دار التوحيد Dr'ul Tawhd

Author Topic: AL-HAAZIMI & AL-HAAZIMIYYAH  (Read 1146 times)

Julaybib

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
  • O Lord truly I'm in need of any good that You send
AL-HAAZIMI & AL-HAAZIMIYYAH
« on: 09.11.2017, 06:27:29 PM »
Quote
As salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.

My name is Abdullah. I follow your website from Europe, from Austria. I am 30 years old.

You mentioned that you declare Takfir upon Shaykh Haazimi. Which period of Shaykh Haazimi prior or now- do you declare Takfir upon?

May Allah save Shaykh Hazimi from imprisonment.

We do not know any scholar that who speaks and explains the matters of Usoulud Din, Aslud Din other than Shaykh Hazimi who speaks out as he does, regarding Takfir, regarding Jahl (ignorance) and Muayyan Takfir that are among the most important issues of Tawhid with clear and simple expression which can be understood by the Awam (laypeople) and deciphers the ahl Bidah.

Wa Salam

Abdullah

Wa alaykum. Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

Because the people of our era prefer to submit to the masses and the famous personalities instead of the Wahy (revelation) and again because of not knowing not caring may be a better expression-
how the Hukm (ruling) of Muslim can be given to a person, they frequently ask similar questions as it was asked above. If there was any trace of Hikmah (wisdom) on him, the questioner would have thought whether he has the same Aqidah (creed) to whom he directed the question to (i.e. us) or not, to begin with.

He would have thought even before asking the question whether we share the same qualities or not in terms of having the same criterias for Imaan (faith) and Kufr (disbelief) meaning; have we solved our dissimilarity regarding Usoul (methodology)? As if we agreed with him in every matter and the only thing left is the rulings of Muayyan (specific) persons so he came and asked us regarding the ruling of so and so and what the Kufr of so and so is.

It will be seen later in this post Inshallah when we respond to him that we do not share the same Aqidah with him. What we consider as Aslud Din (Fundamentals of the Religion Islam) he considers it merely as a Fiqhi issue. Then why do you bother to come and ask whether we declare Takfir of so and so or not. The answer indeed is simple, Malum and Maruf; we declare Takfir of so and so for the same reason we declare Takfir upon you.

With this opportunity, we would like to remind that we are not responsible to prove
the Kufr of anyone who lives in Daarul Kufr (Abode of Disbelief) therefore his ruling is the general ruling, meaning Kafir in Asl (origin) . On the contrary, those who claim Islam of so and so and those who attribute Islam to so and so are obliged to prove his Islam.

This ruling is vice verse when it happens in Daarul Islam (Abode of Islam).
The Ruling of everyone who lives in Daarul Islam is upon the general ruling meaning Islam in Asl (origin) Therefore, whoever claims a Kufr for a Muslim in Asl who lives where the majority of the people are Muslim, needs to prove his claim. Until he proves his claim, so and so to whom the claim was made regarding will continue to be ruled as Muslim.

Those who do not know this principle or many among those who act as if they know the principle, but do not have the Itiqaad upon it, in reality do not apply this principle to the people of Daarul Kufr, they come and repeatedly ask us what the Kufr of so and so is, or why we declare Takfir upon so and so. We turn the same question to them and ask what the proof is for the Islam of so and so. What the proof is for their repenting from their Aqidah that was Kufr in Asl, and what the proof is for them keeping distant from every type of Shirk and the Ahlush Shirk (People of Shirk), lastly what the proof is for them declaring Takfir upon all of the Mushrikin.

For example, Ahmad bin Umar al-Haazimi to whom the question was directed to us regarding; it is stated that he used to be a student of Rabi Ibnu Haadi Umayr al-Madkhali the former head of the Sunnah Studies Department at the Islamic University of Madinah who is among the modern day Balam bin Baura and Abu Righaal in the Saudi State, an excessive enemy of Tawhid and a fevered defender/disputer of the Taghout governments. Later on al-Haazmi started speaking regarding Udhr (excuse) of Jahl (ignorance) and Muayyan Takfir, and he had uttered statements close to Tawhid. Most of his recordings are concerning these matters. He especially dealt -with evidences- the topic of Takfir of the one who considers Jahl as an Udhr. He had some beneficial works that falls under the following ruling;


وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يُؤَيِّدُ هَذَا الدِّينَ بِالرَّجُلِ الْفَاجِرِ
Verily Allah support this religion (i.e. Islam) even by a Faajir (sinful/ disobedient person). (Bukhari, Hadith no: 3062; Muslim, Hadith no: 111)

In the past years, he was arrested by the Saudi regime and as far as we know, he is still in the prison. Other views of Hazimi regarding the matters other than Udhr of Jahl are not known and his works mostly deal with the matter Udhr of Jahl. Nevertheless, we have not heard any information regarding him declaring Muayyan Takfir upon neither the so-called Muasir Ulamaa (Contemporary scholars) including the Talafis of the Saud nor the rulers of our era. However, we know that he said rahimahullah (may Allah have mercy upon him) after mentioning Ibnu Uthaymin who defended the view that Jahl is an Udhr in the matters of Shirk which is the very topic Haazimi dealt with the most. This can be reached in his cassette series titled as حكم طلب الشفاعة من الشهيد القول السديد في بيان in the second cassette and many other places.

This cassette series is regarding requesting Shafaah (intercession) from the Shuhadah (martyrs) which is available at the moment, and can be reached from his website. In this series, he defends a Baatil (false) claim that it is Shirk to request Shafaah from any one other than Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) let it be a Shahid (martyr) or any person regardless of the one whom Shafaah is requested from is alive or death. This also displays him having a deviated Manhaj. Since here, we are trying to mention his clear cut Kufr only, we skip his deviated Bidah (religiously innovation) by sufficing with referral.

Claiming that Haazimi did not know the Aqidah of Ibnu Uthaymin and his likes is the peak of Baatil and nonsense. If we know the Aqidah of Ibnu Uthaymin and his likes at this moment even though we live far from Saudi then is there a possibility for Haazimi not knowing the Aqidah of Ibnu Uthaymin and his likes even though Haazimi lives in Saudi. Ibnu Uthaymin defended the Udhr of Jahl openly in his books, such as the Sharh of Kashfush Shubahat of Shaykhul Islam Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhab (rahimahullah).

When the state is such that the Aqidah of Haazimi and his stance towards the leaders of Dalalah (devotion) of our era is not clear, moreover there are presumptions which indicate his Kufr, then let us know with what proof -those who consider Haazimi as a scholar- are convinced of his Islam?

Today so many people in Saudi consider Jahl is not an Udhr, moreover this is the view of the majority of the Ulamaa of Saudi. There are even so-called scholars who mentioned in their books the view regarding the necessity of declaring Takfir upon whosoever considers Jahl to be an Udhr. Like Saalih bin Fawzan, who stated this view that one who does not declare Takfir upon the Mushrikin due to Jahl is also Kafir, in his Sharh of
"Nawaqidul Islam (The Nullifiers of Islam) of Shaykhul Islam Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhab (rahimahullah)" in the third article that is concerning those who do not declare Takfir of the Mushrikin. However the same person Saalih bin Fawzan when he was asked about his view concerning those who declare Takfir upon Bin Baz and Ibnu Uthaymin, he responded that the Baatil in declaring Takfir upon them is clear(!).

At this point, what is the difference between Fawzan and Haazimi? Both of them say something Haqq (truth) and when it comes to descending and applying it (i.e. ruling) to the reality, their stance is in elusive manner. We wonder if they persist to submit to someone- for what reason those who submit to Haazimi submit to him even though Fawzan or his likes have more Ilm (knowledge) than Haazimi. We also wonder what the difference is.

Is it because Fawzan is not a populist person? Is it because Fawzan does not travel from country to country after the Arab Spring? Is it because Fawzan does not gather the street punks? Is it because Fawzan does not esteem those who have neither Ilm nor Irfan? You may say, Fawzan and the so-called scholars of Saud openly defend and support the Saudi state.

Let us know then, what do you know about the views of Haazimi regarding the Taghout of Saud? Haazimi used to openly defend the Saudi royal family, did he repent from it? If Haazimi did so, then let us know whether he repented openly or not. Even if we assume that Haazimi could not repent openly because of the fear then let us know how they (those who consider him as Muslim) determined his Tawbah (repentance) with Yaqin (certainty) Ilm.

