دار التوحيد Dr'ul Tawhd

Author Topic: THE RULING OF SIGNING CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS WHICH CONTAIN KUFR  (Read 4645 times)

Fahm'us Salaf

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 243
  • انصار الملة الحنيفية حماة الشرعة المحمدي
Whosoever desires الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah (honour, power and glory) then to Allah belong all الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah [and one can get honour, power and glory only by obeying and worshiping Allah (Alone)]. To Him ascend (all) الْكَلِمُ الطَّيِّبُ al-Kalim al-Tayyib (the goodly words), and الْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ al-Amal al-Saalih (the righteous deeds) exalt it (the goodly words i.e., the goodly words are not accepted by Allah unless and until they are followed by good deeds). (Fatir 35/10)

Fahm'us Salaf

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 243
  • انصار الملة الحنيفية حماة الشرعة المحمدي
Re: THE RULING OF SIGNING CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS WHICH CONTAIN KUFR
« Reply #1 on: 10.08.2016, 02:06:37 AM »
بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
The Ruling of Signing Contracts & Agreements Which Contain Kufr

In our era in which the entire world is under the dominance of Kufr, we often come across Kufr comprised agreements and similar texts. Our intention here is to take in hand the issue of authorized courts when and if dispute occur between the parties in the agreements and contracts. Such text can be seen in the contracts and agreements of hydro, heat etc., and also in computer programs, user agreements or terms of use of websites and also while shopping or many other daily matters that one may not even think about it. Even though Ahlit Tawhid has no agenda concerning the matter, since we reject and keep distant from all types of contracts and agreements that have Kufr conditions in it, doubters keep bringing up all types of contracts and agreements. Only the one who is unaware of Tawhd may doubt the open Kufr in contracts and agreements. We want to mention the following Nass (textual proof) for the sake of reminding them:

وَمَا اخْتَلَفْتُمْ فِيهِ مِن شَيْءٍ فَحُكْمُهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ
"Whatever it be wherein ye differ, the decision thereof is with Allah." (ash-Shura 42/10);

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ أَطِيعُواْ اللّهَ وَأَطِيعُواْ الرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِي الأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلاً سورة النساء أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ آمَنُواْ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ مِن قَبْلِكَ يُرِيدُونَ أَن يَتَحَاكَمُواْ إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ وَقَدْ أُمِرُواْ أَن يَكْفُرُواْ بِهِ وَيُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَن يُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلاَلاً بَعِيداً
"O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination. Hast thou not turned thy though to those who declare that they believe in the revelations that have come to thee and to those before thee? Their (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to the Taghout (false deities), though they were ordered to reject him. But Satan's wish is to lead them astray far away (from the right)." (an-Nisa 4/59-60)

The Dalail (pl., Dalil; evidences) in this regard are countless such that we are not able to mention all. It is crystal clear that the one who affirms the statement "so and so court of Taghout is authorized when dispute arises between the both parties" by signing it accept something that goes against and rejects the message of these aforementioned Ayaat (pl., Ayah; verses of Quran). These statements are not amongst the statements that can be interpreted to both the Iman and Kufr so that Tawaqquf (pausing the Hukm i.e., ruling) of declaring Takfir upon them. By signing it one openly declares his will and acceptance of seeking judgment from the Taghout. The intent of the Taghout by insisting in such contracts and agreements is to declare which court is the authority when/if a dispute arises between both parties. Such as the court of so and so city/province/ territory/state or the Enforcement/Executive Court, Federal Court,  The Supreme Court, Tax Court, Military Court etc. After signing it if any dispute occurs between both parties then the case will be referred to the court which is mentioned on the contract/agreement since it has the authority over the dispute through the acceptance of both parties. Therefore the following claim is baseless; "This statement is only for the sake of informing so it is not binding one who signs the agreement." This is a baseless claim according to the both perspectives; the perspective of Shariah and the perspective of the man-made laws.   

All of these are deeds are that which nullify the bases of Tawhid that is Aslud Din. As it was evidently mentioned in the Ayah an-Nisa 4/60, those who wish to seek the judgment from Taghout are accounted as they had never made Imaan to Allah. Seeking the judgment of any other than Allah Taala is associating him as a partner to Allah in His Taalas Hukm since Allah Taala stated:


وَلَا يُشْرِكُ فِي حُكْمِهِ أَحَداً
"nor does He share His Command with any person whatsoever." (al-Kahf 18/26)

There is no difference between such Shirk being implemented/committed by Itiqad (creed) and Amaal (deed) or utterance and writing. Whoever commits Kufr by believing it or without believing it due to fear of losing worldly things signs any paper that states: "So and so court of Taghout is authorized when dispute arises between both parties" then he commits Kufr and becomes Kafir. The only exception is Ikrah (coercion). And Allah Taala had revealed the following Ayaat regarding Ikrah:

مَن كَفَرَ بِاللّهِ مِن بَعْدِ إيمَانِهِ إِلاَّ مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالإِيمَانِ وَلَـكِن مَّن شَرَحَ بِالْكُفْرِ صَدْراً فَعَلَيْهِمْ غَضَبٌ مِّنَ اللّهِ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمُ اسْتَحَبُّواْ الْحَيَاةَ الْدُّنْيَا عَلَى الآخِرَةِ وَأَنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ أُولَـئِكَ الَّذِينَ طَبَعَ اللّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهِمْ وَسَمْعِهِمْ وَأَبْصَارِهِمْ وَأُولَـئِكَ هُمُ الْغَافِلُونَ لاَ جَرَمَ أَنَّهُمْ فِي الآخِرَةِ هُمُ الْخَاسِرونَ
"Any one who, after accepting Imaan (faith) in Allah, utters Kufr (unbelief), -except under Ikrah (compulsion), his heart remaining firm in faith- but such as open their breast to unbelief, on them is Ghadhab (wrath) from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Azab (chastisement). This is because they love Dunya (the life of this world) better than Akhirah (the Hereafter): and Allah will not guide those who reject faith. Those are they whose hearts, ears, and eyes Allah has sealed up, and they take no heed. Without doubt, in the Hereafter they will be the losers." (an-Nahl 16/106-109)

Sulayman ibn Abdillah (rahimahullah) stated the following as explanation of Ayaat that deals with the issue of Ikrah:

So Allhu Tal has ruled a verdict that is unchangeable: whosoever turns back from his Dn to Kufr, then he is a Kfir regardless of whether he had the excuse of Khawf (fear) for his life, wealth, family, or not. Whether he committed Kufr internally (with his heart) or only externally and not internally (i.e. only through actions, without the heart); and whether he committed Kufr through his actions and his speech, or with just one without the other; and whether or not he committed Kufr because of his desire to attain some worldly benefit from the Mushrikn. He becomes a Kfir in each and every situation; except for the Mukrah (coerced person). And in our language he is the Maghsb. So if a person is coerced to do Kufr and it is said to him, Commit Kufr! Or else we shall kill you or we will torture you, or the Mushrikn take him and beat him, and it is impossible for him to be rid (of this torment) except by agreeing with them (externally). (Majmatit Tawhd, p. 309; ad-Durarus Saniyyah, 8/131-132)

Those who would read the Risalah regarding Ikrah & its conditions Ikrah (Coercion), Its Nature and Limits in the Respect of Shariah would evidently see that fears and worries of a man can not be evaluated as Ikrah until fear, difficulty and trouble reaches the level that his willpower disappears and he commits the opposite of what he wants to do while being under pressure.

Ibn Hazm stated the following because of these evidences that appear in the Kitaab (Book i.e., Quran) and the Sunnah:

Regarding the one who manifests Kufr; other than the one who reads it, gives witness to it, narrates it, or the one who is under Ikrh, the Ijm (consensus) of the Ummah (Islmic nation), the ruling of Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam, and the Nass (textual proof) of the Qurn necessitates that the one who speaks a statement of Kufr is given the ruling of Kufr. (Ibnu Hazm, al-Fisal, 3/116-117)

Even though this issue is so clear, while presenting doubts some try to prove that signing contracts/agreements that contain the word of Kufr is not Kufr. After this portion of this Risalah we will take the doubts regarding the matter in hand and respond to them Inshallah. Before that let us mention, all of these doubts are the products of the people who merely try to protect their worldly gains and none of these doubts have any value Ilmwise. We would not have delved into this issue and have not mentioned these doubts which are as weak as a spiders web unless some among the laypeople had not fall into these doubts due to the widespread of Jahl (ignorance). We will establish the Hujjah (proof) concerning the matter in order to have an excuse in the presence of Allah Taala. Because of this, we will try to expose and get rid of these doubts as much as we can Inshallah.
Whosoever desires الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah (honour, power and glory) then to Allah belong all الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah [and one can get honour, power and glory only by obeying and worshiping Allah (Alone)]. To Him ascend (all) الْكَلِمُ الطَّيِّبُ al-Kalim al-Tayyib (the goodly words), and الْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ al-Amal al-Saalih (the righteous deeds) exalt it (the goodly words i.e., the goodly words are not accepted by Allah unless and until they are followed by good deeds). (Fatir 35/10)

Fahm'us Salaf

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 243
  • انصار الملة الحنيفية حماة الشرعة المحمدي
Re: THE RULING OF SIGNING CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS WHICH CONTAIN KUFR
« Reply #2 on: 19.08.2016, 09:31:00 AM »
The first doubt: Using the Treaty of Hudaybiyah as a proof for signing the contacts & agreements in which there is the statement of Kufr

Doubters say:

Quote
"When the Treaty of Hudaybiyah had been signed; the Mushrikin of Makkah insisted Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) to write Muhammad ibn Abdullah instead of Muhammad Rasulullah. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) accepted this and did so. Rejecting Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) as being a Prophet of Allah is Kufr in Islam. However Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) due to Maslahat accepted the offer of the Mushrikin of Makkah and Muhammad ibn Abdullah had been written on the Treaty of Hudaybiyah instead of Muhammad Rasulullah. As Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) would not commit Kufr, signing these contacts & agreements can not be taken in consideration and accepted as Kufr. We reject the Kufr laws of Taghout and Taghout itself. Moreover we will never go to the court of Taghout. Our signature on the paper contacts & agreements that has the statement of Kufr has no importance. Since our sole intent is to obtain what we want to have. We reject the Kufr on the contacts & agreements but we sign them due to Maslahat."

Statements regarding the first doubt of doubters end here.

