"It is also related by Ibn Sa'ad in Tabaqaatul Kubraa A group of Muslims came to al Hasan al Basree (d.110H) seeking a verdict to rebel against al Hajjaaj. So they said, "O Abu Sa'eed! What do you say about fighting this oppressor who has unlawfully spilt blood and unlawfully taken wealth and did this and that?" So al Hasan said, "I hold that he should not be fought. If this is the punishment from Allah (Ta'aala), then you will not be able to remove it with your swords. If this is a trial from Allah (Ta'aala), then be patient until Allah's Judgement comes, and He is the best of Judges." So they left Al Hasan, disagreed with him and rebelled against al Hajjaaj - so al Hajjaaj killed them all. Hajjaaj wasath Thaqafee, and is well known. Adh Dhahabee said in Siyar A'lamin Nubalaa at the end of his biography, "We revile him and do not love him, rather we hate him for Allah (Ta'aala). He had some good deeds, but they are drowned in the ocean of his sins, and his affair is for Allah!" About them al Hasan used to say, "If the people had patience, when they were being tested by their unjust ruler, it will not be long before Allah (Ta'aala) will give them a way out. However, they always rush for their swords, so they are left to their swords. By Allah! Not even for a single day did they bring about any good."It is related by Ibn Sa’d in at-Tabaqaat, and by Ibn Abee Haatim in his Tafseer."
Libya is said to be a Muslim (predominantly Sunni and follow Maliki and Sha'afai Schools of thought) and during all this "Anarchy" following was completely forgotten "(strictly Muslim point of view) - And in the Sunan of An-Nasaa’ee, on the authority of ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Amr, (radhi-yallaahu 'anhu), the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) said: The cessation of the dunyaa (world) is less significant to Allaah than the killing of a single Muslim man (i.e. person) And one day, Ibn ‘Umar looked to the House, or the Ka'bah, and said: "How great you are, and how great is your sanctity, and the believer is even greater in sanctity to Allaah than you"
First, it is not allowable to torture the living or mutilate the dead, even if they are non-Muslims. In the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), when he was sending Hamzah Al-Aslami on an expedition, he instructed him saying: "If you find so-and-so, kill him. But never kill him by burning, for none uses fire in torturing except the One Who created it (i.e., Allah)." (Reported by Abu Dawud)
Mutilation of the dead bodies is prohibited: Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) prohibited to mutilate the dead bodies. (Sahih Muslim)
Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children. (Bukhari)
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed that ibn Shihab said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew from Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, 'The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of her.'" (Muwatta Imam Malik)
Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children. (Bukhari)
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed that ibn Shihab said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew from Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, 'The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of her.'" (Muwatta Imam Malik)
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed that ibn Shihab said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew from Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, 'The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of her.'" (Muwatta Imam Malik)
Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq was sending armies to ash-Sham. He went for a walk with Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan who was the commander of one of the battalions. It is claimed that Yazid said to Abu Bakr, "Will you ride or shall I get down?" Abu Bakr said, "I will not ride and you will not get down. I intend these steps of mine to be in the way of Allah."
"I advise you ten things| Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly." (Muwatta Imam Malik)
In another hadith, Safwan ibn `Assal said: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sent us on an expedition and said: “Move under the protection of Allah and for the sake of Allah. Fight those who disbelieve in Allah but never mutilate (the dead).” (Reported by Ibn Majah)
Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children. (Bukhari)
Then Abu Bakr advised Yazid, "You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to Allah. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves. You will find a people who have shaved the middle of their heads, strike what they have shaved with the sword.