Besides, most of those who praise Haazimi defend -or at least seem to defend- the view that the Asl of the people of our era is Kufr. How could they give the ruling of Muslim to Haazimi and oppose the Asl (inhabitants of Daarul Kufr are Kafir in Asl) while he was an individual among the inhabitants of the Saudi even though nothing is much known about him?

What made them to rule Haazimi with Islam; is it the worry of leaning upon an Alim so that they can legalize their views? Is it the worry of advertising their names under a famous person?

We must also emphasize that al-Hzim does not believe -the matter of the ruling of the people in our era- in the same manner we do nor those who claim Haazimi to be a Muslim. Rather he states that the view regarding the
"essence of the people of today being Kufr" is Btil, thus, this is one of his most apparent Kufr.

Al-Hzim says this in the cassette series of his commentary of the Rislah,
Muayyan Takfr by Shaykh Ishq -which we have translated with the help of Allh. He says,

قال : وأما الكذب والبهتان فمثل قولهم : إنا نكفر بالعموم .

يعني ما نترك أحدًا إلا ماذا ؟ الأصل في الناس كما يقال اليوم الأصل في عموم المجتمعات الإسلامية أنها ماذا ؟ أنها كافرة الأصل فيها الكفر هذا الذي أراد نفيه رحمه الله تعالى .

قال : إنّا نكفر بالعموم ونوجب الهجرة إلينا على من قدر على إظهار دينه ، وإنا نكفر من لم يكفر .

مطلقًا يعني كفر بالعموم ثم بعد ذلك من لم يكفر فهو كافر كما يقول بعض الناس اليوم ، الأصل في المجتمعات في البلاد الإسلامية عمومًا أنهم كفار ومن لم يكفرهم فهو كافر ، هذا لا شك أنه باطل أن يقال في جميع الناس عمومًا كل من كان تحت طاغوتٍ فهو كافر ، هكذا عندهم التلازم بين كفر الحاكم وبين كفر الأفراد هذا باطل . إذا كفر الحاكم لا يلزم منه ماذا ؟ كُفر الأفراد قد يكون على الأصل إلا إذا أظهر كفرًا حينئذٍ يكون كافرًا ، إذا أظهر ناقضًا ظهر لك وأما إذا لم يظهر حينئذٍ يبقى على الأصل وهو ما أظهره من الشهادتين والصلاة ونحو ذلك ، وأما التكفير هكذا بالتلازم ونحو ذلك فهذا لا شك أنه باطل .

(Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb) stated, As for the lies and slanders, they are like their statement that we declare Takfr upon the general masses.

( al-Hzim says,) The Asl (fundamental ruling) for the people, as it is said today the Asl for the general Islmic masses is what? It is that the Asl is Kfir This is what the Shaykh Rahmatullhi Alayh intended to negate.

The Shaykh Rahmatullhi Alayh said, (...) that we declare Takfr upon the general masses and that we consider it obligatory upon (even) those who are able to make Idhhur Dn (manifestation of the Dn) to make Hijrah to us. Also that we declare Takfr of those who do not declare Takfr.

(Al-Hzim says,) Absolutely, meaning firstly declaring Takfr upon the masses, then after this, the person who does not declare Takfr is a Kfir, just like some people say today, The Asl of the general masses in al-Bildul Islmiyyah (the Islmic countries) is that they are Kuffr and whoever does not declare Takfr of them is Kfir. To say regarding all people in general that whoever is under a Tght is a Kfir, this with no doubt is Btil (falsehood). In addition, according to these people, there is Talzum (correlation) between the Kufr of the Hkim (judge/law-giver) and the Kufr of the individuals; this is Btil. When the Hkim becomes a Kfir, what does it not necessitate? It does not necessitate the Kufr of the individual. This can only be the Asl when the individual openly displays Kufr, then he will be a Kfir. When he openly displays a nullifier (of the Dn), then (his Kufr) will be apparent for you. And when he does not openly display (Kufr), then he will remain upon the Asl, which is what the person openly displays of the Shahdatayn, Salh, and its like. As for Takfr like this by Iltizm (i.e., the Kufr of the Hkim necessitates the Kufr of the individuals etc.) and its like, then there is no doubt that this is Btil.