Their state is as Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) informed:


وإن العبد ليتكلم بالكلمة من سخط الله تعالى لا يُلقي لها بالا يَهوي بها في جهنم
"One speaks a word displeasing to Allah without considering it of any importance, and for this reason he will sink down into Hell." (Bukhari, Hadith no: 6478)

Tirmidhi narrated this Hadith by the way of Muhammad ibn Ishaq with the following text:

إِنَّ الرَّجُلَ لَيَتَكَلَّمُ بِالْكَلِمَةِ لاَ يَرَى بِهَا بَأْسًا يَهْوِي بِهَا سَبْعِينَ خَرِيفًا فِي النَّارِ
"Indeed a man may utter a statement that he does not see any harm in, but for which he will fall seventy autumns in the Fire." (Tirmidhi, Hadith no: 2314) (Ibn Hajar, Fathul Bari, 11/314-318)

وَإِنَّ أَحَدَكُمْ لَيَتَكَلَّمُ بِالْكَلِمَةِ مِنْ سَخَطِ اللَّهِ مَا يَظُنُّ أَنْ تَبْلُغَ مَا بَلَغَتْ فَيَكْتُبُ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ بِهَا سَخَطَهُ إِلَى يَوْمِ يَلْقَاهُ
"And one of you says a statement angering Allah, not realizing that you have achieved what you have achieved. Then for it, Allah writes for him His anger until the Day of Meeting with Him." (Tirmidhi, Hadith no: 2319; Malik, Muwatta, Hadith no: 1818)

Those who claim such ideas do not withdraw cast aspersions upon Allah Taala and His Rasul (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) for the sake of their worldly gain. Their claims are sufficient to prove that they have no respect and love towards Allah Taala and His Rasul (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and that they are Mulhid (who commit Ilhaad i.e., deviate; deviant) and irreligious people. Their statement carries accusations that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) confirmed the statement of Kufr. They supposedly are freeing Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) from Kufr right after they state that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is Masum from Kufr therefore the Treaty of Hudaybiyah is proof for signing contracts & agreements which has the statement of Kufr without Itiqaad of it for the sake of worldly Maslahat. This is a type of an act tin which ones excuse is worse than his fault and this is the second Baatil (falsehood) of theirs. The second Baatil of theirs is their allowing/permitting committing Kufr due to Maslahat. We had already quoted the Ijmaa of the entire Ummah from Ibn Hazm that committing Kufr without Ikrah is Kujfr so the one who does so becomes Kafir.

Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) while explaining the ruling in his book "as-Sarimul Maslul" said the following:

"The one who considers anyone who speaks the types of Kufr such as Takdhib (denial, rejection) and other then them to be Mumin at the same time has removed the noose of Islam from around his neck."

After mentioning this, Shaykhul Islam continued and then said:

"We do not consider Jaiz (permissible) to say: "This person (who utters the statement of Kufr) can be a Mumin in his Baatin (inwardly)." Whoever says so will pass through Islam as an arrow pierces its target."

After stating this Shaykhul Islam mentioned the Ayah an-Nahl 106. (Ibn Taymiyyah, as-Sarimul Maslul ala Shaatimur Rasul, 436-437)

Besides such claim and  regarding the Treaty of Hudaybiyah such interpretation had not been given by anyone throughout history other than some ignorant and Zindiq (heretic) people of our era. Nothing can be quoted from any scholar which states that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) confirmed any statement of Kufr in Hudaybiyah or any other places in order to get along with the Kuffar. Such claim, view, opinion has no Salaf (predecessor) from the Islamic Ummah and it has no bases at all. Allah Taala protects the Islamic Ummah from being united upon Dalalah (misguidance). Lets take the matter in hand and present how the Ulama of this Ummah explained this incident which happened during the Treaty of Hudaybiyah.

Imam Muslim (rahimahullah) narrated the incident:


حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا عَفَّانُ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ ثَابِتٍ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، أَنَّ قُرَيْشًا، صَالَحُوا النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِيهِمْ سُهَيْلُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم لِعَلِيٍّ:‏ اكْتُبْ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ‏.‏ قَالَ سُهَيْلٌ أَمَّا بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ فَمَا نَدْرِي مَا بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ وَلَكِنِ اكْتُبْ مَا نَعْرِفُ بِاسْمِكَ اللَّهُمَّ فَقَالَ:‏ اكْتُبْ مِنْ مُحَمَّدٍ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ‏ ‏.‏ قَالُوا لَوْ عَلِمْنَا أَنَّكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ لاَتَّبَعْنَاكَ وَلَكِنِ اكْتُبِ اسْمَكَ وَاسْمَ أَبِيكَ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم:‏ اكْتُبْ مِنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ‏.‏ فَاشْتَرَطُوا عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنَّ مَنْ جَاءَ مِنْكُمْ لَمْ نَرُدَّهُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَمَنْ جَاءَكُمْ مِنَّا رَدَدْتُمُوهُ عَلَيْنَا فَقَالُوا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَنَكْتُبُ هَذَا قَالَ: نَعَمْ إِنَّهُ مَنْ ذَهَبَ مِنَّا إِلَيْهِمْ فَأَبْعَدَهُ اللَّهُ وَمَنْ جَاءَنَا مِنْهُمْ سَيَجْعَلُ اللَّهُ لَهُ فَرَجًا وَمَخْرَجًا
"It has been narrated from Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah that he said: Affan narrated to us and said: Hammad ibn Salama narrated us from Thabit and he narrated on the authority of Anas (radiyallahu anh) that the Quraysh made peace with Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). Among them was Suhayl ibn Amr. So Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said to Ali (radiyallahu anh):

Write "Bismillahirrahmanrrahim (in the name of Allah, most Gracious and most Merciful)!.." Suhayl said: As for "Bismillah," we do not know what is meant by "Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim" (in the name of Allah most Gracious and most Merciful). But write what we understand, i.e., "Bi ismika Allahumma (in the name. O Allah)." Then, Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said: Write: "From Muhammad, Rasulullah (the Messenger of Allah)." They said: If we knew that thou welt the Messenger of Allah, we would follow you. Therefore, write your name and the name of your father. So Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said: Write "From Muhammad ibn Abdullah." They laid the condition on Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) that anyone who joined them from the Muslims, the Meccans would not return him, and anyone who joined you (the Muslims) from them, you would send him back to them. The Companions said: O Messenger of Allah, should we write this? He said: Yes. One who goes away from us to join them-may Allah keep him away! and one who comes to join us from them (and is sent back) Allah will provide him relief and a way of escape."
(Muslim, Hadith no: 1784)

Nawawi (rahimahullah) explained the incident in the following manner:

وَإِنَّمَا وَافَقَهُمْ فِي هَذِهِ الْأُمُورِ لِلْمَصْلَحَةِ الْمُهِمَّةِ الْحَاصِلَةِ بِالصُّلْحِ مَعَ أَنَّهُ لَا مَفْسَدَةَ فِي هَذِهِ الْأُمُورِ أَمَّا الْبَسْمَلَةُ وَبِاسْمِكَ اللَّهُمَّ فَمَعْنَاهُمَا وَاحِدٌ وَكَذَا قَوْلُهُ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ هُوَ أَيْضًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَلَيْسَ فِي تَرْكِ وَصْفِ اللَّهِ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى فِي هَذَا الْمَوْضِعِ بِالرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ مَا يَنْفِي ذَلِكَ وَلَا فِي تَرْكِ وَصْفِهِ أَيْضًا صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ هُنَا بِالرِّسَالَةِ مَا يَنْفِيهَا فَلَا مَفْسَدَةَ فِيمَا طَلَبُوهُ وَإِنَّمَا كَانَتِ المفسدة تكون لو طلبوا أن يكتب مالا يَحِلُّ مِنْ تَعْظِيمِ آلِهَتِهِمْ وَنَحْوِ ذَلِكَ

"We are aware that (Rasulullah during the Treaty of Hudaybiyah) accepted the conditions (of the Mushrikin which they insisted upon) in this matter due to the important Maslahat which is obtained by the Sulh (treaty). At the same time there was no Mafsadah (evil) in this matter. As for "Basmalah" and Bismika Allahumma (with the name of You, O Allah)", both are the same for us. Likewise his saying; "Muhammad ibn Abdullah" who is also "Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam)". As there is nothing indicates abandoning using these attributes of Rahman and Rahim to be negated from attributing Allah Subhanahu wa Taala with them likewise there is nothing that indicates abandoning using the attribute for the Risalah (prophethood) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) to be negated his Risalah. So there is no Mafsadah in (accepting) it. However there would be Mafsadah if they (i.e., the Mushrikin of Makkah) had requested to be written anything that is not Halaal (lawful) or Tadhim (glorify) their deities and its similar." (Nawawi, Sharhu Sahihil Muslim, 12/139)

Nawawi stated that if there were conditions in the Treaty of Hudaybiyah as glorifying the idols which is obvious Kufr, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) would have not signed it. However there is no statement of Kufr in the text of treaty. There is no indication in the Hadith that accepting the offer of the Mushrikin that changing "Bismillahirrahmanirrahim" to "Bismika Allahumma" and also changing "Muhammad, Rasulullah (the Messenger of Allah)" to "Muhammad ibn Abdullah".

Allah Taala stated in Suratul Kafirun:


قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ وَلَا أَنتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ وَلَا أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَّا عَبَدتُّمْ وَلَا أَنتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ
"Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Din (religion, way), and to me mine." (al-Kafirun 109/1-6)

Abu Salih narrated Ibn Abbas (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) saying:

"Kuffar (the Quraysh) said to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam): "O Muhammad, if you kiss one of our gods (as you Istilaam; kiss Hajarul Aswad), we shall confirm you(r God). Thereupon, this Surah was brought down by Jibril (alayhi salam). They lose their hope and started oppressing and torturing him (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and his Ashab."

This was narrated by Qurtubi in the Tafsir of the Suratul Kafirun. Qurtubi also narrated similar to it in the Tafsir of the Ayaat al-Isra 17/73-75 in which Allah Taala stated:

وَإِن كَادُواْ لَيَفْتِنُونَكَ عَنِ الَّذِي أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ لِتفْتَرِيَ عَلَيْنَا غَيْرَهُ وَإِذاً لاَّتَّخَذُوكَ خَلِيلاً وَلَوْلاَ أَن ثَبَّتْنَاكَ لَقَدْ كِدتَّ تَرْكَنُ إِلَيْهِمْ شَيْئاً قَلِيلاً إِذاً لَّأَذَقْنَاكَ ضِعْفَ الْحَيَاةِ وَضِعْفَ الْمَمَاتِ ثُمَّ لاَ تَجِدُ لَكَ عَلَيْنَا نَصِيراً
"And they indeed strove hard to beguile thee away from that wherewith We had revealed unto thee, that thou shouldst invent other than it against Us; in that case, they would certainly have made thee (their) friend! And had We not given thee strength, thou wouldst nearly have inclined to them a little. In that case We should have made thee taste an equal portion (of punishment) in this life, and an equal portion in death: and moreover thou wouldst have found none to help thee against Us!" (al-Isra 17/73-75)

It is not possible for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) to state/commit Kufr even if it was for the sake of Maslahat (benefit). Allah Taala warned him harshly with the harsh punishment. Since Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is Masum (innocent), this harsh threat is actually addressed to his Ummah through him. All of these indicate that the claims of the Ahlud Dalalah (the People of Misguidance) regarding the contracts & agreements in which they bring the Treaty of Hudaybiyah as proof is a baseless, vain claim. The Prophet of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is far distant from such ugly claim.
Whosoever desires الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah (honour, power and glory) then to Allah belong all الْعِزَّةَ al-Izzah [and one can get honour, power and glory only by obeying and worshiping Allah (Alone)]. To Him ascend (all) الْكَلِمُ الطَّيِّبُ al-Kalim al-Tayyib (the goodly words), and الْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ al-Amal al-Saalih (the righteous deeds) exalt it (the goodly words i.e., the goodly words are not accepted by Allah unless and until they are followed by good deeds). (Fatir 35/10)

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid
Re: THE RULING OF SIGNING CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS WHICH CONTAIN KUFR
« Reply #3 on: 11.03.2021, 02:19:45 AM »

The Second Doubt: The Scholars Differ Regarding Whether or Not, Writing and Signature is Equivalent to Speech

A doubter claims,

Quote
The individual who verbally states Kufr without being under Ikrh (coercion) becomes Kfir. There is Ijm in the Ummah in this regard. Thus, it is unconceivable for a Muslim to carry out Kufr for the sake of insignificant worldly benefit. As for the issue of signing a contract that has Kufr articles in it without verbalizing them by the tongue; there is detail. According to some scholars of Islm, writing is considered equivalent to speech, while others consider it as Kinyah (indirect expression) and they do not consider writing to be equivalent to speech; writing is not equivalent to speech and the intention will be taken in consideration. Thus, according to those scholars who consider writing equivalent to speech the one who signs a contract containing Kufr becomes a Kfir, whereas the same person does not become Kfir according to the scholars who consider writing to be Kinyah and do not consider writing equivalent to statement, though he is under severe threat due to signing a contract that contains Kufr. Abdur Rahmn al-Jazar stated the following regarding whether or not writing is equivalent to speech,

Hanaf scholars stated when two conditions are met writing could be considered as speech. The first condition is that the writing must be fixed. Meaning it must be written on things such as paper or wood and it must be legible. Or else such writing is disregarded. The other condition is, its addressee must be explicit. Meaning, it must be known to whom it was written to such as, Im writing this letter to so-and-so woman... Otherwise Talq (divorce) will not occur. The Mlik scholars stated that writing is a means of Talq; whoever writes, I divorce my wife, his wife is divorced.

