Hadith of Ibn Masood RA on Rafa ul Yadain is Weak

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

Rafa Yadain opposers use this hadeeth 'Shall I not pray with you the prayer of the Messenger of Allâh (SAW)” so he prayed and he did not raise his hands except the first time.’

This hadeeth is used repeatedly by alot of brothers that Do not raise their Hands in Salaah before Rukoo and after Rukoo.
«أَلَا أُصَلِّي بِكُمْ صَلَاةَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ؟ فَصَلَّى، فَلَمْ يَرْفَعْ يَدَيْهِ إِلَّا فِي أَوَّلِ مَرَّةٍ»

Its chain is From Sufyân; from ‘Asim bin Kulayb; from ‘Abur-Rahmân ibn al-Aswad; from ‘Alqama who said, ‘ibn Mas‘ûd said,

[Sunan Tirmidhi 59/1, H. 257 and said it is Hasan, also by Ibn Hazam in al-Muhalla 87, 88/4, and said it is Sahih]

Tahqeeq: This hadith, due to a very grave defect, is Ma’lool. And its Sanad and Matan both are Da’eef.

The followng Imams have declared it to be Da’eef and Ma’lool:

The Following is a Collection of 7 Answers by Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai, translated in English.

First Answer:
The majority of Muhadditheen have declared this hadith to be Da’eef and Ma’lool:

1. Shaikhul Islam, the Mujahid, and the trsutworthy, Abdullah bin al-Mubarak said:

“لم یثبت حدیث۔۔۔۔ابن مسعود”

The Hadith of Ibn Mas’ood is not established. [Sunan Tirmidhi 59/1]

Some people from the modern era, have tried to remove this Jarh of Imam Ibn al-Mubarak from this Hadith, but the following Imams, and Muhadditheen have attributed this jarah on this hadith to Imam Ibn al-Mubarak:

• Tirmidhi [Sunan 59/1]
• Ibn al-Jawzi. [Al-Tahqeeq 278/1]
• Ibn Abdul Hadi. [Al-Tanqeeh’ 278/1]
• Nawawi. [Al-Majmoo’ Sharh al-Madhab 403/3]
• Ibn Qudamah. [Al-Mughni Vol 1, Pg 295]
• Ibn Hajr. [Al-Talkhis al-Khabir 222/1]
• Al-Shawkani. [Nail al-Awtaar 80/2]
• Al-Baghwi. [Sharh as-Sunnah 25/3]
• Baihaqi. [Al-Sunan al-Kubra 79/2

No Imam of Hadith has ever said that this Jarh is not related to the Hadith of Ibn Mas’ood.

2. Al-Imam al-Shafa’ee has refuted all the ahadeeth of not doing rafa yadain by saying that they are not established. [See: Kitab al-Umm Vol 7, Pg 201]

3. Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal has criticized this Hadith. [See: Juz Rafa Yadain: 32]

4. Imam Abu Haatim ar-Raazi said: "this is a mistake, and it is said the mistake is from ath-Thawri for a group of people have narrated from 'Asim and all of them have said, "that the Prophet (SAW) stood in prayer and he raised his hands, then he performed the ruku' and placed his hands together between his knees." Not one of them narrates what ath-Thawri reports." [Illal al-Hadith 96/1]

5. Imam Ad-Daruqutni said, 'it is not established'. [See: al-Illal by Daraqutni Vol 5, Pg 73]

6. Imam Ibn Hibban, in his Kitaab al-Salaah, said: 'this is the best narration that the people of Kufah narrate with regards to negating raising the hands in prayer at the ruku' and at rising from it. In reality it is the weakest of things to depend on because it has defects that invalidate it'” [Al-Talkhis al-Khabir 222/1]

7. Imam Abu Dawud said:

هَذَا حَدِيثٌ مُخْتَصَرٌ مِنْ حَدِيثٍ طَوِيلٍ وَلَيْسَ هُوَ بِصَحِيحٍ عَلَى هَذَا اللَّفْظِ

This Hadith is a summary of a long hadith, and it is not sahih with these words. [Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol 1, Pg 478]

Imam Abu Dawud and the Hadith of Ibn Mas’ood:

Some people in the 14th century have refused from the Jarah of Imam Abu Dawud on this Hadith, and by collecting some mistakes of the author of Mishkat, they have decided that this Jarah from Imam Abu Dawud is his Wahem. Though, the following Scholars have attributed this saying to Imam Abu Dawud:

• Ibn al-Jawzi. [Al-Tahqeeq fi Ikhtilaaf al-Hadith 278/1]
• Ibn Abdul Bar al-Andalusi. [Al-Tanqeeh’ 278/1]
• Ibn al-Mulqan. [Al-Badar al-Muneer, Vol3, Pg 493]
• Ibn al-Qattan al-Faasi. [Bayaan al-Wahem wal aihaam fi kitaab al-ahkaam 365/3]
• Shams ul-Haqq Azeem Abadi. [Awn al-Ma’bood Vol 3, Pg 449]

So we came to know that this saying is of Imam Abu Dawud, and is related to this Hadith.

8. Yahya bin Aadam (The teacher of Imam Ahmed) [Juz rafa yadain 32]

And…

9. Abu Bakr Ahmed bin Umer al-Bazzar have criticized this Hadith. [Al-Baher al-Zarkhar Vol 5, Pg 47]

10. Muhammad bin Wadaah has declared all the ahadith of not doing rafa yadain to be Da’eef.[Al-Tamheed 220/9]

11. Imam Bukhari has declared this Hadith to be Da’eef. [See: Juz Rafa Yadain 32, and Talkhis al-Kahbir]

12. Zaila’ee (Hanafi) narrated from Ibn al-Qattan al-Faasi that, he declared this addition (of not doing rafa yadain again) to be a Mistake. [Nasb ur-Rayaa 395/1]

