"Ibn Taymiyyah Reviews" by Dr.Akram Hijazi

/ '

( \ i

1 ; 1

/__^_

--' J

I

V

W*a

i

penned bi

DrAkram Hijazi

Al-Moraqeb Center

translated by

Ansaral-Mujahideen English Forum

^^airiiilf JUid Ailili

In the name of Allah, the most Merciful and Compassionate

I »1 UlM 1 1

l^i^vfr

Ansar al-Mujahideen English Forum
Translation and Languages Department

presents

An English Translation of
Al-Moraqeb Center Article

Ibn Taymiyya
Reviews

penned by

Dr.Akram Hijazi

-May Allah Protect Him-

Ibn Taymiyya Reviews

Dr. Akram Hijazi

Fifteen scholars from different Islamic countries presented their interpretation
of the fatwa by Sheikh al-lslam Ibn Taymiyya at the end of a conference
convened in the city of Mardin in south-east Turkey on 27-28 March 2010. The
conference was organized by the Global Center for Renewal and Guidance
(London) on collaboration with the Canopus Islamic Foundation for
Consultations (London) and Artuklu University (Mardin). Taking part in the
conference were participants from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates,
Indonesia, Bosnia, Morocco, Nigeria, India, Albania, Yemen, Senegal, Kuwait and
Mauritania. Also in attendance were six Sheikhs from Saudi Arabia, including
Abdullah Umar Naseef, Abdul Wahhab al-Turayri, Abdullah al-Borak, Nasser al-
Hanini, Ayedh al-Dusari and Hassan Filimban in addition to Sheikh Abdullah Bin
Bayah, executive president of the Global Center for Renewal and Guidance, the
Mufti of Bosnia, Sheikh Mustafa Ceric, Qadi Sheikh Abdullah Walad 'Ala Salem,
president of the Supreme Constitutional Council in Mauritania, Sheikh al-
Habeeb AM al-Jifri from Yemen and others. The main topics discussed in the
conference were as follows:

• The Mardin Fatwa: time, place, circumstances and context

• The categorization of an abode in traditional fiqh and in the light of
modern globalization and communications.

• The importance of the Fatwa in light of Islamic history

Understanding of Jihad: the conditions of armed conflict and rules of
engagement, as defined by Ibn Taymiyya and the United Nations Charter.

Undoubtedly those following reactions will find that most of those who have
welcomed the Mardin fatwa are secularists, atheists, rafidites, Sufis, Qabbouris,
Jews, Crusaders, the Sultans' preachers, those opposed to the global Jihad
movement, and even the simple-minded! Are there then those who will justify
all this uproar over the conference? And what is the truth about the contents
of the closing statement issued by it?

The first thing that attracts attention in the closing statement issued by the
conference is the media release about the nature of the conference, its topic,
its starting points and its aims.

Nature of the conference: The statement called the conference only "Peace
Summit Conference."

Topic of the conference: "To study the most important foundations of the
relations between Muslims and their fellow human beings and classification of
abodes in Islamic thought and related issues in defining jihad, loyalty and
enmity (al-wala' wal-bara'), citizenship and migration {hijra)."

Goal of the conference: "Achieve peaceful co-existence and cooperation
between Muslims and others" in light of "the contemporary reality which binds
Muslims to international treaties through which security and peace have been
achieved for all mankind and guarantee their wealth, their integrity and their
homelands, based upon which Muslims now interact with others in an
unprecedented manner in many political, social and economic matters.
Muslims are in need of sound Islamic legal vision which does not violate Islamic
religious texts, but are in harmony with the aims of shari'ah while adapting to
the contemporary reality.

The theme for the conference: "The fatwa of Sheikh al-lslam Ibn Taymiyya,
may Allah have mercy on him, concerning the classification of the city of
Mardin in his lifetime. This was the theme for research, because of the
exceptional intellectual, cultural and symbolic meaning it holds."

General Discussion
Political Agenda

According to his statements made to Islam Today on 4 th of April 2010, Sheikh
Abdullah bin Bayah said: "A meeting of the different (parties) across the Islamic
spectrum is an expression of the attempt to find a common view on matters
which concern their fate which are issues of internal struggle", while adding:
"We in the International Center have invited groups who specialize in the
Sheikh of Islam from different schools and philosophies, in order to achieve
unity regarding issues of the Ummah, so that some of us can be convinced by
the others, just like the Mardin University." However, all of those attending the
conference belonged to one political school; standing directly and
unambiguously in the corner of the existing political and international regimes.
Their fatwa is subsequently more political in nature than religious. And so?
What has gathered together those who belong to ideological schools that are
supposedly contradictory and competitive in their beliefs such as Salafism,
Sufism, Shi'ism and secularism other than their common interests and goals in
targeting the movements of resistance and jihad? What right permits them to
have dogmatic differences on its importance and at the same time reach an
agreement on leaving behind Ibn Taymiyya's fatwa!!? Have they all one day
arrived at the same distance from Ibn Taymiyya!!!?

As for calling the conference "The Peace Summit Conference", it is not devoid
of indications that the conference was convened in accordance with an
international agenda or directly complies with Western initiatives, especially
since in the words of one observer, there was coordination between the British
and Turkish governments before it was convened.

The strange thing is that none of the scholars from the countries or peoples
being occupied, oppressed or threatened with extinction attended the
conference and they were not represented in it from near or far. It was as if
they were not part of the Ummah or that their countries have been forgotten or
ripped away from human existence. Among those absent and missing were
scholars from East Turkestan, Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Jammu and
Kashmir, Thailand and Nigeria. Rather those who had planned the conference
had already scripted its goals and outcomes previously.

Second: Peaceful Co-existence

The Fatwa of Ibn Taymiyya was not itself the goal of the conference even
though it had announced it was based upon his works and thought. Rather the
goal was to demolish the idea of dividing the Islamic world into two abodes (the
abode of Islam and the abode of war; Dar al-lslam and Dar al-Harb). This is not
an idea produced by Ibn Taymiyya alone, but it is integral to the Islamic creed.
But the conferees believe, according to the final statement, which states: "The
classification of abodes in Islamic jurisprudence is an Ijtihadi (juristic)
classification dictated by the circumstances of the Islamic Ummah and the
nature of international relations as prevalent then. However, the change in
circumstances now and the existence of recognized international treaties, the
criminalization of wars based on other than a response to aggression and
resistance to occupation, and the emergence of the civil states which
guarantee on the whole, the rights of (different) creeds, ethnicities and
nationalities; has necessitated declaring the entire world a place of mutual
toleration and peaceful co-existence among all faiths and sects in the
framework of establishing common good and justice among people, wherein
they enjoy safety and security with respect to their wealth, their habitations
and their dignity. This is what shari'ah affirmed and called for since the
Prophet, blessings of Allah and peace be upon him, emigrated to Medina and
concluded the first treaty guaranteeing peaceful co-existence among all parties
and ethnicities in the framework of justice and common interests.
Shortcomings and violations perpetrated by certain states that corrupt or scar
this process should not be used as a pretext for denying its validity and
fabricating conflict between it and Islamic shari'ah."

Therefore, changes that have occurred in mankind have necessitated making
the entire world a place of mutual tolerance and peaceful co-existence!
Subsequently, international political regimes, international law and all its
organizations are correct, legal, recognized and agreed upon between peoples
and the United Nations! This mutual toleration, peaceful co-existence, justice
and security has clearly appeared in Somalia, Iraq, Palestine, Sudan, Algeria,
Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Eastern Turkestan, Thailand,
Kashmir, the Philippines and Nigeria. As for the failure or violation of this co-
existence only certain countries have done this like the United States, which
invaded Iraq along with 32 other countries without a Security Council
resolution. Western Europe, some Asian countries, Ethiopia, Israel, Russia, the
Nigerian police who massacred thousands of Muslims in the streets, and China
who have oppressed the peoples of East Turkestan for more than 200 years to
the point where the country has almost been exterminated. This violation does
not effect the situation of peaceful co-existence and mutual toleration.

This tiresome co-existence among creeds, ethnicities and nationalities ignore
the vicious wars against Islam and the Muslims, the defamation of their
reputation and image, the attack on their Prophet, the prohibition on building
mosques and minarets, the ban on niqabs, the war on the hijab, firing upon and
hacking the glorious Quran, tearing the flesh of Muslim women and
slaughtering innocents. This kind of co-existence is not reflected in the
statement, and is not recognized in it, and it does not hold to account any
international law or aggressor nation for any kind of responsibility, rather this
word is not reflected in the statement in the first place.

As for Ahmad Ozul, a lecturer in the Islamic Studies Institute in Istanbul, he was
blunt when he indicated in an interview with the newspaper Tawadi Zaman that
"The final statement of the conference addresses the Western world more than
the Islamic world." This was also expressed by the actions of the Turkish
journalists in immediately translating the works of the conference to the
English language and distributing it to different Western media sources. And if
we read the statements of Mustafa Ciric, the Mufti of Bosnia, whose people
were massacred in the recent past, let them clarify the picture more and
eliminate astonishment. What did he say: "We do not have to look at secular
liberalism as an enemy of Islam, rather we must push in the direction where
the western secular model absorbs more religious values in everyday social
life." And his Excellency added: "There no longer is any meaning to the term
Islamic state on the evidence that Muslims largely find religious rights and
freedom in Western nations, much more so than is the case in any Islamic
country. There is no distinction between an Islamic state and non-Islamic
states, rather the distinction is between countries that offer justice, freedom
and security and those that do not." Enough! This is the reality of the
conference, and there is no need to talk about Caliphate and Islamic rule, on
Muslims and non-Muslims, or if a call was harmed or aided, or whether a
method is correct or if it is futile. The struggle with the West now proceeds in
the framework of searching for loopholes for relations with it based upon
appeasing it, and accepting its ideology in exchange for its embracing the
Muslims.

Third: Bringing Down Jihad

The final statement for the conference believes that "Responsibility falls upon
the scholars of the Ummah to clearly and explicitly condemn all forms of
violence-to-change or protest inside or outside Muslim societies and state the
truth without obscurity or ambiguity." As for what pertains to "Fighting in the
Cause of Allah": "The law and authority to execute and implement it is
entrusted first to those who lead the community (heads of state) as a political
decision with weighty consequences derived from that." Therefore, "It is not
permitted for the individual Muslim or a group of Muslims to declare war or
engage in combative Jihad of their own accord. This (restriction) is to prevent
much evil and to truly uphold religious texts on this matter."

No doubt that this language was not drafted with any connection to the Ibn
Taymiyya fatwa worth mentioning. Many have preceded them in saying this
and this has no significance for the fatwa. Everything in this matter, from first

to last, has been said previously by the Organization of the Islamic Conference
which eliminated the definition of Jihad from the work schedule of its annual
summit, beginning with the summit in the Senegalese capital Dakar on
December 23, 1991, which convened the day after the end of the second Gulf
War. In our second article in the series of "The Stormy Autumn of Gaza -
Eliminating Jihad and Raping the Resistance", from January 21, 2009, we
paused at the official position on Jihad and all forms of resistance and we said
that the decision of the Dakar conference to drop Jihad meant that Arab and
Muslim rulers:

• They will not announce it one day, because it no longer exists on their
political agenda. And, because they are not committed to it even
theoretically and subsequently what need is there to commit to it
practically.

If they had risked Jihad as a religious obligation and vacated the legal
ruling on the Palestinian situation officially, what will prevent them from
risking resistance as a popular choice which equates to nothing when
compared to a religious doctrinal choice?

They will try to put in place the culture of "peace" in the official Arab
political mind, along the American path, in a fundamental manner to
replace the culture of resistance let alone the culture of Jihad.

They will not accept any Jihadist movement to the extent that they will
assign to it all causes of condemnation and failure if it is not connected to
their policies.

They will evade recognizing any flag of Jihad or resistance while on the
contrary any American intervention in the region against Jihadist groups
will be welcomed, (because) they have become terrorist groups!

They will take extreme measures against every dogmatic culture
beginning with banning preaching against the Jews and Crusaders on the
way to cleansing the mosques of "provocative" preachers and lecturers,
harassing them and even throwing oppositionist scholars into prison or
marginalizing them and encroaching upon their educational program and
ending the granting of government license permitting satellite preaching.