The Shfi scholars stated, divorce in writing can only be possible when three conditions are met. The first condition being, intention must be present with the writing. Without intention Talq would not actualize. Since writing is Kinyah. The second condition is, that it must be written on something fixed (like paper). The third condition is that the husband must personally write it himself, otherwise Talq would not occur. The Hanbal scholars stated that Talq would occur when it is written on something fixed however, not if written on water or air. (Quotation from Jazr ends here.)

It is very well known that there is Ikhtilf between the Four Madhhab regarding the issue of writing. For this reason, it is necessary to pause concerning declaring Takfir of the individual who signs a contract that contains Kufr in it. However, one must abstain from such contracts as much as possible. One must look for alternatives. Such contract can only be signed when there are no other alternatives and when there is Dharrah (dire-necessity). It is because in some cases, needs are Dharrah.

When this doubt is well understood, it will be seen that it contains many Kufr and Dallah (deviation) just like the doubt regarding the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. The reason being, the doubter claims what differs writing Kufr from uttering it, is that it does not make the doer Kfir neither in the sight of the people nor in the sight of Allh.

Whereas the Ikhtilf between the scholars regarding whether or not writing is equivalent to speech arose due to the possibility of distortion that could take place in the writing and/or other similar reasons. Thus, while some scholars do not consider writing as evidence in court, many others considered Shar transactions [such as Nikh (marriage), Talq etc.] will be actualized by taking writing as evidence. In truth, the issue whether writing is evidence or not in regards to matters of law is itself a matter that is greatly discussed even in man-made systems by the law makers in which they bring forth many specifics in this regards.

This issue of whether writing is an expression of consent or not, is usually mentioned in Fiqh (jurisprudence) under the chapters; Nikh (marriage), Talq (divorce) and Aqd (contract). Until today, regardless of investigating the matter there isnt any information we have a grasp of in regards to how the scholars applied this issue to the Ahkm (pl. Hukm; rulings) of Irtidd (apostasy) and Murtad (apostate). For a moment, even if we are to assume this issue was discussed, the discussion would revolve around whether or not a document that contains blatant Kufr could be evidence in the courts to judge the Irtidd of a certain individual.

When it comes to the individual who wrote or signed a document which contains blatant Kufr and whether or not he fell into Kufr in the presence of Allh and in his own Nafs; by the Ijm of the Ulam this individual is Kfir in the presence of Allhu Tal, in his own Nafs, and those who know he has signed the document which contains blatant Kufr, even if the Islmic court is unable to prove that he performed Kufr.

As understood from the above-quoted Fatw from Ibnu Hazm, Ibnu Taymiyyah and Sulaymn bin Abdillh; with the absence of coercion or quoting/narrating from elsewhere, the individual who utters or writes Kufr falls into Kufr regardless of doing it lightheartedly or seriously, or in order to gain worldly benefits. This ruling is fixed with the Ijm of the Ummah. Such individual is obliged to repent from this, regardless of anyone witnessing it or not. This is because, actions of Kufr such as writing, signing, or stamping the statement of Kufr merely emanate from those who open their chest to Kufr, consent to Kufr, and those who do not show hatred towards Kufr. Not a single letter can be cited from any scholar opposing this ruling.

Rather, scholars have Ijm upon the Kufr of the one who performs Sihr (magic) by writing Kufr statements. Likewise, they declared Takfr upon many historically infamous philosophers, Mutasawwif/Suf, and scholars of Kalm (theological rhetoric) such as the likes of Ibnu Arab (Shaykhul Akfar), Ibnu Sn (Avicenna), al-Frb (Alfarabius/Alpharabius/Avennasar) because they wrote books containing Kufr. Some of these individuals like the scholar of Kalm, ar-Rz, have later repented.

Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahmatullhi Alayh stated the following regarding the state of ar-Rz,


وَأَبْلَغُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ مِنْهُمْ مَنْ يُصَنِّفُ فِي دِينِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ وَالرِّدَّةِ عَنْ الْإِسْلَامِ كَمَا صَنَّفَ الرَّازِي كِتَابَهُ فِي عِبَادَةِ الْكَوَاكِبِ وَأَقَامَ الْأَدِلَّةَ عَلَى حُسْنٍ ذَلِكَ وَمَنْفَعَتِهِ وَرَغَّبَ فِيهِ وَهَذِهِ رِدَّةٌ عَنْ الْإِسْلَامِ بِاتِّفَاقِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَإِنْ كَانَ قَدْ يَكُونُ عَادَ إلَى الْإِسْلَامِ
Some among them (Ahlul Kalm) compiled books regarding the Dn of the Mushrikn and Riddah (apostasy) from Islm. Like (Fakhrud Dn) ar-Rz compiled a book regarding worshiping the stars. He established evidences in this book that this is good, its benefits, and encouraged people to it. This, with the Ittifq (agreement) of the Muslimn, is Riddah from Islm. Albeit he later returned to Islm[1]

In reality, none other than the one who is intellectually and religiously deficient would allege that a statement that causes Kufr when uttered does not cause Kufr when written. Furthermore, let alone in matters of Itiqd, even in the matters of everyday life among the people, -except in proving issues- you will not find any right minded individual claiming there is difference between reviling someone verbally and reviling someone in writing and that the one who reviled in writing would not be condemned.

For instance, do these doubters allege that the one who insults Allhu Tal and His Rasl Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam will not become Kfir if he writes the insults instead of uttering it, or that this is a matter of Ikhtilf? This is something that even the most ignorant among the lay men would not utter. I dont think even the doubters would make such claim.

It appears that just like the majority of society, these doubters present this doubt because of suspicions they have regarding the expressions found in contracts such as accepting the authority of the Tght courts and being loyal to secularism and democracy, furthermore, being generally in doubt regarding the correct Tawhd belief that differs from the understanding of Dn accepted by the masses.

In fact, the reason most of those who attribute themselves to the Aqdah of Tawhd deviate is their fluctuation between the Dn of their ancestors and the Aqdah of Tawhd they learned later on through books alongside having doubts regarding the Aqdah of Tawhd. This is a lengthy matter; thus a small awakening is sufficient for the possessors of intellect. However, it is necessary to properly recognise that these doubters try to guard their worldly gains and conceal the Kufr and heresy they carry within through presenting doubts which have no explanation neither intellectually nor religiously as if ridiculing the intellect of human beings. The Mumin (believer) who recognizes these would not take the doubts, they try to implant, seriously.

If these doubters or their defenders make a claim that their intention behind presenting this Ikhtilf on the subject of whether or not writing is equivalent to speech is so that they can say those whose signature is found on a document containing Kufr are Kfir but cannot be declared Takfr in the presence of the people because it is impossible to prove if the signature belongs to him, therefore they pause on declaring Takfr, then we respond with the following:

This is not a matter to emphasize and make mention of in the presence of those who are ignorant. If it happens that the signature of a true Muslim is established on a document that contains blatant Kufr, to play it safe he will be asked about whether or not he signed it. If he affirms the signature belongs to him and that he signed it thus it becomes evident that he is a Murtad. If he denies to have signed it and there are no witnesses to affirm or negate what he says, only then the issue of whether or not such a document is accounted as evidence in court would be taken into consideration. This task belongs to the Fuqah (pl. Faqh; jurists) and the Qdh (Sharah Judge) who will pass judgment regarding him.

Nonetheless, our understanding about these doubters is that the real intent behind raising this doubt is an attempt to water down the matter so that they can legalize their Kufr deeds, such that after attempting to turn this Kufr matter -which is plain as day- to appear as a matter of Ikhtilf, the doubter stated to following,


Quote
It is very well known that there is Ikhtilf between the Four Madhhab regarding the issue of writing. For this reason, it is necessary to pause concerning declaring Takfir of the individual who signs a contract that contains Kufr in it. However, one must abstain from such contracts as much as possible. One must look for alternatives. Such contract can only be signed when there are no other alternatives and when there is Dharrah (dire-necessity). It is because in some cases, needs are Dharrah.

Consequently, it is understood that the doubter and his likes permit signing contracts, including oaths taken for governmental positions that contain Kufr with the excuse of Dharrah (dire-necessity). What they call Dharrah is nothing but things consisting of personal benefits such as struggling to earn a living etc., which does not even reach a level that permits one to perform Harm let alone necessity reaching the level that permits the one under Ikrh to display Taqiyyah (Dissimulation).

To date, not a single person died out of hunger due to avoidance of signing a contract that contains Kufr. Moreover, a single person did not even go hungry for the same reason. One must realize that both the doubter and those who follow them are people who do not believe neither in the Sifah (attribute) of Allh, ar-Razzq (the Provider) nor other Sift (pl. Sifah; attributes) of Allhu Tal, and are not able to appreciate Allhu Tal as necessary.

Once it is exposed that these people do not mind writing/signing contracts etc. that contain blatant Kufr; there remains one issue: What is the base for their claim? The doubter narrates the following view from the Shfi scholars,


Quote
divorce in writing can only be possible when three conditions are met. The first condition being, intention must be present with the writing. Without intention Talq would not actualize. Since writing is Kinyah.

In order to explain this statement, it is necessary to accentuate two terms: Niyyah (intention) and Kinyah (metaphor).

The term Niyyah is explained as to intend, to incline by the scholars of Lughah (the Arabic language). The author of Misbhul Munr explained the term Niyyah as
عَزْمِ الْقَلْبِ عَلَى أَمْرٍ مِنْ الْأُمُورِ determination of the heart to something.[2] You may refer back to, firstly, the named book and Lisnul Arab, and then to the other books of Lughah for more information.

The scholars who bind the Niyyah to the validity of writing in the matters of Talq state that writing is only valid when one writes it with the intention of divorce while he is determined in his heart to divorce. Otherwise, if one writes narrating from elsewhere or as nothing but an idle tale without intending to divorce his wife, this does not demonstrate he is divorced.

In order to implement this Ikhtilf to our topic; the statement in the contracts the courts are authorized when dispute arises between parties must be written by the person in question in a fashion that is narration from the Kuffr, with the intention to show it to someone, or with some other intention. Contrarily, as everyone is aware; statements written in contracts are not Laghw (idle) statements and as the person who drafts the contract does not write other articles in the contract as Laghw, he does not write this for no reason. Rather, he intentionally writes it and places it in among articles that bind both parties. Moreover, even if a Kufr statement is written as empty talk, the one who signs it as consent and acceptance becomes a Kfir. However, this isnt the case.