13. Abdul Haqq al-Ashbaili said: It is not sahih. [Al-Ahkaam al-Wasta Vol 1, Pg 367]

14. Ibn al-Mulqan has declared it Da’eef. [Al-Badar al-Muneer 492/3]

15. Al-Haakim declared it Da’eef. [Al-Khalafiyat by Baihaqi with reference to Badar al-Muneer 493/3]

16. Imam al-Nawawi said: All the scholars are agreed upon its weakness [Al-Khulasa al-Ahkaam 354/1]

17. Imam Al-Daarimi has declared it Da’eef. [Tahdheeb al-Sunan 449/2] (I didn’t find this reference with Sahih Sanad!)

18. Al-Baihaqi declared it Da’eef. [Tahdheeb al-Sunan 449/2] (This reference was also not found with Sahih Isnad)

19. Muhammad bin Nasr al-Marwazi has declared this Hadith to be Da’eef. [Nasb ur-Rayaa 395/1]

20. Ibn Qudamah said: It is Da’eef. [Al-Mughni Vol 1, Pg 295]

They all were the great and famous scholars of the Muslim nation. Their unification on declaring this hadith to be Da’eef and ma’lool is far more superior to the authentication of Tirmidhi and Ibn Hazam. Therefore, this Hadith, without any doubt, is Da’eef.

If the expert scholars of the defects of Hadith, were to declare the hadith of a trustworthy narrator to be Da’eef, even then their tahqeeq will be accepted, because they are the experts in finding out the defects of Hadith, and their research on ahadith is evidence for us.

Second Answer:

This (Hadith) is depended upon Sufyaan ath-Thawri as it is proven from its Takhreej.

Sufyan Ath-Thawri besides being a Trustworthy, Memorizer of Hadith, and Pious, He was also a Mudallis. [See: Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb 2445]

The following Scholars have declared him to be Mudallis:

1. Imam Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattan. [Kitaab al-Illal wa ma’rifat al-rijal 207/1]
2. Imam Bukhari. [Al-Illal al-Kabeer by Tirmidhi 966/2]
3. Yahya bin Ma’een. [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel 225/4]
4. Abu Mahmood al-Maqdasi. [Qasidah fil Mudalliseen Pg 47]
5. Ibn al-Tarkamani Hanafi. [Al-Jawahir al-Naqi Vol 8, Pg 262]
6. Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani. [Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen Pg 32]
7. Al-Dhahabi. [Seer A’lam al-Nabula 242/7]

Hafidh Dhahabi said in Mizaan al-I’tidaal (169/2) that:

“ان کان یدلس عن الضعفاء ولکن لہ نقد ذوق ولا عبرۃ لقول من قال یدلس ویکتب عن الکذابین”

And said:

[Seer A’lam al-Nabula 242/7] “وربما دلس عن الضعفاء”

And said:

[Same: 274/7] “لانہ کان یحدث عن الضعفاء”

From this witness of Hafidh Dhahabi, we came to know that Sufyan used to do Tadlees from Da’eef narrators. Those who do Tadlees from Du’fa, their narrations narrated by “AN-عن" are Da’eef.

Abu Bakr al-Seerfi said in Kitaab Al-Dalaail that:

Every narrator whose Tadlees gets proven from Da’eef narrators, then his narrations will not be accepted until he says: “Haddathani, or Sami’tu". Meaning when he affirms his hearing only then his narration will be accepted. [See: Al-Nakt by al-Zarkashi Pg 184]

8. Salaah ud-Deen al-Alaai said in Jaami al-Tahseel fi Ahkaam al-Maraseel (Pg 99) that: “Sufyan ath-Thawri used to do Tadlees with those Majhul people who were not known”

9. Hafidh Ibn Rajab (Sharh Illal al-Tirmidhi 358/1) said: Sufyaan ath-Thawri and others used to do tadlees even with those whom they never heard.

10. Abu Na’eem al-Fadal bin Dukain al-Kufi. [Tarikh abu Zur’ah al-Dimashqi 1193]
11. Abu Aasim al-Dahaak bin Makhlad al-Nabeel. [Sunan ad-Daraqutni 201/3]
12. Ali bin Abdullah al-Madini. [Al-Kifayaa by al-Khateeb Pg 362]
13. Abu Zur’a ibn al-Iraaqi, [Kitaab al-Mudalliseen: 21]
14. Haakim. [Ma’rifat Uloom al-Hadith 106]
15. Al-Aini Hanafi. [Umdatul Qari Vol3, Pg 112]
16. Al-Karmani. [Sharh Sahih Bukhari 62/3]
17. Ibn Hibaan. [Al-Ihsaan 61/1]
18. Al-Suyooti. [Asmaa min arfa bil-Tadlees: 24]
19. Al-Halabi. [Al-Tabiyeen fi asma al-Mudalliseen: 27]
20. Qastalani said: Sufyan ath-Thawri is a Mudallis, and the “An-ana” of Mudallis is not acceptable, unless if its affirmation gets proven. [Irshad al-Saari Sharh Sahih Bukhari Vol1, Pg 286]

Sarfaraz Safdar Deobandi writes in his book “Ahsan ul-Kalaam” that: Abu Qilaba was Siqqah but was a Mudallis….Abu Qilbah also used to do Tadlees with those who he met and those who he didn’t meet. [Vol2, Pg 111]

If, from the saying of Hafidh Dhahabi: Abu Qilaba can be called a Mudallis, then why can’t Sufyan be called a Mudallis from the saying of Ibn Rajab?

Though Abu Qilaaba was not a Mudallis. Abu Haatim al-Raazi has refuted the accusation of Tadlees on him. (See: Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel 8/5)

The authentication of the ahadith of Abu Qilabah which are narrated by “AN” has been done by many scholars including: Bukhari, Mislim, and Dhahabi etc.

How can a saying of later (Mutakhir) scholar be accepted in front of the saying of Former (Mutaqaddim) scholars? Did any Muhaddith ever even say that Abu Qilabah used to do tadlees with weak narrators?

Rejecting the “An-ana” of Abu Qilabah who was not a Mudallis, and accepting the “AN-ana” of Sufyan, who used to do tadlees with Du’fa, is similar to the murder of Justice. Allah will definitely ask the Zaalimoon. No one will be able to help them on that day.

Note: Shaikh Muhammad Naasir ud-Deen Albani has declared a sanad, Da’eef due to the “AN-ana” of Abu Qilabah. [Haashiya Sahih Ibn Khuzaimah Vol 3, Pg 268]

Though Abu Qilabah being a Mudallis is not correct, those who declared him to be Mudallis after many hundred years, have added him in the First Tabqa (those Mudalliseen whose Tadlees is not harmful). His tadlees with Du’fa is also not proven. Allamah Albani has declared his ahadith to be da’eef, but he has declared the ahadith of Sufyan, who used to do tadlees with Du’fa, to be Sahih in Ta’liqaat of Mishkat.

We have explained with proofs that this authentication of Allamah Albani is wrong, and is against the principles of Muhadditheen, therefore it is rejectable.

The Dhahabi of this era, Shaikh Abdur-Rehmaan Al-Mu’allami Al-Yamani, has also declared this hadith to be da’eef due to the “AN-ana” of Sufyaan. [Al-Tankeel bima fi Taneeb al-Kawthari mn al-abateel 2, Pg: 20]

The summary is that, Sufyan was a Mudallis, and according to the tahqeeq of Sarfaraz Khan Safdar, He was a very extreme Mudallis. Therefore, his “Mu’AN-an” ahadith are Da’eef in the absence of Mutabi’at.

The “AN-ana” of a Mudallis:

Imam Ibn al-Salah said: “The ruling concerning such narrators is that, the only hadith that will be accepted from them is where they affirm their hearing. Imam Shaf’aee has said this thing for every person, who commits Tadlees even once. [Muqaddimah Ibn al-Salah, Pg 99]

Imam Yahya bin Ma’een said: “The Mudallis is not a proof in his Tadlees.” (al-Kifaayah (p.362) and Sharh Ellal at-Tirmidhee (1/353) and (1/357-358)

Therefore, this “mu-AN-an” narration of Sufyan ath-Thawri (Rahimahullah) (who used to do tadlees from Du’fa and Majaheel) is Da’eef. In presence of the Sahih ahadith, the existance or non-existance of Da’eef hadith is equal.

Discussion on the Third Tabqa (Tabqa Thania):

From the above mentioned details, it is proven that Sufyan ath-Thawri was a very strong Mudallis. Therefore, mentioning him in the second level of Mudalliseen is wrong, but Hafidh Ibn Hajr has added him in the second level. [Tabqaat al-Mudalliseen Pg 32]

Before Hafidh Ibn Hajr, Imam Haakim al-Nisaburi, has added Sufyaan in the third level of Mudalliseen. [Ma’rifat Uloom al-Hadith, Pg 106]

Imam Haakim was more expert and superior than Hafidh Ibn Hajr. In light of the following proofs, Imam Haakim’s saying is correct, and Hafidh Ibn Hajr’s saying is wrong.

Benefit # 1: Sufyan ath-Thawri did not used to do tadlees from the following Shuyookh:
Habeeb bin Abi Thabit, Salamah bin Kuhail, and Mansoor etc. [Al-Illal al-Kabeer by al-Tirmidhi 966/2]

Benefit # 2: The narration of Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattan from Sufyan ath-Thawri is with the affirmation of hearing. [See: Kitab al-Illal wa Ma’rifat ur-Rijaal 207/1]

Benefit # 3: If a reliable Mutabi’at of a Mudallis is found then his narration becomes strong. In this narration, Sufyan Ath-Thawri is alone in narrating from Aasim bin Kulaib, and it has no reliable Mutabi’at. Therefoe, its sanad is Da’eef.

(The following answers are for those that insist that this hadeeth is authentic and proves Non Rafa Yadain)

Third Answer:

There is no mention of the rafa yadain of ruku’ in this narration of Sufyan ath-Thawri, therefore, this narration is general.

If it is considered general then even the opposers of rafa yadain do not follow this Hadith. They raise their hands in Witr after the first Takbeer (while this hadith only says to raise the hands in the first takbeer). They raise their hands after the first takbeer in the prayers of Eidain. If the exception of Witr and Eidain is proven from other ahadith, then the exception of rafa yadain before and after ruku’ is also proven from other ahadith.

It is essential for those who take evidence from this hadith, that first they try to save the rafa yadain of witr and eidain from the generality of this hadith.

Note: The opposition of the rafa yadain of before and after ruku is not proven from any Sahih hadith. The ahadith of the opposers are Baatil, Da’eef, and Mardood. [For more details see the book of Hafidh Ibn al-Qayyim, Manar al-Maneef pg 137]

Fourth Answer:

As it is stated above, that this hadith doesn’t mention about the rafa yadain of before and after ruku, Imam Abu Dawud has brought this hadith under the chapter heading:

(Chapter of those who did not mention about the rafa yadain in ruku) “بَاب مَنْ لَمْ يَذْكُرِ الرَّفْعَ عِنْدَ الرُّكُوعِ”

And it is known even to common students that, (after mentioning the proof of a thing) mentioning of anything afterwards, is not a proof of the prohibition of what is mentioned before.

Ibn al-Tarkamani Hanafi said: “The one who does not mention about a thing is not a Hujjah on one who mentions it.” [Al-Johar al-Naqi Vol 4, Pg 317]

The famous Muhaddith Hafidh Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani said:

[Al-Darayah Vol 1, Pg 225] “ولا یلزم من عدم ذکر الشئ عدم وقوعہ”

Therefore, even with this aformementioned Da’eef hadith of Sufyan ath-Thawri, the opposition of rafa yadain does not get proven.

Fifth Answer:

There is negation in the Hadith of Sufyan, while in the Mutawaatir ahadith of Sahihain, there is confirmation, and it is known even to ordinary students that confirmation is precedent over negation.

Imam Nawawi said: Acting upon the (sahih) ahadith of rafa yadain is superior, because they contain the confirmation, while this (the hadith of Sufyan) is negation. Thus confirmation will take precedence over negation due to it being excessive in knowledge. [Al-Majmoo’ Sharh Madhab 403/3]

Hanafis say that even Karkhi Hanafi (d. 317) has declared the confirmation (of something) to be superior to the negation, to act upon. [See: Noor ul-Anwaar: Pg 197]

For more details see: Nasb ur-Rayaa (359/1), and Fathul Bari (333/1)

Sixth Answer: 

Some scholars have said that this hadith means that Ibn Mas’ood raised his hands only once with the First Takbeer, not again and again. (Meaning the rafa yadain of first takbeer was done only once by him).

