1- This place is referred to as “Kawwâz” in many sources.
In the past and today, those who attribute themselves to the Da’wah (call) of Tawhîd yet accept Jahl (ignorance) as an Udhr (excuse) with regards to the Shirk’ul Akbar (Major Shirk) claiming that the doer of Shirk is Muslim by relying upon these following statements of Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah):
وإذا كنا لا نكفر من عبد الصنم الذي على قبر عبد القادر والصنم الذي على قبر أحمد البدوي وأمثالهما؛ لأجل جهلهم، وعدم من ينبههم، فكيف نكفر من لم يشرك بالله إذا لم يهاجر إلينا أو لم يكفر ويقاتل، سبحانك هذا بهتان عظيم
“And when it is the case that we do not declare Takfîr upon the one who worships the idol (i.e. tomb) which is built on the grave of Abd’ul Qâdir, and the idol which is built on the grave of Ahmad al-Badawî and their likes, due to their ignorance, and lack of someone to notify them (of their opposition), then how could we declare Takfîr upon the one who does not commit Shirk (associate partners) with Allah, when he does not emigrate to us, who does not declare Takfîr and does not fight?
سبحانك هذا بهتان عظيم
“Glory to Thee (our Lord), this is a most serious slander!” (an-Nûr 24/16)
Quotation from Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah) ends here. (Fatâwâ wa Masâ'il, 4/11; Shaykh Abd’il Latîf, Misbâh’uz Zalâm, 84)
However another statement of the Shaykh regarding the same topic was related by Shaykh Abd’il Latîf (Rahimahullah) in his book “Minhâj’ut Tâ’sîs” as follows:
وإنّا لا نكفر إلاّ من كفّره الله ورسوله، من المشركين عباد الأصنام كالذين يعبدون الصنم الذي على قبر عبد القادر والصنم الذي على قبر أحمد البدوي وأمثالهما
“We never declare Takfîr upon anyone other than those whom Allah Ta’âla and His Rasûl (Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam) declared Takfîr upon. Those we declare Takfîr upon are the worshipers of idols; Mushriks. Like the ones who worship the idol on the grave of Abd'ul Qâdir and the idol on the grave of Ahmad al-Badawî and the idols on the graves of their likes.” (Shaykh Abd'ul Latîf bin Abd'ur Rahman bin Hasan, Minhâj’ut Tâ’sîs wa’t Taqdîs fî Kashfi Shububâti Dâwud bin Jarjîs, 1/89)
As clearly seen Shaykh Muhammad (Rahimahullah) expressed himself in a manner understood contrary and stated that he is declaring Takfîr upon those grave worshippers who worship the abovementioned idols on the graves. If we accept for a second that Shaykh Muhammad (Rahimahullah) stated both statements regarding the same matter then we would have to confess that there is contradiction in his statements. This is the last probability to attribute to any scholar. Thus, it becomes clear that Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah) stated both proclamations for different matters.
The first statement was regarding lifting the rulings of fighting against and declaration of Takfîr with the intent of Adhâb (punishment), from someone to whom the Hujjah had not reached.
Whereas the latter was regarding him passing a general ruling for the one who worships other than Allah as being non-Muslim. This will be explained in details Inshallah.