As a person would not be exempt from paying the $500 monthly rental fee after having signed a contract that states the monthly rental payment is $500, just because he claims that he did not intend to pay $500 whilst singing the contract; the declaration of a person who signs a contract while he is aware it comprises so and so courts are authorized when dispute arises between parties, would not be taken in consideration when afterwards he claims that he did not have the intention in his heart whilst writing or signing the contract.

In truth, these are statements of ignorant individuals who take the Dn as play and amusement. Their statement is as valid as the statement of a Fsiq (corrupt person) who claims that his Niyyah was not corrupt while he was doing Zin (adultery). Their declarations regarding Niyyah do not go beyond the statements of the deviated sects whose claim is that one would not become Kfir as long as he does not intent to become Kfir and so long as he does not intend to leave the fold of the Dn.

Regarding this matter, Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahmatullhi Alayh stated,


وبالجملة فمن قال أو فعل ما هو كفر كفر بذلك وإن لم يقصد أن يكون كافرا إذ لا يقصد الكفر أحد إلا ما شاء الله
In summary, those who state or perform an action that is Kufr will become Kfir for this reason, even if he did not intend to become a Kfir, because no one can intend Kufr other than those whom Allh willed it.[3]

The stipulation of the Ulam regarding Qasd (purpose) as a condition for one to become Kfir is related with the act. For example, in our case, if the individual signed the contract without having seen the Kufr statement, he will not become Kfir, because he did not intend to perform the Kufr act while signing it. If it is possible, then he must terminate it once he finds out it contains Kufr. However, the individual who signed the contract while knowing the Kufr it contains has intended the Kufr, meaning he intended to affirm the authority of the Kufr laws in arbitration. For this reason, contrary to the one who signed it without knowing there is Kufr in the contract, he becomes Kfir.

When it comes to the issue of Kinyah; it is mentioned by the author of a Hanaf Fiqh Book, Fathul Qadr,


الْكِنَايَةُ مَا خَفِيَ الْمُرَادُ بِهِ لِتَوَارُدِ الِاحْتِمَالَاتِ عَلَيْهِ
Kinyah (indirect expression) is that which the intent is hidden/obscure due to carrying various possibilities.[4]

According to the Shfi Madhhab, Kinyah is valid only with Niyyah in matters of personal decisions such as divorce, freeing a slave etc. Kinyah is not acceptable in matters such as Nikh since it is not possible for witnesses to know the Niyyah (of the person who is getting married). This matter contains much detail this is not its place.[5]

As understood from its description, what concerns us is that Kinyah and writing that is evaluated as Kinyah is not taken as evidence by some scholars because it carries possibilities. Once the possibilities are cleared, Ikhtilf is also cleared. Otherwise, no scholar would ever pause on declaring Takfr upon a person who evidently knowingly signed/wrote the document containing Kufr terms.

While on the topic, wed like to mention that just like many others like him among the so called preachers of Btil, the doubter pitches the statements of the scholars to the lay people and do not mention why the Ikhtilf regarding whether or not writing is equivalent to speech existed  among the scholars. The reason behind this is that if he mentions it, then his mask will fall and his intention and concealed thoughts will be exposed.

Those who have the least bit of knowledge would know that the Ulam do not defend a single view without basing it on Aql or Naql reasons. Their defence either has an Illah (reason) or a Nass (textual proof) relating to the issue. Presenting a view while reckoning it without mentioning its Illah and without delving into its details is not befitting the one who claims to be a student of knowledge. Unfortunately, this is what the majority of the people does. Wallhul Mustan (help is sought only from Allah)!

It is crystal clear for the possessor of intellect that the scholars who do not accept writing to be equivalent to speech did not intend writing is some non-binding useless thing, rather, they took caution due to the possibilities writing carries and because it is not safeguarded from falsification and being altered. Wed like to explain the matter in detail in order to remove suspicions and doubts related to it.

Writing is a tool people have been using since ancient times in order to express emotions and thoughts just like speech. For this reason, the following statement has become very famous among the Arabs:


الْكِتَابَ أَحَدُ اللِّسَانَيْنِ
Which means, Writing is one of the two tongues or writing is the second tongue.

In his book al-Bahrul Muht, az-Zarkash cited the following statement from Ilkiy at-Tabar that he said,


أَنَّهُ بِمَنْزِلَةِ السَّمَاعِ. قَالَ: لِأَنَّ الْكِتَابَ أَحَدُ اللِّسَانَيْنِ، وَكَانَ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - يُبَلِّغُ بِالْكِتَابِ الْغَائِبَ، وَبِالْخِطَابِ الْحَاضِرَ
Narrating a Hadth through writing is equivalent to narrating through Sim (hearing). He said: The reason being, writing is one of the two tongues. Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam would inform those who were absent by writing and those in his presence by speech.[6]

Because of this, Badrud Dn al-Ayn, one of the Hanaf scholars, said,


فلو لم يكن الكتاب كالخطاب لم يكن النبي - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - مبلغا به
If writing was not like Khitb (addressing), then the Nab Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam would not have conveyed with it (writing).[7] Quote from al-Ayn ends here.

What is more evident than this is Kitbullh (the Book of Allh; the Qurn). The Qurn was written since it was revealed and became a Hujjah (proof) for and against those whom it reached. Az-Zayla also denoted this fact in Tabynul Haqiq. Wallhu Alam.

This principle can be epitomized as
الْكِتَابَ كَالْخِطَابِ Writing is like Khitb (addressing). As for its details and application; in the same section, az-Zayla explained it in detail, then went on to explain the statement of the author of Kanzud Daqiq that in opposition to the issues of Nikh, Talq etc., writing is not considered to be evidence in the issues of Hadd (punishment). The reason being, the command of Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam, in cases of doubt, imposing Hadd (punishments) is avoided.[8]

As seen, writing is not evidence because it withholds uncertainty. Similar Ikhtilf took place when the issue of whether or not the writings of a Qdh to another Qdh or documents found by a Qdh are taken in consideration while judging was debated. In his book al-Ashbh wan Nadhir, as-Suyt allocated a chapter for this matter under the title Kitbah (writing) and stated the following,


إذَا رَأَى الْقَاضِي وَرَقَةً فِيهَا حُكْمُهٌ لِرَجُلٍ، وَطَالَبَ عَنْهُ إمْضَاءَهُ وَالْعَمَلَ بِهِ وَلَمْ يَتَذَكَّرْهُ، لَمْ يَعْتَمِدْهُ قَطْعًا لِإِمْكَانِ التَّزْوِيرِ
If a Qdh finds/sees a document regarding the Hukm (ruling) of a man, and the man seeks from the Qdh to sign it and put into action and the Qdh does not remember it; the Qdh does not rely on the document since there is possibility of fraud.[9]

Imam al-Bukhr Rahimahullh narrated many thar (narrations) from the Salaf along with the letters of Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam to the governors of other nations as evidence in the 15th chapter of Kitbul Ahkm in his Sahh and gave it the following title,


بَابُ الشَّهَادَةِ عَلَى الخَطِّ المَخْتُومِ، وَمَا يَجُوزُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ وَمَا يَضِيقُ عَلَيْهِمْ، وَكِتَابِ الحَاكِمِ إِلَى عَامِلِهِ وَالقَاضِي إِلَى القَاضِي
Chapter: Bearing Witness to the Author of the Stamped Letter; What Is Permissible and What Is Not in This Regards and The Letter from a Judge to His Employees, and that of a Qdh to a Qdh.

According to what al-Bukhr narrated on the authority of Anas bin Mlik Radiyallhu Anh, he said,


لَمَّا أَرَادَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنْ يَكْتُبَ إِلَى الرُّومِ قَالُوا إِنَّهُمْ لاَ يَقْرَءُونَ كِتَابًا إِلاَّ مَخْتُومًا‏.‏ فَاتَّخَذَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم خَاتَمًا مِنْ فِضَّةٍ، كَأَنِّي أَنْظُرُ إِلَى وَبِيصِهِ، وَنَقْشُهُ مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ
When the Nab Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam intended to write to the Byzantines, the people said, They do not read a letter unless it is sealed (stamped). Therefore, the Nab Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam took a silver ring -as if I am looking at its glitter now- and its engraving was: Muhammad, Raslullh.[10]

As Ibnu Hajar pointed out, al-Bukhr permitted everything he listed in the title, i.e. writing a letter for the sake of Hukm and witnessing to a letter, he then made mention of the above-mentioned Hadth in evidence. According to what Ibnu Hajar narrated, the scholars agreed that when an individual does not remember his own penmanship it is not permissible for him to witness (testify). The cautious stance of the Scholars is due to the Fitnah (tribulation) that occurred during the era of Uthmn Radiyallhu Anh which extended to the chain of incidences that ended with the martyr of Uthmn Radiyallhu Anh. Since it is said what sparked the Fitnah was a letter stamped with the print belonging to Uthmn Radiyallhu Anh, clearly not written by him yet attributed to him by those who caused Fitnah. Also, even the masters of calligraphy make mistakes whilst distinguishing handwritings of two people. Furthermore, Fasd and Fujr (mischief) between people increases day by day etc. For further explanation of the matter, refer back to the Sharh of the Hadth by Ibnu Hajar.[11]

We believe this explanation is sufficient for the seeker of truth. In short, whoever writes/signs/affirms something which contains Kufr in a manner that is indicative of being a signature of acceptance, becomes a Kfir. As it is understood from the above-mentioned statements of the scholars; the existing debate among the scholars regarding the issue of writing, namely whether or not writing is equivalent to statement is interconnected with whether or not writing is considered as evidence in court. While, whoever permits writing/signing statements of Kufr becomes Kfir, even if he does not do it himself. No scholar stated the opposite. Wal Hamdulillhi Rabbil lamn.
 1. For the details of the matter refer back to: Majmul Fatw, 18/53-58.
 
 2. Al-Fayym, al-Misbhul Munr, 2/631.
 
 3. Ibnu Taymiyyah, as-Srimul Masll, p. 177-178.
 
 4. Ibnul Humm, Fathul Qadr, 4/61.
 
 5. Refer back to; as-Suyt, al-Ashbh wan Nadhir, p. 296.
 
 6. Az-Zarkash, al-Bahrul Muht, 6/321. Also refer back to al-Mward, Adabud Duny wad Dn, p. 60. This statement is also narrated as The pen is the second tongue.
 
 7. Al-Ayn, al-Binyah Sharhul Hidyah, 8/8.
 
 8. Az-Zayla, Tabynul Haqiq Sharhu Kanzud Daqiq, 6/218.
 
 9. As-Suyt, al-Ashbh wan Nadhir, p. 309.
 
 10. Al-Bukhr, Hadth no: 7162.
 
 11. Ibnu Hajar, Fathul Br, 13/145.
Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh said,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

The lim (scholar) recognizes the Jhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jhil. The Jhil does not recognize the lim since he has never been an lim. (Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmul Fatw, 13/235)

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid
Re: THE RULING OF SIGNING CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS WHICH CONTAIN KUFR
« Reply #4 on: 29.03.2021, 12:48:45 AM »

The Third Doubt: These Kufr Contracts May Be Accepted With Tahrf (Distortion)

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله المعين والصلاة والسلام على النبي الأمين وعلى آله وأصحابه

As it is known within the Kufr system of our era in unthinkable places one may encounter, contracts/agreements that contain the condition the settlement for disputes regarding this agreement shall be governed by the laws/courts of Such contracts/agreements can be found in services such as gas, hydro, heat etc., in debit/credit/prepaid cards and installment payments, and in recent years computer programs, some websites, and especially, in email services.