[See: Mishkaat al-Masaabih Pg 77, H. 809]

Imam Nawawi said: Our companions have said that if this hadith was authentic, then its meaning would be that, he did not used to do rafa yadain again and again, in the beginning of the prayer and in the beginning of other rakahs. (It does not have to do anything with the rafa yadain of ruku), from this Ta’weel, all the ahadeeth will be followed.

[Al-Majmoo 403/3]

Seventh Answer:

Even if this Hadith, for the sake of argument, were to be authentic, then still it would be considered abrogated (Mansookh).

Imam Ahmed bin Al-Husain al-Baihaqi said: It’s possible that in the beginning, Tark-e-Rafa Yadain was present when the permissiblity of rafa yadain was not there, and after that it got abrogated, and the rafa yadain of before and after ruku’ became the sunnah, and these two things remained the same with Ibn Mas’ood.

[Ma’rifat al-Sunan wal Athaar Vol 1, Pg 220]

Note: This is a retaliatory (Ilzaami) answer; otherwise the reality is that this hadith is not proven from Ibn Mas’ood.

Lastly:

Hafidh Ibn Hazam writes about this Hadith of Ibn Mas’ood that: If this hadith was not there, then the rafa yadain would have been obligatory with every bending, rising, Takbeer, and Tamheed. [Al-Muhalla Vol 4, 88]

In the light of the above details, the hadith of Ibn Mas’ood presented by Ibn Hazam, due to several defects, is proven to be Da’eef.

Therefore, let the people decide (who use his saying against this hadith) , what is the position of rafa yadain according to Ibn Hazam? Doesn’t it become obligatory according to him?

والحمد لله و الصلاة والسلام على رسول الله

Fatawas of Shaykh Nasir Al-Fahd

Abu Muhannad al-Jazrawi, an active member of the Al-Ghuraba media institution, managed to pass questions along to al-Fahd and to take his answers outside of the prison. Al-Jazwari emphasizes that al-Fahd answered the questions to the best of his ability since he does not have access to Islamic sources and books in prison.

Following are the notable fatawas from the collection.

Fatwas

Question: Is it permitted to bow to the grave of Ataturk (the leader of the secular revolution in Turkey) for the sake of the interest of the nation since it is a required clause in its constitution?

Answer: It is forbidden to perform heretical acts even for the sake of a greater interest. To sin in the service of Islamic action is a slippery slope and must be avoided.

Question: Is it permitted to wear the clothing of Christians and partake in their customs in order to assimilate among them and cause them not to be suspicious?

Answer: It is permitted to wear their clothing since, in the situation that the Muslim Nation currently finds itself, this would help Muslims to achieve their goals. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to raise the cross and to partake in Christian customs since this is only allowed under very extreme circumstances.

Question: Is it permitted to resolve issues in the courts of the infidels in the absence of another option?

Answer: It is forbidden to turn to the courts of the infidels, except in the case of coercion.

Question: What is the law regarding the Center for Interfaith Dialogue?[1]

Answer: It is a cursed center that is opposed to the principles of Islam and the path of jihad. Anyone who participates in the center’s activities and supports it is an infidel. The infidels use places like the center in order to strengthen their rule.

Question: What is the meaning of democracy, and what is the difference between democracy and shura? What is the law regarding joining parliaments?

Answer: According to democracy, the power is in the hands of the people. Therefore, democracy is heresy by definition: power belongs to Allah alone and is not shared with human beings. Democracy is completely different than shura – Islamic consultation: In democracy, everything is subject to change and consultation, while shura takes place only when there is no clear, unequivocal law regarding an issue; in democracy, everyone can vote while shura can only be carried out by a few scholars. Joining parliaments is a serious act of heresy since it involves recognition of the authority of a non-Islamic lawmaking body and since it ingssnstrate his hange, eve in Allah and declare religious knowledges and of the regime and not to the laws of Allah. ofs not conducted according to shari’a. In addition, participation in parliament requires a commitment to its constitution, which is a heretical document.

Question: What is the law concerning someone who says “I am a democrat” or “I am interested in democracy” if he does not know its true significance but rather mistakenly thinks that it refers to shura?

Answer: If he does not know what the word “democracy” means and is referring to the act of shura, or if he does not what democracy means but means to say shura, then he is not an infidel but you must correct him and explain to him that there is a significant difference between the two terms. If he knows what democracy means and that was his intension, then he is an infidel.

Question: Is someone who does not declare an infidel to be an infidel, himself considered an infidel?

Answer: Infidels are divided into four groups: (1) infidels by nature such as Jews and Christians – whoever does not declare them to be infidels is himself surely an infidel; (2) those who left Islam and declared themselves to be Jewish or atheist – the law is the same as for the first group; (3) those who took clear action against Islam but still call themselves Muslims: it must be confirmed if their actions were indeed acts of heresy, but in general whoever does not declare them to be infidels is not considered an infidel himself; (4) those who were partly in defiance of Islam, for example by not fulfilling the commandment to pray: whoever does not declare them to be infidels is not considered an infidel himself.

Question: What is the law regarding use of the word “terrorism” to describe the mujahideen?

Answer: In this matter, one must make a distinction between two cases. There are those who do not recognize the legitimacy of jihad, including heads of state and journalists, who use the word “terrorism” to describe all mujahideen – these people are undoubtedly infidels. On the other hand, sometimes people refer to some mujahideen as terrorists but not others; for example, sometimes they criticize certain actions taken by certain mujahideen such as strikes on residential buildings or against Muslims, and does not include all mujahideen under the term “terrorists”. If one criticizes the mujahideen but recognizes the principle of jihad in Allah’s path – then it is not heresy.

Question: What is the law regarding those who say “Our brothers, the Jews, the Christians and the Shi’ites” as part of dawah – in an attempt to appeal to them?

Answer: It is only permitted to use the term “brothers” in two cases: religious brotherhood (all believers are brothers) and family kinship. This is not the case regarding Jews, Christians and Shi’ites and, therefore, this expression should not be used in relation to them.

Question: Is it permitted to take part in local councils? And what is the reason for boycotting the elections of local councils?

Answer:  It is forbidden to take part in local councils since they are subject to the laws of the regime and not to the laws of Allah. Elections for local councils are essentially an act of heresy since both criminals and the corrupt are able to vote in them, and since candidates without religious knowledge can also be elected.

Question: Is leaving the Syrian army considered an act of repentance?

Answer: It is not enough just to leave the Syrian army - in order to repent one must believe in Allah and declare the regime heretical.

A Verdict Regarding the Saudi Regime

                                            Fatwa Regarding the Saudi Regime                                           Shaykh Abu Baseer Mustafa Haleemah

Question:

I think it is not hidden from the likes of you what has happened and is now happening in the Arabian Peninsula under the Saudi rule... If you would – may Allah preserve you – direct the youths to what is obligatory for them to do, especially since the government has begun to target the people of Iman and Jihad, either by imprisoning them or killing them, and what happened to Shaykh Yusuf al-'Uyayri is not far from us... So groups of the youths have now decided to take revenge for what the Saudi government has done or will do. So some of them have begun to buy weapons. And other groups of the youths fear that there will be a repeat in the Arabian Peninsula of that which occurred in Algeria, but at the same time they see that a great Fitnah and killing is about to take place, especially if the Saudi government continues to restrict the people of knowledge and Jihad. So they view that it is necessary for them to buy weapons, from handguns to explosives, and to train with them in order to defend themselves and their families in the event of a civil war or revolution or the like.

These youths have – among those who answer their questions and share their concerns – 'Ulama' whom they trust in terms of their knowledge, and who live in the Peninsula and witness the situation there and see it around them. However, as you know – may Allah bless you – the houses of these 'Ulama' have been besieged, and they have been led away to prison, to remain there for an indefinite period. This is if they are convicted of rebellion.

And the government has even fabricated lies about these 'Ulama', for when they arrested Shaykh 'Ali al-Khudhayr, Shaykh Nasir al-Fahd and Shaykh Ahmad al-Khalidi, they broadcast that they found along with these Mashayikh weapons and explosives! And before that, they accused them of founding a group called "The Muwahhideen for the overthrow of the Saudi government", and that they had a hand in the explosions that occurred in Riyadh, even though the Mashayikh – may Allah preserve them – had denied both accusations!

O Shaykh, the youths are confused and afraid at the same time. For they fear for themselves to even ask about what is obligatory upon them to do. And if they ask someone, the one who is asked will usually shy away from the question, and will summarise and not give details. The integrity of the Committee of Major Scholars (Hay'at Kibaril-'Ulama') has fallen in the eyes of many of the youths, and they look at any statement from the Committee of Major Scholars as if it is a statement from the Interior Ministry or another Ministry... for this reason, we hope that you will give us an explanation and advice.


Answer:

All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of all that exists.

This is a big question... I wished that the Saudi regime would not push the youths to the extent that they would be forced to send the like of this question... and I have received many questions similar to it. I wished from the Saudi regime – in observance of the sacredness of the two noble Haramayn, and its peaceful worshippers – that it would not put itself in this position, and that it would leave us alone as we have left it alone, but it has insisted on brandishing the stick, and on mistreating us, and being an open enemy, and being a helper to the Tawagheet of the infidels in the world against the Muslim Muwahhideen from the people of the Peninsula and outside of it, in the name of "fighting terrorism"... even though they themselves are the masters of terrorism and criminality.

In order to answer this question, it is necessary to mention the following facts:

[1] The Saudi regime is a mixture of Haqq (truth) and Batil (falsehood). The Haqq aspect of it tends to be restricted to verbal claims, such as the outward symbols of Tawhid on their flag, and their claim that they are an Islamic, Salafi state, and that they implement the Islamic Shari'ah, and other than that from the great claims that we wish they were truthful in... and these continue to deceive many of the people!

As for their Batil, then it tends to manifest itself physically, in the real world... and it is clearer proof of the reality of their regime than what they claim with the tongue. And examples of this falsehood may be found in the following:

[a] It is a regime that does not rule by what Allah has revealed in every aspect of life, particular and general, rather it is a regime that rules by what Allah revealed in certain cases to the exclusion of other cases... it believes in part of the Book and disbelieves in part... and this may be noticed easily by anyone who would like to observe the Saudi legal system... and this contradicts many of the Shar'i texts that obligate referring the judgement back to the Book and the Sunnah in every aspects, as in the Saying of Allah (ta'ala) [meaning]:

"So if you differ in anything, then refer it back to Allah and the Messenger, in you really believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better, and more suitable for a final explanation."

So His Saying (ta'ala): "...in anything..." is a general term that indicates anything and everything in which people might differ.

It is an immature regime, convinced – as it has been for a long time – that it is not capable of relying on itself or its people for support,... So in the past, Al Sa'ud stretched out their hands to the British in order to help them strengthen their kingdom and authority against the Ikhwan movement, the followers of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdil-Wahhab (rahimahullah) and others... to the extent that the founder of the Saudi state used to receive a salary from the British, as one of his own grandsons clearly stated.

And today – at the hands of the sons of 'Abdul-'Aziz – the regime throws itself completely into the lap of America, going along with its policies, responding to its every desire in exchange that it (America) will protect and defend it (the Saudi regime), and not abandon it or work to change it... even though the Saudi regime – if it was sincere in its claim to Islam, and that it is the protector of its territory – would be able, with the aid of its religious population, and with the aid of the tremendous material resources it possesses, to organise one of the mightiest armies in the world, able to strike fear into the heart of America, an army possessing power and a firm 'Aqidah... however unfortunately they have not done any of that.

Its position is that of any other Arab regime... it does no more than to prepare an army to defend the ruling regime from its own people in the event of any attempt to change or oppose it... upon the principle "a lion against me, but an ostrich in war"!