Libya: Before and After Anarchy
I wonder what humanity has stooped down to when I see people jubilating and celebrating the death of a man. Fine you don’t like Qadhafi, fine he was a tyrant in your opinion, and fine, he might have ruled with an iron hand, but he sir, was a human being. It was a 42 year long rule of Qadhafi that not only increased the literacy rate, but the economy and wellbeing of his country. Libya was a peaceful country and its economy one of the strongest in the continent of Africa. It was also one of the only voices of reason that supported the Statehood of Palestine. The so called revolution of the people of Libya took 6 months compared to less than 20 days of Egypt or Tunisia which happened in a matter of days as well. Why? If Qadhafi was really such a despotic murderer, why did half the country support him? Why did it take months of aerial bombardment by the international police called Nato? Because it was not a people’s revolution, it was the western fueled and funded Libyans by the West in an attempt to bring into a power a group that is friendly to their agenda. While whole cities and towns fought and gave their lives for Colonel Muammar Qadhafi, they were subject to international sanctions and a freeze on Libyan assets. It was not a revolution; it was a perfect example of “divide and rule” on the people of Libya – so swiftly executed that it has yet to strike Libyans, “what now?” The Libyans not only took Qadhafi from themselves, they took their own stability and prosperity that was present to date. With inflation that was less than 1 per cent and a GDP growth rate the soared above 10 per cent in 2010, it is undeniable that the reforms and planning of the Libyan economy was better than many countries of the same size and regime. REFERENCE: Celebrating a death BY SIDDIQUE HUMAYUN ON OCTOBER 24TH, 2011 http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/24/celebrating-a-death.html
When the Taliban were about to enter Kabul Ahmad Shah Massoud offered Najibullah twice to flee Kabul. Najibullah refused believing the Taliban would spare his life. General Tokhi, who was with Dr. Najibullah until the day before his torture and murder, wrote that when three people came to both Dr. Najibullah and General Tokhi and asked them to come with them to flee Kabul, they rejected the offer after losing their trust in Ahmad Shah Massoud who knowingly fired rockets at the UN compound where Najibullah and Tokhi had taken refuge. This proved to be a fatal mistake. Najibullah was at the UN compound when the Taliban soldiers came for him on September 27, 1996. He was castrated and his fingers were broken, before the Taliban dragged him to death behind a truck in the streets. His blood-soaked body was hanged from a traffic light. His brother Shahpur Ahmadzai was also with him throughout this whole ordeal at the UN compound, and was shot to death. REFERENCES: "President of hell: Hamid Karzai's battle to govern post-war, post-Taliban Afghanistan". The Times. "Flashback: When the Taliban took Kabul". BBC..
On this date in 1996, the man who once ruled ruled Afghanistan under the aegis of a superpower succumbed to the tender mercies of his country’s fundamentalist insurgency. Mohammad Najibullah was the last president of the Soviet-backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Unfortunately for Najibullah, he was on the job when Moscow decided to throw in the towel on the Soviet-Afghan War. After losing the subsequent civil war, the former President was trapped for a nervous few years in Kabul — blocked from joining his family in flight to India by the offices of former Soviet client and present-day American client Abdul Rashid Dostum. When Kabul finally surrendered to the Taliban in 1996, the hated onetime Communist viceroy — whose stepping-stone to that post was heading the hated Afghan secret police — had a problem. At the instigation of future Taliban second-in-command Mohammad Rabbani, Najibullah and his brother were hauled out of the U.N. compound where they had taken refuge, publicly beaten, tortured and castrated, and strung up on a traffic barricade. There was a new sheriff in town. REFERENCE: 1996: Dr. Mohammad Najibullah September 27th, 2009 http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/09/27/1996-dr-mohammad-najibullah/
For "Alleged Islamic Revolutionaries in Jamat-e-Islami and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf"
Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah on Rebellion Against the Rulers and A Discussion of the Khurooj Made By the Early Salaf Source: Minhaaj us-Sunnah (4/527)
"QUOTE"
All praise is due to Allaah and may the prayers and peace be upon the Messenger. To proceed:
These are some words of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah that are worthy of being written in gold, as they are far reaching, explain the great wisdom contained in the Sharee’ah commands concerning those in authority, and expose what is with the contemporary groups of destruction, from the Khawaarij and other than them, who bring about nothing but mischief and corruption, in the name of rectification.
The Shaykh, Fawzee al-Atharee, in his excellent book, “Irshaad ul-Anaam Ilaa Kaifiyyat Naseehat il-Hukkaam”, quotes the following statement of Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, from his Minhaaj us-Sunnah (4/527-):
“For verily Allaah the Exalted sent His Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) for the attainment of the benefits and perfection of them, and for the negation of the harmful things and their reduction. And when one of the khaleefahs took authority, such as Zaid and ‘Abdul-Malik and al-Mansoor and others, then either it was said: It is obligatory to prevent him from this authority and to fight him until someone else is given authority - as is held by those who consider it rightful to use the sword.
And this view is corrupt, for the corruption in this is greater than the benefit. And there is hardly anyone who revolted against a leader with authority except that what arose from his action of evil, was actually greater than whatever good came from it, such as those who rebelled against Yazeed in Madeenah, or like Ibn al-Ash’at1who revolted against ‘Abdul-Malik in ‘Iraaq, or like Ibn al-Mihlab also, who revolted against his son in Khurasaan, and like those who revolted against al-Mansoor in Madeenah and Basrah, and the likes of them.
