Monthly Archives: December 2014

A Declaration of Disownment and Divergence From the ideology and actions of ISIS

الرحمن الرحيم

الترجمة الإنجليزية لبيان (البراءة والمفاصلة)

للشيخ د. طارق عبدالحليم والشيخ د. هاني السباعي

Translated from Arabic 

A Declaration of 

Disownment and Divergence

From the ideology and actions of ISIS


Shaykh Dr. Tariq Abdelhaleem & Shaykh Dr. Hani Sibai

Dated 19 Jamada II 1435H or 19 April 2014

Translation Published 6 Rabi I 1436AH 28 December 2014

 Download (PDF):


 Read Online:

Publications of Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies

إصدارات مركز المقريزي للدراسات التاريخية

Published by Al-Maqreze Media Centre


وجزاكم الله خيرا .


Kufr bi Taghut is a conditon of the Shahaadah

By Shaykh Hamood Ibn Uqla ash Shuaybee


From the conditions of the correctness of Tawheed is kufr bi Taghut and there is no Imaan except after kufr bi Taghut outwardly and inwardly.

Allah Says:

فَمَن يكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيؤْمِنْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَى لا انفِصَامَ لَهَا وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ 

Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is the All Hearer the Allah Knower

Surat Al Baqarah 2:256

And Allah Said:

وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَّسُولاً أَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَاجْتَنِبُوا الطَّاغُوتَ 

And verily We have sent among every Ummah a Messenger (proclaiming) worship Allah and avoid Taghut

Surat An Nahl 16:36

And the Messenger of Allah salallahu alayhi wa salam said:

من قال لا إله إلا الله وكفر بما يعبد من دون الله حرم ماله ودمه وحسابه على الله

Whoever says there is no god but Allah and disbelieves in what is worshipped other than Allah, then his blood and wealth is haram and his reckoning is with Allah.

Saheeh Muslim

Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab said: “Whoever worships Allah day and night, then makes Dua to a prophet or a wali in the grave then he has taken two gods and and he has not in fact testified that there is no god but Allah, as a god is the one who is made dua to like the Mushrikeen done at the grave of Zubayr or Abdul Qadir or other than them. And whoever sacrifices for Allah one thosand times, then sacrifices to a Prophet or other than him, then he has taken two gods as Allah Said:

 قُلْ إنَّ صَلاتِي وَنُسُكِي وَمَحْياي وَمَمَاتِي لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ 

Say verily my prayer and my sacrifice and my living and my dying is for Allah, the Lord of the Alamin.

Surat Al Anaam 6:162



To Answer: What is the proof of ISIS being Haroriyah Khawarij?

Dr Tariq Abdelhaleem


The golden rule says, “Whenever Muslims fight other Muslims without making Takfir of them, they are called “aggressors”. Whenever Muslims make Takfir of other Muslims, without fighting them, they are called “fanatic”. However, whenever Muslims make Takfir to other Muslims and fight them they are called “Haroriyah”. The key is making Takfir, then fighting, and killing Muslims, based on their own categorization of Kufr. When we mention Takfir, we mean Takfir without having a definite proof from shariat of Kufr, but only based on doubts and about issues that are not consented on by Ahlul-sunnah Scholars of this time or of all times. Having such claims of Kufr by ignorant, opportunists, and pretentious-half-educated subjects of ISIS does not count for any proof. Scholars are those whom Ummah have taken as leaders of Knowledge (Ilm). If common people, or a bunch of pretentious half-educated personnel consent on making Takfir of any one, and hence sentence him to death, that doesn’t make it a correct Shariat ruling, except within the sect of Bidaa Haroriyah. This sect were called by our Prophet PBUH “dogs of the people of hellfire”, especially when they use made-up titles such as “Sahawat”, without a definite proof. The definite proof that those people of Awadiyah (ISIS) are actually Khawarij (Haroriyah) is killing hundreds of Mujahedeen by calling them Sahawat, Kufaar and Murtadoon without a definite proof. We can attribute the name, which the Prophet PBUH related to Haroriyah, Dogs of the people of hellfire, to that group, within the boundary of shariat, as their action of killing the Mujahedoon without definite proof is identical to what the Prophet PBUH had set in Sahih Hadith as a description of Haroriyah.