[b][c] It is a racist, nationalist regime that allies or opposes on the basis of relation with the nation. It divides rights and obligations among the slaves of Allah on the basis of relation with the Saudi nation and its borders, and not on the basis of relation with the 'Aqidah and the religion... in the same manner as any other Arab regime.

And this is clear Kufr (Kufr Bawah) as the Saudi Permanent Committee (al-Lajnah ad-Da'imah) for Ifta' have themselves said in one of their Fatawa: "Whoever does not distinguish between the Jews and the Christians and the other infidels and between the Muslims except by nationality, and makes all of their rulings equal, then he is a Kafir."

And they were correct in that, however our question to these esteemed ones is this: Is not the Saudi regime like this? Is it other than what you have described? Is it not that the Kafir, Zindeeq (heretic) Saudi – because of his nationality and his connection with the Saudi state – enjoys certain rights, favours, and privileges that "Shaykhul-Islam" from outside Sa'udiyyah does not?

The problem of single unmarried women has reached its peak, yet along with that – according to the law – the Saudi woman is not allowed to be married to a man with whose religion and character she is pleased if he does not belong to the borders of the Saudi nation... and likewise, the Saudi man is not allowed to marry outside Sa'udiyyah until he has reached a certain advanced age, along with fulfilling certain conditions, and after receiving special royal permission, for which Allah has not sent down any authority... the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam) spoke truly when he said: "If you do not (marry), there will be Fitnah and widespread evil in the earth."

[d] It is a regime which along with its army has not shown any support – whether real or pretended – towards any of the important issues facing the Muslims today... Show me a single Islamic Jihadi movement that wished to establish an Islamic life in their countries and lift the oppression of the Tawagheet, that the Saudi regime or its army - not the Muslim Saudi population – provided help or support?

Hundreds of massacres of the Muslims have occurred in their countries... the lands usurped and the rights of the inhabitants violated... so what was the stance of the Saudi regime and its army? Nothing! The most they could do is to allow the Mashayikh to make Du'a' for the Muslims... or to collect a few monetary donations to pacify the anger of the people, and send them to the representative body of the state that is slaughtering the Muslims, as occurred when they sent the donations of the Saudi people to the Muslims in Chechnya via the murderous Russian state, so that it used this money to increase the atrocities and massacres that it was inflicting on the Muslims!

Tell me – if only once – that the Saudi regime and its army have ever shown anger for the sake of Allah and the 'Aqidah... just once!

The Hindus have been slaughtering the Muslims in India and Kashmir for years... yet along with that, the Saudi regime maintains perfect diplomatic and non-diplomatic ties with India!

The Muslims in Chechnya have been slaughtered at the hands of the Russian crusaders for years... yet along with that, the Saudi regime maintains perfect diplomatic ties with Russia!

The Muslims in the Philippines have been slaughtered for years at the hands of the Philippine crusaders... yet along with that, the Saudi regime maintains perfect diplomatic ties with the Philippines! And it seeks a helping hand from them, as if there was nothing wrong!

America invaded Afghanistan, and lately they invaded Iraq, and it is behind every massacre that is perpetrated at the hands of the Zionist Jews in Palestine... yet along with that, the Saudi regime maintains perfect diplomatic, economic, military and brotherly ties with America! And it gives away its petrol to America and to other countries, all of whom supply the Zionist occupation of Palestine... and today the Saudi regime is leading the Arabs – with all its pomp and arrogance – in a process of total surrender to the Zionist state of the Jews!

Even communist China... the Saudi regime has good diplomatic ties and friendship with it!

The list is extensive... Bring me a single state that wages war against Islam and the Muslims – and how many of them there are – from which the Saudi regime ever cut relations with because of its waging war against Islam and the Muslims... you will not find a single one!

A regime that shows no anger for the sake of Allah, not even once... and does not show alliance and enmity for Allah's sake, not even once... how can it be called Islamic? How?

How is it possible to harmonise between these facts and their claim that they rule by the Book and the Sunnah?

[e] It is a regime that does not hide its clear allegiance to the enemies of the Ummah in any battle that the enemy wages against the Ummah, and against Islam and the Muslims... Here is America, waging a vicious war against Islam and the Muslims, claiming that it is fighting "terrorism"... invading and occupying the Muslim lands... yet along with that it receives nothing from the Saudi regime except for concessions, and all types of support and aid... until it has even prevented the Muslims from even making Du'a' against America in their Masajid! And the news of the American military bases in the Arabian Peninsula is not far off from us!

[f] It is a regime that has abolished Jihad in the Way of Allah, indeed erased it from its vocabulary and thinking, it has waged war against its people and hunted them down, imprisoned their 'Ulama', and put together an army that has no other purpose but to protect the Saudi throne and the Saudi regime!

[g] The Saudi regime has entered into treaties, alliances, constitutions and organisations stemming from the United Nations and others... all of which oppose and contradict the Shari'ah of Allah (ta'ala).

[h] It is a regime that funds and hosts many TV channels that propagate immorality and Kufr, and likewise it funds and hosts many newspapers and magazines – national, international, and local – that propagate Kufr, atheism and secularism, and their names are well-known among the people... and it follows that it is responsible for them all, and everything that is propagated and broadcast therein!

It is a regime that when the king is insulted, or his high status called into question, the one who did so will be identified and dragged out from his hiding place, and subjected to the severest kinds of torture and imprisonment and penalties, and may even be killed... yet when Allah is insulted openly in broad daylight – as in the worthless story "al-Karadeeb" written by the Saudi Zindeeq, Turki al-Hamd, in which he said: "So Allah and the Shaytan are two faces of a single invention"!! – he is left without any objection or account, free to roam throughout the land as he wishes... and indeed, his books and stories full of Kufr and heresy are allowed to be printed by the Saudi state with complete freedom!!

Do you not see that if it was said: "Fahd or the crown prince and the Shaytan are two faces of a single invention" that the writer would be able to sleep a single night in his home? Or that his books would be allowed to be printed and distributed?!!

