Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and the reward is for the Mutaqeen, and there is no enmity except against the Dhalimeen, and I bear witness that there is no one worthy of worship except Allah, alone and he has no partner, the God of the first and the last and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. May Allah send blessings upon him and his family and his companions collectively, and to proceed:
I have looked at all of the sayings of Khalid al-Anbari and it has become clear to me by my reading of these sayings and some of his books that he is a Murji’ee from the pure Murji’ah; the ones that are under the school of thought of Jahm bin Safwan in Irja’.
That is the school of thought which – from its Usul – is that no one disbelieves accept with rejection (Juhud) or Istih’lal[1], but as far as the one who knows Allah and approves of Him, then he does not disbelieve and he does not leave the Millah. And this going astray has spread in this era, and this spreading wasn’t due to anything accept for him and the likes of him, so they have went astray and made people go astray.
And Khalid al-Anbari has lied upon the ‘Ulama of the Ummah and its Imams, the ones who see the Kufr of the one who rules with the man-made laws. From those Imams is our Shaykh; the Shaykh, the Imam, the Mujahid Muhammad bin Ibraheem al’a-Shaykh, may Allah be merciful to him. And al-Anbari has lied and changed and acted with the words of our Shaykh and lied upon him in many instances as it will become clear shortly. And he wanted to trick the people into thinking that the Shaykh sees that the ruling with man-made laws needs explanation, and that he doesn’t disbelieve unless he rejects and believes and makes that Halal only, but if he rules with the man-made laws without this then he isn’t a Kafir. And far as his lies they are as follows:
The First Lie: Al-Anbari mentioned in his book (i.e. Al-Hukm bi’ Ghayri ma-Anzal’Allah wa-Usul at-Takfeer) on page 131 from the Risalah of the Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraheem Risalat Tahkeem al-Qawaneen, he said,
Verily in this Risalah there is what indicates a clear indication that there is Tafseel.
And he means by man-made laws; the one who does this does not disbelieve accept with Juhud or Istih’lal. And the text that he narrated was as follows:
So look how He (ta‘ala) records the Kufr, Dhulm, and Fisq of those who rule by other than what Allah revealed, and it is not possible for Allah (subhanahu) to call the ruler who judges by other than what Allah revealed a Kafir and for him not to be a Kafir. Rather he is a total Kafir, either Kufr ‘Amali or Kufr ‘It'iqadi. And what has come from Ibn Abbas in the Tafseer of this Ayah from the narration of Tawus and others indicates that the ruler (who rules) with that which Allah did not reveal is a Kafir; either Kufr ‘I'tiqadi which takes you out of the Millah, or Kufr ‘Amali which does not take you out of the Millah.
And what he quoted is word for word.
However, he left what the Shaykh narrated and wrote after this, concerning the man-made laws as the Shaykh said,
As for the first; (which is) that the ruler (who rules) with that which Allah did not reveal, rejects the right of Allah and his Messenger’s Hukm. The second; that the ruler (who rules) by other than what Allah revealed does not actually reject the fact that the Hukm of Allah and His Messenger is the truth yet he believes that the Hukm of other than the Messenger is superior to his (i.e. the Prophet’s (ﷺ)) Hukm and more encompassing. The third, that he does not believe that it is superior to the Hukm of Allah and His Messenger yet he believes that his (own) Hukm is equal to it. The fourth; that he does not believe that the Hukm of the one who rules by other than what Allah revealed is equal to the Hukm of Allah and His Messenger – and certainly not better than the Hukm of Allah and His Messenger, yet he believes that it is permissible to rule with that which opposes the Hukm of Allah and His Messenger. The fifth; and it is the greatest and the most encompassing and the clearest opposition of the Sharee’ah and stubbornness in the face of its laws and insulting to Allah and His Messenger and opposing the courts of the Sharee’ah on their roots and branches and their types and their appearances and its judgments and implementations, references and their applications. So just like the courts of the Sharee’ah have references, all returning back to the book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (ﷺ) like that, these courts have references, which are laws that are assembled from various legislations like the French law, the American law, the British law, and other than them from the man-made laws. Also, from the schools of some innovators who affiliate themselves to the Shari‘ah and so forth.
