Muhammed (sallallahu
‘alayhi wa sallam), and the path of our father, Ibrahim (‘alayhis-salatu was-salam), which Allah
(‘azza wa jall) ordered us to follow in His (subhanahu) saying: “There has already been for you
an excellent example in Ibrahim and those with him, when they said to their people: ‘Indeed, we
are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have rejected
you, and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe
in Allah alone” (al-Mumtahanah, 4).

Thereafter, by Allah, in this time of estrangement in which the clarity of these foundations are
absent, the time has come for scholars to leave their isolation in which they live away from the
reality of the ummah and what is woven for it from deception, as its enemies from the kuffar and
hypocrites want the people of knowledge absent and to preclude them from clarifying [the ruling
on] these courts and other issues and calamities which the ummah looks to the words of the
scholars for. Are the people of knowledge aware of their role and the heavy trust placed on their
shoulders? “When Allah took a covenant from those given the Book to make it clear to the
people and not conceal it” (Al ‘Imran, 178)
Ending the doubt of Takfir and the complete destruction of the Saudi Regime

The constitution of Saudi Arabia claims to derive laws from Qur’an and Sunnah, however so
does Pakistan’s; yet they have Kufri laws. The claim of Saudi’s constitution is falsified by many
man-made laws that are promuglated by their King’s edicts.

Such man-made laws include the following:

● The system of observing banks issued by the king's edict [#M/5 in 1386 AH]
● ​The system of the Saudi-Arab citizenship decided by the [ministers council resolution #4
on 25th January 1974] and approved by the king in his speech in High Council
[#8/5/8604 on 22nd February 1974] to put in effect
● The system of printed material and publication issued by the king's edict [#M/17 in
13/4/1402 AH]
● The law of receiving the dead land used to be according to Islam, where if a person
works a piece of land that becomes his. This was the case until an edict was issued
declaring the nullification of this Islamic Law starting from 1987 and onward.
● The system of marrying non Saudi women.
● The general rule for taxes, approved by the king's edict [#M/9 on 4/6/1395 AH.]
King Faisal even proudly abolished slavery completely and ascribed this to the Shari’ah. In
1962, Faisal presented to King Saud his plan known as the Ten Points of Reform.

“Tenth"

It is known that the Islamic Sharia urges to set slaves free. It is also known that the slavery in
the present era differs from many conditions of Sharia that Islam prescribed for the permissibility
of slavery. Since its establishment, the Saudi state has faced the problem of slavery and slaves
and has worked on the eradication of slavery with all gradual means.Initially it banned the
importation of slaves and imposed penalties on their importation. Then recently it prohibited the
sale or purchase of slaves. Now the government finds a favorable opportunity to announce the
absolute abolishment of slavery and the emancipation of all slaves. The government will
compensate those who are proven to deserve compensation.”
https://www.kff.com/king-faisal-bin-abdulaziz/

On top of that, Saudi Arabia gives licences and general allowances for Riba Banks, musical
festivals, Mushrikin military bases, etc. This in itself is Istihlal according to ibn al-‘Uthaymin.
https://youtu.be/StRkBYvb11g
Furthermore, this adds to another type of Kufr, namely that of at-Taifah al-Mumtani’ah. Saudi
Arabia is resisting the obligation of implementing various prohibitions, the obligation of collecting
Jizya etc. This Taifah is ruled with Kufr by Ijma’, just as the Sahaba fought those who withheld
Zakah as Kuffar (by enslaving their women, chasing and killing those who flee etc).

This is not the same as leaving the implementation of Shari’ah in one instance or randomly
which is Kufr Duna Kufr, rather it is leaving a law from being implemented completely. And this is
Kufr according to the ‘Ulama of Ahl as-Sunnah.
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (‫​)​رحمه هللا‬said, “The scholars have agreed that every group that
resists from a clear and apparent rite from the rites of Islam, that it is obligatory to fight them
until the ​Din​, all of it, is for Allah, just as the muharibin​[are fought].”

​Al-Fatawa al-Kubra​, v. 5, p. 529.

And he also said, “Thus it became known that if some people simply cling to the label of Islam
without adhering to its rites and laws, then fighting them is not cancelled. Rather, fighting them
is compulsory until the ​Din,​all of it, is for Allah and until there remains no ​fitnah​. So if some of
the ​Din is for other than Allah, fighting becomes obligatory. Therefore, any group which refuses
to implement some of the obligatory salawat​; fasting; or the ​Hajj​; or violates the blood and
wealth which are sanctified; or engages in consumption of intoxicants; adultery; fornication;
gambling; or marries those who are forbidden to marry; or who do not wage war against the
​kuffar;​do not impose the ​jizyah on the Jews and Christians; or any other matter from the
obligations and prohibitions of the ​Din for which no one has an excuse for denying or leaving,
and which one was to disbelieve if they were to deny its obligation. Thus ​at-taifah al-mumtani‘ah
is fought over this, even if they affirm them [being obligatory or prohibited]. And I do not know of
any disagreement amongst the scholars in this regard.”
Majmu’ al-Fatawa​, v. 28, p. 502-503.

And Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhab said after citing the words of Shaykhul-Islam, “So
ponder over his clear speech that the group who resisted paying the ​zakah to the leader were
fought and that he ruled them with ​kufr,​apostasy from Islam, the enslavement of their children,
the taking of their wealth as spoils of war, and that they acknowledged the obligation of ​zakah,​
performed the five ​salawat,​and all other rites of Islam except for the paying of ​zakah​. And that
all that did not prevent them from being fought, nor did it prevent them from being ruled with ​kufr
and apostasy, and that this is established from the Book, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the
companions (​radiyallahu ‘anhum)​. And Allah knows best.”
Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah,​v. 10, p. 179.
In order to be a member of UN one has to agree with UN Charter which includes Kufri
legislations and accept these obligations set by UN.

How does a country become a Member of the United Nations?

Membership in the Organization, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “is open
to all peace-loving States that accept the obligations contained in the United Nations Charter
and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able to carry out these obligations”. States are
admitted to membership in the United Nations by a decision of the General Assembly upon the
recommendation of the Security Council.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/about-un-membership

The UN Charter mandates the UN and its member states to maintain international peace and
security, uphold international law, achieve "higher standards of living" for their citizens, address
"economic, social, health, and related problems", and promote "universal respect for, and
observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race,
sex, language, or religion." [2][3] As a charter and constituent treaty, its rules and obligations are
binding on all members and supersede those of other treaties.[1][4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations

Lastly, Saudi Arabia has supported groups of Kufr and Shirk for a long time.
And regarding the Arab League

Thus, by being part of the Arab League, Saudi Arabia has agreed to respect the Kufr systems of
Secular Arab states and regard it as their right. This is a negation of Kufr bit-Taghut.

With that being said, let’s conclude this short treatise with four nullifiers the wicked scholars of
the tawagheet has committed.
Four nullifiers of Islam that the wicked scholars has committed

Giving bay‘ah (allegiance) to a taghut, allying with a taghut against the muwahhidin, distorting
the ahkam (rulings) of the din, and not declaring takfir of the mushrikin are all well-known issues
(and dilemmas). It is because of these matters that the wicked scholars of today are kuffar
murtaddin – we ask Allah for well-being. And because this is a touchy topic, due to hearts being
attached to people and personalities instead of what is correct and the truth, there is a need to
briefly clarify their reality. May Allah open our hearts to the truth and grant us success.

First: Bay‘ah to a Taghut

To understand what exactly this entails, it is a must to know what “bay‘ah” means. Al-Mawsu‘ah
al-Fiqhiyyah contains an excellent definition:

Technically, bay‘ah is, as defined by ibn Khaldun in his Muqaddimah: a contract based on
obedience. It is as if the one who swears allegiance is promising his leader that he will accept
his authority with regard to his own affairs and the affairs of the Muslimin, and that he will not
dispute with him with regard to any of that. He will obey him in any duties that he assigns to him,
whether in times of ease or in times of hardship. When they swore allegiance to the leader and
made this pledge, they would put their hands in his as confirmation of the pledge. That is akin to
what the seller and buyer do. Thus bay‘ah was accompanied with a handshake.

And so due to what bay‘ah entails, the ‘ulama of tawhīd and jihad have stated that giving bay‘ah
to a taghut is major kufr. Allah (ta‘ala) stated in clear words:

ٍ ْ‫ض ُه ْم َأ ْولِ َيا ُء َبع‬

‫ض‬ َ ‫َوالَّذ‬
ُ ْ‫ِين َك َفرُوا َبع‬

“And those who disbelieved are allies of one another.”

And He (ta‘ala) said:

‫ت ۗ ُأو ٰ َل َ َأ‬ ُّ ‫وت ي ُْخرجُو َنهُم م َِّن ال ُّنور ِإ َلى‬

ِ ‫الظلُ َما‬ َّ ‫ِين َك َفرُوا َأ ْولِ َياُؤ ُه ُم‬
َ ‫َوالَّذ‬
‫ون‬ ِ ‫ِئك صْ َحابُ ال َّن‬
َ ‫ار ۖ ُه ْم فِي َها َخالِ ُد‬ ِ ِ ُ ‫الطا ُغ‬

“And those who disbelieve, their allies are the taghut. They remove them from light into
darkness. Those are the companions of the Fire, and they will remain therein.”

And He (ta‘ala) said:

َ ‫ين َأ ْولِ َيا َء لِلَّذ‬

َ ‫ِين اَل يُْؤ ِم ُن‬
‫ون‬ َ ِ‫ِإ َّنا َج َع ْل َنا ال َّشيَاط‬

“Verily, We made the devils allies to those who do not believe.”

And He (ta‘ala) said:

‫َو َمن َي َت َولَّهُم مِّن ُك ْم َفِإ َّن ُه ِم ْن ُه ْم‬

“And whoever allies with them, then, he is from them.”

