Chapter 27

And immorality, whereas our religion is higher and more perfect than man-made systems that depose a ruler and inflict the severest punishments upon them when they revolt against their system. So what of those who revolt against a system ordained by Allah from above the seven heavens?!! ¶

Second: The principle of tolerance towards corrupt and oppressive rulers is a dangerous principle for the Ummah that knows no bounds, as it causes the Ummah to lose its most important characteristics in establishing justice, fulfilling rights, and enforcing duties upon the people from the top to the bottom without exception or discrimination, as is prescribed in the Islamic Shariah. It is narrated from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) that he said: "If people see the oppressor and do not take hold of his hand, it is likely that Allah will encompass them with a punishment from Him" (1). ¶

But it is a matter of profound regret that the argument against the permissibility of deposing a ruler has exceeded the stage of the ruler’s corruption and disobedience to the claim that it is impermissible to depose them no matter how immoral and tyrannical they become, regardless of what they permit or forbid, and regardless of the manifestations of belief-based, verbal, or practical disbelief they display. This assertion—praise be to Allah—has not been made by any of the recognized scholars of Islam. Rather, it has been asserted by a group of pseudo-scholars and jurists and merchants of the word who sell their consciences for a handful of dirhams, or who act as hypocrites toward disbelieving rulers for fear of the darkness of prisons and the gallows. They rush to the thresholds of disbelieving rulers with canned, ready-made fatwas that they know in advance will gain the ruler’s approval and bring a glow to his face. ¶

Tyrants have found a host of hypocritical scholars and preachers of subservience who have adorned the tyrants' deviation for them, justified their mistakes, and taken on the burden of convincing the people on behalf of their masters, until the matter has reached what is currently observed in terms of loyalty to disbelieving rulers in most Islamic countries (2). These people who wear the attire of scholars are like... ¶

[blank page] ¶

Do not declare it (a state) as kuffar from every aspect, nor declare it as Islamic as some of the fair-minded have stated. Whoever allies with the disbelievers is one of them, and there is no doubt regarding his kufr in the eyes of the wise. Whoever allies with them and leans toward them, there is no doubt in his fisq (transgression), and he is in a state of fear. Every lover, helper, or supporter who openly manifests agreement with them in action is, without doubt, like them in kufr; this is the view of those who distinguish truth from error. So, befriend the one who allies with the religion of Muhammad, and show enmity toward those who oppose it, among all those who are ignorant. Hate them for the sake of Allah, the Majestic, just as you have loved the guided ones and have not been neglectful. ¶

The summary of this issue is that if a state is kafir—such as the condition of most states today that are attributed to Islam while being furthest from it, as they forbid what Allah has made lawful and permit what He has forbidden, and enforce the rulings of kufr openly—the position of a Muslim is to show enmity and hatred toward it, and not to support it by word or deed, in accordance with the Almighty's saying: 'You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having affection for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred.' ¶

However, if the state is fasiq (transgressive), disobedient, and unjust, then affection for it is not permissible, and supporting it is not lawful unless it is against someone who is even more transgressive and unjust than it, based on the legal (fiqhi) maxim of averting the greater of two evils by choosing the lesser one. ¶

If one exercises patience regarding their (the rulers') fisq (immorality) and injustice in the absence of someone better, that is a permissible matter. If replacing them would result in greater corruption (mafasid) than what the reformers seek to avoid, then it is preferable to exercise patience and not break away from their obedience. However, if the Muslims were to properly adopt the principle of governance in Islam, it would be obligatory to remove the ruler through peaceful means in the event of his immorality and disobedience. ¶

As for the presence of a just Muslim ruler and a true Islamic government, then obedience to them is mandatory, supporting them is a religious duty, and revolting against them is a sin. Allah the Almighty says: 'O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.' In the Hadith, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'You will see after me selfishness and matters that you will disapprove of.' They asked: 'What do you command us, O Messenger of Allah?' He replied: 'Fulfill their right, and ask Allah for your right.' ¶

Thus, the right of the rulers over the Muslims is to obey them as long as it does not involve disobedience to Allah and His Messenger, and to support and uphold them in ways that do not cause harm to the believers in their lives, wealth, or honor. ¶

Therefore, a Muslim ruler may feel secure as long as he governs according to Islam, for Islam has guaranteed the obligation of his obedience and prohibited rising against him. If the ruler deviates from the law of Allah and suspends the Shariah of Allah, the fault is his and the crime is his. The distress and hardship he faces at that point are caused by his own transgression of the limits of Allah, just like any criminal who violates the Shariah limits; thus, his punishment is deterrence and discipline. Consequently, the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) is that in which Islam rules; in such a state, Muslims must support and protect one another. Whatever is outside of this is Dar al-Harb (Abode of War), and the relationship of the Muslim with its people is one of combat (or otherwise). ¶