Until he said:
So what Kufr is there beyond this Kufr and what nullification of the testimony that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah is there beyond this nullification?!
So look at al-Anbari! He wants, with his aforementioned quotation, to reveal to you that the Shaykh does not make Takfeer concerning the man-made laws. Even though here, he says concerning them, “So what Kufr is there beyond this Kufr,” meaning ruling with the man-made laws.
The Second Lie: Al-Anbari mentions in his sayings in the first statement, he said,
I have found other words of the Shaykh (i.e. Muhammad bin Ibraheem) in his Fatawa Vol. 1/80. He (i.e. Muhammad bin Ibraheem) says words more clear than to need clarification dated 9/1/1385 five years after the publication of the Risalah Tahkeem al-Qawaneen.
And soon we will quote the words of Shaykh Muhammad, but the point is that here he intended to convince the reader that the Shaykh turned back from his Fatwa concerning the man-made laws and for this, he mentioned the date after it by five years so the letter abrogates the first saying, while he mentioned the same saying, “…and I do not say that he changed his opinion…” Yet, after that by about a few lines, he says that the Shaykh changed his mind so that he can mislead (the reader) and make it seem like he did actually change his mind. So he claims that he does not say that he (i.e. Muhammad bin Ibraheem) changed his mind and then he lies upon the Shaykh Muhammad that he (did actually) change his mind.[2]
The Third Lie: That when he quoted him as having changed his mind, as he assumes from the Fatwa of Shaykh Muhammad Vol. 1/80, al-Anbari said that the text of him changing his mind is,
And like that is the manifestation of the meaning ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’ from ruling with his Sharee’ah exclusively and discarding what opposes it from laws and conditions and other things which Allah did not reveal and that the one who rules with it or takes the judgement to it, believing that it right and believing that it is permissible then he is a Kafir with the Kufr which removes one from the Millah. And if he does that without believing that and that it is permissible, then he is a Kafir with the Kufr al-’Amali, which does not remove one from the Millah.
Al-Anbari said,
So this clear explanation from the Shaykh Al-’Allamah Muhammad bin Ibraheem, may Allah be merciful to him, is what I have based my book upon and I faced (i.e. opposed) the ones who make Takfeer on the Hakim unconditionally.
And this lie is responded to with the following:
1. How is it that the Shaykh would change his mind and it was unknown and not spread among his students and among the people?
2. And if there was a change in his opinion, it would have not have been hidden from the Shaykh Muhammad Abdur-Rahman al-Qasim, the compiler of the Fatawa of Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraheem and his books. Rather, he even mentioned the Risalah Tahkeem a-Qawaneen in the latter editions of the (published) Fatawa. Even his student, the one who collected the Fatawa, narrated the approval of Shaykh Muhammad in Vol. 12/284. Shaykh Muhammad said,
…And the laws are Kufr, which takes one outside the Millah believing that they are Hakimah (i.e. applicable) and some of them see it greater.
Then he said,
As for the one who puts laws in order to be submitted to, then this is Kufr even if they say, ‘We have made a mistake. And the Hukm of the Shara’ is more just,’ because there is a difference between the one who approves and the implication and the reference. They made it a reference and this is Kufr, which takes one outside the Millah.
And al-Qasim also narrated under the chapter heading 'Ruling with the Laws is from the Kufr al-Akbar', and then proceeds to quote from the same Risalah Tahkeem al-Qawaneen.
So if there were any change of opinion, he would have made that clear or he would have omitted this Risalah and certainly would not have included it in the volumes which came after the volume which has been claimed to contain a change of opinion.
3. And how would the Shaykh change his opinion from a general Fatwa, which became clear and widespread to that which would be contained in a specific letter written to a specific group?! It would have been more likely that he would change his opinion in a general letter because the text – wherein al-Anbari claims to contain a change of opinion – is within a specific letter of response which he wrote to the central committee of ‘Ulama in Delhi wherein he praises the committee and its aims to bring about a benefit.
