Bayaan at-Talbees Ahlul-Takfeer
Understanding Islam
Bayaan at-Talbees Ahlul-Takfeer
Ahlu-Sunnah Versus the Ashari/Sufi Movement
The Senior Scholars Warn Against Extremism and Exageration in Religion
Muslim Authorities
Countering Islamaphobia
To Non Muslims
Salafi Conferences With Scholars
Repelling the Distortions of the Takfeeri Charlatans Among the Tibyaan imposters and the Hawaalian Qutbiyyah

Exposition of The Takfeeri Scoundrals and their legacy of the Irhaabi Menace

Abu Baseer

Abdullah al-Faysal

Sulayman Bin Nasr al-Ulwaan

Abu Qataadah al-Philistinee

Anwar al-Awlaki


Repelling Safar al-Hawali with ad-Durar al-Mutalaa'ilah and in english and here

Coming soon in second edition titled   البيان التلبيس القطبيه و النقد على اهل التكفير provided exclusively by al-Mustaqeem Publications
Brief Excerpt

Removal of the Second doubt: The Issue of Taqneen and disrupting the distortions of the people trialed by the fitnah of takfeer regarding Tahkeem al-Qawaneen


The actual word "taqneen" is described by the grammarians as an impoted word either from the Greeks or the persian and allah knows best


al-Jawharee said concerning the word

"And al-Qawaneen are principles, foundations, and singular is qanoon and it is not arabic (in origin)[1]


Fayroozabadee said concerning it

"And al-Qanoon is the standard (scale of measure) for everything, and its plural is "qawaneen"


Ibn Mandhoor (author of Lisaanul-Arab) said about it

"And qaanoon of everything is its way (tariq), its scale of measure..... and i see it as an imported word"[2]


The issue of taqneen according to Islamic legislation could have three objectives, and depending on which of the three it is could be kufr that expels clearly from the religion, or it could be kufr that is the kufr of action or it could be an actual objective of shariah.


An example of that which is an obective of shariah extends from the malikee usool of al-Masaalih al-Mursalah whcih means the affairs of public interest or what is understood in the west as the public sector.


Under this form of taqneen then such a one is laying down a charter of organized rules regarding worldly affairs that pertain to living which do not contradict the legislation of Allah Azawajal and or which have not been stated textually by the legislation of Islam


clear examples of this form of taqneen would be

1.public census and statistics

2. schooling administration

3. traffic laws

4. border laws

5. regulating rules for universities, forums, and other such institutions

6. trade laws

These are some examples among  others that enter into this first form of taqneen by whcih only one who is driven by wahm could only say such a form of taqneen would be ruling by other than what Allah had revealed.


The second form of taqneen is that which would entail taqneen in the aid of that which is haraam or to prohibit that which was lawful.


This second form is divided into two divisions

1. The absense of istihlaal (making lawful or unlawful)

2. The presence of istihlaal


and example of this form of taqneen would be the explicit devising of rules and regulations (taqneen) in the setting up of usurious banks (banks thriving on interest) where in one would fund the construction of such a bank and along with this set up qawaneen in the regulation of the everyday business of the bank.


The same with someone involved in the manufacturing of alcohol and devising rules and regulations for the distribution of alcohol.


This is the second form of taqneen. however depending on which of the categories of this form of taqneen is the deciding factor on whether the one involved in such taqneen has left the fold of islam or not.


If the one who does all of this while accepting the islamic reality of its prohibition yet wishes to implement his desire for wealth or for whatever reason is the driving force of his action, then such a one according to the fuqaha and the imams in the current era as well are agreed that such a one does not leave the fold of islam. And the denial of this entails the accepting of its opposite, that of ruling someone out of Islam based on a fasida (evil) and fisq (sin) by which it is well established as to who it is that ruled people out of islam by the sins.


However, if the doer of the above makes istihlaal of what they are doing by making it lawful, beleiving that they are allowed by shariah to do so  or disbeleiving that allah made it halaal and meeting the truth with utter denial, then such a one is agreed by all the fuqaha and the imams of the religion to be out of the fold of Islam.


