Saturday, 07 September 2024 Home About Us Contact Us |
![]() | |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
You are here:
Home /
Sayyid Qutb
Mail to a Friend Printer friendly
The Saying that Imaan is a Single Entity That Is Not Subject to Divisibility Is the Foundation of the Bid'ahs of the Khawaarij and the Murji'ah
Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said (Majmoo' al-Fataawaa 7/223):
وأما قول القائل : إن الإيمان إذا ذهب بعضه ذهب كله فهذا ممنوع وهذا هو الأصل الذي تفرعت عنه البدع في الإيمان فإنهم ظنوا أنه متى ذهب بعضه ذهب كله لم يبق منه شيء . ثم قالت " الخوارج والمعتزلة " : هو مجموع ما أمر الله به ورسوله وهو الإيمان المطلق كما قاله أهل الحديث ; قالوا : فإذا ذهب شيء منه لم يبق مع صاحبه من الإيمان شيء فيخلد في النار وقالت " المرجئة " على اختلاف فرقهم : لا تذهب الكبائر وترك الواجبات الظاهرة شيئا من الإيمان إذ لو ذهب شيء منه لم يبق منه شيء فيكون شيئا واحدا يستوي فيه البر والفاجر ونصوص الرسول وأصحابه تدل على ذهاب بعضه وبقاء بعضه ; كقوله : " { يخرج من النار من كان في قلبه مثقال ذرة من إيمان } " . ولهذا كان " أهل السنة والحديث " على أنه يتفاضل وجمهورهم يقولون : يزيد وينقص
And this is clear in explaining the creed of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Hadeeth. The Foundations of the Bid'ah of the Khawaarij in the Works of Sayyid Qutb There are many places in the works of Sayyid Qutb where we see the origins of the bid'ah of Khawaarij, but one of the most foundational ones, is this statement here in az-Zilaal (2/798):
إن الإيمان وحدة لا تتجزأ
To see this principle at work in the ideology of Sayyid Qutb is in his exaggeration in the issue of Haakimiyyah, leading to Takfir of all Muslim societies upon the earth and calling for a violent revolutionary (Leninist) Jihaad against them. This has been noted about him by the Scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah, as well as prominent figureheads in al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen, and also Muhammad Abdul-Lateef as-Subkee, the head of the Committee of Verdicts of the University of al-Azhar, wrote a refutation of "Milestones" in 1965 (will be documented in a separate article). He (Qutb) says (az-Zilaal 2/887-888):
واللّه - سبحانه - يقول : إن المسألة - في هذا كله - مسألة إيمان أو كفر أو إسلام أو جاهلية وشرع أو هوى. وإنه لا وسط في هذا الأمر ولا هدنة ولا صلح! فالمؤمنون هم الذين يحكمون بما أنزل اللّه - لا يخرمون منه حرفا ولا يبدلون منه شيئا - والكافرون الظالمون الفاسقون هم الذين لا يحكمون بما أنزل اللّه. وأنه إما أن يكون الحكام قائمين على شريعة اللّه كاملة فهم في نطاق الإيمان. وإما أن يكونوا قائمين على شريعة أخرى مما لم يأذن به اللّه ، فهم الكافرون الظالمون الفاسقون. وأن الناس إما أن يقبلوا من الحكام والقضاة حكم اللّه وقضاءه في أمورهم فهم مؤمنون .. وإلا فما هم بالمؤمنين .. ولا وسط بين هذا الطريق وذاك ولا حجة ولا معذرة ، ولا احتجاج بمصل
In this quote we see statements which are correct, namely, the obligation to judge by what Allaah has revealed, and to accept it and so on, but mixed with such absolutions and exaggerations that led the Leninist-Takfiris who emerged in the 60s, to make Takfir of all Muslim societies, nations and governments, and all the people within those societies who fall into major sins - see this article from Shaykh Saalih Aal ash-Shaykh on Qutb's exaggeration in that regard.
Regarding what Qutb said right at the very end of negating any excuse, or the excuse of considering a maslahah, where he said, "And there is no middle path between this path or that path, and nor is their any evidence and nor is there any excuse (ma'dhirah) and nor any seeking to use the excuse of an attainable benefit (maslaha)", then Ibn Jibreen considers this legitimate and applicable in a saying of his which can be found here, and it is a statement that on its own has invalidated, demolished and laid to waste the very foundation of
Coming back to Qutb's quote, we can see that to him, eemaan can only exist if every single element of the Sharee'ah is in place and the ruler is ruling by it all. A situation that has not existed for 1400 years, ever since kingship appeared in the Ummah. Abu Umaamah relates that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:
لتنقضن عرى الإسلام عروة عروة فكلما انتقضت عروة تشبث الناس بالتي تليها فأولهن نقضا الحكم و آخرهن الصلاة
Reported by Ahmad in his Musnad, Ibn Hibbaan and al-Haakim. Saheeh al-Jaami' as-Sagheer (no. 5057) of Shaykh al-Albaanee who declared it Saheeh. And Shaykh Abdul-Azeez bin Baz (rahimahullaah) commented, upon the previous hadeeth (as occurs in Majmoo' ul-Fataawa wa Maqaalaat al-Mutanawwi'ah):
ومعنى قوله في الحديث: "وأولها نقضاً الحكم" معناه ظاهر وهو: عدم الحكم بشرع الله وهذا هو الواقع اليوم في غالب الدول المنتسبة للإسلام. ومعلوم أن الواجب على الجميع هو الحكم بشريعة الله في كل شيء والحذر من الحكم بالقوانين والأعراف المخالفة للشرع المطهر
Whilst Shaykh Ibn Baz states the obligation to rule by what Allaah has revealed in all affairs, he along with the scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah, do not make unrestricted Takfir on account of the presence of Secular Laws in greater or lesser amounts, except with the well-known tafseel (detail) that is found in many of his verdicts. As for Qutb, if there is no complete rule, then it is kufr. The ruler is a kaafir. The government is kaafirah. And all associatead govermental bodies are kaafirah. And if the people obey the government, even if its out of disobedience, and acknowledgment of sin, they are kaafirs too - (see here). Its' black or white and there is no in-between state. This extremely dangerous doctrine, coupled with the Leninist-Marxist Revolutionary Ideology upon which Qutb wrote Milestones and az-Zilaal (alongside the doctrines of the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, and As'hariyyah), is why many prominent figureheads from al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen themselves as well as the Scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah have pointed to Qutb as the reviver of the Khawaarij in the 20th century, and we shall document these statements in other articles inshaa'Allaah.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link Related Articles:
You must be registered and logged in to comment. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |