Ibn Taymiyyah, the Takfiri Kharijites and the Issue of Rebellion
By IslamAgainstExtremism, Editor
Notes
(1) This is the legacy of all of those who attempt to contend with the authorities in order to take power from them. They neither establish the deen by their actions, and nor do they allow the worldly affairs to remain. And the examples of this in the past and also in contemporary times are too numerous to mention.
(2) So when it is the case that those who did fall into fighting in times of tribulation, were of better intention, and more pious and upright than the contemporaries (who wish to seize the thrones of power for themselves), and still they erred in what they did, then what excuse is left for the ignoramuses of today, whose intentions are in fact evil, and to whom the error of these ways is manifestly clear and abundant!
(3) Stated al-Hasan al-Basri, "Know - may Allaah pardon you - that the tyranny of the kings is a retribution (niqmah) from among the retributions of Allaah the Most High. And Allaah's retributions are not to be faced with the sword, but they are to be faced with taqwaa and are repelled with supplication and repentance, remorse (inaabah) and abstention from sins. Verily, when the punishments of Allaah are met with the sword, are more severe. And Maalik bin Deenaar narrated to me that al-Hajjaaj (Ibn Yoosuf) used to say, "Know that every time you commit a sin Allaah will bring about a punishment from the direction of your ruler (sultaan)". And I have I have also been told that a person said to al-Hajjaaj, "Do you do such and such with the Ummah of Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam)?" So he replied, "For the reason that I am the punishment of Allaah upon the people of Iraaq, when they innovated into their religion whatever they innovated, and when they abandoned the commands of the their Prophet - alaihis salaam - whatever they abandoned." (Adaab Hasan al-Basri, of Ibn al-Jawzee, pp.119-120, by way of Mu'aamalat ul-Hukkaam, of Abdus-Salaam al-Burjis).
(4) However the contemporary takfiri groups have ignored the fact that the vast majority of the Salaf prohibited from this type of revolt, even though some of the notables from the people of knowledge fell into this. So out of deceit, they attempt to justify this manhaj of revolt in the current times (which they took from Vladimir Lenin through Sayyid Qutb in the name of "social justice"), with the excuse that there is a precedent from the people of knowledge from the Salaf - illustrating thereby, their blindness in both vision and insight.
Al-Khattaabee said, "And Ikhtilaaf (in a matter) is not a proof, rather the explanation of the Sunnah is a proof against the opposers, whether they be from the first (Muslims) or the later ones." (A'laam al-Hadeeth 3/2093).
And al-Haafidh Abu Umar Ibn Abdul-Barr said, "Ikhtilaaf is not a proof in the view of anyone that I know from the Fuquhaa of this Ummah, except the one who has no vision, and who has no knowledge, and who has no proof in his saying." (Jaami' Bayaan ul-Ilm 2/229)
(5) This is the very same as what Imaam Ahmad feared when a group from the people of knowledge came to him, and asked concerning the revolt against the Khaleefah, for his preaching the doctrine of kufr, the saying that the Speech of Allaah is created, so he rejected this and said that there would be much bloodshed and that the tribulation would increase. And the likes of this fiqh (understanding) is only granted to the firmly rooted Imaams, who speak with knowledge and insight (baseerah). And this insight is the very same that the firmly rooted Imaams of our times speak with in their advice to the Ummah.