It is established that the sovereign rulers had not previously declared Jihad
based on the Mardin or other Fatwa, and they had not previously voided (Jihad)
based on them! We do not understand how Jihad can be dependant upon the
leader of the community (the sovereign ruler) when he is the one who legally
and politically voided it in all forms, including nationalist. In so far the fatwa
speaks originally of co-existence, peace and security, it is natural that the
conferees would resort to connecting Jihad to the responsibility of the ruler.
Meaning the fatwa is in perfect harmony with the official position which

abandons Jihad and resistance. This alone is enough to void the legality of the
fatwa, because in its basis it only takes into consideration the current political
calculus.

Then which ruler is meant? And what is his creed? What is the extent of his
legitimacy? What if he was a fabrication of the enemy in the first place? What
about his policies and clientage to the West and his assistance to them? What
is the legal position when Paul Bremer, the first American civilian ruler of Iraq
was regarded by some sheikhs and scholars as the sovereign ruler to whom fell
the victory and to whom obedience was a duty? What is the position on Jihad if
the ruler is an occupying invader? And what is the situation if the country is
ruled by the laws of occupation and its constitutions? What is the official
position on what some other sheikhs might consider a duty if the occupation
(forces) were raiding homes? When does Jihad become a duty?

The infallibility which the Mardin jurists have bestowed upon the sovereign
ruler and stripped away from his rivals does not take into consideration the
conditions of sovereignty, and does not mention at all any of the legal
situations in which the Ummah is obligated to depose the ruler and strip him of
his sovereignty. The ruler can commit treason or apostasy and form alliances
with enemies. There are many examples of this in Islamic history. So what is
the judgement on him? Then what is the position of the Mardin scholars on the
ruling against Arab leaders whom previous scholars had judged guilty of
apostasy and kufr. Did the Mardin fatwa duplicate those rulings? Does not this
logic make even the Pharaohs legal sovereign rulers!

If it is the duty of the scholars to condemn all forms of violence-to-change and
protest, and condemn every group that revolts against the sovereign ruler in
declaring Jihad, and regard Ibn Taymiyya's fatwa as non-applicable for this
time, then what about the violence which the sovereign ruler is able to practice
against the general public internally and externally? Was the Salvation Front
which won the elections in Algeria in 1990, for example practicing bloody
violence when the military launched the coup against them and were they
devoting themselves to murdering society? What is the legal ruling on those
who conducted the coup? Were they compelled to launch the coup by some
great misdeed? Amazing!!!

If every action of the sovereign ruler falls within the Islamic framework then
what is the ruling on the opposition when they make alliance with a foreign,
non-Muslim enemy and one day summon foreign forces to remove (the ruler)
as happened in Iraq? What is the legal ruling on the ruler and those who
oppose him among those who have sought foreign aid against others? What is
the true state of the victorious faction? Is its existence or non-existence
conditional upon the ruler? There is an astounding contradiction in the Mardin
announcement which does not go beyond the present moment lived by the
ruler strictly speaking. It provided no (legal) foundation to the extent that it
provided political positions.

Fourth: Loyalty and Enmity

The Mardin jurists have renounced al-wala' wal-bara' (loyalty and enmity)
"unless it is connected to a kuffar belief", and it is not mentioned in any
situation according to the statement; to five obligatory judgements which are
"permissible, recommended, not recommended, non-permissible and required",
which is nothing but acceptance of international law, treaties, national relations
and the rights and duties about which the final statement speaks. It is
therefore natural that the definition degrades to its lowest level in order to
reinforce the call for peace and confine Jihad in the hands of the sovereign
ruler.