Accepting statements found in these contracts such as setting such and such court/law of the Tght as an arbitrator in settlement of disputes, or contracts which contain such statements is Kufr and would only be doubted by persons who are oblivious about the meaning of Tawhd. Therefore, we shall not be covering this in this article. We had explained the ruling of similar issues earlier, and may be referred to.

Nowadays, such expressions appear in some contracts & agreements, meaning, Uqd (pl. Aqd). Aqd is an agreement/contract between two parties; the party of jb (offering) and Qabl (acceptance). Once one accepts the Aqd, all of the conditions of the Aqd are binding upon the individual and valid until it is annulled. Just as there is no evidence that mere Tahrf is a way of annulling a validated agreement/contract, there is no narration from the Salaf with this regards.

Today even if Tahrf has been done, the conditions of agreements/contracts -including the Kufr/Harm conditions- are still valid. For example, the court authorized as an arbitrator in settlement of disputes is still authorized regardless of the Tahrf. While such clauses of Kufr are still binding, applying Tahrf is merely an attempt of fooling ones self. It also denotes accepting these agreements while knowing that these Kufr clauses are still binding, which is showing consent to Kufr, and this is Kufr. A person who seeks to protect his Dn would never attempt such trickery of the Jews for worldly gains.

We want to touch upon a matter that many are unaware of. All of these agreements/contracts are Aqd. Many who do not recognize the Dn nor the worldly life are unaware that the above-mentioned agreements are Aqd and that this term has an important place, both in the Islmic Fiqh and man-made jurisdictions. These people merely focus on the statement of Kufr in the agreements/contracts and deem that the statement of Kufr which takes place in them is a statement that one stated in the past and is a statement/writing which has no ruling at the moment. Whereas, clauses such as the courts of is authorized to settle disputes found in these agreements are not clauses written in the past which has no ruling at the moment, rather, it is a condition of that agreement, and conditions are binding so long as the agreement continues.

There are many conditions in such agreements/contracts. Some of which are Mubh (permissible), some Harm (unlawful) and some Kufr (disbelief). While dozens of conditions -signed by those who allege that they apply Tahrf to the agreements- remain intact, claiming that only the clauses which are Harm and Kufr are void is not a characteristic of the seeker of truth. This is because the agreement is fixed, and the person continues to benefit from the service. Likewise, there is no reason for the clauses of Kufr and Harm found in the agreement to be annulled.

Besides, if there is a condition in the agreement/contract which states that a certain amount of Rib (interest) shall be paid, this condition is still intact; when the person who is benefiting from the service does not pay his due amount, he will be obliged to pay the Rib. Likewise, if there is a condition in the agreement/contract authorizing a court, this condition is still intact; when the person who is benefiting from the service does something illegal, whichever court is authorized in that contract, a case will be filled to that specific court, not another one. In example, if the commercial court of is authorized in the contract, a case will only be filled to that court, not in another jurisdiction.

In short; the Aqd is still valid and effective with each and every condition. In order to invalidate something in the agreement/contract, both parties need to agree and show consent to the cancellation in order for the condition to change or become invalid. Since this is the case, how and with what evidence can one claim that the Kufr condition in the agreement/contract is invalidated just by scratching out the aforementioned condition? One may not be able to bring a single evidence, neither from the Sharah nor from the intellect.

It seems that all of these claims are sourced from theories that are innovated in order to legitimize actions by those who do not live according to the Dn. None who possesses an intellect would pay attention to these. However, we will give some details regarding the matter as to how the scholars approach the matter of Aqd with the hope of satisfying and opening the hearts to guidance. Therefore, we are going to fore mostly clarify what an Aqd is and what the pillars of an Aqd are.

Linguistically,
الْعَقْد al-Aqd means knotting, tying. In the Sharah, it is described with two meanings. The first is the thing that one promises himself or others. Al-Qurtub Rahmatullhi Alayh stated the following in the Tafsr (exegesis) of the verse,

﴿يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ أَوْفُواْ بِالْعُقُودِ.﴾
O you who have believed, fulfill (all) Uqd. (al-Midah 5/1)

الْعُقُودُ الرُّبُوطُ، وَاحِدُهَا عَقْدٌ، يُقَالُ: عَقَدْتُ الْعَهْدَ وَالْحَبْلَ، وَعَقَدْتُ الْعَسَلَ  فَهُوَ يُسْتَعْمَلُ فِي الْمَعَانِي وَالْأَجْسَامِ، قَالَ الْحُطَيْئَةُ
قَوْمٌ إِذَا عَقَدُوا عَقْدًا لِجَارِهِمُ ... شَدُّوا الْعِنَاجَ وَشَدُّوا فَوْقَهُ الْكَرَبَا
فَأَمَرَ اللَّهُ سُبْحَانَهُ بِالْوَفَاءِ بِالْعُقُودِ، قَالَ الْحَسَنُ: يَعْنِي بِذَلِكَ عُقُودَ الدَّيْنِ وَهِيَ مَا عَقَدَهُ الْمَرْءُ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ، مِنْ بَيْعٍ وَشِرَاءٍ وَإِجَارَةٍ وَكِرَاءٍ وَمُنَاكَحَةٍ وَطَلَاقٍ وَمُزَارَعَةٍ وَمُصَالَحَةٍ وَتَمْلِيكٍ وَتَخْيِيرٍ وَعِتْقٍ وَتَدْبِيرٍ وَغَيْرِ ذَلِكَ مِنَ الْأُمُورِ، مَا كَانَ ذَلِكَ غَيْرَ خَارِجٍ عَنِ الشَّرِيعَةِ، وَكَذَلِكَ مَا عَقَدَهُ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ لِلَّهِ مِنَ الطَّاعَاتِ، كَالْحَجِّ وَالصِّيَامِ وَالِاعْتِكَافِ وَالْقِيَامِ وَالنَّذْرِ وَمَا أَشْبَهَ ذَلِكَ مِنْ طَاعَاتِ مِلَّةِ الْإِسْلَامِ. وَأَمَّا نَذْرُ المباح فلا يلزم بإجماع من الامة، قال ابْنُ الْعَرَبِيِّ
Uqd means ties. Its singular form is Aqd (which means tie). As it is said, I tied the Ahd (tie) and the rope. It is also said, I tied the shackle. The term Aqd is used for both abstract and material things. (The poet) al-Hutayah said,

قَوْمٌ إِذَا عَقَدُوا عَقْدًا لِجَارِهِمُ ... شَدُّوا الْعِنَاجَ وَشَدُّوا فَوْقَهُ الْكَرَبَا
They are such a tribe that whenever they tie an Aqd with their neighbors (or those who are under their protection) ... They tie their ties sturdily one on top of the other.

Therefore Allh Subhnahu commanded to fulfill the Uqd. Al-Hasan said: Allh intended with this the Uqd of Dayn (agreements of loan). These are that which a person makes an Aqd upon himself from buying and selling, renting and hiring, marrying and divorcing, champerty, compromising, possessing, giving the option to select, freeing a slave, promising emancipation on the owners death, and other affairs, which are not against the Sharah. Likewise, that which he made an Aqd (vowed) to Allh upon himself from the actions of obedience, such as al-Hajj (pilgrimage), as-Siym (fasting), al-Itikf (seclusion), al-Qiym (standing), an-Nadhr (vowing), and whatever resembles these from the actions of obedience in the religion of Islm. When it comes to the Mubh (permissible) Nadhr, then it is not incumbent according to the Ijm of Ummah. This was said by Ibnul Arab.
[1]

Other than this general meaning of Aqd, there is also a specific meaning of Aqd. Az-Zarkash amongst the Usl scholars of the Shfi Madhhab described it as follows,


ارْتِبَاطِ الْإِيجَابِ بِالْقَبُولِ الِالْتِزَامِيِّ كَعَقْدِ الْبَيْعِ وَالنِّكَاحِ وَغَيْرِهِمَا.
It is tying jb with complying Qabl, such as the Aqd of buying and selling, Nikh, and other than them.[2]

When one says Aqd, agreements which are executed by two or more parties comes to mind both in the Islmic Sharah and man-made laws, that which fits better with the latter definition of the term. It is rather evident that agreements which are our topic fit in this type of Uqd in Islm. This is because these agreements are only valid after the parties agree upon something by the way of jb and Qabl. Conditions of a contract are general conditions which both parties must abide by.

If there is a clause which is Btil according to Islm, the scholars have made Ittifq (agreed) upon the fact that this very clause is invalid. Only the Hanaf scholars held the view that once the Btil clause is removed from the contract, the rest of the clauses will be binding. Whereas, the majority of the scholars stated that the entire contract is Btil and that a new contract must be stipulated.

According to the statement of the majority, contracts which contain such Harm and Kufr clauses are invalid with its entirety, and a new contract which does not contain such Btil clauses must be stipulated by the person/institute. Whereas according to the Hanaf scholars, the contract is still valid, however the conditions which contain Btil must be removed.

In our era, most of the contacts/agreements are standard and it is very difficult to shape them by individual request. Applying Tahrf which is mere pen tricks falling short of removing the Kufr clauses has no ruling. This is because no matter what one does under the mask of Tahrf on the contract, in most cases, the ruling of the Kufr clause is still binding. The attempt of those who practice Tahrf is actually an attempt of applying Tahrf to the Dn of Allh, instead of applying Tahrf to the contract. Wallhu Alam!..
 1. Al-Qurtub, Tafsr, 6/32.
 
 2. Az-Zarkash, al-Manthr fil Qawid, 2/397.
Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh said,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

The lim (scholar) recognizes the Jhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jhil. The Jhil does not recognize the lim since he has never been an lim. (Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmul Fatw, 13/235)

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid
Re: THE RULING OF SIGNING CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS WHICH CONTAIN KUFR
« Reply #5 on: 31.03.2021, 12:04:21 AM »

The Claim of Tahrf

Quote
May peace be upon those who follow guidance

Bismillāhirrahmānirrahīm

I have a question regarding contracts that contain kufr. You have explained this topic here (http://darultawhid.com/en/forum/index.php?topic=5195.msg9474#msg9474).

Only the one who is unaware of Tawhd may doubt the open Kufr in contracts and agreements.

Praise be to Allāh ('azza wa jalla) who showed kufr to us as Kufr. I have a question about an issue that you did not expound upon: If someone crosses a line over the statement of kufr in the contract and says I do not accept this, and if the other party says thats okay, is this still regarded a kufr contract? The second issue is, in a presentation prepared by some, they explain how they can distort the kufr contract in programs; the phrase I accept the above terms in the program (for example) is replaced with I do not accept. Another issue is they write how to distort acceptance of such contracts online; here, both the sentence displayed on the computer is distorted and the text sent to the site authority (server) is distorted. In this case, is this kufr?

When is a contract valid and when is it invalid from the point view of islam?

May Allāh (subhānahu wa taālā) reward you with khayr.
Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh said,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

The lim (scholar) recognizes the Jhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jhil. The Jhil does not recognize the lim since he has never been an lim. (Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmul Fatw, 13/235)

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid
Re: THE RULING OF SIGNING CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS WHICH CONTAIN KUFR
« Reply #6 on: 31.03.2021, 12:04:43 AM »

Bismillhir Rahmnir Rahm.

From the Usl point of view, a summary regarding the issue of Tahrf (distortion) was mentioned above. It is obvious that there is no validity in doing Tahrf of the Kufr, Harm, or even any other statement in the contract unless it is completely annulled with the consent of all involved parties.

