PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

Share a file Manage my documents Convert Recover PDF Search Help Contact

4 5994828443093565441 .pdf

Original filename: 4_5994828443093565441.pdf
Author: S Kuran

This PDF 1.5 document has been generated by Microsoft® Word 2016, and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 08/04/2017 at 16:25, from IP address 138.197.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 733 times.
File size: 1000 KB (10 pages).
Privacy: public file

Download original PDF file

Document preview

“Tell them in the Netherlands that this is misguidance!” – Scholar inside Dawlah
Al-hamdulillahi Rabbi ‘l-‘Alamin wa salat wa salam ‘ala Nabiyyina Muhammadin wa ‘ala
alihi wa sahbihi ajma’in. Amma ba’d:
After the spreading of a document, more or less a bayan some time ago which was posted
among others by the mubtadi’ Ridvan Memshi it became apparent that the ghulat kept
their breath in. They waited curious. They asked and looked. They hoped it to be
authentic. Their it came, a picture of the bayan by ‘ad-Dawlah’ with a prohibition of
some books of some specific scholars, but without a stamp. It was put aside to rest. After
a time, there was a Dutch da’i who came up with a post about the bayan (which has been
deleted al-hamdulillah), this time however the bayan shows 2 clear stamps, on the first
page by the way. This was his chance to make some of his following points:
1. Ad-Dawlah shows the misguidance of some scholars, which he himself pushes up to
the level of riddah and takfir saying, “If al-Fahd really said this -as is written in the
bayan- then this certainly is apostasy from his part.”
2. Shaykh al-Hazmi would accordingly not have been criticized for his way of making
“takfir al-‘adhir”, but the others do have been criticized concerning their
implementation of the third nullifier.
3. The one who confirms [the bayan] has precedence over the denier [although there
were many question marks beforehand concerning the authenticity]
4. The criticism on al-Hazmi’s praise of Saudi-Arabia [in the document] is in fact
question some, as to add al-Hazmi’s distinction between shirk al-qubur and shirk alqusur which also is questionable.
This were the stances of this individual short summarized. Even a blind person can see
that he does everything to save the bacon of al-Hazmi, may Allah free, guide and forgive
him. Every Shaykh makes mistakes. Shaykh Nasir al-Fahd ‫ حفظه هللا‬makes mistakes, Shaykh
‘Ali al-Khudayr ‫ حفظه هللا‬makes mistakes, Imam Abu Hanifah ‫ّللا‬
َ ‫ رحمه‬made mistakes,
Imam Ahmad ‫ّللا‬
َ ‫ رحمه‬made mistakes, Shaykh al-‘Alwan ‫ حفظه هللا‬makes mistakes, Shaykh
al-Islam Muhammad ibn ‘Abdulwahhab and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah ‫ّللا‬
َ ‫رحمهما‬
made mistakes. And to make it more encompassing: everyone after the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬makes
mistakes. Even al-Hazmi ‫حفظه هللا‬. Yes, indeed he also makes mistakes, without any
After brothers asked for clarification, the answer to the weak article of the da’i is as
following, and from Allah ‫ ﷻ‬we seek aid:

Before [= none] & After [we see stamps]

1. Is says Wilayah Hims, not ad-Dawlah.
With 2 different pictures: 1 without a
stamp and the latter has 2 clear stamps of
which 1 covers the last line. This is the
first mas’alah: why would one have
stamps and the other one not? Isn’t that
strange, such that this individual should at
least have been more careful? On top of
that, the production of it is not like we
are used to concerning official documents:
with a clear date, a number, where above
it says “ad-Dawlah al-Islamiyyah” and the
Wilayah is point out etcetera. We know that in the past the kuffar tried to imitate
documents of ad-Dawlah, after which they tried to
spread it to the kufr-media, like they tried to do with a
fake Rumiyah-magazine. This is a very simplistic
document, very amateurly written with a stamp on
[note] the first page instead of at the end of the
document. In short: very strange, because you would
think that a stamp of approval would be at the end of the
document or at least a signature inside a fine square.
Somebody just needs to steal a stamp machine or should
be good at photoshopping and we in the Netherlands
have an individual who sees his chance to move his way
up to possible-takfir [as this is the way this person
commonly says it, possibly not to come across as shocking and deterring].
Talking about takfir, why does he push the content of the “bayan” to the level of
takfir, while for example from the vast books of Shaykh Nasir al-Fahd ‫ حفظه هللا‬just a
handful have been prohibited and the overwhelming majority of his books and letters
have been permitted to publicize?
If what the Shaykh said is apostasy of his part [as this da’i would say: ‘if he actually said
that’, while ‘Wilayah Hims’ exactly criticizes the Shaykh for that point], then why
would the overwhelming majority of his books have been permitted to publicize if the
Shaykh is a kafir murtadd? Or is Wilayah Hims not convinced of the disbelief of
Shaykh Nasir al-Fahd, while they actually are convinced that the Shaykh said it and
know the Hal that Shaykh Nasir al-Fahd is, as said accordingly “an ‘Adhir who claims
khilaf in a matter of shirk al-akbar”? What does that make of “Wilayah Hims”? Or do

they permit publishing the overwhelming majority of the Shaykh’s books, while in
fact they see him as a kafir murtadd?
Which do we, according to this da’i, attribute to “Wilayah Hims”:
a. That they permit the majority of the books of a “kafir murtadd” or
b. that they don’t in reality view him as a “kafir murtadd”? [So the Wilayah -according
to this da’i -are in that case also ‘Adhiriyya because they are convinced of the fact that
the Shaykh said the kufriyat]
Which of the 2 he chooses: it is either way ridiculous, and that is the reason why he
should fear Allah ‫ ﷻ‬in this matter and should repent in public for degrading the heirs
of the Prophets and for the huge fitnah he caused, because if this is really of “Wilayah
Hims”, it is not only unofficial and wrong, but also limited in criticism, as opposed to
this da’i who pushes it to making takfir of these scholars.
By the way: what if, it is actually from some people from Wilayah Hims? Is it official
for the whole state? No, it is not, so let’s not pretend that this is some kind of
evidence or something that comes even near to it. On top of that, doesn’t this person
know that ad-Dawlah has many extremists inside their ranks? Some of whom climbed
so high in ranking that they actually were in charge of enforcing al-Jizya. Like Abu
Ja’far al-Hattab, the student of al-Hazmi, who alongside Abu ‘Umar al-Kuwayti was
executed [who are seemingly very admired by the da’i]. Or like Abu Bara al-Madani
or Abu Mus’ab at-Tunisi whom made takfir on Shaykh Usamah. Or like the fact that
regularly ghulat are being imprisoned for planning to make a coup, as recently there
were 80 ghulat arrested, because they were plotting a coup. Just roughly 2 years ago
they interviewed Balkan-ghulat similar to Ridvan Memshi and his friend Sam, for
whom it is just a matter of time before they make takfir on Shaykh al-Hazmi 1 ‫حفظه هللا‬
as their brethren in the Netherlands realized the necessity of making takfir on alHazmi a long while ago. Anyhow, how far would this da’i go: so far that he would
claim that there are question marks concerning their execution, because there is no
bayan to be found where it states the execution of Abu ‘Umar al-Kuwayti with his

We have a present for Ridvan and those who do taqlid of him, as he himself isn’t familiar with Shaykh al-Hazmi’s teachings
and he himself knows that very well, Shaykh al-Hazmi [note: áfter he changed his stance concerning ‘udhr bil-jahl in shirk alakbar]:

a. He doesn’t make takfir on someone who calls to voting like Shaykh al-Barrak who he refutes concerning his fatwa that
allows voting and says more than once “May Allah the Exalted protect him” about Shaykh al-Barrak, see minute 2:55 and 4:30
b. He says that if someone comes with shahadah or an Islamic appearance it’s enough and we shouldn’t look to his inner and
ask him furthermore before we judge him as a Muslim, see 15:30 https://youtu.be/cj0MLbXloPw and also:
https://youtu.be/00RQuedo52s and also: https://youtu.be/InFY2Ij1st8 [he says “no one of the salaf said we should search
his inner Hal, he says it is wajib when the person utters merely shahadatayn to see judge over him as a muslim”]
c. Concerning ahkam of dar al-kufr and dar al-islam, see https://youtu.be/McM-HxMhj9I

extremism as being the reason. Fa subhanallah. In that case: where is he then? Being
hidden by ad-Dawlah alongside Abu Ja’far and Abu Mus’ab for the future leadership?
It is amazing how far one can go.
2. The da’i claims with big words that “the
jahmiyyah claim that al-Fahd, al-Khalidi and alKhudayr are on one line with ad-Dawlah
concerning the third nullifier”, but that al-Hazmi
is not criticized for this in the least. Again, as
nusrah for al-Hazmi. This while the whole bayan
on takfir al-mutawaqqif 2 is in fact a refutation on
the ideas of al-Hazmi, because Dawlah claimes
that the reason for the kufr of a mutawaqqif is
mabniy [fixed] to qiyam al-hujjah which it says is
the Qur’an and not merely the kalimah [of La
ilaha illa Allah ‫]ﷻ‬, in contrast to the mushrik,
alladhiy ‘abada ghayrallah ‫ﷻ‬. At the same time
they say that the Asl is that it is a clear matter,
because takfir on those worship other than Allah
‫ ﷻ‬is clear and bright in Allah’s ‫ ﷻ‬Book, the
Messengers’ Sunnah and the words of ahl al-‘ilm.
However, with some mushrikin: those who
ascribe themselves to islam ambiguity [khafa’a]
can appear, hereby it is necessary that with the
mutawaqqif [so called ‘adhir] the hujjah is established with bayan [clarifying]. This
point is very important, because there is a difference between merely qiyam al-hujjah
and between qiyam al-hujjah alongside bayan al-hujjah.
How is it possible to reconcile this with al-Hazmi who makes the mutawaqqif of a
mushrik muntasib ilal-islam equivalent to the mutawaqqif of a mushrik ghayr muntasib
ilal-islam? At the same time al-Hazmi states that the ones who does tawaqquf are
“mulhaqun” [joined with] those whom they don’t make takfir of.3 So whoever doesn’t
perform takfir on the mushrik is exactly ás the mushrik, and whosoever doesn’t make
takfir on the rafidah belongs to the rafidah. Exactly what ad-Dawlah is against and
which ad-Dawlah calls “a false meaning”.

The mutawaqqif is the one who refrains from making takfir, tawaqqafa means to withhold or to refrain, takfir al-mutawaqqif
is declaring the one who refrains of takfir to be a disbeliever
3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqueYRi6NBc&t=2620s