While ISIS and we agree that, whoever kills a Muslim by calling him a Kafir without proof is a Harori. We both agree that those Mujahedoon were Muslims before the dispute. We are contesting the baseless proof they use to kill those Mujahedoon. The dispute on the proof of Kufr, especially one that is made-up by such very low caliber personnel in shariat sciences, takes it out as a proof altogether. It is then our claim that they are Haroriyah is the correct conclusion, especially that those Mujahedoon were Muslims before the dispute.

Dr Tariq Abdelhaleem

December 21, 2014

When the man of the house commits a sin, has he ruled by other than what Allah Revealed?


The Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said:

قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: كلكم راع وكلكم مسؤول عن رعيته

{“All of you are shepherds, and all of you are responsible over their flock..”}

In this we can understand that a father is responsible for his family and he will be asked about them. Due to this, the neo-Murji’ah of today use this misconception against us that if the man of the house rules with something other than what Allah reveals, and starts to judge according to his desires, it means that he becomes an disbeliever just like the ruler who judges with something other than what Allah has revealed.

He says, for example, that we say that the ruler has changed the rule of law and exchanged it with something else, and the man of a house wants to divide his inheritance according to his desires, shave his beard, or commit other sins. By this they have rules with something other than what Allah has revealed and changed his laws and exchanged them with something else, and thus according to our stance has become a disbeliever. We ask our respected scholars to give us a response firm rooted in the Quran and Sunnah.


In the Name of Allah. All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be on His Noble Prophet, and upon all his family and companions. To proceed:

Because these con-artists are unable to prove their stance with clear and evident proofs, they resort to this method of trying to distort concepts and play around with religious terminology. In this fallacious misconception, they have tried to generalize the concept of hukm (judgement, ruling), forcing it to include even a’maal (actions), so that there no longer remains any difference between judgement and actions! If we were to say this, it would mean that whoever committed any type of sin would become a disbeliever, because he has judged with other than what Allah has revealed. This is the exact ideology of the Khawaarij!

The Khawaarij, either due to their ignorance or their deviance, do not differentiate between the concepts of judgement and actions, and thus they declare anyone who commits sin as disbelievers, seeking evidence in the saying of Allah:

وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ

{“Whoever does not judge and rule with what Allah has revealed, it is them who are the disbelievers.”} [al-Maidah 5:44]

As these people are like the Khawaarij in that that do not differentiate between the concepts of judgement and action, both of them have come to incorrect conclusions.

The conclusion drawn by the Khawaarij is that anyone who commits a sin is a disbeliever, because he has ruled with something other than what Allah has revealed, while the conclusion drawn by these others is that one who judges with other than what Allah has revealed is not a disbeliever, because he has committed a sin, and the creed of Ahl-us-Sunnah is that a person does not become a disbeliever by merely committing a sin! To clarify the misconception of the neo-Kharijites, we say that there is a difference between judging with other than what Allah has revealed and other sins about which there is no evidence to prove that it is disbelief. The first is considered disbelief which takes a person out of the fold of Islam due to the evidence found in this regard, while the second is not considered disbelief because there is no evidence to prove so.

Also, to be able to clearly differentiate between the concepts of judgement and action, we must exactly define what judgement is. Judgement is that one judges and rules between people by setting laws, and in matters of dispute and the affairs of the general masses by the rulers. Thus, the concept of judgement is limited to the actions of a judge, ruler which is enforced upon the general masses. The judgement mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah is only of this type, and this is been mentioned in over one hundred places in the Quran. The obligation of ruling with what Allah has revealed is addressed to the judge and the ruling Imam. It is not inclusive of the rest of the people. Thus, the ruling of the verse in Surah al-Maidah is not inclusive of them, because they are not being addressed in this obligation of judgement.