As for the question you asked, as far as it is understood, the claim is that the Tahrf applied here not only changes the word of Kufr, but also terminates the contract. Now, with this means, we ask one question to all of those who make various claims that they asked a lawyer, an official of such-and-such company or such-and-such organization, and they responded that Tahrf terminates the contract or claim, as you have mentioned, that Tahrf applied to contracts on computers reaches the other party and thus the contract is terminated, and those who make similar claims: Is this Yaqn (certain) knowledge, or Dhann (presumption) and assumption?

This is because these contracts being Kufr and their validity is constant with Yaqn knowledge. This Yaqn knowledge will only cease to be with another Yaqn knowledge. For the following principle is stable in the Fiqh of Islm,
الْيَقِينُ لَا يَزُولُ بِالشَّكِّ al-Yaqnu l Yazlu bish Shakk, meaning certainty is not removed/dispelled by doubt. Just as the Wudh (ablution) of a person who has Yaqn of his Wudh is not nullified by Shakk (doubt), the termination of a contract containing a clause authorizing the Tght for arbitration will not be terminated due to fictitious-theories of people whose expertise is unknown or mere statements of others whose qualifications are unknown. These are ridiculous claims according to both the Islmic and man-made laws.

We do not want to prolong the discussion here, however, it is possible to deeply-investigate the issue by asking many counter questions about the theories you mentioned, such as which server contracts on the computer go to, if it going to the server means the termination of the contract, etc. However, there is no need for such questions.

As we said, it is enough to merely question whether the status of these claims are Yaqn knowledge in order to lift Kufr. If there is no Yaqn knowledge, and the issue does not seem like this, then the only thing remaining is Dhann. And indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all. (an-Najm 53/28)

In short, as long as it is not proved with Yaqn knowledge that such contracts are annulled, the ruling of Kufr continues. With this means, we would like to reiterate that talking about such matters is only the job of the experienced Faqh, who know the religion and the world well. Those who are not genuine scholars in both of the two have no right to speak about these issues, no matter how smart, vigilant, talkative, highbrowed (!), etc. they are. Was Salm!
Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh said,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

The lim (scholar) recognizes the Jhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jhil. The Jhil does not recognize the lim since he has never been an lim. (Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmul Fatw, 13/235)

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid
Re: THE RULING OF SIGNING CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS WHICH CONTAIN KUFR
« Reply #7 on: 04.04.2021, 12:52:52 AM »

The Ruling of Continuing to Benefit from an Agreement that Contains Kufr that One Had Signed When He Was a Kfir

Bismillhir Rahmnir Rahm.

The concise response for the matter is as follows: The individual must cancel all agreements & contracts which contain Harm and Kufr once he becomes Muslim. This matter is similar to the matter of Tahrf which was mentioned earlier. This is because both are Aqd, and the validity of both remain until both parties consentfully cancel it.

If it is said, You had already mentioned that such Uqd are invalid. So, how is it that one would fall in Kufr or Harm for something which is already invalid? We say: Indeed, it is correct that such Uqd are invalid. However, instead of canceling such Uqd that are Btil and invalid according to the Sharah, the individual continues benefiting from it. Whereas, such person was obligated to cancel this Btil Aqd.

Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam even stated the following regarding contracts & agreements which do not contain Kufr but have Harm or Btil conditions, which have lesser than Kufr in it,


مَا بَالُ أُنَاسٍ يَشْتَرِطُونَ شُرُوطًا لَيْسَتْ فِي كِتَابِ اللهِ مَنِ اشْتَرَطَ شَرْطًا لَيْسَ فِي كِتَابِ اللهِ فَلَيْسَ لَهُ وَإِنْ شَرَطَ مِائَةَ مَرَّةٍ شَرْطُ اللهِ أَحَقُّ وَأَوْثَقُ.
What has happened to the people that they lay down conditions which are not (found) in Kitbullh (the Book of Allh i.e., Quran)? Whoever laid down a condition not found in the Kitbullh, then he has no right to it, even if he lays it down a hundred times. The condition laid down by Allh is the weightiest and the most binding.[1]

In this regards, Ibnu Hajar Rahimahullh quoted the following from Imm ash-Shfi Rahimahullh while explaining the above-mentioned Hadth,


لَمَّا كَانَ مَنِ اشْتَرَطَ خِلَافَ مَا قَضَى اللهُ وَرَسُولُهُ عَاصِيًا وَكَانَتْ فِي الْمَعَاصِي حُدُودٌ وَآدَابٌ وَكَانَ مِنْ أَدَبِ الْعَاصِينَ أَنْ يُعَطِّلَ عَلَيْهِمْ شُرُوطَهُمْ لِيَرْتَدِعُوا عَنْ ذَلِكَ وَيَرْتَدِعَ بِهِ غَيْرُهُمْ كَانَ ذَلِكَ مِنْ أَيْسَرِ الْأَدَبِ
Since the individual who stipulates a condition in contradiction to what Allh and His Rasl Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam ruled is disobedient and since there are punishments and disciplining for sins, and since annulling their condition in order to deter them and others from doing so is from/a form of disciplining the disobedient, then this is from the lightest of disciplining.[2]

As seen, it is impermissible to continue the Aqd which contains Btil conditions and a person who does so is a sinner. Hence in the Hadth narrated by Muslim, Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam cursed those who receive Rib (interest), those who pay it, those who write it down, and those who witness it. Even if the individual has the intention to not take the Rib, he still falls under the same curse by merely making a contract.

When this is the state, many people nowadays sign contracts & agreements (for credit cards etc.) with the excuse that they will make the payment in due-time so that they will not become obliged to pay Rib. Whereas, besides the Kufr found in these contracts, they make an agreement around Rib which is Harm. This is another issue.

Returning to the topic, while it is impermissible to even continue contracts/agreements which have Harm conditions, it is more plausible for it to be impermissible to continue contracts/agreements which have Kufr conditions. Moreover, this is showing consent to Kufr. This is because such person shows consent to the continuation of a contract wherein it states that he has authorized a Tght as an arbitrator without the presence of Ikrh, meaning with his own free-will. It is evident that this is Kufr.

If objections are raised by bringing Nass (textual proofs) such as the Hadth Islm wipes out all the previous (misdeeds), we say: It is correct that Islm wipes out all the previous misdeeds committed during Jhiliyyah (the state of ignorance; before embracing Islm), however, with the condition that one never turns back to it Regarding the matter, it is said in the Hadth narrated by Muslim,


قَالَ أُنَاسٌ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَنُؤَاخَذُ بِمَا عَمِلْنَا فِي الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ قَالَ:‏ أَمَّا مَنْ أَحْسَنَ مِنْكُمْ فِي الإِسْلاَمِ فَلاَ يُؤَاخَذُ بِهَا وَمَنْ أَسَاءَ أُخِذَ بِعَمَلِهِ فِي الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ وَالإِسْلاَمِ.
Some people said to Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam, O Raslullh, will we be held responsible for what we did in Jhiliyyah? He Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam said, As for those amongst you who did good in Islm, then they will not be held responsible. As for those who did bad, then they will be held responsible for what they did in Jhiliyyah and in Islm.[3]

While Allh gave him respite by wiping out his sins, the one who continues a contract which contains Kufr that was stipulated during Jhiliyyah does not take advantage of this respite, and has continued where he started in his sins. Thereby, as was before, he becomes responsible for that sin of Kufr. Whereas, if he only had cancelled all the Btil Uqd under his name, he would have been saved from his previous sins. However, such person did not do so. This is because he continues to show consent to Kufr and acknowledge the Tght as an arbitrator, even if it is on paper.

Therefore, the one who becomes Muslim should immediately suspend his other affairs and cancel every contract he stipulated during his Jhiliyyah that contains such Kufr conditions. Otherwise, if there is Harm in the contract, he will show consent to Harm, and if it is Kufr as in our case, he will show consent to Kufr. Showing consent to Harm is Harm, and showing consent to Kufr is Kufr, as was noted by Imm al-Qurtub Rahmatullhi Alayh and other scholars.[4]

However, if a person is unable to cancel such contract even though he used all means available to him, then he is not responsible for these. Since


﴿لَا يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا.﴾
Allh does not charge a soul except (with that within) its capacity. (al-Baqarah 2/286)

However, a person must intend to cancel such contracts and must enforce this as soon as he becomes Muslim. These contracts which are left from the past are not an obstacle for a person who has the intention and uses all means available to him to cancel these contracts but is unable to enter Islm. However, those who are careless or do not use all means available to them to cancel them, is responsible. Wallhu Alam!..
 1. Muslim, Hadth no: 1504.
 
 2. Ibnu Hajar, Fathul Br, 5/191.
 
 3. Muslim, Hadth no: 120.
 
 4. One may refer to the Tafsr of the verse an-Nis 4/140 from the Tafsr of al-Qurtub and others.
Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh said,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

The lim (scholar) recognizes the Jhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jhil. The Jhil does not recognize the lim since he has never been an lim. (Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmul Fatw, 13/235)

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid
Re: THE RULING OF SIGNING CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS WHICH CONTAIN KUFR
« Reply #8 on: 06.04.2021, 02:58:56 AM »

An Evaluation of Some Evidences Regarding Applying Tahrf to Contracts

Bismillhir Rahmnir Rahm,

In previous years, some articles related to online contracts were published on a website on the calibre of Haq Publications. Firstly, we would like to state that none of the issues mentioned in this article are new and all of these are claims that have been expressed by this environment for years.

Now, the primary topic discussed in this article is regarding the approval of contracts which contain Kufr in virtual platforms.  The administrators of this website have clearly declared that there is nothing wrong with clicking on the yes or I accept buttons to approve contracts containing explicit words of Kufr in virtual platforms such as in case of dispute, the courts/laws of are authorized to settle the disputes. This is blatant Kufr.

Their reasoning is that this button indicating acceptance has the mere status of a key for entry. Accordingly, there is no problem in pressing the confirmation button, which means accepting a text which withholds clear-cut Shirk such as I deny Allh or s is the son of Allh! We seek refuge in Allh from such a thing!

How can something that means acceptance of Kufr be allowed on the pretext that contracts in the virtual platforms are not valid? Whether or not the contract is valid Fiqh-wise is a separate matter and confirming a word of Kufr is a totally different matter. Can even a single evidence be brought denoting that if there is an invalid contract in the computer setting/virtual platform a word of Kufr may be uttered or accepted?

Here there are two issues at hand: The contract itself and the wording it entails Even if the contract itself is invalid in the Sharah, the word of Kufr it contains still remains the same. Therefore, whoever approves or permits approving such a contract, is a Kfir. Those who allow this, demonstrate that they are people who do not have an Aqdah. Since this is a clear-cut Kufr, we do not see it necessary to overemphasize this issue. Whether or not contracts on virtual platforms are valid in the eyes of the Sharah is an issue that needs to be examined in detail separately in terms of Fiqh.

The issue we want to focus on here is the subject of Tahrf. Some people claim that it is permissible to use some services through applying Tahrf to the Kufr phrases found in the contracts in ones daily life or in the virtual world. However, in the outcome all the clauses found in the contract are still intact. Meaning, whichever court is authorized in the contract continues to be authoritative if any dispute arises. In this case, the Tahrf process is merely a meaningless scribble, as it does not eliminate appointing the Tght as a judge. In other words, all parties signing the contract continue to accept this clear Kufr, and it is clear that this is Kufr.