Is this how the "State of Tawhid" – as they claim – should be? The ruling king is greater and higher in status than Allah (ta'ala) – may He be Exalted and Glorified?!!

And if it is said: Maybe the king or the crown prince does not know all of this?

I say: So how is it then that they know about everyone who speaks about their king and their ruler, or one of their princes, even if his speech is in secret on the telephone... yet they are unaware of what is written, printed, and distributed among the people?!!

Allah (ta'ala) spoke the truth about them when He said [meaning]:

[i]"And from the people are those who take rivals besides Allah, loving them as they love Allah. And those who believe have more love for Allah. And if the oppressors could see when they witness the torment, that all power belongs to Allah, and that Allah is Severe in torment."

And He (ta'ala) said [meaning]:

"What is wrong with you, that you give no reverence to Allah, when He has created you in stages?"

[j] The Saudi regime, represented by its rulers and princes, is instrumental in usurping the wealth and resources of the Ummah. So a part of it is poured into the pockets and the bellies of the rulers and princes, so that they can spend it on satisfying their desires and lusts as they pleases... and they are above being questioned or brought to account, no matter how much one of them might spend... and they are above being asked: "Where did you get that?"...

And a bigger part of that is poured into the pockets and the interests of the enemies of the Ummah... As for the helpless and oppressed people who cannot do anything, they are left to feed of the scraps that fall from the tables of these wasteful, oppressive Tawagheet!

So all of these faces together – and there are many more that we have not mentioned – bring us to the certain conclusion that the Saudi regime is an un-Islamic, Kafir regime... Islam is in one valley, and the regime of Al Sa'ud is in another valley. Likewise, everyone who supports, protects, and defends this regime from among the kings, princes and other than them from their associates who carry out their will, they are all Kuffar and apostates. And it is not befitting for anyone who knows the religion of Allah and who knows the reality of this regime and its supporters to doubt this fact.

And what we say regarding the Saudi regime, we likewise say the same regarding its oppressive army, for it is an army just like any of the other Arab armies, put together for the sole purpose of aiding the Tawagheet and defending their thrones and their interests. So it is an army that turns along with the desires of the ruling Taghut, with its allegiance and enmity based on that... making peace with whoever the Taghut makes peace, even if he is a Kafir at war against Islam and the Muslims, and making war with whoever the Taghut makes war, even if he is one of the best people on the earth.

It is unknown that it has ever waged a single battle in the Way of Allah, despite the abundance of battlefields... So it is impossible that an army of this description can be considered an Islamic army, even if most of its troops and commanders establish the Prayer, for this might save an individual among them, however it is impossible for us to describe or the army as a whole, with its organisation and purposes, as Islamic or to rule it as Islamic, or that it is the army that wages Jihad in the Way of Allah to make the Word of Allah superior!

[2] The foregoing ruling on the regime is a general one, and it does not imply by necessity the Kufr of everyone who argues on behalf of the regime or enters into its supporters; and this is due to the many misconceptions and illusions that people have regarding this regime, which are propagated by the Mashayikh and agents of the Sultan... Therefore, in order to apply this ruling to individuals it is necessary for the conditions of Takfeer to be fulfilled, along with the absence of any nullifying factors.

For many of those who argue of behalf of this regime are unaware of the realities that we have previously mentioned... and many of those who are aware of them do not believe them... and many of those who do believe them are unaware that they are Mukaffirah (i.e. take a person out of Islam and make him a Kafir)... and many of those who know that they are Mukaffirah will say to you: "I follow our great Mashayikh, they know more than me or you, and they have given me a Fatwa different to what you have given and explained"... and all of this needs to be taken into account when applying a ruling to individuals from among the people who argue on behalf of this regime and on behalf of the Tawagheet ruling this regime!

[3] It is not allowed to take the foregoing ruling on the regime and apply it to the whole Saudi society or its organisations, for the Saudi society is a Muslim society, and its people are predominantly religious and they establish the Prayer, and to Allah belongs all praise.

[4] Some of the mistakes of the people of knowledge regarding this regime are due to a number of matters:

[a] One of them is that many of the Mashayikh and Du'at see only the good side of the regime, and they do not want to see from it other than this side, neither to hear from it except from this side... Therefore, you see one of them when he speaks, saying: "The Waliyyul-Amr – may Allah preserve him! – ordered the building of the Masajid... and printing the Masahif... and building schools for memorising the Qur'an... and he ordered the printing of such-and-such book at his own personal expense..." And he will say more than once: "We rule by the Book and the Sunnah... and all praise is due to Allah that He has granted us an Imam and a king like this!"

And it has escaped these unaware ones, who have strayed and caused others to stray, that the regime is incapable of doing more than the aforementioned things... and what they have mentioned about their regime is also done and claimed by many of the secularist, infidel Arab regimes, maybe moreso!

Another of them is that many of the Saudi Mashayikh and Du'at compare the situation of the other Arab regimes, and how their people suffer from religious persecution, with the Saudi regime... and one of them comes to the conclusion that the Saudi regime is a thousand times better than those regimes... and from there he begins to be happy with the regime, and maybe he might increase in his attachment to it, so he goes astray and leads others astray!

And we admit that the Saudi regime, despite its faults that we mentioned before, is better than many of the other Arab regimes... but this does not allow us to attach ourselves to or be happy with a Kafir regime, even if it the least in Kufr compared to the other regimes... So the issue in truth is a comparison between Kufr and a greater Kufr, or between greater Kufr and a Kufr even greater that it... and the issue does not go beyond this.

[b][c] Another of them is that there are those from among the Mashayikh and Du'at who live outside Sa'udiyyah, due to their need to perform the obligation of Hajj, and their affection for visiting the noble Haramayn, so you see them preferring to keep silent regarding the crimes of the regime and its acts of Kufr... and maybe they will compromise and exaggerate... so they go astray and lead others astray... and there is no strength or power except with Allah.