And their goal is that they are victorious or they are defeated, then their rule (dominion) ceases, and so they do not have any end-result. For Abdullaah bin Alee and Abu Muslim, they are the ones who killed a great number of people, and both of them were killed by Abu Ja’far al-Mansoor. And as for the people of [the occurrence of] al-Harrah (in Madinah) and Ibn al-Ash’at and Ibn al-Mihlab, and others, then they were defeated, and their associates were also defeated. So they never established the deen and nor did they allow the dunyaa (worldly life) to remain (as it was)And Allaah, the Exalted, does not order something on account of which rectification of the deen and the dunyaa is not attained – even if the one who does that is from the Awliyaa of Allaah, the Pious ones (Muttaqeen), and from the People of Paradise.
For they are not more superior than Aa’ishah and Talhah and az-Zubair and others, and alongside (what they did), they did not praise what they fell into of fighting, and the likes of these are of greater rank and position in the sight of Allaah, and of better intention than those besides them…
And al-Hasan al-Basri used to say, “Verily al-Hajjaaj is a punishment of Allaah, so do not repel the punishment of Allaah with your hands, but you must (repel it) with humility and submission”.
And the most superior of the Muslims (from the early Muslims) used to forbid revolting and fighting in the times of tribulation, such as ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Umar and Sa’eed bin al-Musayyab, and ‘Alee bin al-Hasan and others, all of them used to forbid, during the year of Harrah, from the revolt against Yazeed, and just as al-Hasan al-Basree and Mujaahid and others used to forbid from revolt during the tribulation of Ibn al-Ash’at.
And it is for this reason that it is firmly established with Ahl us-Sunnah to abandon fighting in times of tribulation due to the authentic ahaadeeth that are established from the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), and they began to mention this matter in the course of (authoring their works) on their aqeedah, and they would command with patience towards the oppression of the leaders, and the abandonment of fighting against them – even if a fair portion of the people of knowledge fought against them during the tribulation…
And whoever reflects upon the authentic ahaadeeth that are established from the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) concerning this topic, and also considers with the consideration of those with insight and deep knowledge, will know that that which the Prophetic Texts have come with is from the best of all affairs.
And for this reason, when al-Husayn (radiallaahu anhu) desired to revolt against the people of ‘Iraaq, they wrote many letters to him, as has been indicated by the people of knowledge, such as Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbaas, ‘Abu Bakr bin Abdur-Rahmaan bin al-Haarith bin Hishaam, that he should not revolt, and their overwhelming belief was that he would be killed… and they were actually desiring to give sincere advice to him, and were seeking what was beneficial and better for him, and for the Muslims in general, and Allaah and His Messenger, verily, they only command with rectitude, not with corruption. However, the opinion can sometimes be correct and can sometimes be wrong.
So it has become clear that the correct affair was what they had said, and there was not to be found in the revolt any rectification or benefit for the deen and nor for the dunyaa. Rather, those oppressive wrongdoers were able to overcome the grandson of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) until they killed him as one oppressed, a martyr. And in his revolt and his fighting (against them) was such corruption and mischief that would not have occurred had he sat and remained in his own town.
For whatever he intended of the attainment of good and repelling of evil, then nothing from it occurred. Rather, only evil increased by his revolt and his fighting, and the goodness diminished on account of that. And that was also the cause of a great deal of evil, and the killing of Husayn itself was what brought about the tribulations, just as the killing of ‘Uthmaan was from that which brought about tribulations.
And all of this is what explains that whatever the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has commanded of patience towards the tyranny of the Rulers and abandonment of fighting against them and revolting against them, that this is of the most beneficial and rectifying of affairs, in both this life and the next, and that whoever opposes this deliberately, or due to an error, then no rectification is attained by his action, rather only corruption.
And for this reason the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) praised al-Hasan with his saying, “Verily, this son of mine is a leader (sayyid) and Allaah will bring about reconciliation through him between two great factions from amongst the Muslims”, but he did not praise anyone on account of fighting in the time of tribulation, and nor on account of revolting against the leaders, and nor on account of withholding from obedience, or separating from the Jamaa’ah.
And the ahaadeeth of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) that are established in the Saheeh, all of them indicate this... and this explains that the reconciliation between the two parties was praised and was loved by Allaah and His Messenger, and that what was done by al-Hasan in bringing this about was from the greatest of his excellencies and his stations, on account of which the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) praised him. And if fighting had been obligatory or reccommended - and the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) never praised anyone for the abandonment of that which is obligatory or reccommended - and for this reason the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) did not praise anyone on account of what happened of fighting on the Day of the Camel, and Siffeen, let alone what occurred in Madinah on the Day of Harrah, and whatever happened in Makkah in the besieging of Ibn az-Zubayr, and what happened in the fitnah of Ibn al-Ash'at and Ibn al-Mihlab and other such tribulations.