Shaykh Abd’ul Latîf (Rahimahullah) the grandson of Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah), related one of his statement regarding the Qubbat’ul Kawwâz:
وكان شيخنا محمد بن عبد الوهاب يقرر في مجالسه ورسائله أنه لا يكفر إلا من قامت عليه الحجة الرسالية، وإلا من عرف دين الرسول وبعد معرفته تبين في عداوته ومسبته، وتارة يقول: وإذا كنا لا نكفر من يعبد الكواز ونحوه ونقاتلهم حتي نبين لهم وندعوهم فيكف نكفر من لم يهاجر إلينا؟
“Our Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah) was affirming in his gatherings and his Rasâil that he does not declare Takfîr upon anyone except those to whom the Hujjah of Risâlah had been established upon and the one who learned the Dîn of the Rasûl (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and after this knowledge openly displays his enmity and slanders it. Sometimes Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah) would say:
Since we do not declare Takfîr upon those who worships the Kawwâz and its likes and we do not fight against them until we clarify to them and call them (to the Da’wah) then how could we declare Takfir upon the one who does not make Hijrah (emigrate) to us?” (Shaykh Abd’ul Latîf, Minhâj’ut Tâ’sîs, 222)
Attention shall be paid to the fact that Shaykh Abd’ul Latîf (Rahimahullah) related both the terms Takfîr and Qital (fight) side by side in the same Siyâq (context). Shaykh Abd’ul Latîf (Rahimahullah) in the same book also said the following:
والشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب رحمه الله من أعظم الناس توقفاً وإحجاماً عن إطلاق الكفر، حتى أنه لم يجزم بتكفير الجاهل الذي يدعو غير الله من أهل القبور أو غيرهم إذا لم يتيسر له من ينصحه، ويبلغه الحجة التي يكفر تاركها. قال في بعض رسائله
“Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah) was the most careful of the people regarding pausing and being reluctant to Itlâq (discharging) the Kufr so much that he (Rahimahullah) would have not applied Takfîr upon the Jâhil who directs his Du’â to other than Allah among the Ahl’ul Qubûr (the People of Graves) or other than them without having someone advise him and transmit the Hujjah that abandoning necessitates Takfîr. He (Rahimahullah) said the following in some of his Rasâil:
وإذا كنا لا نقاتل من يعبد قبة الكواز حتى نتقدم بدعوته إلى إخلاص الدين لله، فكيف نكفر من لم يهاجر إلينا وإن كان مؤمناً موحداً؟
Since we do not fight those who worship the Qubbat’ul Kawwâz until we call them to have Ikhlâs (sincere) in the Dîn of Allah then how could we declare Takfîr upon those Mu’min and Muwahhid for not emigrating to us?” (Shaykh Abd’ul Latîf, Minhâj’ut Tâ’sîs, 99)
If attention is paid Shaykh Abd’ul Latîf (Rahimahullah) in this passage mentions Qital, meaning fighting without saying anything about Takfîr. So it is clear that the statement of Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah) regarding the Qubbat’ul Kawwâz is related only with –which is known by everyone- the duty of calling people to Islâm, to those whom Islâm had not reached, before fighting against them. Since –as it will come in detail later in this Risâlah (i.e. Hukmu Takfîr’il Muayyin wa’l Farqu Bayna Qiyâm’il Hujjah wa Fahm’il Hujjah)- noone will be punished in Dunyâ until the call reaches them. As Allah Ta’âla states:
وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولاً
“...nor would We punish until We had sent a messenger (to give warning).” (al-Isrâ 17/15)
Fighting against them is also included in this principle. As for the Akhirah (Hereafter) –according to the Râjîh (preferred) Qawl (view, opinion)- they will not be punished immediately but will be tested. These people will not be called as “Kuffâr (disbelievers)” in this context since they do not deserve each and every ruling that is befitting the Kuffâr. Not attributing them with Kufr in this context does not mean that they are Muslim as will be elucidated later in this Risâlah in detail Inshallah.