[5] So if it is said: Does the Kufr of the regime necessitate going out (Khuruj) against it? (i.e. fighting it and overthrowing it)

I say: Yes, from the Shar'i perspective it is Wajib (obligatory) to go out against it, however from the practical perspective, this has certain conditions, stages, and necessary preparations, and I do not see that it should be done before the fulfillment of these conditions, stages and necessary preparations. And one of them is that the idea of going out against the Kufr regimes should be the dominant idea among the majority of the Muslims.

And until the time that these are fulfilled, there is no objection according to the Shari'ah – if you find the ability and are safe from a greater evil occurring – to acting on this, by eliminating – on an individual basis – those whose Fitnah is threatening the lands and the people, from among the ruling Tawagheet of Kufr and injustice, and putting the people and the land to rest from them... for eliminating one of the ruling Tawagheet of Kufr and injustice and removing him from the path of the people is easier than effecting a rebellion and overthrowing the entire regime along with all of its special organisations!

[6] So if it is said: What about the Mabahith (the intelligence services), the security services, the Mukhabarat, the agents of the regime... what is the stance towards them?

I say: The Mabahith and the agents of the Mukhabarat are the guard dogs of the Taghut who stay up to protect the Taghut and his rule and his oppression... I do not advise dealing with them – nor with other than them from the guard dogs of the rulers, except one whose Fitnah has grievously afflicted the land and the people – especially in lands such as the Arabian Peninsula, for fear of widening the circle of the conflict, falling into what is forbidden, frightening the peaceful people – except in the case of self-defence... So if they catch up with you, O brother Mujahid, and seek to kill you or imprison you and persecute you away from your religion, then by all means deal with them... fight them with a clear heart, facing them and not retreating, and if they kill you – while you are defending yourself and your religion and your honour – then you will be from the people of Paradise... and if you kill them – while they are implementing the orders of the Taghut by killing you or arresting you or persecuting you away from your religion – then they are in the Hell-fire, as is mentioned in the authentic Hadeeth.

With this I answer your question and the question of all of the other brothers who asked questions similar to yours...

And all praise is due to Allah, the Lord of all that exists.

Courtesy Of: SunnahOnline.com

TEN THINGS WHICH NULLIFY ONES ISLAM

All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds. May peace and salutations be upon the Last Messenger of Allah, and upon all those who follow him until the Last day. To proceed: Brother and Sister Muslim, you must be aware that there are matters which nullify your Islam. Please be Mindful of them.
1. Associating partners with Allah (shirk). Allah Most High says (in the meaning ):
"Truly, whosoever sets up partners with Allah, then Allah has forbidden the Garden for him, and the Fire will be his abode. And for the wrongdoers there are no helpers." (Soorah Al-Ma'ida 5:72)
Calling upon the dead, asking their help, or offering them gifts or sacrifices are all forms of shirk.
2. Setting up intermediaries between oneself and Allah, making supplication to them, asking their intercession with Allah, and placing ones trust in them is unbelief (kufr).
3. Anyone who does not consider the polytheists (mushrikeen) to be unbelievers, or who has doubts concerning their unbelief, or considers their way to be correct, is himself/herself an unbeliever (kafir).
4. Anyone who believes any guidance to be more perfect, or a decision other than the Prophets decision to be better, is an unbeliever. This applies to those who prefer the rule of Evil (Taghout) to the Prophets rule. Some examples of this are:
(a) To believe that systems and laws made by human beings are better than the Shariah of Islam; for example,
That the Islamic system is not suitable for the twentieth century.
That Islam is the cause of the backwardness of the Muslims.
Or that al-Islam is a relationship between Allah and the Muslim. It should not interfere in other aspects of life.
(b)To say that enforcing the punishments prescribed Allah, such as cutting of the hand of the thief or the stoning of an adulterer, is not suitable for this day and age.
(c) To believe that it is permissible to give a rule from that which Allah did not reveal in Islamic transactions or matters of law, punishments or other affairs. Although one may not believe such things to be superior to the Shari'ah he in effect affirms such a stand by declaring a thing which Allah has totally prohibited, such as adultery, drinking alcohol or usury, to be permissible. According to the consensus of the Muslims, one who declares such things to be permissible is an unbeliever (Kafir)
5. Anyone who hates any part of what the Messenger of Allah [saw] has declared to be lawful has nullified his Islam, even though he may act in accordance with it. Allah Most High says(in the meaning):
"This is because they hate what Allah has sent down, so he has made their deeds fruitless" (Soorah Muhammad 47:9)
6. Anyone who ridicules any aspect of the religion of the Messenger of Allah [saw], or any of its rewards or punishments, becomes an unbeliever. Allah Most High says (in the meaning):
"Say: Was it Allah, and His signs and His Messenger that you were mocking? Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after you had believed." (Soorah At-Tawbah 9:65-66)
7. The practice of magic. Included in this, for example, is causing a rift between a husband and wife by turning his love for her into hatred, or tempting a person to do things he dislikes using black arts. One who engages in such a thing or is pleased with it is outside the fold of Islam. Allah Most High says (in the meaning):
" But neither of these two (angels, Harut and Marut) taught anyone (magic) till they had said, Indeed, we are a trial; then do not disbelieve. (Soorah Al-Baqarah 2:102)
8. Supporting and aiding polytheists against the Muslims. Allah Most High says (in the meaning):
"Whoever among you who takes them as allies is surely one of them. Truly, Allah does not guide the wrongdoers." (Soorah Al-Maida 5:51)
9. Anyone who believes that some people are permitted to deviate from the Shariah of Muhammad [saw] is an un believer by the word of Allah Most High (in the meaning):
"And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be from among the losers." (Soorah al-Imran 3:85)
10. To turn completely away from the religion of Allah neither learning its precepts nor acting upon it. Allah most high says (what means):
" And who does greater wrong than he who is reminded of the revelations of his Lord and turns aside therefrom Truly, We shall exact retribution from the guilty." (Soorah As-Sajdah 32:22)
and He [swt] also says (what means):
"But those who disbelieve turn away from that about which they are warned."
It makes no difference whether such violations are committed as a joke, in seriousness or out of fear, except when done under compulsion (i.e. from threat of loss of life )We seek refuge in Allah from such deeds as entail His wrath and severe punishment.