At this point, we have been asking for the evidence of such Tahrf for years and still continue to do so. Meaning, is there a single evidence from the Kitb, Sunnah, and Ijm alluding that the contract will be deemed invalid just by fiddling on paper without sitting with the other party and terminating the clauses of the contract, even though other clauses of the contract are still intact? The existence of such evidence is impossible, and indeed, none of the advocates of Tahrf have ever been able to provide any substantial evidence. This is because Aqd is a special type of procedure that has its own conditions and pillars according to both the Islmic jurisprudence and man-made laws and cannot be compared to other procedures. The most important feature of Aqd is that it consists of two parts: jb and Qabl. In this respect, the Aqd or agreement can never be compared to unilateral declarations and other procedures that do not require the consent of the other party. In addition, the Aqd must have a certain subject, such as the Aqd of Nikh (marriage), the Aqd of buying/selling, and the Aqd of rent. Other details related to Aqd can be learned from Fiqh books. We had mentioned general definitions about contracts in our previous articles.

Now, in the light of this information, if we come to what is brought as supposed evidence for Tahrf, those who claim that it is permissible for one party to do Tahrf to the contract without terminating the contract bring four evidences in this regard:


Quote
The first proof: Raslullah SallAllahu Alayhi wa Sallam set out from Zafiran and walked on steep slopes. Then he descended near Badr and got on his mounts. Finally, he stood next to an elder man from Araf. He asked him about Muhammad and his companions from Quraysh and the news which reached him, and the Elder man said,

I will not inform you unless you inform me from whom you are.

Thereupon, Raslullah SallAllahu Alayhi wa Sallam said,

When you inform us, we will inform you.

He said,

Will this happen in return for that?

Raslullah SallAllahu Alayhi wa Sallam said,

Yes.

The elder man said,

News that Muhammad and his companions went out on such-and-such day reached me. If the person who brought me news told me the truth, they are located on such-and-such a place today (he meant where Raslullah SallAllahu Alayhi wa Sallam was located).

This news also reached me:

Quraysh set out on such-and-such day. If the person who brought me news told me the truth, they are located in such-and-such a place today (he meant the location of Quraysh).

When he finished giving the report, he said,

Who are you from?

Raslullah SallAllahu Alayhi wa Sallam said,

We are from Ma (water).

Then he left him. The elder man started saying,

What does we are from Ma mean? Is he from the Ma in Iraq? (Siyari Ibn-i Hisham)

In this incident, Rasulullah (s.a.s) concealed his true identity by stating a probable statement to the man after obtaining the information he wanted. This shows that in such cases, it is permissible for a person to deceive a Kafir by using tawil.

The second evidence: When Raslullah SallAllahu Alayhi wa Sallam and Abu Bakr RadiyAllahu Anhu were going to the cave of Thawr, a man saw them and asked Abu Bakr,

Who is this man?

Abu Bakr RadiyAllahu Anhu said to him,

This is the man who guides me to the right path. (Bukhari)

From the words of Abu Bakr, the man thought that Raslullah SallAllahu Alayhi wa Sallam was a guide, guiding Abu Bakr to his path. Whereas, Abu Bakr RadiyAllahu Anhu was trying to tell the man that this is the person who showed me the way to jannah. Thereby, Abu Bakr (r.a) also deceived the man by using tawil.

The third evidence: The Ethiopians gathered and said to Najashi,

Surely, you left our religion, and rebelled against him. He sent news to Jafar and his friends, prepared ships for them and said,

- Aboard them and stay as you are. If I am defeated, go on your way; go wherever you want. If I am victorious, you can stay here. Then he reached for a notebook and wrote,

I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah. Muhammad is His servant and messenger. And I bear witness that Isa b. Maryam is His servant, messenger, spirit, and the word that He ilqa (casted) onto Maryam.

He then put it under his right shoulder in his robe. He went to the Abyssinians. They were standing in rows for him. He said to them,

- O people of Abyssinia! Am I not the most worthy to be a king amongst you? They said,

- Yes, you are the fittest to the task.

He said,

- How did you find the path I traversed amongst you? They said,

- We found it to be a good path. He said,

- Then what is wrong with you? They said,

-You departed from our religion and claimed that Isa is a servant. He said,

- What do you say regarding Isa?

They said,

- "We say that he is the Son of Allah."

Thereupon, Najashi put his hand on his chest and said,

- I bear witness that Isa is no more than this.

But by this, he meant what he wrote. Thereupon, they thought that Najashi accepted what they said, were pleased of him and left him. This news reached Raslullah SallAllahu Alayhi wa Sallam. When Najashi died, he performed his prayer and asked forgiveness for him. (Siyati Ibn-i Hisham)

Explanation: The Aqd between Najashi and his tribe is a verbal initiative contract. Here, it is the people who set the conditions unilaterally. Najashi on the other hand, does not have the right to change these terms nor impose other conditions. However despite this, Najashi used tawil and accepted the conditions offered by the people by changing them into permissible conditions. This is a practical example of deceiving the Kuffar, even in initiative contracts. Because, before he emerged in front of the people, Najashi wrote the following on a piece of paper;

I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah. Muhammad is His servant and messenger. And I bear witness that isa b. Maryam is His servant, messenger, spirit, and the word that He ilqa onto Maryam. He then put it under his right shoulder in his robe. He went to the Abyssinians. He was going to make an agreement with his people to keep his throne. Here, the people were stipulating the conditions unilaterally. Najashi had two options. He would either accept their terms or abdicate the throne. Meaning; he could not make any conditions. In this respect, it is an initiative contract.

First, the people presented their conditions. They said, You left our religion and claimed that Isa is a servant. Just as it is found in initiative contracts encountered on a daily bases such as electricity, water, shipping, etc Najashi, on the other hand, put his hand on his chest and presented them what he accepted while changing (doing tahrif of) the conditions they offered. But while doing this, he hid what was written on his chest. Now, just as Najashi concealed his tahrif, the tahrif of the agreements made today can also be concealed. For verily, Najashi put this in practice and Allah -subhanahu wa taala- accepted his iman.

The fourth evidence: It is seen that Abu Hanifah resorted to trickery in the issue of the Quran being Makhlq. He counted his fingers and said to the ruler who believed that the Qurn was created,, The Zabur, Injil, Tawrah, and the Quran are all (meaning; his fingers) the creation of Allah. The intent of Abu Hanifahs statement the creation of Allah was his fingers. The other party did not understand this as such, and understood that all of these books were created. Abu Hanifah (radiyallahu anh) resorted to such a deception. This is an evidence that proves the permissibility of deception.

Now we ask the administrators of the website which posted this article; what part of these narrations you bring is evidence for you? In these narrations what kind of a contract is in question? Here, what contract did Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam and his companions make with the Kuffr? What is the subject of the contract? Who are the parties of jb and Qabl? For example, what kind of a contract did Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam make with the Kuffr when he said, We are from M (water), what kind of a contract did Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh make with the Kuffr when he said, He is my guide, and what kind of a contract did Ab Hanfah make with the ruler when he said whilst showing his fingers All of these are created?

In fact, we ask this question just to reveal the truth, because every Muslim or Kfir who knows what Aqd means can see very clearly that a contract is not mentioned in these narrations. That is why the person who published this article simply threw these three narrations in front of the people without commenting on them. The author of the article only penned on the issue of Najsh and alleged that Najsh and his tribe agreed on the continuation of his reign and that Najsh applied Tahrf to the contract! Whereas, there is no mention of any contract in the narration and there is nothing indicative of a contract. If a contract is existent, then what is the contract regarding? Where are the parties of jb and Qabl? Where are the forms, words, and acts denoting a contract?

Which scholar before you has concluded from the story of Najsh and the other stories that these are contracts and that the application of Tahrf is valid while the remainder clauses of the contract are intact? Can you actually narrate this from any respected scholar before you? If you are unable to do so, then it becomes evident that all of these are your personal interpretations. Scholars have brought forth such narrations to grant the permission of the use of words that have a double meaning, which we call Tawriyah. As for our subject it is the issue of Uqd, and it is a completely different subject.

We say all of this by overlooking the issue of whether or not these narrations even have the feature of being evidence. If we were to delve into the issue of the evidential value of these narrations, it will be clearly revealed how much the author knows about the concept of evidence in Islm.

First of all, this claimant has to reveal which book of Hadth these narrations, which consist mostly of stories from the Srah, are found in with their Isnd (chains of narration), the state of their authenticity, and what rulings the jurists derived from these Ahdth. The last narration he mentions is regarding Ab Hanfah. Firstly, he has to reveal where this narration is recorded in and whether it is actually authentic or not. Moreover, even if this narration is authentic, how is it an evidence?

The statement of a scholar alone is not an evidence in the Sharah unless it becomes evident that all the scholars have made Ijm upon that issue. As is known, many scholars made concessions to the caliph with regards to the Fitnah of Khalqul Qurn (the Creation of the Qurn), however, Imm Ahmad Radiyallhu Anh refuted their approach and declared that it is not permissible to display Taqiyyah (dissimulation) because the state of Ikrh was inexistent. Imam Ahmads debates with Yahy bin Man and his contemporaries on this issue and his triumph in the point of bringing evidence is famous. Even if such actions attributed to some scholars are to be taken examplaries, these only constitute evidence for the permissibility of saying words with double-meanings, Tawriyah and saying one thing while and intending another. This has absolutely nothing to do with our subject.

This is because in the issue we are discussing, the person unilaterally applies Tahrf to the terms in a contract that requires the consent of both sides, but despite this, the terms of the contract that are Kufr are still intact. The parties also consent to the continuation of this agreement in which the Tght has been authorized as an arbitrator. This is not the case in the narrations that are provided as evidence. As we have already mentioned, an agreement is not even existent in these narrations.

In conclusion, the evidences brought by those who defend Tahrf have absolutely nothing to do with our subject and are not suitable for the circumstance. These are merely forceful interpretations made by people in order to legitimize their actions - as the saying goes the devil looks after his own Wallhu Alam.
Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh said,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

The lim (scholar) recognizes the Jhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jhil. The Jhil does not recognize the lim since he has never been an lim. (Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmul Fatw, 13/235)

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid
Re: THE RULING OF SIGNING CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS WHICH CONTAIN KUFR
« Reply #9 on: 08.04.2021, 02:48:01 AM »

A Fatw (!) Regarding Tahrf

Bismillhir Rahmnir Rahm,

The administrator of the website whom we condemned gave the following answer to a follower who asked him which Mujtahid scholar issued this Fatw,


Quote
Question: Well, which mujtahid scholar do you narrate this from? Whose fatwa is this fatwa?

Answer: The answers given above are given in the light of Shar evidences and rules. We do not know of any scholar amongst Ahlus Sunnah who issued a Fatw in contrast to what we said. If there is such a scholar, you should quote it, and we will also learn the existence of such a fatwa through you. And if we are mistaken, we will correct it.

As seen, the administrator of this website does not have an answer to the question regarding which scholar issued this Fatw of Tahrf. Therefore, with their own speech they have confessed that they do not take this from any scholar, that is, this view regarding Tahrf is entirely their own and that this claim does not have a Salaf or an Imm. Meaning, they base their view of Tahrf by extracting it from these evidences (!) without referring to any one of the scholars.