Thus whoever allies with the taghut and enters into the wilayah (wardship) of the taghut is
attached alongside the taghut in hukm (i.e., they get the same ruling). This is one nullifier that
the wicked scholars have fallen into: by swearing his allegiance to a taghut whose reality has
become manifest and clear.

Second: Distorting the Din

The wicked scholars were not satisfied by giving bay‘ah to a taghut, nor by remaining silent on
all different types of falsehood perpetrated by the apostate regimes, but have distorted the
ahkam of the din for the sake of the taghut. They attribute righteousness to the tawaghit,
arguing on their behalf in relation to the various forms of shirk and kufr they commit. They have
left the Noble Book for whatever the ruler deems, even if it involves the mass murder of
muwahhidin!

They made the mercy of Islam to mean taking the kuffar as allies. They made the belligerent
kafir in their military bases within the lands of the Muslimin as people of dhimmah (contractual
protection). Some made the shirk of democracy a form of legitimate shura (consultation). They
made speaking the truth to a disbelieving, tyrannical ruler a form of rebellion. They concealed
what Allah revealed and criminalized jihad, making its incitement equivalent to sedition. They
made the blood of the belligerent kafir illicit and the blood of the muwahhid mujahidin licit. They
made the mujahidin, those who stand for tawhid and righteousness, as renegade Khawārij, and
the apostate nationalists, agents of the West as mujahidin. They made disbelieving in the taghut
and taking the mushrikin as enemies as a great fitnah. They made supporting the muwahhid
mujahidin a criminal offense.

Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) remarked: “Whenever a scholar forsakes what he

knows of the Book of Allah and of the Sunnah of His messenger and follows the ruler’s ruling
that contravenes the ruling of Allah and His messenger, then he is a kafir apostate deserving of
punishment in this world and the Hereafter.”

Third: Supporting the Taghut

The next nullifier that the wicked scholars and heads of kufr have fallen into is supporting the
mushrikin and murtaddin against the Muslimin in Iraq, Sham, and elsewhere. Through their
support of the Global Coalition led by America, where the Saudi and other Arab regimes hold a
part, they have committed kufr by ijma’. Shaykh al-Mujaddid Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhab
stated:
Know that the proofs for the kufr of the Muslim if he was to perform shirk with Allah or support
the mushrikin against the Muslimin are too many to be counted from the speech of Allah, the
speech of His messenger, and the relied upon people of knowledge.

Some make a distinction between the footsoldier of the taghut and the scholar of the taghut,
when they are both, in reality, soldiers of the taghut. In fact, the wicked scholars who issue
verdicts are worse in kufr than the footsoldier as the footsoldier and others act upon such
verdicts in support of the taghut. Shaykh Abu Jandal (rahimahullah) mentioned:

“Everyone who fights in the ranks of the kuffar or supports them with speech and action –
because this support takes the ruling of fighting – then he is judged individually with kufr. And
this is the ruling of the supporters of the apostate rulers.”

Fourth: Refraining from Takfir of the Mushrikin

The final nullifier that we will mention is based upon the agreed upon principle among the Salaf
and leadings scholars of the din. It was mentioned by Shaykh al-Mujaddid Muhammad ibn
‘Abdil-Wahhab (rahimahullah) as “the third nullifier”, and it is:

Whoever does not declare takfir of the mushrikin or doubts their kufr or validates their way
disbelieves.

This principle is rooted in the Quran, Sunnah, and consensus, and involves denying and belying
the ruling of Allah after knowing it. The wicked scholars know the ruling of Allah upon the
tawaghit today. They know the ruling of those who rule by man-made laws or legislate laws or
approve of them. They know the ruling of whoever allies with the Crusaders and does not have
bara‘ah (disassociation) from them. They know these issues and have read what ahlul-‘ilm have
asserted. We know that they know because we know what they must have read and studied
themselves!

The wicked scholars have not simply refrained from takfir, but have validated the path of the
tawaghit. They attribute correctness and righteousness to the tawaghit and legitimize them as
custodians of the affairs of the muwahhidin! Unlike in past decades where the ruler would hide
his evil and display iman and tawhīd, today the tawaghit are bold in displaying their nifaq and
shirk!

These are four nullifiers that the wicked scholars have fallen into. And as it is said: the one with
knowledge but fails to act, is punished well before the idol worshippers. May the curse of Allah,
His messenger, His angels, and all of creation descend upon them. And Allah knows best.

Thus we conclude this treatise, we ask Allah ‫ عز و جل‬that your doubts and misconceptions have
been cleared. And we ask Allah to make this a beneficial work that will aid in pushing forth the
manhaj of the Salaf us-Salīh.
May He send peace and blessings upon Muhammad, his family, his companions, and all those
who follow him.

Credit: We give a special thanks to the brothers behind https://peopleoftawhid.org/ a vast

majority of the content in this PDF is extracted from various articles and PDF’s on his website.
The purpose of this PDF is not to rewrite what has already been written, but rather collect it in a
treatise for easy access in order the truth is available to the masses in a complete version.