Tuesday, May 5, 2009

The Fatwa of Ibn Kathir on the Tartars

The Fatwa of Ibn Katheer Concerning Ruling By Other Than What Allaah Revealed

Six Points on the Fatwa of Ibn Katheer Concerning Ruling By Other Than What Allaah
Revealed

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Qaadir Ibn ‘Abdul-’Azeez

The Fatwaa of Ibn Katheer:“And in the Tafseer of His, the Most High’s statement:Do they then seek the ruling of (the Days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgment than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith. [Al-Maa’idah, 50]
Ibn Katheer, may Allaah be merciful to him, said, ‘He, the Most High, objects to those who leave from under the ruling (Hukm) of Allaah, which encompasses all of what is good and which forbids evil, and goes to other than that, from the opinions and desires and terminologies, which are fabricated by men with no basis in the law (Sharee’ah) of Allaah. Such as the people of pre-Islamic days of Ignorance (Jaahiliyyah) who used to rule in accordance with the misguidance and ignorance, from which they would fabricate with their opinions and their desires.And likewise, what the Tartars (Tataar) rule in, according to the kingdom-oriented politics that have been taken from their king, Genghis Khan , who fabricated for them ‘Al-Yaasiq’, which is a phrase that refers to a book assembled from rulings he took from several legislations from those of the Jews and the Christians and the Islamic religion (Millah) and other than them. And in it are also several rulings, which he took from his own views and desires. So it became a followed legislation amongst his descendants (lit. sons), which they put ahead of the ruling (Hukm) of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger .So whoever does that, then he is a disbeliever (Kaafir) whose fighting is obligatory (Waajib) until he returns to the ruling (Hukm) of Allaah and His Messenger such that he does not rule by other than it neither a little nor a lot.He, the Most High, said: Do they then seek the ruling of (the Days of) Ignorance? In other words, they seek and desire and they turn away from the ruling (Hukm) of Allaah. And who is better in judgment than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith? In other words, and who is more just than Allaah in his ruling (Hukm) for he who comprehends that Allaah is the Most Wise of judges and more merciful to His creation than the mother is to her infant child? As verily, He, the Most High, is Knowledgeable of all things, the Powerful over all things, the Just in all things.’ – “Tafseer Ibn Katheer ”, Vol. 2/67

Six Points: “And here are six points upon this Fatwaa:

“The First Point: The Fatwaa from Ibn Katheer, which was issued 700 years ago, fully applies to our current state of affairs. And those who hold it to be specified (only) for the Tartars (Tataar) are mistaken because his Fatwaa is general and encompassing of everyone who leaves from the ruling (Hukm) of Allaah, to the ruling (Hukm) of the opinions of men. And this saying applies completely upon the fabricated laws, as they leave out from under the ruling (Hukm) of Allaah to the ruling (Hukm) of the opinions of men and their laws, which they have invented. Then Ibn Katheer mentioned two examples for that. The first was his statement, ‘Such as the people of pre-Islamic days of Ignorance (Jaahiliyyah) who used to rule in…’ and the second was his statement, ‘And likewise, what the Tartars (Tataar) rule in…’ So it is clear that his mentioning of the Tartars (Tataar) was for the purpose of example and not for the purpose of restricting the Fatwaa. And for this reason, he concluded his Fatwaa with a phrasing of generality, which was the conditional sentence that was prefaced with the conditional ‘whoever’ as he said, ‘So whoever does that, then he is a disbeliever (Kaafir) whose fighting is obligatory (Waajib)…’ So this is a general text from him, which cuts off the false interpretation upon his Fatwaa, may Allaah, the Most High, be merciful to him.’

“The Second Point: About his statement, ‘…which is a phrase that refers to a book assembled from rulings he took from several legislations from those of the Jews and the Christians and the Islamic religion (Millah) and other than them. And in it are also several rulings, which he took from his own views and desires.’ And this description applies to the fabricated laws, which are put in place of the countries of the Muslims (nowadays), as they are an amalgamation of misguidance and desires, yet they also include some of the Islamic laws as well. And this does not change the fact that they are still laws of disbelief (Kufr), because he who believes in some, while disbelieving in others; then he has disbelieved in all, as it has passed in what I narrated from Ibn Taymiyyah earlier. And because Allaah declared the disbelief of the Jews when they changed one penalty from his penalties (Hudood); ‘the stoning’, so then what about the fabricated laws, which remove all the penalties (Hudood)?’

“The Third Point: Regarding his statement about ‘Al-Yaasiq’, ‘So it became a followed legislation amongst his descendants (lit. sons)…’ In other words, amongst the sons of Genghis Khan and they are the Tartars. And this is from that, which shows that the rulers of today are even greater in disbelieving than the Tartars, because both groups (i.e. the Tartars and the modern-day rulers) demonstrated outward Islaam and followed some of its outer manifestations, while ruling by other than what Allaah revealed. But they differ in one important matter. And this was the Tartars – despite their conquering the countries of the Muslims and their taking over the ruling (Hukm) within them – they did not force upon the Muslims the ruling with the laws of disbelief (Kufr), ‘Al-Yaasiq’. Rather, the Tartars merely ruled with it amongst themselves while the ruling (Hukm) amongst the Muslims remained flowing in the compliance of the (Islamic) legislation (Shara’), as it was clarified earlier in the conclusion of the seventh issue.As for the contemporary rulers, they have forced the laws of disbelief (Kufr) upon the Muslims. And they have held them upon ruling according to them and taking of the judgments (i.e. disputes between the people) to them and they have established colleges called, ‘The Faculties of Rights’, in order to send forth people who can take the responsibility of ruling with these laws amongst the Muslims. Yet none of this was done by the Tartars, whom Ibn Taymiyyah – and after him, Ibn Katheer – narrated the consensus (Ijmaa’) upon their disbelief (Kufr), due to their ruling by other than what Allaah revealed.’

