Lesson 11 on the virtues of the kalima is now available. You can listen to or download it here:
Here’s a brief transcript of part of the lesson (by Abu Yahya Imran Rafiq) which contained some beneficial points, especially regarding Takfir, the rulers, rebellion, revolutions and doubts of the Khawarij which may have overcome the common Muslim:
HADITH 33
Narrated Abu Dharr:
I came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) while he was wearing white clothes and sleeping. Then I went back to him again after he had got up from his sleep. He said, “Nobody says: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’ and then later on he dies while believing in that, except that he will enter Paradise.” I said, “Even if he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft?” He said, “Even if he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft.” I said, “Even if he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft?” He said, “Even if he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft.” I said, “Even if he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft?” He said, “Even if he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and theft, in spite of the Abu Dharr’s dislikeness.” Abu ‘Abdullah said, “This is at the time of death or before it if one repents and regrets and says ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ He will be forgiven his sins.”
[Sahih Al-Bukhari – Book 72 (The Book of Dress) No. 5449.]
Benefits:
– The excellence of La ilaha illAllaah, it is a means of entering Paradise, that is clear and apparent.
– We do not expel a Muslim on account of committing a major sin. This is very important and is a doubt spread by the Khawarij, these extremists and terrorists like ISIS and al-Qaeda, and their likes.
DOUBT 1
The argument they use is that a Muslim who persists upon committing major sins must be a disbeliever. Their rationale or argument is that a person can only be persisting upon sin, if he considers them to be lawful. This conclusion is incorrect. You cannot infer from the fact that a muslim persists in sin, that he is doing so on the basis that he considers his action to be halal. Why? To make something halal which is haram is disbelief, but to commit the sin is not.
For example, a man who drinks alcohol, his action of drinking is not disbelief but for a man to say: ‘I believe alcohol to be halal”, this now is rejection of the Qur’aan, because Allaah declared this to be haram in the Qur’aan, so how can you now come along and say this.
So these extremists, because they know they can’t expel other muslims, in particular, the rulers from Islam, just for example they gamble, drink, fall into shameful deeds, etc. They know they can’t can expel them from Islam on account of this. Why? Their aim is to revolt against the rulers, and to try and take power and so the first step you need to justify that is to claim that the rulers are disbelievers. Merely committing sin is not sufficient for you to expel them from Islam, so therefore they have these numerous doubts and misconceptions that they bring in order to justify their takfir.
One of their doubts is that they say the rulers are persisting upon sin and this is evidence they have made it halal. This is completely false.
In the time of Prophet Muhammad (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) there was a man who would drink alcohol, who was nicknamed Himaar (donkey). The Messenger said: ‘Do not curse this man as he is a believer in Allaah’.
Narrated ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab:
During the lifetime of the Prophet there was a man called ‘Abdullah whose nickname was Donkey, and he used to make Allah’s Apostle laugh. The Prophet lashed him because of drinking (alcohol). And one-day he was brought to the Prophet on the same charge and was lashed.
On that, a man among the people said, “O Allah, curse him! How frequently he has been brought (to the Prophet on such a charge)!” The Prophet said, “Do not curse him, for by Allah, I know for he loves Allah and His Apostle.”
[Sahih Bukhari, Book 81 (The Book of Prescribed Punishments), Hadith no. 6356]
DOUBT 2
If you commit sin in an organised manner, then you have made it lawful. Example: a person sells alcohol, this man has a store, to run the business, this requires staff, regulations, paying salary, rules of operation, etc. This is now organisation. Does this mean that this person is a disbeliever because he is engaging in sin in an organised manner? Of course not, this is not a proof at all, even though we say this person is greater in sin and worse than the one who merely consumes alcohol. The one who commits this sin, and facilitates this sin in an organised manner is worse than the one who commits the sin. This person is a greater sinner in the sight of Allaah. But does that make him a disbeliever and does he leave Islam on account of that. Of course not. This is fallacious as well. So this is another argument that the Khawarij use, and they will say for example, ‘oh look at the rulers, they allow the organisation of say for example, music, singing, or whatever else it may be, and they have made this halal. They have declared what Allah has made haram to be halal, therefore they are disbelievers.’.
