As for the detailed response
2 September 2024 • 1.04K views
It involves addressing these accusations and allegations and providing answers to them. There are four (allegations):
First: The Allegation of Permitting Ruling by Other Than What Allāh Has Revealed
The critics expect their opponent to declare the ruler who judges by other than what Allāh has revealed as a disbeliever in situations that do not warrant disbelief. If they do not, they are accused of permitting ruling by other than what Allāh has revealed!
This accusation is baseless, and the response is threefold:
1. Whoever permits judgment by other than what Allāh has revealed is, by consensus of Ahlus-Sunnah, a disbeliever, even if he does not actually judge by other than what Allāh has revealed.
Would the one making this claim declare Ibn Baz, Al-Albani, and Ibn Uthaymeen, may Allāh have mercy on them, as disbelievers?(*1)
(*1) Not to mention Ibn ’Abbās, Ṭāwūs, ’Aṭā', and most of the Salaf!
2. These three scholars, may Allāh have mercy on them, explicitly stated that whoever permits (legalises, deems permissible, or considers lawful) such acts is indeed a disbeliever. Therefore, it is unjustifiable to accuse them of something that contradicts their clear statements.
3. The person making this claim has conflated two separate issues:
A- The issue of takfīr, which is the subject of dispute with the opponent.
B- The issue of sinfulness, which is undisputed and which the opponent mistakenly assumes is under debate.
Second: The Allegation of Closing the Door of Takfīr
The critics want their opponent to declare the ruler who judges by other than what Allāh has revealed as a disbeliever in cases that do not warrant disbelief. If they do not, they are accused of closing the door of takfīr and denying the existence of disbelief!
This claim is baseless, and the response is twofold:
1. Those who disagreed with you on this matter have issued fatwas declaring certain actions and statements as disbelief.
2. The person making this claim has conflated two separate issues:
A- Restricting the scope of takfīr to what is supported by evidence.
B- Denying the existence of disbelief, which no Sunni scholar would ever claim.
Third: The Allegation of Abolishing, Denying, and Discouraging Jihad!
The critics expect their opponent to declare the ruler who judges by other than what Allāh has revealed as a disbeliever in situations that do not warrant disbelief, and subsequently to advocate for rebellion and jihad against him. If they do not, they are accused of abolishing jihad, denying it, and discouraging it!
This accusation is also baseless, and the response is twofold:
1. The person making this claim based it on two incorrect assumptions:
A- The assumption that anyone who commits an act of disbelief becomes a disbeliever, which is incorrect. A person may commit an act of disbelief without becoming a disbeliever due to factors that prevent takfīr, as previously mentioned (P #).
B- The assumption that the mere disbelief of a ruler justifies rebellion against him, which is also incorrect, as previously mentioned (p#).
2. The person making this claim has conflated two separate issues:
A- Regulating the act of jihad according to its legitimate conditions.
B- Denying the legitimacy of jihad, which no Sunni scholar would ever do.
Fourth: The Allegation of Murji’ism!
The critics expect their opponent to declare the ruler who judges by other than what Allāh has revealed as a disbeliever in cases that do not warrant disbelief. If they do not, they are accused of being Murji’ah, labeled as following the misguided Murji’a sect, or accused of being influenced by the ideas of Murji’ism!
This accusation is baseless, and the response is threefold:
1. They fail to recognise the status of the scholars who disagreed with them on this matter. It is as if the one making this claim is unaware that his opponents in this matter are the senior Sunni scholars of this era: Ibn Baz, Al-Albani, and Ibn Uthaymeen, may God have mercy on them.