Shaykh Sulaymân bin Sahmân narrated the statement of Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah) regarding the Qubbat’ul Kawwâz:
وإن كنا لا نكفر من عبد قبة الكواز، لجهلهم وعدم من ينبههم، فكيف من لم يهاجر إلينا؟
“Since we do not declare Takfîr upon the worshipers of Qubbat’ul Kawwâz due to their Jahl and lack of someone to inform them then how could we (declare Takfîr upon) the one who does not emigrate to us?” (Sulaymân bin Sahmân, al-Dhiyâ’ush Shâriq, 372)
As mentioned above Shaykh Muhammad (Rahimahullah) stated the same words for those who worship the Qubbah, the idol built upon the grave of Abd’ul Qâdir (Rahimahullah) and stated that he does not declare Takfîr upon them due to their Jahl and the lack of someone who would inform and warn them regarding the matter. Shaykh (Rahimahullah) is also quoted to say the similar:
فنقول: إذا كان يعمل بالكفر والشرك، لجهله، أو عدم من ينبهه، لا نحكم بكفره حتى تقام عليه الحجة؛ ولكن لا نحكم بأنه مسلم، بل نقول عمله هذا كفر، يبيح المال والدم، وإن كنا لا نحكم على هذا الشخص، لعدم قيام الحجة عليه؛ لا يقال: إن لم يكن كافرا، فهو مسلم، بل نقول عمله عمل الكفار، وإطلاق الحكم على هذا الشخص بعينه، متوقف على بلوغ الحجة الرسالية. وقد ذكر أهل العلم: أن أصحاب الفترات، يمتحنون يوم القيامة في العرصات، ولم يجعلوا حكمه حكم الكفار، ولا حكم الأبرار
“We say: When a person commits Kufr and Shirk due to Jahl or lack of someone who would inform him, we do not rule him with Kufr until establishing the Hujjah upon him however we do not rule his being a Muslim either. Rather we say that his Amal (deed) is Kufr which makes his wealth and blood (life) permissible (to shed); even though we do not rule upon this person due to lack of Qiyâm’ul Hujjah upon him. It will not be said: If he is not Kâfir then he is Muslim! Rather we say that his Amal is the Amal of the Kuffâr, Itlâq of Hukm (of Kufr) upon this person specifically is conditional upon the Hujjah of the Risâlah reaching him. The Ahl’ul Ilm (People of the Sacred-Knowledge) mentioned that: The Ashâb’ul Fatrâh will be tested on Yawm’ul Qiyâmah (Doomsday) at Ara’sât. The Ahl’ul Ilm had not considered their Hukm (ruling) neither as Hukm of the Kuffâr nor Hukm of the Abrâr (pl. Birr; doer of virtuous, pious, dutiful deeds).” (ad-Durar’us Saniyyah, 10/136-137)
As seen, Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah) expressed similar statements regarding the worshippers of the Qubbah on the grave of Abd’ul Qâdir (Rahimahullah), Qubbat’ul Kawwâz and regarding others informing they will be not be given the Hukm of Kâfir however that this does not mean they are considered as Muslim. Therefore, they will be given neither the Hukm of Kâfir nor the Hukm of Muslim and their situation is the same as those among the Ahl’ul Fatrâh who will not be thrown into Jahannam (Hell) directly rather they will be tested.
Thus the statement of Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah) in which he does not declare Takfîr upon those who worship the idols (tombs, domes etc.) that are built on the graves, refers to not fighting them and not killing them prior to Qiyâm’ul Hujjah. Meaning; not applying the rulings of the Kuffâr to them before calling them since it is a duty for Muslimîn to call people -to whom the Da’wah had not reached- to Islâm before fighting. If these people to whom the Shaykh (Rahimahullah) referred to, were amongst the people to whom the Da’wah had not reached due to various reasons then it is not Ja’iz (permissible) to fight them before fulfilling our duty. As for Qiyâm’ul Hujjah; it is the reaching of the Qur’ân or the ability to reach it and it is not the comprehension of it as it is the subject of this Risâlah. In this case, they will not be declared Takfîr as deserving the Adhâb (punishment) meanwhile due to committing Shirk, they will not be considered as Muslim.
The issue will be explained in detail later in this Risâlah Inshallah defining the Ijmâ of Ulamâ including those who do not label the Ahl’ul Fatrâh as Kuffâr concerning the fact that they will not be considered as Muslim and they will not be ruled with the rulings of Islâm in the Ahkâm of Dunyâ.