Note: ad-Dawlah makes also clear that the ‘illah, the reason or motive, of the disbelief
of the mutawaqqif is denying the text and not “the kufr bit-taghut or la ilaha being
absent”, this can be red in the section of the bayan when they discussed the false
meaning concerning the term “asl ad-din”, and exactly this is what the da’i calls a
jahmi-‘aqidah and this is precisely what al-Hazmi repeatedly states4: ‘adam al-kufr bittaghut, lam yuhaqqiq al-kufr bit-taghut, lan yathbut laka wasf al-islam and so on.
Not only that, the da’i in a latter independent post states that the quote which was
brought by ad-Dawlah of Shaykh Sulayman ibn ‘Abdillah ‫ّللا‬
َ ‫[ رحمه‬the grandson of
Shaykh Muhammad ibn’Abdulwahhab ‫ّللا‬
َ ‫ ;رحمه‬who was executed by the Ottomans]
is talking about takfir at-ta’dhib, meaning the punishment, and that the words
“buyyinat [i.e. bayan] lahu al-adillah min kitabillah wa sunnati rasulihi ‘ala kufrihim..”
is related to someone who calls a mushrik a mushrik kafir and not a muslim, but who
doesn’t grade him to the kafir worthy of punishment, known as al-‘uqubah. ‘Ajab al‘Ujab. How can he then claim something about those righteous scholars and adDawlah while he himself is far from ad-Dawlah, specifically concerning the third
If there is somebody who doesn’t agree with al-Hazmi in this case, then it must be adDawlah. Also those who made takfir to the lawazim of the kalimah made a mistake
according to ad-Dawlah [not according to al-Hazmi because he states that it is just a
linguistical difference5 and that people just misuse this term], but those who make
takfir to the lawazim of the kalimah are actually closer to ad-Dawlah, because of the
fact that they in this category don’t directly make individual takfir of a mutawaqqif of
the mushrik muntasib ilal-islam [except in an place where those shubuhat are brought
to the ground], in contrast to al-Hazmi who directly makes individual takfir on these
kinds of mutawaqqifin. So it was not necessary for “Wilayah Hims” to criticize alHazmi and his ideas concerning the third nullifier. Moreover: if ad-Dawlah -or better
said “Wilayah Hims”- agrees with al-Hazmi in this area then why is everything of alHazmi forbidden according to the “bayan”? Why didn’t they make some books
prohibited and all other books permissible, like they did with “the jahmiyyah” namely
“al-Fahd, al-Khalidi and al-Khudayr”? Fa’tabiru ya Ulil-Absar: so contemplate oh you
who have insight.
3. The fact that now principles of ‘ilm ar-riwayah are being used by the da’i like the fact
that ‘the ones who confirms has precedence over the one who denies’ is actually a


Minute 00:15:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fvz6QxEREA&feature=youtu.be
Minute 00:37:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fvz6QxEREA&feature=youtu.be

perfect example of that which he continuously does: always having a word to say
back. Putting question marks behind everything that doesn’t suit him.
“If al-Fahd really said this, then..” and “if this is really from al-Khudayr, because his
son is majhul al-hal for me, then..” but if a small portion books of these giants of
tawhid are being prohibited by “Wilayah Hims” we get a person who goes out of his
way to name other people as jahmiyyah, to make takfir on the ‘ulama and to instigate
fitnah while attempting to propagate his ‘aqidah under the pretext of “ad-Dawlah”.
Let alone, that he will repent openly of his gigantic mistake. May Allah ‫ ﷻ‬grant him
4. The praises of al-Hazmi for Saudi-Arabia could be questionable without a doubt. The
fact however is also that it still is on his site named alhazme.net and that he did not
openly make tawbah of it, and the da’i has a high regard for ‘correcting things openly
which were committed openly’. So let him uphold this regard of his, and let him not
make tawbah out of his lessons. It is however also correct that al-Hazmi has said things
which could be indirectly or directly interpreted as takfir on the state, because he for
example said that the one who calls to interfaith is a kafir. But so did al-Fawzan and
others. The difference however between al-Hazmi and al-Fawzan is that al-Hazmi got
the madakhilah against him, who warned against him and instigated the government to
imprison him, may Allah ‫ ﷻ‬free, guide and forgive him and grant us all goodness.
What is true is that I, when I listened to one of his lessons, heard that al-Hazmi does
indeed make a difference between shirk al-qubur en shirk al-qusur [shirk of the graves
and shirk of the great buildings; parliaments] and this could be found in one of the
lengthy lessons of the Shaykh6. So this is not as the da’i said “questionable”.
5. The advice for the da’i is as follows: know that humility will befit you and that you
have a high regard of the people, because u are in possession of knowledge which they
do not possess. The effect of that which you are doing will be enormous. These
scholars who -if they have said x or y- would be kuffar in your eyes, are the ones who
were the sabab of our guidance. How can we declare them that simple as disbelievers,
while the case is not as simplistic as you are portraying it to be. Know, that the texts
of the ‘ulama require explanation, and as you know: not everything is absolute
[mutlaq]. The khawarij of the past also took some texts ‘alal-itlaq, like for example
the one who judges with other than Allah ‫ ﷻ‬revealed is indeed a kafir and if ‘Ali ibn
Abi Talib did that in that specific case of his; he also would be a kafir. While this is not
the case, because if ‘Ali would make a mistake in that specific time and place it would
be kufr duna kufr [in this action of hukm bi ghayr ma anzal’Allah ‫[ ﷻ‬aw tarkihi]].

Minute 00:45:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fvz6QxEREA&feature=youtu.be

This is naqid number 4, one above the 3th (and 2th) naqid, that they took so absolute
that it made them be for what they are: the worst of creation among creations [Sahih
Muslim]. You can simplify it as much as you want and pretend as if Shaykh Nasir alFahd [because he said that there arose a khilaf in a specific category INSIDE a specific
category INSIDE a specific category] thereby praises shirk and pretends as if the ones
who commit shirk aren’t mushrikin and so on. The fact of the matter is that this is not
true. By Allah ‫ﷻ‬, Shaykh Nasir al-Fahd ‫ حفظه هللا‬is the harshest against shirk and he
stood up against shirk and their people and made takfir on them including their
leaders long before we even became Muslims. If the other one -Shaykh ‘Ali alKhudayr ‫حفظه هللا‬- is a jahmi because of his categorization and view of the 3rd naqid which all scholars do- then you should remind yourself what a jahmi was before you
go along with the trend that is ongoing since 2014: the trend of phrases like, “these
jahmiyyah..” and “they did not even smell the scent of tawhid..” and those kind of
childish phrases. At the same time we ask Allah ‫ ﷻ‬to reward you for your posts
concerning the oppressed ummah and those posts where you forbid shirk and so forth
which brings comfort to the believer and brings discomfort and rage in the disbeliever
and the hypocrite. It however, becomes apparent to the people that you pretend and
hide under the pretext of ad-Dawlah and that you have shown your true face
concerning these scholars and that you always and only want to defend one scholar
and that is Shaykh Ahmad ibn ‘Umar al-Hazmi.

Scholar of ad-Dawlah for the brothers in the Netherlands
Finally, emanating from a chain which is without a doubt authentic, with
content that is documented, thus not in need of it being memorized. From a person who
is extremely trustworthy, and asked for me specifically and who swore by Allah ‫ ﷻ‬that
the Shaykh exactly said it as he said, letter by letter. While I on the other hand swear by
Allah ‫ ﷻ‬and invoke the curse of Allah ‫ ﷻ‬if I lie. He swore by Allah ‫ ﷻ‬that if he lied
concerning 1 letter that his 4,5 years of jihad may be rewardless, i.e. humiliate him. This
is how the yaqin-level is, and I challenge each person who say it isn’t the truth to
mubahalah, and this is an open challenge until the Day of Judgment.
This question was posed to an official Shaykh, Shaykh Abu Mundhir al-Harbi ‫حفظه هللا‬,
who gives fatawa on the official radio channel of ad-Dawlah named “al-bayan”7 and he
answered as follows with regards to the question about someone, a scholar, who says:
that there arose a dispute on whether du’a to the prophet to make du’a to Allah in front
of his grave thinking the prophet is alive and can hear him, whether this is shirk al-akbar
or bid’ah: wat do we say about these kind of scholars?
The Shaykh answered saying:
“We say that they were wrong in this, but we don’t make takfir on them as we don’t
make takfir on the one who doesn’t make takfir on tarik as-salah -one who abandons the
Then the Shaykh was asked concerning the so-called bayan of “Wilayah Hims” about the
misguidance of Shaykh Nasir al-Fahd and Shaykh ‘Ali al-Khudayr. By Allah ‫ ﷻ‬the Shaykh
almost started crying and said that this was a great lie and he praised them for their vast
knowledge and their tribulation that they go through of long term imprisonment
etcetera, and that it’s nonsense, because Shaykh Nasir al-Fahd and Shaykh ‘Ali al-Khudayr
َ ‫ حفظهما‬have their bay’ah to ad-Dawlah. He said:
“Due to them we learnt this ‘aqidah and then we would just throw them now away so
suddenly. Tell them in the Netherlands that this is misguidance! And if
somebody in ad-Dawlah said this, then he is misguided!”
Finally the Shaykh was asked concerning the fact that ad-Dawlah has a so-called ijma’
about the disbelief of ibn al-‘Uthaymin and Bin Baz, about which he said that it, again, is
not true and he asked Allah ‫ ﷻ‬to forgive them [as for example Shaykh Abu Mus’ab az-