Even though we know that the most prominent of contemporary scholars have
issued fatwas regarding international law and all man-made laws as kaffir laws,
but according to the statement they are "recognized"! So who established its
legitimacy? And who, other than Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayah and his
supporters, said that: "There is no great disparity between international pacts
and Islamic law with regards to the law of war and peace. ..the situation now is
distinguished by the existence of treaties which govern the entire world?"
Who, other than Doctor Hassan bin Muhammad has abandoned the division of
the Islamic world into the Abode of War and Abode of Peace: "There is nothing
in Islamic law", and "The root of establishing relations between nations is
peaceful ties, and this is what accords with the peaceful program set forth by
the Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, by corresponding
with kings and rulers of contemporary nations for the establishment of the
Islamic State in Medina al-Munawwara, calling them to peace and security, and
informing them of the establishment of the Islamic State." To whom then was
addressed the messages which included the famous phrase "Embrace Islam
and you shall have peace?"

His, peace be upon him, message to Khosru, King of Persia:

"I am the Messenger of Allah to all people, let all living be warned and
bear to the infidels the truth of the words, surrender to Islam and you
shall have peace, if you plot, the sins of the Maji are upon you. "

His message to al-Muqauqis of Egypt:

"/ call you to Islam. Submit and you shall have peace. Allah will
reward you twice. "

His message to Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium:

"I call you to the message of Islam. Submit and you shall have peace,
Allah will reward you twice, if you refrain, upon you are the sins of the
Arisiyin".

If the fatwa and subsequent statements of its patrons was based upon a clear
gap from which the Ummah is suffering, we would have said that the group was
justified and possessed of rare courage and that they speak frankly to the
Ummah. However, on the contrary, it came as a frantic effort to bypass the
legal ruling at a time when Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayah has accused the
adherents of Ibn Taymiyya of taking his words out of context or subtracting or
adding to them, in applying shari'ah rulings.

The problem with those Islamic groups with an international bent who have
discarded Ibn Taymiyya's fatwa or stripped it of legality - as al-Turayri says! - is
that their view of takfiri, terrorist and heretical groups is considered as nothing
but a cover for the abandonment of religion and appeasement of the West.
However, it will become action to discard the legitimacy of the remaining
groups, and this is occurring in any case, and from there it will lead to
abandonment of the basic principle and elements of religion. Then there will
be no kuffarand no takfiriyeen. We have heard official sermons which view the
Jews and Christians as Believers and we are aware of fatwas by scholars who
think that they are Believers to a certain degree! We have monitored crazy
protests against a ruling of kufr upon those who uttered it. We have read
writers who praise kufr and attack Allah, the Almighty; their books and stories
are distributed in Arabic countries, but the Mardin jurists did not say such as
these were kufr and did not come to mention them as examples of common
cases in the Ummah. Then why this affected ignorance, because they were not
the targets of the conference. If it is required to abrogate the judgement of
takfeer from Islam and no one remains except Believers on earth and
international agreements, then what is the value of religions? What is the
benefit of sending messengers and prophets? What is the value of the Believer
if there is no such thing as an unbeliever? Who then are the kaffirs about
whom the Glorious Quran speaks? How were they kaffirl If Allah, the Almighty
created Paradise for the Believers, for whom did He create the fire? So on what
basis are the people of the Global Jihad described as takfiriyeen when kaffirs
are ignored, as is rejecting their kufr? Rather it is a triumph for them under the
pretext of innovation and freedom of expression!!? Is there a greater infamy
than this?

Finally

The Mardin fatwa calls to mind the wave of studies of prisons for detainees
from the Salafist-Jihadist movements. Even though this method has been
exhausted by its authors and promoters it bears witness we still observe an
escalation of this matter, this time on the part of scholars, who have
summoned the scholars of the Ummah from history to subject them to
revisions of an unique kind. Not only this, but the call for revisionism includes
other jurists and scholars such as al-'lzz bin Abdul Salam, al-Shatabi and
others. And in the not distant future we will see reviews of Ibn Kathir, al-
Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Hashem, Ibn al-Qayyem al-Jawziyah, al-Zahabi, al-Tubra
and even the imams of the four schools, eventually arriving at a review of the
Glorious Quran under the pretext that some of the Ayas are not considered
appropriate for contemporary language! This has previously occurred on the
part of many of the atheists about whose ideas we read and became informed
at any early age. This, however was not Salafist-Jihadist or anything else.

Certainly, we are not opposed to reviewing (our) heritage by acknowledged
scholars of the Ummah whenever that is necessary in a way that accompanies
the times and answers independent judgements on questions posed, and stops
short of the great Revelations which the Ummah scholars of old found it difficult
to discover or predict. However, we will not accept reviews surrounded by
thousands of questions and suspicions, while there are legal rulings and
independent judgement that render them superfluous. It is amazing that it is
we alone who review. It is more amazing that when we review, we do not
return to where we started, but to where the Western and political regime
wants us to be. This is a collapse and not a review, and it is no ijtihad.

Therefore, we need to stop the review of Shar'ia foundations that enjoy
consensus, to renew the legal position concerning issues that have long
departed as points of interpretation and contention, as is often the case, such
as Muslim abodes, Western values, reconciliation with Israel and not with Jews,
alliance with the enemies and seeking their help, international law and its
agencies, ruling regimes, sovereignty of the ruler, Jihad, military bases in our
countries, plundering the wealth of the Ummah, playing with its resources,
lassitude, weakness, false rumors, meticulousness, distortion, innovation,
superstitions, political chicanery, the economy, commerce, development,
culture, relations with other civilizations and nations, the war on Islam, the
killing and pursuit of sinless Muslims, the defamation of Islam and the Muslims,
oppressing them, racism, attacks upon the Faith and Messenger of Allah, the
peace of Allah be upon him, and insolence to Allah.

Appendix 1

Text of the Closing Statement of the Mardin Conference

In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

The Declaration of Mardin, Abode of Peace

All Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds and Peace and Salutations be upon
Muhammad, who has been sent as a Mercy unto the Worlds, his family and all
of his companions.

A Peace Summit Conference (Mardin: The Abode of Peace), was convened in
the Turkish city of Mardin at the Artuklu University campus on Saturday and
Sunday (27-28 March 2010), under the auspices of the Global Center for
Renewal and Guidance (GCRG - based in London), in cooperation with Canopus
Consulting (based in Bristol), and sponsored by Artuklu University.

Participating in the conference was a group of renowned Muslim scholars, from
across the Muslim world, who brought with them diverse and relevant
specializations. They gathered in order to collectively study one of the most
important (classical juridical) foundations of the relations between Muslims and
fellow human beings, namely: the (classical juridical) classification of 'abodes'
{diyar), as Islamically conceived, and other related concepts such as jihad,
loyalty and enmity, citizenship, and migration (to non-Muslim territories).

They selected this juridical conceptual distinction, because of its importance in
the grounding of peaceful and harmonious co-existence and cooperation for
good and justice between Muslims and non-Muslims, provided that it is
understood in consonance with normative religious texts and maxims, and in
light of higher objectives of Islamic Law.

The organizers chose as the main research theme for the conference the legal
edict (fatwa) passed by Sheikh al-lslam Ibn Taymiyya concerning the
classification of the city of Mardin during his lifetime. The edict was chosen,
because of the significant intellectual, civilizational and symbolic meaning that
it holds.

The point of it is that Ibn Taymiyya, in his classification of the city of Mardin -
through his deep understanding of the Shari'ah and keen insight and
awareness of the context in which he lived - went beyond the classification that
was common amongst past Muslim jurists: Dividing territories into an Abode of
Islam (in which the primary state is peace), an Abode of Kufr (Unbelief) (in
which the primary state is war), and an Abode of 'A hd (Covenant) (in which the
primary state is truce), amongst other divisions (that they had stipulated).

Instead of the classification common in his age, Ibn Taymiyya came up with a
compound classification by virtue of which civil strife amongst Muslims was
averted, and their lives, wealth, and honor safeguarded, and justice amongst
them and others established.

His fatwa is one that is exceptional in its formulation and that, to a large
degree, addresses a similar context to our time, a political state of the world
that is different from the one encountered by past jurists, and which had
formed the basis for the particular way in which they had classified territories.

It is such a changed context that Ibn Taymiyya took into consideration when
passing his fatwa, and that now makes it imperative that contemporary jurists
review the classical classification, because of the changed contemporary
situation: Muslims are now bound by international treaties through which
security and peace have been achieved for the entire humanity, and in which
they enjoy safety and security, with respect to their property, integrity and
homelands.

Consequently, Muslims are interacting with others in unprecedented ways:
politically, socially and economically.

Contemporary jurists also need to review the classical classification of abodes,
because there is a real need for a sound Islamic and legal vision that does not
violate Islamic religious texts, but is in harmony with the higher objectives of
the Shari'ah, and engages our contemporary context.

In light of the above, the participants presented and discussed research papers
at the conference, and the following are the conclusions and recommendations
reached:

First Conclusions:

1. Ibn Taymiyya's fatwa concerning Mardin can under no circumstances be
appropriated and used as evidence for leveling the charge of kufr (unbelief)
against fellow Muslims, rebelling against rulers, deeming game their lives and
property, terrorizing those who enjoy safety and security, acting treacherously
towards those who live (in harmony) with fellow Muslims or with whom fellow
Muslims live (in harmony) via the bond of citizenship and peace. On the
contrary, the fatwa deems all of that unlawful, not withstanding its original
purpose of supporting a Muslim state against a non-Muslim state. Ibn Taymiyya
agrees with all of this, and follows, the precedent of previous Muslim scholars in
this regard, and does not deviate from their position. Anyone who seeks
support from this fatwa for killing Muslims or non-Muslims has erred in his
interpretation and has misapplied the revealed texts.

2. The classification of abodes in Islamic jurisprudence was a classification
based on ijtihad (juristic reasoning), that was necessitated by the
circumstances of the Muslim world then, and the nature of the international
relations prevalent at that time. However, circumstances have changed now:
The existence of recognized international treaties which consider as crimes
wars that do not involve repelling aggression or resisting occupation; the
emergence of civil states which guarantee, on the whole, religious, ethnic and
national rights; have necessitated declaring, instead the entire world as a place
of tolerance and peaceful co-existence between all religions, groups and
factions in the context of establishing common good and justice amongst
people, and wherein they enjoy safety and security with respect to their wealth,
habitations and integrity This is what the Shari'ah has been affirming and
acknowledging, and to which it has been inviting humanity, ever since the
Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) migrated to Medina and concluded

the first treaty agreement that guaranteed mutual and harmonious co-
existence between the factions and various ethnic groups in a framework of
justice and common interest. Shortcomings and breaches perpetrated by
certain states that happen to scar and mar this process cannot and should not
be used as a means for denying its validity and creating conflict between it and
the Islamic Shari'ah.

3. Amongst the priorities of Muslim scholars and Islamic academic institutions
should be the analysis and assessment of ideas that breed extremism, takfir
(labeling fellow Muslims as unbelievers) and violence in the name of Islam.
Security measures, no matter how fair and just they may happen to be, cannot
take the place of an eloquent (scholarly) elucidation supported by proof and
evidence. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Ummah's religious scholars to
condemn all forms of violent attempts to change or violent protest, within or
outside Muslim societies. Such condemnation must be clear, explicit, and be a
true manifestation of real courage in speaking the truth, so as to eliminate any
confusion or ambiguity

4. Muslim scholars throughout the ages have always stressed and emphasized
that the jihad that is considered the pinnacle of the religion of Islam, is not of
one type, but of many, and actually fighting in the Path of God is only one type.
The validation, authorization, and execution of this particular type of jihad is
granted by the Shari'ah to only those who lead the community (actual heads of
states). This is, because such a decision of war is a political decision with major
repercussions and consequences. Hence, it is not for a Muslim individual or
Muslim group to announce and declare war, or engage in combative jihad,
whimsically and on their own. This restriction is vital for preventing much evil
from occurring, and for truly upholding Islamic religious texts relevant to this
matter.

5. The basis of the legitimacy of jihad is that it is either to repel aggression

("Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not
transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors" — Surah al-
Baqarah, 190), or to aid those who are weak and oppressed ("And why
should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being
weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?" —Surah al-Nisa', 75), or in
defense of the freedom of worshiping ("To those against whom war is
made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; —
and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid" — Surah al-Hajj, 39).

It is not legitimate to declare war, because of differences in religion or in
search of spoils of war.