(Ahmad bin Umar al-Hzim, Sharhu Rislati Hukmi Takfril Muayyin, 10th cassette, between minutes 21:45-23:00.)

As seen, the views of al-Hzim regarding the matter of The Ruling of the People does not differ from the views of ISIS/DAESH, al-Qaeda, and all the other sects. And he states that the Kalima-i Shahdah, Salh and similar signs, even though it is clear that they are not signs of distancing oneself from Shirk, as Almt of Islm, he takes these as Asl for the present masses, and because of this he accepts the present masses to be Muslim, and that the treatment of Muslim should be applied to each individual of these masses until his Kufr becomes apparent. He even states clearly that the opinion of the other aspect meaning that viewing the people of today as Kfir in Asl is Btil.

According to this, most of the people who call al-Hzim a scholar, take him into consideration, or ascribe themselves to him are the people of Btil since they declare Takfr of the masses of today. This is just like ISIS/DAESH describing those who believe that the Asl of the masses is Kufr to be Khawrij, even though they have some people who believe in the same from amongst their sympathizers.

Thus, this displays the Barah (the distance) of the Dut (pl. D, callers/invitators) and the Jamt (pl. Jamah; communities, groups, organizations) from the fools who flag and promote them. Verily, this is a situation from which a lesson is to be taken...

As for what al-Hzim states while clarifying the matter, is nothing but a demagogy and a distortion of the issue. This is because nobody who possesses an intellect claims that there is necessary Talzum between the Kufr of the leader and the Kufr of the general masses. This means that nobody says that because the leader became a Kfir, the subjects instantly take the ruling of Kufr.

Al-Hzim tries to intimidate people from the Haqq by encasing the Btil with Haqq without taking in consideration the facts of what is happening today, just as some other people do.

It is a fact today that the entirety of the masses who are ascribed to Islm have adopted Kufr, have took this as their Dn, and have turned away from the knowledge of Tawhd to the point that even if there are Ahlut Tawhd amongst them, they are exceptional circumstances which can be pointed out. When the situation is as such, then what other than obscuring the issue is ignoring the facts of today and saying just because the leader is a Kfir does not necessitate the masses to be Kfir?

Some people may think like this, however, the issue of today is not indexed to the rulers being Kfir, the people have -generally- turned away from the Dn, and the rulers ruling by Kufr is only a manifesting fact of the Hadth, You will be ruled as you are.

Him taking the statement of the Shaykh Muhammad Rahimahullh regarding negating general Takfr as a foundation is also invalid. The Shaykh Rahmatullhi Alayh has negated declaring general Takfr, however this is an obscure statement.  From this, with what evidence can it be extracted that the Shaykh said the Asl of the people of his era was not Kufr and that the Asl of these people was Muslim? Moreover, are the circumstances of the era that the Shaykh lived in the same as the circumstances of this era? Even if Shirk was common during the era of the Shaykh, was it the primary Asl of the people as it is today, or was it not? If we were to assume that the Shaykh did not declare Takfr of the people of his era, then how can this be a Hujjah (proof) for the masses of today? Other than this, is the statement of a scholar considered as Hujjah regarding a matter of Aslud Dn? Is there anything in the Shar Nuss (textual proofs of Islmic law) which necessitate these masses constantly being Muslim? Thus, al-Hzim and his likes think that they solved the issue by making demagogy on general statements as such. That which is negated in the Nuss is the entirety of the Islmic Ummah entering into Kufr, meaning, the Ummah of Islm will never unanimously agree upon Dallah (misguidance) and Kufr and that there will be a small or large group that will live by Tawhd and the Sunnah in the Duny (world). This is why the sons of Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb and Shaykh Hamad bin Nsir -who is the student of Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb- said in the answer to the question, Do you declare Takfr of everyone on the earth?,


وأما تكفير أهل الأرض كلهم، فنحن نبرأ إلى الله من هذا، بل نعتقد أن أمة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم لا تجتمع على ضلالة، بل قد أجارها الله عن ذلك، على لسان نبيه محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولا تزال طائفة منها على الحق منصورين،
As for declaring Takfr of the entirety of the people of the earth; we seek refuge in Allh from this. Rather, we believe that the Ummah of Muhammad Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam will not come together upon Dallah. Rather, Allh has saved it from this upon the tongue of His Nab Muhammad Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam. A group from amongst it will continue upon the Haqq (truth); they are Mansrn (the helped ones)... Ilkh (to the end of his speech). (ad-Durarus Saniyyah, 10/132)

The individual who compiled ad-Durarus Saniyyah mentioned these statements by Hamad bin Nsir under the heading The Shaykh Ibnu Abdil Wahhb Negating that He Declares Takfr upon the Masses where his statements which carry a similar meaning are mentioned. It seems that he added this statement of Shaykh Hamad Rahimahullh as an explanation to what the Shaykh said and he also mentioned them in the same chapter.

Again, Hamad bin Atq Rahmatullhi Alayh who is from amongst the Ulam of Najd says,

If Shirk became apparent in a city, prohibitions displayed openly in it, distinguishing signs of the Dn are disrupted in it, then it becomes Bild (cities) of Kufr. The wealth of its people will be taken as Ghanmah (war booty) and their blood becomes Hall (to shed). The people of these cities already increased by displaying speaking ill of Allhu Tal and His Dn. They put/made laws to implement for the subjects that are in opposition to the Kitbullah (Book of Allh; the Qurn) and the Sunnah of His Nab Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam. As you already know, even one of it is sufficient for taking the one who performs it out of the fold of Islm.

This and we say: In it (that place) could be those who are not ruled with Kufr in the Btin (inwards) among the Mustadhaf (oppressed) and their likes. When it comes to the Dhhir (apparent), all praise be to Allh, it is clear. It is sufficient for you, what the Nab Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam did to the Ahl (people of the city) of Makkah even though the Mustadhafn (pl. Mustadhaf) were in it, likewise what his Ashb did to many of those who committed Irtidd (apostasy) from Islm by making their blood, wealth and chastity Hall (permissible to shed and to take). Ilkh... (ad-Durarus Saniyyah, 9/256-259)

As seen, the scholars of Najd who know the meaning of the statements of Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb better than us, al-Hzim, and his likes, differ in their explanation of these statements. None of them have stated that in the lands where Kufr is dominant, these lands will not be treated as Drul Harb, neither will they be attacked, nor will its inhabitants be declared Takfr of because the masses utter the Kalima-i Shahdah. On the contrary, they say the opposite. Much more could be said regarding this matter, however, we are content with this much -as sufficient explanation has been given in our Rislah titled
The Ruling of the People.
قولوا "لا إله إلا الله" تفلحوا

"Say, La-ilaha Illallah (there is no -true- god -to be worshiped- but Allah) and thus be successful."

Julaybib

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
  • O Lord truly I'm in need of any good that You send
Re: AL-HAAZIMI & AL-HAAZIMIYYAH
« Reply #1 on: 04.02.2018, 05:11:07 PM »
Quote from: Question 10 November 2017, 15:11
Salamu Alaykum. If it is real that Haazimi does not declare Takfir of the Saudi Taghout, if it is true, why dont the fans of Haazimi mention it? Is it because it is not certain that Haazimi does not declare Takfir of the Saudi Taghout?

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

When it comes to Haazimi not declaring Takfir of the Saudi Taghout; while explaining the book Lumatul Itiqaad by Ibnu Qudamah (rahimahullah) -in the 17th cassette which is the last cassette for the series- Haazimi stated it is not Jaiz (permissible) to Khuruj (rebel) against the government. While explaining the matter of obedience to the rulers, he claimed that it is not Jaiz (permissible) to Khuruj (rebel) in the Diyaar he lives in (i.e. Saudi) against the government (of Saudi). Then Haazimi stated,


Quote from: Haazimi
ولذلك من السفه ما يفعل الآن ، يعني : بعضهم لا يرتأي أو ما يرتضي أن يكون بين بلاد المسلمين يخرجون إلى بلاد الغرب هذا غريب يعني سَعْد الفقيه ومن على شاكلته يعني لم يرضوا أن يكونوا تحت رأيت آل سعود هنا وهم يحكمون الشرع ويصلون مع المسلمين وظاهرهم ظاهر مسلمين ويتركون عباد الله يصلون ويصومون إلى آخره