Or it may be a truce based on a covenant of safety, yet it is neither a House of Islam (Dar al-Islam), nor is there any bond of allegiance (wala’) between its inhabitants and the Muslims. It makes no difference whether its rulers are original disbelievers (kuffar asliyyun) or proxies; both are two sides of the same coin, which is kufr (disbelief). The poet says: 'It is all the same whether one comes in the name of the people to oppress them, or comes from London to commit tyranny.' ¶

[blank page] ¶

Chapter Two: Al-Muwalat (Alliance/Loyalty) and Al-Mu'adat (Enmity) regarding sects attributed to Islam. ¶

1. Introduction to this chapter concerning the fragmentation of this Ummah. 2. First Section: Al-Muwalat and Al-Mu'adat regarding the Zaydi sect. 3. Second Section: Al-Muwalat and Al-Mu'adat regarding the Twelver Shia. 4. Third Section: Al-Muwalat and Al-Mu'adat regarding the Nusayri sect. 5. Fourth Section: Al-Muwalat and Al-Mu'adat regarding the Druze. ¶

[blank page] ¶

Introduction: Regarding the Division of this Ummah ¶

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'The Jews split into seventy-one or seventy-two sects, and the Christians split into seventy-one or seventy-two sects, and my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects.' In another narration: 'Beware! Those before you from the People of the Book split into seventy-two sects, and this nation will split into seventy-three; seventy-two will be in the Fire and one will be in Paradise, and it is the Jama’ah (the main body/the united group).' This Hadith, in its chain of narration and meaning, is authentic in its general sense. Scholars have differed regarding these sects being in the Fire. One group states that these sects will enter the Fire due to their innovations (bid'ah), although they will not remain therein forever, because no one will reside in it eternally except those whose innovation reached the level of disbelief (kufr), such as the extremists among the Batini sects who deify Ali, or who deny the completion of the Prophethood or the Quran, or who interpret Islam with corrupt interpretations, such as the interpretations of the Druze and the Nusayriyyah regarding the rulings of Islam. ¶

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says that the statement of the Messenger ﷺ: (My Ummah will split into seventy-three sects) contains evidence that all these sects are not outside the fold of Islam, as the Prophet ﷺ has included all of them as part of his Ummah. It also indicates that one who engages in interpretation (ta'wil) does not leave the religion even if they are mistaken in their interpretation. (1) End quote. ¶

Scholars have differed regarding the people of innovation (Ahl al-Bid'ah): The first opinion: Those who declare all of them to be disbelievers (kafir). This view is held by some later scholars who attribute themselves to the Imams or the theologians (Mutakallimin). (2) The second opinion: Those who declare the Jahmiyyah to be disbelievers, but not the Rafidah, Khawarij, Qadariyyah, or Murji'ah. This view was held by Yusuf ibn Asbat, Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, and was followed by a group of scholars from the companions of Ahmad and others. (3) The third opinion: Those who do not declare anyone among the people of innovation to be a disbeliever, but rather classify them among the people threatened with punishment (Ahl al-Wa'id), the corrupt (fasiq), and the sinful. They interpret the saying of the Messenger ﷺ (they are in the Fire) in the same manner as other warnings regarding sins, such as consuming the wealth of an orphan and the like. (4) ¶

Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says: The decisive word on this subject mentions two principles: The first principle: One must know that the one who is a disbeliever in reality among those who pray is nothing but a hypocrite. If this is the case, then the people of innovation include the heretic (zindiq), wherever they may be. ¶

The leaders of the people of innovation (Ahl al-Bid'ah) are hypocrites and heretics (Zindiqs), and this is disbelief (Kufr). However, among the people of innovation, there are those who possess both inward and outward faith, but due to ignorance and oppression, they err regarding the Sunnah; such a person is neither a disbeliever nor a hypocrite. There are also those among the people of innovation who commit aggression and oppression, making them sinners (Fasiq) or disobedient, but this does not elevate them to the level of Kufr. Furthermore, some among the people of innovation are simply mistaken and interpretative; their error is forgiven, and they may still possess enough faith and piety to attain the guardianship (Wilayah) of Allah, commensurate with their faith and piety (1). ¶

Second Principle: The ruling on a single statement varies according to the status of the one who makes it. Thus, whoever denies the obligation of prayer, fasting, or Hajj, or declares adultery, alcohol, usury, or marriage with prohibited relatives (Maharim) as permissible, this is clear, undeniable disbelief (Kufr Bawwah). ¶

However, a person may say such things who has not received the message (of Islam) and to whom the Islamic Shariah (*) has not reached; such a person does not become a disbeliever, because one is not ruled a disbeliever for denying something revealed to the Messenger (peace be upon him) if they did not know it was revealed to him (2). ¶

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about a man who prefers Jews and Christians over the extremist esoteric (Batini) sects. ¶

He replied: Everyone who believes in what Muhammad (peace be upon him) brought is better than everyone who disbelieves in him, even if there is some form of innovation in their faith, whether it be the innovation of Shi'ism, or that of the Murji'ah, Qadariyyah, or others. For the Jews and Christians are disbelievers by necessity (in terms of Islamic legal knowledge), whereas the innovator, if he thinks that he is in agreement (with the truth)... ¶

Whoever does not oppose the Messenger (pbuh) is not a disbeliever in him, even if it is assumed that he disbelieves, his disbelief is not like the disbelief of one who rejects the Messenger (pbuh). ¶

Abd al-Qahir ibn Tahir al-Baghdadi states that the description of the 'Ummah of Islam' does not include anyone except those who acknowledge the originated nature of the universe, the oneness of its Creator, His eternity, His attributes, His justice, and His wisdom; who negate any likeness (tashbih) to Him; who believe in the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) and the universality of his message to all; who uphold his Shariah; who believe that everything the Messenger (pbuh) brought is the truth; that the Noble Quran is free from addition or omission; that they follow the rulings of the Shariah alongside the Sunnah; and that the Kaaba is the qibla towards which prayer is mandatory. Therefore, whoever acknowledges all of this and is not embroiled in an innovation that leads to disbelief is among the monotheistic Ahl al-Sunnah who fall under the designation of the Ummah of Islam. ¶

He then states: 'The Zaydiyyah and Imamiyyah sects are counted among the sects of the Islamic Ummah, with the exception of their extremist (ghulat) factions, who are outside of Islam.' ¶

As for the esoteric (Batini) sects such as the Druze, Nusayriyyah, Qaramitah, and their like, they are not among the sects of Islam. Rather, they are sects that have conflated Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam, taking from each a share that increases their misguidance and hypocrisy. ¶

Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) counted the Nusayri sect, also known as the Alawiyyah, among the sects that are outside the fold of Islam (1). ¶

Based on this, the judgment concerning sects attributed to Islam varies according to their perspectives and beliefs regarding the fundamentals (usul) of Islam. Whoever holds a belief regarding a fundamental of Islam that necessitates kufr (disbelief) is judged as a disbeliever. Whoever holds a false interpretation of a fundamental, yet that interpretation does not reach the level of kufr, is not judged as a disbeliever, but is described as a fasiq (transgressor) or disobedient. An example of this is the belief of some Shi'a that congregational prayer is not obligatory until the appearance of the awaited Mahdi, as they claim. Therefore, whoever among them maintains prayer individually is not a disbeliever for neglecting the congregation, because the issue of attending the congregation is not a fundamental matter such that one who abandons it is declared a disbeliever. ¶

Indeed, regarding differences in the Shari'ah fundamentals (usul), no one is excused. This is why when Ahmad bin Ali al-Qasimi wrote a letter to Abdul Aziz bin Muhammad bin Saud (may Allah have mercy on him) stating, 'None of us should object to another regarding their school of thought, and every mujtahid is correct,' Abdul Aziz—who was among the righteous scholars and just rulers—responded to him: 'This applies to the issues of furu' (subsidiary matters), not to the usul (fundamentals), as the polytheists among the Jews and Christians claim that they are correct.' Allah the Almighty says: 'They have taken the devils as allies instead of the believers, and they think that they are guided' (Surah al-A'raf: 30). ¶

And Allah the Almighty says: 'Say, "Shall we inform you of the greatest losers as to [their] deeds? [They are] those whose effort is lost in worldly life, while they think that they are acquiring good by performing good deeds"' (Surah al-Kahf: 103-104). ¶

Thus, it is well-known that the Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah, even if they differ in some matters... ¶

As for subsidiary fiqh issues, the disagreement among scholars is the result of pure ijtihad (independent reasoning), and in most cases, their motives are free from any blemish. If this disagreement is of the nature of 'diversity' (ikhtilaf tanawwu') in certain subsidiary matters, it is not something for which those who differ should reproach one another. ¶

If it is a disagreement of contradiction (ikhtilaf tadad) in subsidiary matters, one may describe one of the dissenting parties as being in error and the other as being correct; however, the one in error does not exit the fold of Islam unless they intentionally err despite knowledge and certainty. As for the one who errs due to ijtihad in a subsidiary matter, there is no harm upon them. ¶

However, disagreement regarding the fundamentals (usul) of Islam is impermissible by unanimous consensus. Whoever opposes a fundamental of Islam is judged as a disbeliever, and one who opposes a single fundamental is like one who opposes all of them. The position of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah regarding those who oppose the fundamentals of Islam is that they obligate disassociation (bara'ah) from them, their statements, their actions, and their beliefs. ¶

Therefore, our study of any sect attributed to Islam leads us to examine the most important creedal fundamentals and devotional rites of that sect based on their primary sources and what the leading scholars have said about them throughout history. After reviewing the foundations and ideological premises of these sects, we can categorize and arrange them, and determine the degree of loyalty (muwalat) and enmity (mu'adat) that the people of Islam should maintain based on the words and actions of the founders of these sects and their followers up to our present time. ¶

An objector might say that researching Islamic sects and their differences with Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah is a negative endeavor and a futile exercise that yields no benefit. ¶

conflict only serves to stir the spirit of hostility between them whenever the strife subsides with the passage of time and an opportunity for unity and reconciliation arises. ¶

We respond to this objection by stating that the purpose of scholars in clarifying this matter in every time and place is to expose the falsehood of those deviant creeds, so that they may not, over time, be taken as established truths if they remain free from criticism, discussion, and objection. If their adherents renounce them, they have returned to the truth, and if they hold fast to them, they have held fast to falsehood. Therefore, exposing their falsehood is an obligation upon Muslims for the sake of other Muslims, and for the sake of the disbelievers who use the beliefs of certain Batini (esoteric) sects as a means to slander Islam and distort its unique and distinct system. ¶

We may sometimes resort to harshness in speech based on the staggering facts, the proof of which may be offensive to some sects, which may lead them to describe this style as a form of extremism, tension, and emotionalism devoid of calm dialogue and objective debate. ¶

We respond: that when dealing with those who tamper with the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace be upon him), and who amuse themselves with the blood and honor of Muslims, mere harshness in speech is not enough; rather, 'Sufficient for us is Allah, and [He is] the best Disposer of affairs'. ¶

First Section: Alliance and Hostility Regarding the Zaydi Sect ¶

Zaydism, or the Zaydi school of thought, is attributed to Imam Zayd ibn Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with them), who passed away in 122 AH / 740 CE. In jurisprudential circles, this school is referred to as the 'Fifth School' because it is often grouped with the four major Sunni schools of jurisprudence due to its moderation in certain fiqh-related issues (1). ¶

Many scholars who study Islamic sects have classified it under the Shia school because the most prominent figures of this group narrate from Shia Imams. Regarding their stance on the Caliphate, they differ from other Shia sects; some among them believe in the permissibility of the leadership of the 'lesser' (mafdhul) in the presence of the 'superior' (fadil), and the moderate among them hold the position that it is not permissible to revile the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). They believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) was more entitled to the Imamate, followed by his descendants, without distinction between the branches of his lineage. ¶

(1) See: The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. 11, pp. 14-20. ¶

If we compare the views of the Zaydis on the issues of infallibility (ismah), imamate, sanctification, raj'ah (return), miracles, taqiyya (dissimulation), Mahdism, and criticizing the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet) with the views of the Twelver Shia and other sects, we find a significant difference between them. This does not mean that the Zaydi school is free from certain issues and impurities that entered it through partisanship (tashayyu') for the Ahl al-Bayt. In general, the Zaydi school adopts the approach of the Mu'tazila regarding the Names and Attributes of Allah, as Zayd ibn Ali studied under Wasil ibn Ata, the founder of the Mu'tazili school, concerning the Names and Attributes. Regarding matters of faith (iman), it opposes the Murji'a, who view faith merely as belief in the heart. Furthermore, the Zaydi school carries a tone of rigidity in religious matters in some issues. The Zaydis share with the Shia the practice of saying 'Hayya 'ala khayr al-'amal' in the adhan, performing five takbirs in the funeral prayer, rejecting wiping over socks (mash 'ala al-khuffayn), refusing to pray behind a sinner (fajir), and not eating the meat slaughtered by non-Muslims. This is the school of the majority of Zaydis. However, some sects among them deviated due to their excessive extremism in Shi'ism, such as the Jarudiyya—the followers of Abu al-Jarud ibn al-Mundhir al-'Abdi. They opposed the Zaydi methodology and declared the Sahaba to be astray for choosing someone other than Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), and they reject the imamate of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). They are considered by the majority of Zaydis to be extremist Rafida. As for the Batriyya and Sulaymaniyya, they are among the more moderate of the Zaydi sects. ¶

The Jarudiyyah are not considered part of the general Zaydi school because they do not declare the Companions [of the Prophet] to be in error (takfir); however, they stipulated certain conditions regarding the Imamate with which the majority of the Zaydis do not agree. ¶

Ahmed Amin states: 'The Zaydi school is among the most moderate of the Shi'a schools and the closest to the Ahl al-Sunnah, as they do not revile the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), they view the Imamate with moderation, and they do not believe in the necessity of nass [divine designation] nor in the infallibility of the Imams.' ¶

As for the Yazidiyyah from among the Khawarij, who are followers of Yazid ibn Abi Anisah al-Khariji, this group is not considered among the sects of Islam, because they claim: 'The Shariah of Islam will be abrogated in the end times by a prophet who will be sent from among the non-Arabs (Ajam).' ¶

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about the Zaydi school attributed to Zayd ibn Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with them both), and he replied: 'Zayd, in our view, is one of the scholars of this Ummah. Whatever of his sayings aligns with the Book and the Sunnah, we accept, and whatever contradicts them, we reject, just as we do with the sayings of other Imams and scholars. This is if the transmission from him is authentic; however, most of what is attributed to him and narrated from him is lies and fabrication against him, just as the extremist Shi'a do with Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) and his household, as they narrate from them sayings and hadiths...' ¶

It is contrary to the principles of Islam and what has been established from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ by way of mutawatir (consecutive/continuous) transmission, and what reliable scholars have established through authentic narration. ¶

Then he says: 'The correct part of the Zaydi school is what aligns with the Book, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Ummah. Whatever contradicts this is invalid, whether it be from the Zaydi school or any other school' (1). End quote. ¶

It is clear from the above that the Zaydi sect is the closest of the sects to the Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah. Therefore, whoever among them disagrees with the Ahl al-Sunnah on a subsidiary issue or an interpretative matter, this disagreement does not sever affection nor does it necessitate enmity, for such disagreement occurs among all Muslims. As for disagreement in foundational (usuli) matters, such as their following the path of the Mu'tazila regarding the Names and Attributes of Allah, the correct view is that this constitutes exit from the religion if the statement is disbelief (kufr)—such as denying the Lord’s (the Exalted and Majestic) knowledge of affairs before they happen, the claim that the Quran is created, the claim that Allah will not be seen in the Hereafter, or that He is not in the heaven. These matters necessitate enmity towards those who believe in them, just as one is hostile toward disbelievers, and they require dissociation from them as long as they hold to those beliefs that contradict the Book, the Sunnah, the consensus of the Ummah, the linguistic implications, and the logic of sound reason. ¶

Accordingly, the methodology for dealing with the Zaydiyyah is the same as the methodology for dealing with others. Whoever opposes [the truth] through a sin that does not reach the level of kufr, we treat him as we treat the disobedient and the immoral (fussaq) (2) after advising him and clarifying the truth to him. As for whoever opposes [the truth] with something that necessitates kufr, we hold hatred and enmity towards him, sever ties of loyalty, affection, and support, and we treat him according to the path taken with those who apostatize from Islam (3). We attempt to bring him and those like him to the truth through whatever means we can to achieve that, and Allah is the Guide to the Straight Path. ¶

(1) See Al-Durar al-Saniyya, Vol. 1, p. 139. (2) See the discussion on the 'Disobedient and the Immoral' in this treatise, pp. 425-445. (3) See the discussion on 'Apostates' in this treatise, pp. 452-457. ¶

Second Discussion: The Matter of Allegiance (Muwala) and Enmity (Mu'ada) towards the Twelver Shia. ¶

Our study of some sects attributed to Islam is not intended as a detailed study of these groups as much as it is an effort to understand the essential doctrinal foundations of the sect under investigation, so that we may view them through a correct lens. This ensures that we do not go to extremes in our enmity towards them in a way that contradicts the methodology of Islam, nor that we be so lenient in our allegiance and support of them that it harms Islam and renders our deeds futile. Rather, it is incumbent upon us to make the Noble Quran and the Prophetic Sunnah the final arbiter with those with whom we disagree, in accordance with the Almighty’s saying: 'And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger.' Justice is required with everyone, and fanaticism is blameworthy if its source is caprice and emotion devoid of truth and evidence. Our study of any sect does not mean that all who belong to it hold such corrupt beliefs or possess such absurd perceptions; there are those who have retracted these ideas and beliefs, and there are those who strive to apply and learn them while being in their current state. ¶