6. The issue of fatwas in Islam is a serious one. It is for this reason that
scholars have drawn up stringent prerequisites for the Mufti (the authority
issuing fatwas). Of these requirements is that he must be fully qualified in
scholarly knowledge. The conditions specific to the fatwa itself is having
established the proper object of application {manat) according to time, place,
circumstance, person and future outcome.

7. The notion of loyalty and enmity (al-wala wal-bara) must never be used to
declare anyone out of the fold of Islam, unless an actual article of unbelief is
held. In all other cases, it actually involves several types of judgement ranging

according to the juridical five-fold scale: (permissible, recommended, not
recommended, non-permissible, and required). Therefore, it is not permissible
to narrow the application of this notion and use it for declaring a Muslim
outside the fold of Islam.

Second Recommendations:

The participants in the conference suggested the following recommendations:

• Convening an annual conference in Europe to research and explore, the
Islamic conception of peace, and peaceful co-existence, between nations
and religions.

• Establishing the Mardin Center for Research in Islamic Political Theory.

• Creating research units and departments at Islamic universities and
postgraduate institutions concerned with research, training, and
qualifying of potential candidates, in the area of formulating and issuing
fatwas on public issues pertaining to the entire Muslim Ummah.

•

Encouraging theoretical and practical studies concerned with the
historical conditions and circumstances effecting the issuing of religious
edicts and opinions.

• Encouraging academic and scientific studies that focus on the historical
circumstances and conditions in which the edicts of great scholars were
issued in the past.

• Making more effort in revising, editing, and exploring the legacy of
Sheikh al-lslam Ibn Taymiyya - may Allah have mercy on him - and the
legacy of the exemplary scholars, with respect to their impact on the
Muslim world and what is hoped to be gained from a sound and correct
understanding of their respective legacies in terms of guiding and
directing both the general public and specialists.

• Referring the declaration to the various fiqh (juridical) academies in the
Muslim world for the purpose of enriching it, deepening discussion
around it and extending its benefit (to a wider audience).

In conclusion, the organizers and participants wish to extend their heartfelt
gratitude and appreciation to all those who contributed to the success of the
conference, and first and foremost amongst them the Governor of Mardin, the
President of Artuklu University, and the Mufti of Mardin.

May God send his peace and salutation upon our master, Muhammad, his
family and his Companions, and all Praise be to God through Whose bounty and
favour righteous works are completed.

Appendix 2

Text of the Fatwa of Ibn Taymiyya

He, may Allah have mercy upon him, was asked about the country of Mardin,
was it the Abode of War or the Abode of Peace? Must any Muslim dwelling
there emigrate to Islamic countries or not? And if he must emigrate, but does
not emigrate, and he helps the enemies of the Muslims with his person and his
money, does he thereby commit a sin? Does the one who insults him and
accuses him of hypocrisy sin or not?

He answered:

"Praise be to Allah. The blood and wealth of Muslims are forbidden whether
they are in Mardin or elsewhere. Aiding those who have deviated from the
Shari'ah of the Religion of Islam is forbidden whether they are the people of
Mardin or others. If a (Muslim) residing there cannot establish his Religion then
migration is a duty, otherwise it is recommended but not fulfilled.

Assisting the enemy with their persons or their wealth is forbidden to them.
They must refrain from that in any possible way, by omission, demonstration or
cooperation. If this is not possible except by migration then this is incumbent
upon them.

It is not permissible to curse them generally or to charge them with hypocrisy.
Rather the curse and the charge of hypocrisy falls along the characteristics
mentioned in al-Kitab wal-Sunnah, thus some of the people of Mardin and
others will fall under this.

As for its being the Abode of War or of Peace, the two definitions are fixed upon
it: It does not have the status of Abode of War whose people are infidels, and it
does not have the status of Abode of Peace where the rulings of Islam are
implemented, because its soldiers are Muslims (meaning its soldiers are not
Muslims). Nor does it have the status of Abode of War whose people are
infidels (for there are many Muslim residents); rather there is a third
classification in which the Muslim appropriately acts, and battles those who are
outside the Shari'ah of Islam as befits him". Here ends his words, may Allah
have mercy on him. (Fatwa 28: 240-241)

Don't Forget Your Brothers at

Ansar al-Mujahideen English Forum

http : ansari.info