For this reason, it is among foolishness which is done right now, meaning; some of them are not content with or are not content with what takes place between the Bilaadul Muslimin (Cities of the Muslims) and they go out to the Biladul Gharb (Cities of the West), this is weird. I mean Sad al-Faqih and his likes; I mean they are not content with being here under the flag of Al-i Saud (Royal Family of Saud). Al-i Saud rules with the Shariah (Islamic law), they pray (Salaat; daily prayers) along with the Muslimin, their Dhaahir (appearance) is the Dhaahir of Muslimin (i.e. they are Muslim in Dhaahir), they leave (permit) the slaves of Allah to pray and fast Ilkh (to the end of his speech)...

As seen, Haazimi described the Tawaghit (pl. Taghout) of Saudi and their subjects as Muslim! According to Haazimi, the reason for this judgment is, Al-i Saud rules with the Shariah and permits the prayer and the fasting! Therefore, with it by bringing their implementation of the Shariah as an excuse-, Haazimi camouflaged many other clear Kufr of Al-i Saud.

Haazimi supposedly declares Takfir upon the one who considers Jahl (ignorance) as an Udhr (excuse). Whereas, it is Malum (well known) that the Saudi Government considers all of the countries that are ascribed to Islam as Muslim. Furthermore, it is Malum that the Saudi Government has friendly relations with these so-called Islamic countries and even the non-Islamic countries. Haazimi mentions that Al-i Saud permits the prayers and the fasting then he gives examples from the countries in which praying, fasting and the Hijaab is not permitted and continues to claim that the ruling of the Saudi state and these countries in which Ibadaah (worship) is banned would not be the same.

It is indeed astonishing to see that Haazimi, who lectures from the books of the Ulamaa of the Najd region is in such state. Since those who read the books of the Ulamaa of the Najd region would easily know that, the Ulamaa of the Najd region refuted the claims in regards to, constraining the manifestation of the Din with prayer.

Haazimi also condemns those who go from these so-called Islamic countries(!) to the west. We also dislike people going to west; due to Kufr, Shirk, Munkaraat (evil deeds) and Fuhsiyah (immorality) being widespread, it is harder for one to keep oneself and his family safe; we do not recommend anyone other than exceptional cases- to go to a country -in west- in this state and not based upon the claim -unlike the theory of Haazimi- that one leaves Daarul Islam and goes to the west which is Daarul Kufr. On the contrary, every state on the face of the earth -at this moment- are equal in terms of being Daarul Kufr. Whereas Haazimi accuses those who leave these so-called Islamic countries and go to west with, leaving Daarul Islam and going to Daarul Harb!

How strange indeed it is that the majority of the fans and the supporters of Haazimi who account him as the Alim (scholar) of the day, declare Takfir upon the Saudi rulers. Whereas Haazimi himself condemns those who declare Takfir upon the Saudi rulers and moreover in the latter part of the same cassette he characterizes those who declare Takfir upon them as being Khawaarij!

As for the people who claim to submit to Haazimi, they only advertise themselves by hiding behind famous people such as Haazimi. We do not think they even care what Haazimi thinks or believes. In anyway, even though they pretend to call people to Haazimi or al-Kuwayti etc., the truth is that they call people merely to themselves and their ignorance-based ideas.

As for the claims that these are old views of Haazimi, and that Haazimi abandoned these views etc. as it is the case for each claimant, every claim needs its evidence. Once these views are established from Haazimi, he will be treated accordingly with his views until its opposite it proved from him. Furthermore, these views belonging to Haazimi quoted above are still presented in his website. Those who oppose us regarding these views are responsible to bring anything from Haazimi even if it is a single letter-, opposing what has been quoted from him. Wallahu Alam. Walhamdulillahi Rabbil Alamin!
قولوا "لا إله إلا الله" تفلحوا

"Say, La-ilaha Illallah (there is no -true- god -to be worshiped- but Allah) and thus be successful."