Rather, it has been successively narrated (tawaatara) from him that he commanded fighting against the Khawaarij, the Renegades, those whom the Chief of the Believers fought against, Alee bin Abee Taalib (radiallaahu anhu), at Nahrawaan, after they had revolted against him at Harooraa. For the narrations (sunan) from the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) were in abundance (i.e. spread, known) concerning the fighting against them (the Khawaarij), and when Alee (radiyallaahu anhu) fought against them, he rejoiced with fighting against them, and he also narrated the hadeeth concerning them, and the Companions also agreed upon fighting them.
And similarly the people of knowledge after them, this fighting (against the Khawaarij) was not like the fighting of the people of the Camel and Siffeen and other than them, from those matters in which no text of Ijmaa' has come, and neither any praise of the noble ones who entered into it. Rather, they were remorseful about it, and also returned (i.e. recanted) from it.
And this hadeeth (i.e. concerning al-Hasan) is from the signs of the Prophethood of our Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), when he mentioned about al-Hasan whatever he mentioned, and praised him for what he praised him. So whatever he mentioned and whatever he praised was in agreement with the truth that actually occurred after more than 30 years... as occurs in the authentic hadiths, and also despite what has been reported about them in the hadeeth of Abu Umaamah, collected by at-Tirmidhi and others that they are “the most evil of those who are killed under the sky and how excellent is the one killed by them”. Meaning that they are more harmful to the Muslims than others, for there are none which are more harmful to the Muslims than them, neither the Jews and nor the Christians. For they strived to kill every Muslim who did not agree with their view , declaring the blood of the Muslims, their wealth, and the slaying of their children to be lawful, while making takfir of them. And they considered this to be worship, due to their ignorance and their innovation that caused to stray…”
Minhaj us-Sunnah 5/248.
Ibn Hubairah concerning the hadeeth of Abu Sa’eed al-Khudree, “In this hadeeth is proof that fighting the Khawarij comes before fighting the pagans, mushrikeen. And the wisdom in that is that in fighting against them is a preservation of the capital of Islaam, whereas in fighting the people of Shirk there is the seeking of increase (in capital). So preserving the capital comes first.” Fath ul-Bari 12/301.
‘Asim bin Shumaikh said, “So I saw him – meaning Abu Sa’eed al-Khudree (who reported the hadith about the killing of the Khawarij) – after he had grown old and when his hands began to tremble, saying, ‘Fighting them – meaning the Khawarij – is greater to me than fighting an equal number of the Turks”. Ibn Abi Shaybah 15/305 and Musnad Ahmad 3/33. And fighting the Khawaarij is in all times, and it is obligatory to repel them, by way of the pen, tongue or sword as they will never cease to emerge until in the midst of the last of them appears the Dajjaal. The Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, “A group will appear reciting the Qur’aan, it will not pass beyond their throats, every time a group appears, it is to be cut off, until the Dajjaal appears within them”. (Reported by Ibn Maajah and it is Hasan. And see Silsilat ul-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah of al-Albaanee, no. 2455).
And the two main features of the Khawaarij are takfir by way of major sins and adopting revolt and rebellion as a methodology of reform. And a new band of Khawaarij has emerged in contemporary times under the influence of teachings, doctrines and works of their pole and axis, Aal Qutb – who have aided in the proliferation of the aqeedah and manhaj of the Khawaarij.
And this very thing is the actual wisdom that the legislator (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) was attempting to bring about and nurture in his prohibition of revolting against the rulers, and he taught abandonment of fighting in times of fitnah - even if those who fell into this considered that their intent is to enjoin the good and forbid the evil.
And it is actually from this angle (i.e. intending the enjoining of good and forbidding of evil) that the Khawaarij made lawful the (raising of the) sword against the people of the qiblah, until they killed Alee and others from the Muslims. And similarly, those who agreed with them in revolting against the Rulers, with the sword, in general terms - such as the Mu'tazilah, the Zaydiyyah, and the Fuqahaa (Jurists), and others. Such as those who revolted alongside Muhammad bin Abdullaah bin Abdullaah bin Hasan bin Husayn, and his brother, Ibraaheem bin Abdullaah bin Hasan bin Husayn and others.
For the people of the religion are from the likes of these (i.e. those who revolted), but they err from two angles:
The first: That what they considered to be from the deen is not actually from the deen, such as the viewpoint of the Khawaarij and other than them from the people of desires. For they believe in an opinion that is an error and an innovation, and then they fight the people over it. Rather, they declare as disbelievers those who oppose them. Hence, they become errant in their opinion and also in fighting those who opppose them, or making takfir of them and cursing them.
And this is the condition of the People of Desires in general, such as the Jahmiyyah who called the people to the rejection of the realities of the Beautiful Names of Allaah, and His Lofty Attributes. They say: Verily, He does not have speech except the speech which He created in others (besides Himself), and that He will not be seen, and other such things. And they also put the people to trial, when some of the rulers inclined towards them (i.e. towards the Jahmiyyah), and so they would punish whoever would oppose them in their opinion, either with death, or with imprisonment, or with banishment and prevention of sustenance. And the Jahmiyyah did this on more than one occasion (in history), and Allaah supports His believing Servants against them.
And the Rafidah are more evil than them, when they gain authority, for they are loyal to the Kuffaar and aid them, and they show enmity towards all those from the Muslims who do not agree with their viewpoint. Similarly, those who have something within them of innovations, either the innovation of the Hulooliyyah. .. or the innovation of the Negators (of the Attributes) or those who exaggerate in affirmation (of the Attributes), or the innovation of the Qadariyyah, or that of Irjaa', or other than that. You will find him believing in corrupt beliefs, and then declare as a disbeliever or curse whoever opposed him. And the Khawaarij Renegades are the Imaams of all of these in making takfeer of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah and in fighting them.
The second:
The one who fights based upon his belief in a viewpoint to which he calls the one who opposes the Sunnah and Jamaa'ah, such as the People of the Camel, and Siffeen, and al-Harrah, and al-Jamaajim and others. However, he thinks that the desired rectification and benefit will be attained by way of this fighting, but this fighting attains no such thing. Rather, the corruption and harm becomes greater, much more than what it was initially. And then what the legislator (i.e. the Prophet) actually indicates and direct towards (of what entails true rectitude) finally becomes clear to them at the end of the affair.
And from that which is desirable to be known is that the causes of these tribulation are actually mixed, shared. For certain states and conditions come over the hearts that prevent them from knowing the truth and desiring it, and thus they resemble the state of Jaahiliyyah. Since, in Jaahiliyyah there was no knowledge of the truth and nor the desiring of this truth. And then Islaam came with beneficial knowledge and the righteous action, which is the knowledge of the truth, and desiring it.
So it is agreed that some of the rulers commit oppression by way of monopoly, control (i.e. being authoritarian and misappropriating) , and then the souls do not show patience over his oppression. And it is not possible for them to repel his oppression except by what is even greater corruption than it (i.e. his oppression). However, for the sake of the love of a person, so that his due legal right can be given, and that oppression can be repelled from him, he does not look at (and consider) the general corruption, mischief that would arise on account of his action.
And for this reason the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, “Verily, you will face hardship, so have patience until you meet me at the Hawd”, and it is likewise established in the Saheeh, that he said, “Upon a Muslim is to hear and obey, in times of difficulty and in ease, in the disliked things (to which one disapproves of) and in likeable things (to which one shows zeal), and when he preference is given (to other than him)”.
For the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) ordered the Muslims that they should be patient when they are controlled, monopolised (in oppression), and that they should obey those who in charge of their affairs, even if they (the rulers) give preference to themselves over them (the subjects), and that they should not contend for authority. And many of those who revolted against those in authority, or the vast majority of them, then they revolted so that they may contend with them (for authority), alongside their misappropriation, monopoly, over them, so they did not show patience upon this... and the one who fights remains thinking that he is only fighting him so that there is no more fitnah and so that the deen, all of it is for Allaah, and yet the greatest of that which actually motivated him (mobilised him) was seeking his portion, either of leadership, or of wealth.
Just as Allaah, the Exalted said, “If they are given part thereof (of alms), they are pleased, but if they are not given thereof, behold! They are enraged!” (At- Tawbah 9:58) and in the Saheeh from the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) that he said, “There are three whom Allaah will not speak to, nor look at on the Day of Judgement, and nor will he purify them, and they will have a tormenting punishment.. . and a man who gives the pledge of allegiance to a leader (imaam)
and he does not do so except for the sake of the world, if he is given from it, he is pleased, and if he is prevented from it, he is enraged...” And he ordered having patience upon their misappropriation, and prohibited fighting against them, and contending with them (for authority), alongside their oppression. Because the corruption, mischief that arises from fighting during fitnah, is greater than the corruption in the oppression of those in authority.
Thus, the lighter of two evils is not to be removed by the greater of the two. And whoever reflects upon the Qur'aan and the Sunnah that is established from Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) and considers it will find it to be in agreement with what he finds in his own soul.”
End of Shaykh ul-Islaam’s words.
"UNQUOTE"
No comments:
Post a Comment