Even if we ignore the fact that the person who invented this view does not have the capacity of Ijtihd for a moment and assumed that he has reached the level of a Mujtahid, the Mujtahid has no right and authority to issue a Fatw and delve into an issue which none of the Sahbah and the Imms of the Salaf delved in for 1400 years. Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh said,


وكل قول ينفرد به المتأخر عن المتقدمين، ولم يسبقه إليه أحد منهم، فإنه يكون خطأ كما قال الإمام أحمد بن حنبل ‏‏‏إياك أن تتكلم في مسألة ليس لك فيها إمام‏
All statements that had been said by the Mutaakhirrn (latter ones) differing from the Mutaqaddimn (predecessors) and that had not been previously mentioned by any one of them is a mistake. As Imm Ahmad bin Hanbal Rahimahullh said,

Be wary of speaking about a matter which you do not have an Imm in!..
[1]

This is the difference between the Rabbn Dut and the Dut to Jahannam who will emerge in the End of Times. While the Rabbn Dut avoid inventing Bidah which have no origin in the religion of Allh and are contradictory to the Ijm, the Dut to the gates of Jahannam invent views that are unprecedented in the Ummah of Islm, as it is in this issue of Tahrf. According to what Imm Ahmad bin Hanbal narrates from Ab Hurayrah, the Nab Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam said the following,


سَيَكُونُ فِي أُمَّتِي دَجَّالُونَ كَذَّابُونَ، يَأْتُونَكُمْ بِبِدَعٍ مِنَ الْحَدِيثِ، بِمَا لَمْ تَسْمَعُوا أَنْتُمْ وَلَا آبَاؤُكُمْ، فَإِيَّاكُمْ وَإِيَّاهُمْ لَا يَفْتِنُونَكُمْ.
There will appear among my Ummah Dajjl liars coming to you with newly invented speech that you nor your fathers heard. So beware of them and keep yourselves away from them lest they deceive you![2]

In short, the very fact that no narration was brought from the Salaf with regards to the issue of Tahrf is more than enough to invalidate this claim Therefore, it is meaningless for the claimant to try to prove his point by claiming that there is no opposing opinion. For a person who utters a statement which is unprecedented in this Ummah thereby claims that the entire Ummah of Islm has united upon deviance and misguidance for centuries. For nobody understood these evidences in this manner till today and the concealed truth (!) hidden within these evidences, that is, the ruling that Tahrf applied secretly to contracts will invalidate the agreement although the terms of the contract continue to be implemented, was hidden to all of the scholars, and someone who emerged in the 15th century miraculously enlightened the Ummah of Islm by explaining these narrations!

It is obvious that this is inconceivable, as Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam also declared that this Ummah will never unite upon deviance and misguidance. If there were any good in this, the Sahbah, the Tbin, the Imms from the Atbut Tbin, and the Imms who follow them upon good who were ahead of everyone in good, would have definitely explained this to the Islmic Ummah. Uqd have been stipulated for thousands of years and is certainly not a new issue.

All jurists of Islm and even lawyers of man-made laws agree that a contract is an agreement based on mutual consent of the parties and will be abolished with the consent of the parties.

An agreement which has Tahrf applied to it, is not annulled and all the Mubh, Kufr, and Harm clauses of the contract continue to be stipulated even after Tahrf. The person who applies Tahrf also willingly consents to the contract, even though the condition of authorizing the Tght as a judge continues as a result of the contract. Now, which Mujtahid permitted this such that it can still be asked whether or not there is an opinion contrary to this from any Mujtahid?

In short, everything written about this Tahrf issue, whether it is long or short, only serves to prove that this issue of Tahrf is a baseless claim devoid of any Ilm basis.

khiru Dawn Anil Hamdulillhi Rabbil lamn.
 1. Majmul Fatw, 21/291.
 
 2. Ahmad bin Hanbal, Musnad, Hadth no. 8596.
Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh said,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

The lim (scholar) recognizes the Jhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jhil. The Jhil does not recognize the lim since he has never been an lim. (Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmul Fatw, 13/235)

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid
Re: THE RULING OF SIGNING CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS WHICH CONTAIN KUFR
« Reply #10 on: 16.04.2021, 04:13:43 AM »

The Fourth Doubt: It Is Not Clear If These Contracts Containing Kufr Are Binding

Quote
May Allahs salaam be upon you, May Allah bless your time and make it beneficial.

My question is: as you know, there are kufr agreements that we encounter in almost all contracts which are nowadays very common

undoubtedly, kufr is performed by the heart, tongue, and limbs, and you become kafir by signing, I read your knowledge based article regarding contracts

But some who allege to be from the so-called jihadist groups claim that the clause in the contracts the courts of Istanbul, van, etc. are authorized if any dispute arises, does not bind them. I researched on this and asked many people called lawyers. Some of them said to me: These contracts bind the companies and do not bind you, meaning, this clause does not bind you. Some said that they bind only if a dispute arises. Others said: yes, it does bind you, you are authorizing the courts in the location you live in and the courts listed in the contract to resolve the dispute.

how should we approach this issue? Our itiqad is that signing, confirming, or allowing signing kufr contracts is kufr. What I want to ask you is what our approach should be when conditions such as the contract being unilateral or non-binding to the other party are existent?

You can be approached with questions as such which require usul since you approach issues with their usul, may Allah be pleased with you for your efforts, may Allah increase your knowledge.
Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh said,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

The lim (scholar) recognizes the Jhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jhil. The Jhil does not recognize the lim since he has never been an lim. (Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmul Fatw, 13/235)

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid
Re: THE RULING OF SIGNING CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS WHICH CONTAIN KUFR
« Reply #11 on: 16.04.2021, 04:15:18 AM »

Bismillhir Rahmnir Rahm.

These so-called controversies you mentioned consist of some theories put forward by the people of Zaygh (divergence) and Dallah (misguidance) in order to legitimize their Kufr. After the knowledge regarding such agreements being Kufr became widespread, the members of this ideology i.e. those who used deny even the existence of the concept of a Kufr contract and would mock those who believed in its existence have now started to allege that accepting such a contract is Kufr, however, the action done here is not considered acceptance of the Kufr contract.

Now, take a look at the theories you mentioned; some say that this contract binds the company and not you! Consider a contract wherein it is said such and such court is authorized to settle disputes, and the parties agreeing to the contract are also clear; the company and the customer who concluded the contract, which is you. The term Ikhtilf (dispute) dispute is, as is the word itself, a word that expresses the disagreement of at least two parties. In short, it clearly states that the dispute between the customer and the company will be resolved by the court mentioned above.

While this is the situation, how can anyone who honestly investigates the issue claim that it only binds the company, meaning, why does it only bind the company and not us? With the permission of Allh, once you ask the question why? to this issue and other theories, all of their theories will unravel. Likewise, the claim that if a dispute does arise, the contract is bounding and if a dispute does not arise then the contract is not binding is also Fsid and contradictory. This is because these people cannot know for sure whether or not a dispute will arise.

We mention this so that it becomes clear that this is a theory put forward without thought in order to justify the action, as the saying the devil looks after his own. Even if we were to assume that it is certain that no conflict will arise in the contract, this contract does not cease to be Kufr. For, clearly it states that in cases of dispute, the judgment of the Tght will be referred to. Whereas, every Muslim knows that if a person states that he will become a Kfir in the future or that he will commit an act of Kufr, he will be a Kfir, even if he said so jokingly. In order for this to be Kufr, the clause does not necessarily have to actualise; even a persons intention of Kufr -which is Kufr itself- illustrates consent to Kufr.

Moreover, here the mentioned clause is the exact opposite of what was ordered in the Nass, for meanwhile it is commanded in the verse an-Nis 59 and many others to appeal to Allh and His Messenger in cases of dispute, it is stated in these contracts that in cases of dispute, the ruling of the Tght will be appealed to, which is rejecting this ruling and is explicit Kufr. It is Kufr to consent to such a thing even jokingly in an ordinary conversation, let alone in a contract. When the situation is such, there is no sound objective explanation for those who try to camouflage these open Kufr behind concepts such as contracts, etc.

We should also point out that the statements of lawyers and other people, including the company which stipulated the contract in question, are not taken into consideration in such matters. This is because even if we assume they are sincere, these people approach the issue from their own point of view. So lets say that even if a lawyer says that these clauses are not binding, he only says this from a personal view based on some legal principles he knows. But in the end, based on the principles we mentioned above, we know that a Muslim cannot approve the contract wherein such a statement is found, even if it is jokingly or absolute idleness. This will not be annulled with a statement, unknown what it is based on, by a lawyer or another Tght.

I should also make note that I believe statements of such people to be baseless, even if they are viewed in the light of their own laws. This is because if these contracts did not bind the customer, they would not have been prepared in such a detailed manner and presented to the customer. Likewise, as we will later explain, they are contracts prepared with deliberately selected expressions. Therefore, the words of some lawyers, whom regarding uncertainty exists how proficient they are in their own Btil business, are not given any weight.

As for the Usl to be applied in such issues, as a general rule, it is true that one cannot be declared Takfr upon because of probable phrases. However, the problem here arises from the fact that clear-cut phrases in the manner we explained above are presented as probable and ambiguous words by some malevolent people who are not true seekers of truth. Now, we cannot regard some clear-cut issues to be ambiguous because some ignorant or Balm who appears to be a scholar said that these are controversial or probable issues. The primary source to refer to as to which words and deeds denote Kufr and which ones are probable is the Sharah, namely the Kitb, the Sunnah and the Ijm. Thereafter, the source to refer to is customs. The issue of what a word or action customarily means -as those who deal with Uslul Fiqh know- is a criterion valued by scholars in determining the ruling of a word and action.

Now, when we refer to the Sharah, it is clear that it is Kufr to be a party in a contract that authorizes any of the Tght courts in cases of dispute. When we examine the purpose and nature of these contracts in the current custom of the society, it is apparent that these contracts and especially the clauses related to the court in question are stipulated in order to legally secure the parties. These clauses are never stipulated as an unnecessary point. Rather, these clauses specify which court in which country or region (e.g. Turkey or Istanbul, Ankara etc.) is authorized to settle disputes if any does arise. Likewise, a lawsuit will be undoubtedly filed to the court mentioned in the contract if a lawsuit should be filed regarding the contract. There is no obscurity in the clauses and the logic in which the issue is based upon. Claims of those who say obscurity does exist will not be taken in consideration. Likewise, because some claim that these words are obscure, it cannot be alleged that these things being Kufr is controversial and that those who do not declare Takfr upon those who actualize these will not be declared Takfr of. This is because when the statements are examined of those who claim these contracts are not Kufr, it is seen that none of them actually eliminate the Illah of approving the ruling of the Tght if any dispute arises, which is the Illah of such contracts being Kufr. In this case, the claim that the issue of Kufr agreements is controversial is a statement that has no Ilm basis and it is never something to take into consideration. Wallhu Alam!
Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh said,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

The lim (scholar) recognizes the Jhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jhil. The Jhil does not recognize the lim since he has never been an lim. (Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmul Fatw, 13/235)

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid
Re: THE RULING OF SIGNING CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS WHICH CONTAIN KUFR
« Reply #12 on: 16.04.2021, 04:15:45 AM »
Quote
May Allah be pleased with you, may our Lord, who is Alim, increase your knowledge...
Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh said,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

The lim (scholar) recognizes the Jhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jhil. The Jhil does not recognize the lim since he has never been an lim. (Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmul Fatw, 13/235)

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1937 Views
Last post 14.06.2015, 04:19:30 AM
by Fahm'us Salaf
0 Replies
2003 Views
Last post 12.07.2015, 04:57:52 AM
by Ummah
0 Replies
1045 Views
Last post 06.05.2016, 09:50:14 PM
by Ummah
23 Replies
1494 Views
Last post 28.03.2021, 03:14:32 AM
by Izhr'ud Dn
0 Replies
484 Views
Last post 12.04.2019, 12:20:45 AM
by Izhr'ud Dn
0 Replies
40 Views
Last post 30.03.2021, 12:30:55 AM
by Izhr'ud Dn