4. And we see that the Risalah Tahkeem al-Qawaneen has been published multiple times and if there were a change of opinion, then its publishing would not have been repeated.
5. The Shaykh Abdullah Ibn Jibreen, may Allah preserve him, is from the students of the Shaykh and he objected to the those who claimed that Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraheem changed his opinion like it is (written) in his commentary upon the words of al-Anbari and they are in the first saying of al-Anbari.
6. And also, Al-Lajna ad-Da’imah li’l-Bu’huth al-’Ilmiyah wal-Ifta’; have declared about the book of al-Anbari, Al-Hukm bi’ Ghayr ma-Anzal’Allah wa-Usul at-Takfeer, was lying upon the people of knowledge. From that, him attributing to the ‘Allamah Shaykh Muhammad Ibraheem Al’ash-Shaykh, that which he did not say.
We will now return to the text, which al-Anbari claimed contains a change of opinion and we will mention how it relates and its full text and it is in the Fatawa of Shaykh Muhammad Vol. 1/78. And it is a letter of reply sent to the General Secretary for the Central Committee of ‘Ulama (in) Delhi. The committee decided to call upon the Islamic committees and determine the opinions of its members concerning the laws, which are implemented for the sake of benefit in the Deen and the society, which are suitable for the Islamic education and etiquettes while planning to raise general laws for the Muslims in India. So they asked Shaykh Muhammad questions concerning Fiqh so that they might benefit from his opinion concerning them (i.e. those issues). So he answered their Fiqh related questions but firstly, he made an introduction before proceeding with the answers:
I would like to like to begin with a small introduction. From the things which please us and please every Muslim with Gheerah[3] about his Deen is that we find committees whose goal is to correct the conditions and to hold onto the basis of the Deen and its noble teachings. And also to wage war against everything, which opposes the Islamic Sharee’ah from innovations and heresies and lies. And also, (to wage war against) what is even more important than that, concerning what the atheists and Zanadiqah[4]and Orientalists and others who attempt to enter into the beliefs of some of the Muslims by giving them doubts in the basis of their Deen and causing them to go astray from the Sunnah of their Prophet and his Sharee’ah and ruling with the man-made laws, which oppose the Islamic Sharee’ah. And more importantly, knowing the basis of the Tawheed, which Allah sent His Messenger with and implicating it through knowledge and action and waging war against that which opposes it from Shirk al-Akbar, which takes you outside the Millah or from the types of Shirk al-Asghar. And like that is the manifestation of the meaning ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’ from ruling with his Sharee’ah exclusively and discarding what opposes it from laws and conditions and other things which Allah did not reveal and that the one who rules with it or takes the judgement to it, believing that it is right and believing that it is permissible then he is a Kafir with the Kufr which removes one from the Millah. And if he does that without believing that and that it is permissible, then he is a Kafir with the Kufr al-’Amali, which does not remove one from the Millah.
Quoted word for word.
So, Shaykh Muhammad spoke twice about the laws. In the first instance, he said, “…the laws…” and he added to that, “…the man-made…” and he considered the man-made laws from the handiwork of the atheists and Zanadiqah and Orientalists, who have entered them upon the Muslims. So he encouraged the committee to wage war against it out of defence of the Muslims and he mentioned the man-made laws here, under the category of the manifestation of ‘Uluhiyyah and the meaning of ‘La Illaha ill-Allah.’ As for the second instance where he mentioned the laws, is was under the category of the manifestation of ‘Muhammad Ar-Rasulullah.’ And the point of concern here is that he did not add the word “man-made”. Rather, he only added to it other things such as “…laws and conditions and other things which Allah did not reveal…” So he meant by “…the laws and conditions…”, innovations that the innovator adds, which nullifies the manifestation of the following of the Messenger. And he added to these laws and these conditions an explanation because it is from the category of Bid’ah. So he mentioned the laws twice; once in the meanings of the manifestation of the meaning of ‘La illaha ill-Allah’ and once in the meaning of the manifestation of the meaning of ‘Muhammad Ar-Rasulullah.’ For this, they are two manifestations so their meanings are different. Otherwise, it would have been redundant. Also, in the first, he added to it, “…the man-made…” and the second is isolated. He only added to it the “…conditions and other things which Allah did not reveal…” and in this, there was a need of an explanation. In any matter, this is an explanation based upon the positive assumption of the Shaykh Muhammad and also based upon his Fatwa concerning the man-made laws and the fact that we let his words explain one another. This is more fitting than having his words contradict one another and claiming a change of opinion, contradiction or ikhtilaf.