This is from the extremists’ ignorance and not taking knowledge from the ‘ulemaa (scholars). This is exactly what happened with the first Khawarij, those who revolted against the companions ‘Uthmaan and Ali (radiyallaaha ‘anhuma).They killed Ali, they killed Uthmaan, and they were ignorant people, they never took knowledge from the companions. They tried to understand the Qur’aan by themselves and they fell into extremism and this is the same thing with these people today. These people never took knowledge from the scholars and they make mistakes in these tremendous issues to do with Eemaan and Kufr, and when does a person leave Islam and enter into Kufr, and things of that nature.
DOUBT 3
Because the rulers allow it to take place (in their land or their nation), therefore they must have declared it to be halal.
Imagine there is a man in his house and he allows his daughter not to wear the Hijab, does that mean now that he has declared the removal of the Hijab to be halal in the Shari’ah? Of course it doesn’t.
The argument is used that the rulers, they allow Ribaa (interest) to take place, or usurious banks to operate, things of that nature. Does that equate to making it to halal in the Shariah? The answer is No. Because you could extend this argument to every single household, to the man of every single household because the man is the shepherd of his flock, whatever sins a man allows to take place in his house, whether he allows his children to not pray, or his daughters to not wear the hijab, or they engage in other things which are haraam, does that mean he has made all of these now halal, and is therefore a disbeliever? The answer is no because there could be other considerations this man is making.
He could be thinking if my daughter doesn’t wear Hijab she won’t really get far in life or perhaps if my sons don’t shave their beards they won’t get a job. He’s not saying it is halal to do these things, he’s just following his desires, got worldly considerations and for those reasons he allowing those things to take place in his household. In a similar manner when you look at a whole nation or country, a ruler might have certain considerations, and we are not saying that these are correct, they might think, lets open up our country for tourism, we can make some money, and as part of this tourism, we’ll allow some of the hotels to have alcohol and whatever else, he (the ruler) is not saying alcohol is halal.
Or they (rulers) may say we cannot engage in international trade unless we use certain banks and to facilitate that trade let’s use certain banks to operate, and it may be the case that those banks are engaging in interest-based transactions. No one is saying interest is halal, because again this goes back to a matter of belief, a person has to say: ‘I believe that interest is halal, this is why I am allowing usurious banks’. Just like a person has to say: ‘I believe that removing the Hijab is halal, or drinking alcohol is halal, hence I allow it to take place in my house. It has to be expressed verbally.
These are from the shubuhaat (doubts) of the Khawarij. They rouse people’s sentiments and emotions, people who have no knowledge, people who have no understanding of the religion, people who do not value the scholars, and they rouse these people and round them up into a large mass and then they direct them into harmful activities, subversive activities, whether that be demonstrations, revolutions, and all of this leads to tribulations, trials, and so on and so forth, and none of this is really rectification.
So the one who commits a major sin, whether he persists in that major sin, whether he does it in an organised manner, like a thief for example. There is petty theft (man walking down the street, sees something and steals it) and organised theft (organised robbers who plan and watch, commit robberies on grand scale). That doesn’t make them to be disbelievers just because they commit them.
– Not allowed to condemn a person of the Qiblah to Hellfire. It is not allowed to say with certainty that this person will enter the Hellfire. We can’t make this claim, as sinful people are under the will of Allaah. If Allaah wills, He will punish them, or if Allah wills He may have mercy on them on account of something good they may have done to prevent punishment and receive Allaah’s mercy and forgiveness.
– Condition of dying person upon La ilaha ill Allaah. Cannot contradict Kalimah by violating it e.g. Shirk, magic, the nullifiers of Eemaan. Verily, those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers, it is they on whom is the Curse of Allah and of the angels and of mankind, combined. [2:161]
– Alludes to the issue of Husnal Khaatimah (the good end).
– Recommendation of wearing white thobe. ‘The best of those garments are those are white’. [Ibn Majah]
– The student returns back to the teacher in those things that are difficult for them. Abu Dharr found it difficult that a person who commits major sin will not enter Hellfire (which is why he asked several times).