Ibn al-Qayyim - may Allaah have mercy upon him - said: "This is a great topic, containing much benefit and due to ignorance of this topic a great mistake has fallen upon the Sharee'ah..." up until he said, after mentioning that the basis of the Sharee'ah is built upon the welfare and benefits of the servants: "...The Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi-wasallam) legislated for his ummah, the obligation of rejecting the evil so that by its rejection, the goodness that Allaah and His Messenger love is obtained. And when rejecting the evil leads to what is more evil and more hated by Allaah and His Messenger then it is not allowed to reject it - even if Allaah hates it and detests those who perform it (the evil). And this is like rejection [inkaar] against the kings, and the ones in authority by coming out against them [with arms etc. to fight them] - for verily, that is the basis and foundation of every evil (sharr) and every tribulation (fitnah) till the end of time." (I'laam al-Muwaqqi'een)
Stated Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen, "These words are very good (i.e. Imaam al-Albaanee's). Meaning, that those people pass judgement against the rulers of the Muslims, that they are disbelievers, what benefit do they achieve by judging them to be disbelievers? Are they able to put an end to them? They are not able. And when it is the case that the Jews have occupied Palestine for around 50 years, yet despite that the Islamic Ummah has not been able in its entirety - Arabs and Non-Arabs alike - to remove them from their place! How then, after this, can we go and strike those who rule over us with our tongues (i.e. make takfir of them) while we know that we are not capable of putting and end to them, and that blood will be shed, and the taking of wealth will become lawful, and even the honours of people. And then we will not even have achieved the desired result!! Therefore, what is the benefit - such that if a person was to believe - in that which is between him and his Lord - that amongst the rulers is one who is a disbeliever in truth, with the kufr that ejects from the religion - what then is the benefit in announcing this and spreading this, except the kindling of tribulation?!" (Fitnah of takfir, p.74)
(6) As for what is argued by those affected by Sayyid Qutb's Leninism - that this was only for those rulers in those times, and not for the rulers of our times - then this is falsehood, and they know it is falsehood. For the prohibition of revolting is based upon the prevention of greater evil and corruption in the land and the prevention of greater harm to the Muslims in general that almost invariably arises from such revolts. As for when clear, manifest disbelief is observed from the one in authority, then this in and of itself does not warrant revolt and rebellion and fighting without exception - as the people of knowledge have explained. Rather, a further matter is required: Consideration is given to what harm may result from the revolt and fighting - a matter alien to the contemporary Leninist takfiris.
(7) Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said, "And the way, seerah, of the Muslims has never ceased upon this (methodology). They did not declare them (i.e. the Khawarij) to be apostates like those whom as-Siddiq (radiallaahu anhu) fought against. And this despite the command of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) to fight against them, as occurs in the authentic hadiths, and also despite what has been reported about them in the hadeeth of Abu Umaamah, collected by at-Tirmidhi and others that they are "the most evil of those who are killed under the sky and how excellent is the one killed by them". Meaning that they are more harmful to the Muslims than others, for there are none which are more harmful to the Muslims than them, neither the Jews and nor the Christians. For they strived to kill every Muslim who did not agree with their view , declaring the blood of the Muslims, their wealth, and the slaying of their children to be lawful, while making takfir of them. And they considered this to be worship, due to their ignorance and their innovation that caused to stray..." Minhaj us-Sunnah 5/248.
Ibn Hubairah said concerning the hadeeth of Abu Sa'eed al-Khudree, "In this hadeeth is proof that fighting the Khawarij comes before fighting the pagans, mushrikeen. And the wisdom in that is that in fighting against them is a preservation of the capital of Islaam, whereas in fighting the people of Shirk there is the seeking of increase (in capital). So preserving the capital comes first." Fath ul-Bari 12/301.
'Asim bin Shumaikh said, "So I saw him - meaning Abu Sa'eed al-Khudree (who reported the hadith about the killing of the Khawarij) - after he had grown old and when his hands began to tremble, saying, 'Fighting them - meaning the Khawarij - is greater to me than fighting an equal number of the Turks". Ibn Abi Shaybah 15/305 and Musnad Ahmad 3/33.
And fighting the Khawaarij is in all times, and it is obligatory to repel them, by way of the pen, tongue or sword as they will never cease to emerge until in the midst of the last of them appears the Dajjaal. The Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, "A group will appear reciting the Qur'aan, it will not pass beyond their throats, every time a group appears, it is to be cut off, until the Dajjaal appears within them". (Reported by Ibn Maajah and it is Hasan. And see Silsilat ul-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah of al-Albaanee, no. 2455).
And the two main features of the Khawaarij are takfir by way of major sins and adopting revolt and rebellion as a methodology of reform. Sayyid Qutb's adoption of the Leninist methodology into his works was the main cause of revival of the methodologies of the Khawaarij in the 20th century.
(8) The rebellion and fighting of all these people was based upon their belief that they were enjoining good and forbidding evil.