His lying upon our Shaykh Muhammad al-‘Ameen ash-Shinqeeti, may Allah be merciful to him:
Al-Anbari quoted in his book, Al-Hukm bi’ Ghayr ma-Anzal’Allah wa-Usul at-Takfeer, on Pg. 70-71 and attempted to dupe (his reader) that Shaykh Shinqeeti does not see the man-made laws as Kufr as he narrates the words of our Shaykh ash-Shinqeeti. And he is from the ‘Ulama that al-Anbari claims do not make Takfeer concerning the man-made laws except with Juhud and this quotation which he mentions from ash-Shinqeeti:
And know that the reason for this part of the project is that al-Kufr, adh-Dhulm, al-Fisq; all of these have been used in the Shara’ sometimes intending sins and other times, the Kufr which removes one from the Millah. ‘And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the Kafireen,’ opposing the Messengers and abandoning the laws of Allah, then his Thulm and his Fisq does not take him outside the Millah.
However, here he does not even mention the man-made laws and al-Anbari omitted the words of our Shaykh ash-Shinqeeti, which are clear concerning the man-made laws as he said in his Tafseer of Surat al-Kahf, about the ayah: {“And He makes none to share in His Hukm.”} So he said,
And with these Heavenly texts that we have mentioned, it becomes quite clear that the ones who follow the man-made laws, which the Shaytan has legislated upon the tongues of his ‘Awliya and which oppose that Allah, jala-wa’ala has legislated upon the tongues of His Messengers (عليهم الصلاة والسلام). Nobody could doubt that they are Kafir and Mushrik except the one whom Allah has caused to have no understanding and has blinded his eyes, like theirs, to the light of revelation.
And then ash-Shinqeeti says immediately,
Take note: Know that it is Wajib to differentiate between the invented institutions, which are Kufr in the Creator of the Heavens and Earth to judge according to them and between the institutions, which aren’t.
Then he said,
As for the legislative institutions, which contradict the legislations of the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, then judging with these is Kufr in the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth.
Then he mentioned some of their laws concerning inheritance and marriage and Hudud and how they oppose the Shara’. Then he says,
So ruling by institutions such as these upon individuals and the society and their wealth, their property, their intellect and their Deen is Kufr in the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth…
So how could he (i.e. al-Anbari) omit these clear words concerning the man-made laws for other than them?!
His lie upon the Imam Ibn Katheer, may Allah be merciful to him:
As he quotes from him texts, which he uses to deceive (his reader) to show that he (i.e. Ibn Katheer) is among those who do not make Takfeer concerning the man-made laws as he quotes from him on Pg. 69 among those who, as he claims, do not make Takfeer concerning these laws. Even though Ibn Katheer has clear words concerning the Yasaq of the Tartars stating that it is a collection of man-made laws and he made Takfeer with that – even going as far as narrating an Ijma’ upon this (matter) as he said, may Allah be merciful to him, in his Tafseer of the Ayah:
أَفَحُكْمَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ يَبْغُونَ...
Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance?... [al-Ma'idah 5:50]
He said,
Allah, ta’ala makes Inkar (i.e. vehemently objects to) those who turns away from Allah’s Sharee’ah; the laws that are good for the Muslims; the laws that forbid what is evil. Allah rejects those who follow laws of personal desires and who adopt laws of Kufr such as the laws enforced by the Tartars who were under the control of Genghis Khan, their King. These laws were a mixture of Judaism, Christianity and laws chosen by their King which suited his desires. Should we prefer these laws over the Sharee’ah of Allah and His Prophet (ﷺ)?! Whoever does this is a Kafir and killing him is Wajib!
And Ibn Katheer said in Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah, Vol. 13/118-119:
So whoever leaves the clear Sharee’ah, which was revealed to Muhammad ibn Abdullah, the Seal of the Prophets, and takes the Hukm to other than it from the laws of Kufr which are abrogated, he has disbelieved. So what about the one who takes the Hukm to the ‘Yasaq’ and puts it before it?! Whoever does that, he has disbelieved by the Ijma’ of the Muslims!
The other matter is how al-Anbari quotes the words of ‘Ulama who did not see the era in which the ruling with man-made laws were introduced, rather they died before it. So he quotes their words (trying to) mislead and demonstrate that they (i.e. those whom he quotes) were upon his madhab in that no one disbelieves with the ruling of the laws unless he makes Juhud or makes that Halal.
And this era, which came upon the Muslims – that is the ruling with the man-made laws, did not occur except in the era of the Tartars during the time of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Katheer. So he avoids quoting the words of these two Imams, which (clearly) show the Kufr of those who take the Hukm to the Yasaq. And instead, in his aforementioned book, on page 138, he mentions that the Takfeer of Ibn Katheer and Ibn Taymiyah towards the Tartars, was due to them possessing other nullifications besides the Yasaq even though the words of Ibn Katheer are clear that the ruling concerning them based upon the Yasaq. Then this era fell (upon the Muslims) again and that was the era of ruling with the (man-made) laws of the West during the military colonisation period of the Islamic world when they brought their courts of law. So the ‘Ulama who lived during this era spoke about it such as Shaykh Ahmad Shakir as he said in his Tahqeeq of Tafseer Ibn Katheer of the Ayah:
أَفَحُكْمَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ يَبْغُونَ...
Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance?... [al-Ma'idah 5:50]
He said,
The matter in these man-made laws is clear with the clearness of the sun. It is clear Kufr and there is nothing hidden about it and there is no excuse for anyone who attributes themselves to Islam, whoever they may be, to act according to it or to submit to it or to approve of it.
And also, Shaykh Mahmud Shakir, whom al-Anbari attempted to – in his book on page 131 – deceive (the reader) into thinking that he does not make Takfeer for the man-made laws except to the one who rejects (the Sharee’ah laws).
Shaykh Mahmud Shakir said – and his brother Muhammad Shakir narrated these words from him in Tafseer Ibn Katheer,
…and their (the Ibadhiyah’s) question wasn’t about what the innovators of our time argue with. They were asking about the act of the judges in blood, money and property who went away from the Sharee’ah occasionally (based upon their occasional whims or desires) not about those who bring about a new legislation of laws upon the people of Islam and ruling with the Hukm of other than what Allah sent down in His book or upon the tongue of His Messenger (ﷺ). This action is turning away from Hukm of Allah, being displeased with His Deen and being influenced by the laws of the people of Kufr instead of the laws of Allah. This is (the type of) Kufr that there is no doubt about from the people of the Qiblah in declaring Takfeer upon the one who says it, does it or calls to it.
And like our Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraheem when he ruled concerning the man-made laws and like our Shaykh Muhammad ash-Shinqeeti – all of them as well as others from those who lived during the eras of the man-made laws – it is more deserving that he (i.e. al-Anbari) would take from their words concerning the laws. But instead, he brings other words concerning these laws to make one assume that they are upon his madhab and his belief that the one who rules with these laws, does not disbelieve except with making it Halal or with the rejection (of the Sharee’ah laws), therefore it would only be a major sin. Al-Anbari even goes further than that to claim that there is Ijma’ that the one who rules by other than what Allah revealed in Tashree’ al-’Aam (General Legislation) does not disbelieve except for the one who makes it Halal, knowing that al-Anbari does not differentiate between the ruling by other than what Allah revealed due to desire (i.e. in particular instances) or with the man-made laws (in general); both of them being the same according to him. And if he narrated the Ijma’, then he means all of them and he does not differentiate (between them).
But as for the ‘Ulama of Islam, they have differentiated. And if they mention ruling by other than what Allah revealed, here they differentiate concerning the one who does it due to desire but if they speak about the man-made laws, they do not differentiate between the one who makes it Halal and the rejecter or the one who does it due to desire, just as the approval (of this concept) has passed of Muhammad bin Ibraheem. As he said,
As for the one who implements laws in order to be submitted to, then this is Kufr even if they say, ‘We have made a mistake. And the Hukm of the Shara’ is more just,’ because there is a difference between the one who approves and the implication and the reference. They made it a reference and this is Kufr, which take one outside the Millah.
And like that, is what we have narrated from Ibn Katheer that he made Takfeer of them (i.e. the tartars) taking the Hukm (to the Taghut) so refer to his saying. And like him, is our Shaykh ash-Shinqeeti and the two sons of Shakir and other than them. All of them did not differentiate concerning the man-made laws.
This is what we have been able to put together as a refutation against him, in haste and we ask Allah to guide all towards what he loves and is pleased with and to let al-Anbari and the likes of him, from the Murji'ah al-’Asr (i.e. the Murji’ah of our era). To return to the madhab of the Salaf of the Ummah. Verily, He is able to do all things. And may Allah bless our Prophet Muhammad and his family and his companions altogether.
Dictated by Hamud Ibn Uqla ash-Shu’aybi
The former teacher in the faculty of the Sharee’ah and Usul ad-Deen in the Islamic University Muhammad, Qaseem Campus
20/4/1421 AH
Translated by At-Tibyan Publications
[1] Isti`hlal is the act of making something which Allah has forbidden as halal. In this context, the people of Irja` say that nothing expels one from the religion unless they make something that Allah has forbidden halal in their hearts.
[2] And the point of Shaykh Hamud here is that al-Anbari first claims that he is not trying to convince his reader that Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraheem changed his opinion but then he immediately mentions that he has found some “other words” – which is intended to mean “words with opposite meaning” – which were written by the Shaykh five years after the publication of the Risalah Tahkeem al-Qawaneen. And he then attempts to use these “other words” to give strength to his own opinion, which is that the ruler who legislates and rules with man-made laws that oppose the Sharee’ah does not disbelieve unless he considers that permissible or he rejects the laws of the Sharee’ah. And so his statement, “…and I do not say that he changed his opinion…” is in fact abrogated by the fact that he brings words which he attempts to interpret as being in agreement with his own opinion and then punctuates that by mentioning that these words were written five years after the Shaykh’s earlier words which do not comply with the opinion of al-Anbari. And so he is, by implication, claiming that Muhammad bin Ibraheem did, in fact, change his mind to the opinion that Khalid al-Anbari holds and because of this, we are not sure which is the bigger lie: his lie that Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraheem changed his opinion or his lie that he wasn’t trying to claim that the Shaykh changed his mind!
[3] Gheerah: Protective Jealousy related to the rights of the person and the Deen (i.e. becoming enraged when Islam is disrespected)
[4] Zanadiqah: plural of Zindiqh, which is a Munafiq whose Kufr is seen and yet claims to be upon Islam) Abu Idrees narrated, “People from the Zanadiqah who had apostated were brought to ‘Ali. He asked them (about their Kufr) and they denied it so it was made clear to them (that they truly were upon Kufr). He (i.e. Abu Idrees) said, “So he killed them without giving them time to repent (and return to Islam). He (i.e. Abu Idrees) said, “A man who was a Christian and became a Muslim but latter apostated, was brought before him (i.e. ‘Ali) and he asked that man (about his apostasy) and that man admitted to what he had done. Then (‘Ali) asked him to repent and it was said to him (i.e. ‘Ali), “Why did you ask him to repent but you didn’t ask the others to repent?” He said, “This one admitted what he had done but those others did not admit it and they even denied (their Kufr) until it was proven to them. So this is why I did not give them time to repent.’ And according to another narration, “Do you know why I asked the Christian to repent? I asked him to repent because he (openly) showed his religion but the Zanadiqah – those, who required it to be proven to them, rejected (the charge). So I killed them because they denied it until it was proven to them.” – Narrated by Ibn Taymiyyah in As-Sarim al-Maslul ‘ala Shatim ar-Rasul, Pg. 360