“The Fourth Point: About the statement of Ibn Katheer, ‘And likewise, what the Tartars rule in, according to the kingdom-oriented politics that have been taken from their king, Genghis Khan , who fabricated for them ‘Al-Yaasiq ’…’ – until his statement – ‘So whoever does that, then he is a disbeliever (Kaafir) whose fighting is obligatory (Waajib)…’ And in these words, there is a refutation upon the doubt that some put forward, in order to defend the apostate rulers, who rule with the fabricated laws, which is that these rulers are not the ones who actually fabricated the laws and entered them into the countries of the Muslims.So I say: And likewise are those whom Ibn Katheer issued the Fatwaa about their disbelief (Kufr). They were not the ones who made ‘Al-Yaasiq’, rather the one who made it for them was their idol King, Genghis Khan, who died in the year 624 H, whereas Ibn Katheer wasn’t even born until 700 H. Yet, he issued this Fatwaa about the disbelief (Kufr) of the descendants (lit. sons) of Genghis Khan, who openly declared their Islaam, while ruling with the law of their grandfather. So (his) condition was the same as (their) condition.And even before the Fatwaa of Ibn Katheer, we have the Fatwaa from the Lord of all the Worlds. This is because, those about whom Allaah said: …Kâfirûn. [Al-Maa’idah, 44], for their leaving the ruling (Hukm) of Allaah regarding the stoning of the married (lit. shielded) adulterer, along with their ruling with a replaced law – those of them who were in the time of the Prophet were not the ones who invented this replaced law, rather it was only their predecessors who had invented it, as is mentioned in the Hadeeths that have been narrated regarding the reasons for revelation – particularly, those which At-Tabaree narrated from Abee Hurayrah.From them (paraphrasing), the first one who left the penalty (Haad) of stoning and replaced its ruling (Hukm), was a King from the Kings of the Jews, yet they did not have any Kings at the time of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa salam) when this verse was revealed. So the taking place of this replacing (of that law) from their predecessors did not prevent this ruling (Hukm) of disbelief (Kufr) from applying to them also, as long as they had followed them upon that.’

“The Fifth Point: It concerns the statement of Ibn Katheer, ‘So whoever does that, then he is a disbeliever (Kaafir)…’ So consider his basing the disbelief (Kufr) upon the action alone, ‘So whoever does that, then he is a disbeliever (Kaafir)…’ In other words, whoever rules with the fabricated legislation, then he has disbelieved. And he did not say, like so many of the contemporaries say, that whoever does it does not disbelieve, unless he believes in its permissibility or makes it lawful (Halaal) or rejects the ruling (Hukm) of Allaah, because all of these conditions are bogus (Fasid). And this saying is the saying of the Extremist Murji’ites (Ghulaat Al-Murji’ah), whom the predecessors (Salaf ) declared their disbelief (Takfeer), as it has passed in this field of research (Mab’hath) in ‘Belief ’ (‘Itiqaad) and in the sixteenth introduction, within the fifth matter of this topic. And the outcome was that the ruling of disbelief in this life takes place by bringing a statement or an action, about which, its disbelief has been established with a legislative (Share’ee) evidence. And what this evidence has indicated, is the disbelief of the one who leaves the ruling (Hukm) of what Allaah revealed or rules by other than it or invents a ruling other than it, as its clarification has passed in the sixth issue.’

“The Sixth Point: Regarding the earlier Fatwaa of Ibn Katheer, then it is that it is permissible to act upon it concerning the contemporary rulers, who rule with the fabricated laws, due to the applicability upon them, as the saying has passed, even though the aforementioned evidences, within the sixth issue, and the aforementioned consensus (Ijmaa’) from the seventh matter, there is more than enough (to prove this) than the following (Taqleed) of Ibn Katheer in this Fatwaa of his. Yet despite that, his following (Taqleed) is permitted, as it has passed in the ruling concerning the one who issues the Fatwaa (Muftee), within the fifth chapter of this book.And in it, Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allaah be merciful to him, said, ‘Is it allowed for the living one to follow (Taqleed ) the dead one and act upon his Fatwaa, without him considering the evidences, which would necessitate the correctness of acting upon it? Concerning this (matter) there are two views, according to the companions of Imaam Ahmad and Ash-Shafa’ee. So those who forbade it said, ‘It may be possible that he (i.e. the dead one) would have changed his deductive reasoning (Ijtihaad) if he were alive, because it is possible that he might change his view when this (newer) event took place, either out of obligation or due to its being recommended (for him to change his view), based upon some well-known disagreement. And perhaps if he were to review it, then he may have retracted his former statement.’ And the second (view) is its permissibility. And all of those who follow (Muqalideen) are upon this (view) in all the lands of the Earth, because the best of what they have in their hands regarding following (Taqleed) is the following (Taqleed) of the dead. And whoever from them forbids this following (Taqleed) of the dead, then it is merely something which he claims upon his tongue, yet his actions and his Fatwaas and his rulings are all contrary to that. And the statements of the dead do not die with the death of the one who speaks them, just as the narrations do not die with the death of their narrators and transmitters.”– “‘Ilaam Al-Mu’aqi’een”, Vol. 4/215

No comments: