Is it really a Minor form of Kufr to rule with other than the rule of Allah? 8- When does Hukm with other than the rule of Allah become Kufr Asghar (Minor Kufr)? To be specific in this issue is the Madhab of the majority of the scholars of Islam even if the opinion of leaving Kufr for what it originally is (Akbar) has been narrated back to Ibn Mas’ud, ‘Umar and ‘Ali and from the Taabi’un Al-Hasan. Nakha’ey and Sa’eed Ibn Jubayr (as can be found in the 6th volume of Tabarey’s Tafseer, Al-Mughney of Ibn Qudaama and Azzawaajir of Ibn Makkey) Some companions and Taabi’un were said to have claimed that this Kufr is not a form of Major Kufr: Ibn ‘Abbas: This is not the Kufr that they mean. Abu Mijlaz: It is Kufr (Kufr Asghar) that is not Kufr (major Kufr) ‘Ataa’: They do what they do knowing it to be a sin. Ruling with other than the rule of Allah can be minor Kufr only in two instances: - To attempt finding the truth about a matter and making a mistake, the prophet said as in Bukharey & Muslim: When the Haakim makes Ejtihaad and is right then he is given two rewards and when he does Ejtihaad and is wrong then he gets one reward. - To make the mistake of deviating from the Hukm of Allah knowing with certainty that this is the Hukm of Allah and while admitting to his devious ways; this is a major sin and is a Kufr Asghar. This is one of the meanings that can be understood from the statement of Ibn ‘Abbas, Abu Mijlaz and ‘Ataa’: However, there are five conditions for this Kufr Asghar not to become Kufr Akbar: 1-To have a correct knowledge and ‘Aqeedah in regard to the obligation of Hukm of Allah and to know that to deviate from it in this instance is a major sin. 2-This deviance needs to be an exception and not the rule i.e. it cannot be a general law that is applied, having laws that negate or differ from the law of Allah is Shirk in and of it self, however, if the ruler applies Islam and makes exceptions from time to time then his kufr is Asghar. 3-That the sin it self is done within the confines of Islamic law and a new punishment is not given for this crime: Let us give an example: a thief who is related to the Qadhey is brought with witnesses who saw him stealing, this corrupt Qadhey would bribe the witnesses, if the witnesses withdraw their Shahaada, then it is the Hukm of Allah to let the thief go (ignoring the fact that it was gotten to through this evil way) Let us also say that this Qadhey would convince the man from whom the money was stolen to say that the thief did not steal the amount and only scammed him; this requires a punishment that the Qadhey then decides and not the cutting of the hand, this punishment (although gotten to with a bribe or with lies) is also the Hukm of Allah. 4- This deviance needs to be in a single instance and not for all similar instances; if this were to be the case then the law of Allah is not applied and is only present as a cover of Kufr Akbar. 5- That he deals with the law of Allah in the way that keeps him a Muslim, i.e. he does not mock or humiliate the Hukm of Allah while doing his Kufr Asghar. About Ibn ‘Abbas’s Kufr of a lesser degree: 1- Did Ibn ‘Abbas really say what they claim? Ibn ‘Abbas’s Athar was disputed by the scholars of Hadeeth , Ibn Abee Haatim, Bayhaqey in his Sunan, Ibn ‘Abd Al-Barr in the Tamheed, Al-Marwazey narrated it in his Ta’dheem Qadr Assalaat (2/521) and Al-Haakim in his Mustadrak (2/313) from the narration of Hisham Ibn Hujayr from Taawus from Ibn ‘Abbas. Hisham Ibn Hujayr Al-Makkey who was the Faqeeh of Mecca as Ibn Shubruma stated was made weak by Ahmad, Yahya Ibn Ma’een (who considered him very weak), Yahya Ibn Sa’eed Al-Qattaan advised Ibn Al-Madeeney to mark his Hadeeths as weak, Ibn ‘Uyaynah said that they never took from Hisham that which they found in others. Al-Haakim said that he was a weak Meccan man and Al-‘Uqayley wrote about him in his Addu’afaa’ (The Weak Men) Yes, this man was used by Bukharey, however, Ibn Hajar said mentioned that Al-‘Ejley (who is as easy to trust as Ibn Hibban or even more so as he exaggerates the level of trustworthiness especially in the level of Taabi’een and their followers as Mu’allimey, Waade’ey, Albaaney and Sheikh Assa’d remarked) thought he was trustworthy and after he brought all of the opinions of the greatest Imams of Hadeeth who judged him to be weak then he said: Bukharey only brought one Hadeeth of his from Taawus from Abu Hurayra about the incident with Suleiman and his wives and concubines. Then he went on to explain how Bukharey only brought his Hadeeth because he brought another authentic Rewaaya from ‘Abdullah Ibn Taawus. Hisham’s memory and meticulousness then cannot be trusted if he is the only one to narrate a Hadeeth. This is the first ‘Illa (defect) of this Hadeeth. At the same time, an even greater defect can be seen as ‘Abdurrazzaaq (who is the best of narrators from Ma’mar) narrates (and so does Tabarey and Wakee’ in Akhbaar Al-Qudhaat) from Ma’mar Ibn Raashid from Ibn Taawus from his father from Ibn ‘Abbas who said: it is Kufr. And in one rewaaya: it is enough Kufr.
Posted on: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:11:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015