Therefore, the ignorance of those who claim that Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah) excused Jahl with regards to the Shirk of those who worship the idols on the graves of Kawwâz, Abd’ul Qâdir (Rahimahullah) and their likes are exposed. As it is understood from the statements quoted above and also from the statements of Shaykh Ishâq (Rahimahullah) in this Risâlah clarifies that none among the Ulamâ of Najd to whom Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah) lead had such belief concerning Jahl as Udhr with regards to the matters of Shirk. None of them considered the doer of Shirk as Muslim by deducting from the statements of Shaykh Muhammad (Rahimahullah). Rather they all –as Shaykh Ishâq (Rahimahullah) did in this Risâlah- rejected in many events those who claim that Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah) excused Jahl with regards to Shirk and explained the meanings of his statements.
These deviant and deviator Bal’am of our era neither referred back to the students and descendants of the Shaykh –who has the better understanding and Ilm- in order to explain the matter nor did they take the Mutashahbih (unclear) statements of the Shaykh to his Muhkam (clear) statements. Nonetheless, they understood them as they wished. Since this is what profited them. It should be known that they were/are not seekers of Haqq (truth). As the Shaykh Ishâq (Rahimahullah) mentioned these people who attribute themselves to the Da’wah of Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah) by relying upon statements of the Shaykh regarding Kawwâz and Abd’ul Qâdir, –as their forefathers used to do- claim that Shaykh Muhammad (Rahimahullah) excused Jahl and considered doers of Shirk as Muslim.
Ibnu Uthaymîn in his “Sharh on Kashf’ush Shubuhât”, Ahmad Farîd in his book “Ignorance is an Excuse”, Abdullah Azzâm in his book “Lessons of Jihâd” claimed such regarding Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (Rahimahullah). These narrations quoted above indicates either the Jahl of these and many others so-called scholars or their hiding the truth from the general masses. This issue will be dealt with later in this Risâlah Inshallah in the chapter where the Ahl’ul Fatrâh is mentioned.
Last but not least; these narrations and their explanations by the Ulamâ according to the Usûl (methodology) also show the Jahl of those newly innovated people who claim that such statements of Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb are forged and mutilated statements. According to them all these books –some already mentioned above- that contain such statements are forged (!).. The Bâtil (invalid) and irrationality of such claim is crystal clear.
Like those who excuse Jahl, these newly-innovated people are also unable to verify and comprehend the statements of the Ulamâ and prove their Ajz (shortcoming) by rejecting anything they are unable to explain. They are in such an ignorance ditch for example Hâmid al-Fiqî (his nonsense is known with regards to the Sahabâh concerning the matter of “Dhâtu Anwât” when he commented and added footnotes to the book Fath’ul Majîd, the Sharh of Kitâb’ut Tawhîd by Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb) who commented the book “Misbâh’uz Zalâm” by Shaykh Abd’il Latîf, when he found the Shaykh (Rahimahullah) narrated from his grandfather (i.e. Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb) with acceptance and explanation according to Ilm; he, Hâmid al-Fiqî proved his own Jahl by deeming that there is defect and mutilation in the statement. Today many among the so-called Tâlib’ul Ilm (seekers, students of sacred-knowledge) continue to narrate and publish the claim that the statements of Shaykh Muhammad (Rahimahullah) are mutilated (!).. Wallah’ul Musta’ân (help is sought only from Allah)!..
2- This book by Shaykh’ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhâb (rahimahullah) is known nowadays as “Mufîd’ul Mustafîd fi Kufri Târik’it Tawhîd” and reputed with this title.
3- Shaykh Abd’ur Rahman (Rahimahullah) has a refutation known as “Kashfu ma Alqâhu Iblîs min’al Bahraji wa’t Talbîs ala Qalbi Dâwud bin Jarjîs” against Dâwud bin Jarjîs, the grave worshiper. Shaykh Abd’ul Latîf (Rahimahullah), Shaykh Aba Butayn (Rahimahullah) including “al-Intisâr li Hizbillah’il Muwahhidîn wa’r Raddu ala’l Mujâdili an’il Mushrikîn” and others among the Ulamâ also have written refutations against him.
Topic: M.B ABD’IL WAHHÂB REFRAINING FROM TAKFÎR ON THE WORSHIPERS OF QUBBAT’UL KAWWÂZ (Read 966 times)
09.02.2018, 04:46:21 PM