This is further supported by the fact that Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen said,

"Istihlaal is that a person believes that something that Allaah has made unlawful is lawful. As for Istihlaal of action, then we need to observe: If this Istihlaal (is related to something) that expels from the religion then a person becomes a disbeliever and apostate by it. So for example, if a person worked with usury (i.e. took or gave usury) without believing in its lawfulness, yet he persists in working with it, then such a one does not become a disbeliever because he did not declare it to be lawful. However, if he said, "Usury is lawful" and he intends by this the usury that Allaah has declared unlawful, then he becomes a disbeliever, since he is a denier (mukaddhib) of Allaah and His Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam). So in this circumstance, Istihlaal would be that of action and also that of belief, with his heart. However, the Istihlaal in action, we need to look at the action itself, is it something which in and of itself, expels from the religion or not? And it is known that consuming interest does not make a person a disbeliever, rather it is one of the major sins. However, if a person prostrated to an idol, then he becomes a disbeliever. Why? Because this act itself expels from the religion. This is the principle, however it is necessary for us to observe another condition, and this is that the person who made something lawful (by istihlaal) is not excused due to ignorance, for if he is excused due to ignorance, then he does not become a disbeliever."


So from this we learn here that actions which necessitate istihlaal to be held by a person in order for his fisq to become kufr that ejects from the religion must be an action that in and of itself is not kufr al-bawah. Otherwise if the action entails kufr al-bawah then istihlaal does not need to be present in order for the ruling of takfeeer to be implemented.


what needs to be clarified is that fact that the actions that all the people through the lands of the muslims upon the millah of revolt and takfeeer beleive to be actions of kufr that exits from the religion is in reality actions that do not exit from the religion. Many of the excuses for the performance of takfeer on the rulers eminating from the works of such people, all of it surrounds the actions of that which is not kufr al-bawah, and there is very little related from such people infected with this disease where they actually relate real instances of kufr al-bawah from the actions which negate ones islam. A clear example of this is Imaam al-Albanee's takfeer of Kamaal Ataturk whom the whole of the muslim nation agreed to the kufr of this man may Allah grant him that which he deserves for his tabdeel.


And the third form of Taqneen is the taqneen of that which is clear and evident disbeleif (kufr al-bawah)


This form of taqneen needs no istihlaal in the heart of the doer. So if the ruler or anyone else for that matter performs the action of setting up shrines where other than Allah is worshipped or builds masajid over the graves so the worshippers of ar-Rahmaan can associate along with their worship of Him  Rifa'ee or Jilaanee, then such a one whether he beleives it to be halal or not (istihlaal) becomes a kaafir outright. Or killing the muslims solely on the basis of them being muslims (this does not include that the one killing them beleives  that they are from ahlul-bida or are of those who oppose Allah by which their killing of them is justified by the statement of Allah "except in due right") or destroying the masaajid and exterminating the musahaf of the Quraan. Actions such as these does not need istihlaal in the heart to be established before the ruling of takfeer fall upon him, rather the performance of such action in themselves warrent the takfeer of the individual.


This is why Shaykh Abdullah Ibn Jibreen has stated concerning this matter


'It is known that Kufr al-Bawah (clear manifest kufr) is an open, outward matter, such as when he abolishes the teachings of Islam, or we see him for example destroying masajid, or he fights the people of the mosques, or he abolishes the shariah courts or he abolishes the religious lessons, or we see him burning he copies of the quraan, or  that he orders for them to be burnt and he promotes assists the books of misguidance, the books of the christians, and whatever resembles them, and he spreads them an makes reading them to be binding, or we see him erecting those things that are worshipped besides Allah, such as idols and the likes. This is considered manifest, clear disbeleif.


As for the matters in which ijtihaad enters into, then we have alluded to one of these types last night. And this is what the majority of the rulers are upon, from that which is called “judgement by the secular laws”, such as these, overwhelmingly, the affair pertaining to them is that they consider benefit in them, but they did not abolish the shari’ah with absolute abolishment, such that they do not judge with anything from it at all. Since Allah said ‘And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed then they are the kaafireen’, so the likes of these, they have this angle of approach, then we do not speak of their kufr, but we consider them to be in error, in this ijtihaad which involves changing something from the legislation, even if it was by the path of ijtihaad. So for example, their permitting zinaa (in action, not just belief) when it is with the consent of both parties, and likes their abandonment, or the abolition of the hudood, the punishment for stealing, or the punishment of slander, or the punishment of drinking alcohol, or permitting alcohol and announcing the selling of alcohol and whatever resembles that. Then there is no doubt that this is great sin, however their could be, for example, excuses for them, those in which they consider themselves to be justified. So for example, they excuse themselves from this by saying that in their land they have the people who are not muslim, and so being harsh on them will provoke them to leave. So when they have an angle of approach, then Allah will reckon them, but, in any case, there is no doubt that if we judged by the shar’iah and implemented it’s teachings, there would be sufficiency in this and much good.”[3]


This is a clear proof that the way of those clinging to the methodologies of revolution and the takfeer of rulers without any legitimate justification save the desires of whatever their shaytaan leads them to is nothing short of idiocy, shortsightedness, profounded ignorance of even the basic understanding of eman and kufr.