https://youtu.be/O47NxIYxu90 in this way

Zarqawi ‫ّللا‬
َ ‫ رحمه‬did not make takfir on those two8 and Shaykh Abu ‘Umar al-Baghdadi
al-Qurayshi ‫ّللا‬
َ ‫ رحمه‬for example did not make takfir on those party members who
ascribe themselves to ahl as-sunnah until the hujjah was established on them9]. He said
about the ones that do make takfir on them: that this is an ijtihad which is understandable.
Moreover besides Shaykh Abu Mundhir ‫ حفظه هللا‬, one of the greatest a’immah in arRaqqah was asked concerning the document of “Wilayah Hims” and he said that it wasn’t
official and that he did not even knew of it and that he was amazed on how brothers in the
Netherlands would concern themselves with this. We are also amazed: these scholars are
known. Everyone knows them, they are the carriers of the flag of tawhid in this time and
the sabab for the mujahidin with regards to their guidance. How then can someone dare
to stand in front of Allah ‫ ﷻ‬with the fitnah he instigated, specifically with regards to these
So the da’i has 2 options:
1. He openly makes tawbah of his mistakes and recovers the evil that he seeded, and
takes a humble attitude while recognizing that he doesn’t know everything.
2. He stays arrogant and seeks to talk right that which is crooked and he lets the
fitnah that he instigated spread in the people.
There is no reason anymore to suggest that the chain is not sound, or that the Himsibayan is authentic, or that he has more knowledge of tawhid than those scholars, or that
Shaykh Abu Mundhir ‫ حفظه هللا‬doesn’t represent ad-Dawlah, or to suggest that the
scholars and those who love them are jahmiyyah, or that quotes were misused, or saying
that a Shaykh isn’t infallible so as to degrade him, or that these scholars include takfir
inside kufr bit-taghut [which we all do, but there difference in the “how” and its
implications], or that ad-Dawlah doesn’t categorize between the different kinds of
mutawaqqifin, or that ad-Dawlah sees “takfir al-‘adhir”10 absolutely as a clear matter
concerning the mushrikin muntasibin ilal-islam, or that the 3rd naqid according to Dawlah
is nót mabniy to qiyam al-hujjah in contrast to the mushrik. These matters are clear, and
all praise and thanks is for Allah ‫ﷻ‬
This was an attempt to defend the scholars who are being oppressed and tortured day and
night in the deep dark cells of the tawaghit, to try to keep their honor high and to give
them the place that Allah ‫ ﷻ‬ordered us to give them. By Allah ‫ ﷻ‬I shall defend them
against every enemy, and I still do not find it enough, for I have done very little for them.
By Allah ‫ ﷻ‬, it is an obligation for us to defend them and to free them, at least keep harm
A7%D9%88%D9%8A%20%D9%83%D9%85%D8%A7%20%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%87.doc Page 35
https://youtu.be/EeEvy2h6Yjo Minute 9:15, “Hadhihi ‘Aqidatuna” concerning the ‘aqidah of ad-Dawlah. The da’I
shouldn’t fear regarding the authenticity. It really is Shaykh Abu ‘Umar, Amir al-Muminin
10 A terminology which ad-Dawlah infact forbids and discourages

Related documents

4 5994828443093565441
merged 4
qasida extend your hand
mukhtasar hilyat talib al ilm

Related keywords