The statement of Ibn Jibreen is supported thoroughly from the words of Imaam Muhammad al-Ameen ash-Shanqeeti were he said


"...That those who follow the secular laws which the shaytan has legislated the tongues of his allies, in opposition to what Allah the Majestic, the Elevated, has legislated upon the tongues of His messengers (salawatullaahi wa salamuhu alaihum), then no one doubts about their kufr and their shirk except one whose vision Allah has removed and has blinded him from the light of revelation.

Know that it is obligatory to make a distinction between the code of law (nidhaamul-wadi'yy) whose implementation (tahkeem) necessitates kufr in the Creator of the heavens and the earth and between the code of law which does not necessitate that.

And to make that clear: Law (nidham) is of two types:

1. Idaaree (organizational, regulatory)

2. Shar'iyy (legislative pertaining to the shariah)

As for the Idaaree law by which perfection and exactness in the affairs (of the world) is intended, and to regulate and bring together the affairs in a manner that does not oppose Shar' (legislation of Allah), then there is nothing to prevent this, and there is no one who opposed it from the companions or those after them. And Umar radhiyallahu anhu acted on something which were not in the time of the prophet salallahu alaihi wa salam such as his writing the names of the soldiers in a record for the purpose of exactness, so he he would know who was missing and who was present. yet the prophet salallahu alaihi wa salam did not do that. And also like his, I mean, Umar's radhiyallahu anhu's purchasing of the house of Safwan Ibn Umayyah and making it into a prision in Makkah al-Mukarramah, while the prophet salallahu alaihi wa salam did not set up a prison and nor did Abu Bakr.. So there is no harm in this type of law, and it is not outside of the confines of the principles of shariahof maintaining the general benefits (in the society).. And as for the legislative code (Nidhaamul-Shariy) which is in opposition to the legislation of the Creator of heavens and the earth, then instituting it (tahkeemihi) is disbeleif in the creator of the heavens and the earth. Such as the claim that favouring the man over the women in the issue of inheritance is not from justice, or that it is necessary for them to be considered equal in receiving inheritance, or like the claim that polygamy is (a form of) oppression, or that divorce is oppressive for the woman, or [the claim] that stoning (for adultery) and chopping (the hand for theft) are from the strange (backward) actions and that it is not permissible to apply them to a human being, and other such claims"[4]


Likewise Shaykh Ahmad Shakir (whom they also use to promote their false beleifs) states the reality of Islam and the invalidity of their falsehood in his book "Kalimatul-Haq" page 88 he states

"You will see part of the qawaaneen (statutes, laws) permitting an unlawful action about whose unlawfulness there is absolutely no doubt, such as zinaa, selling intoxicants and what is similar to that. And the condition for its being permitted (by the qawaneen) is (based upon) an authorization that has come from a specific (agency in the body) of the qawaaneen. Hence, this employee who is ordered by way of the qawaaneen to be given an authorisation for his action, when the desired conditions are fulfilled for the one who seeks this authorisation (i.e. permission, license), then it is not permissible (la yajooz) for him to obey that which he has been commanded with. And the granting of this authority to him is unlawful, absolutely, even if the qanoon orders him with it, for verily he has been commanded with disobedience, hence there is no hearing and obeying. As for when he sees that the granting of this license (permission, authority) is lawful then he has disbeleived and has left islam, since he has made lawful what is absolutely unlawful (made istihlaal), whose unlawfulness is known by necessity in the reigion".

[1] [Mukhtaar as-Sihaah]


[2] [Lisaanul-Arab]

[3] From a cassette titled “Sharh Lum’uat il-I’tiqaad #7”, Tasjeelaat at-Taqwaa, Riyadh


[4] [Adwaa'ul-Bayyan 4/90]