As for them seeking evidence in the hadeeth:

قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: كلكم راع وكلكم مسؤول عن رعيته

{“All of you are shepherds, and all of you are responsible over their flock..”}

It is nothing but more proof of their paying around with the textual evidence. Ibn-ul-Atheer said in explanation of this hadeeth: {“All of you are shepherds, and all of you are responsible over their flock. This means that they are entrusted guardians, and the flock are all those who fall under his guardianship.”} [An-Nihaayah fee Ghareeb Al-Aathaar, 2/581]

An-Nawawi said: {“The scholars have stated that the shepherd is the entrusted guardian who ensures the well-being of that which he has been tasked and those under his guardianship. It also means that he has been commanded with justice in regards to those under his guardianship and to do what is required to fulfill their best interests in this life and the next.”} [Sharh An-Nawawi alaa Muslim 12/213]

Ibn Battal said Al-Mulhib said: {“A slave entrusted with the wealth of his master. He is required protect what he has been entrusted like all other shepherds, and that he not do anything the majority of the time except by the permission of his master.”}. [Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhari by Ibn Battal 6/531]. The meaning of the hadeeth, thus, is that all people, whether the Imam, a man, a woman or slave, are required with that which they have been entrusted. This is the reason they have been compared with shepherds, while each has their own specific responsibility and rulings.

Ibn Hajar said Al-Khattabi said: {“The Imam and other men have both been called this term, described as shepherds, but their meanings are different. The flock of the Imam is the religion, by establishing the Hudood and being just in his rulings. The flock of a man is his family, running of their affairs and fulfilling their rights. The flock of the woman is to look after the affairs of the house, her children, her servants, remaining loyal to her husband in all this. The flock of the servant is to protect what he has been entrusted with and to fulfill what he has been tasked with.”} [Fath-ul-Bari 13/113]

The specific role of the Imam is judgement amongst his flock, and the specific task of the man of the house is to take care of his family, and the specific role of the woman is to take care of the house. Thus, we do not call the man of the house a ruler or judge, just like we do not call the ruler or judge the man of the house. With this, it should be clear that all of them are similar that they have been called shepherds, but each is different according to their tasks. And Allah knows best.

And all praise is due to Allah, the Lord of all that that exists.

Answered by Sheikh Abu al-Munthir as-Shinqitee.

When the Jihâd is for the Sake of America


By the Shaykh Nâsir al-Fahd (may Allâh hasten his release)

In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

All Praise is for Allâh, and may Peace and Blessings be upon the Messenger of Allâh.

As for what follows:

So, we have heard recently the news of the Jihâd and the increase in armed resistance against the Crusaders in the Lands of the Two Rivers (al-‘Irâq), and following that, we came to know of the stance of the country known as Saudi Arabia regarding this resistance and its criminalizing any support for it.

And in this document, I do not wish to provide the evidences for the legislation of this Jihâd and assisting it, as this is a whole other issue. Rather, I want to expose the hypocrisy of this state by giving a quick comparison between its stance regarding the previous Afghân Jihâd against the Russians, and the present Jihâd in ‘Irâq and Afghânistân against the Americans.


The Russians came with a massive military campaign, during which they targeted the lands of the Afghâns (only), and installed a government that was subservient to them. Whereas, the Americans came with a massive military campaign in which they targeted the lands of the Afghâns as well as the land of ‘Irâq, and installed in them those who are subservient to them, and the Saudi government did not recognize the government of the Russians in Afghânistân, but it recognized the governments of America in Afghânistân and ‘Irâq.


The Saudi government encouraged the Afghân Mujâhidîn and supported them materially and morally, while it painted the Mujâhidîn in ‘Irâq as criminals and warned against supporting them. Rather, it made support of them to be a crime even if this support consisted simply of Qunoot and supplication for them!


The Saudi government let the Mashâyikh and the scholars to support the Afghân Jihâd and to issue fatâwâ in its favor, while it has now outlawed any fatwâ regarding the Jihâd in ‘Irâq. Rather, it has made the scholars issue verdicts that outlaw and forbid any participation in it.


The Saudi government assisted the youth in going to the Jihâd in Afghânistân, and lightened their (financial) burden of going by over 75%, while it outlawed going to the Jihâd in ‘Irâq, and whoever did this and fell into their clutches, then his destination would be the depths of prison!


The Saudi government hosted the leadership of the Jihâd in Afghânistân and allowed them to give lectures in their land, while it joined the Crusaders in hunting down the leadership of the Jihâd in ‘Irâq.

And the overall conclusion that can be drawn from this quick comparison is that when the Jihâd in Afghânistân was against the enemies of America, and served the interests of America, it was considered, according to the Saudi government, to be Jihâd for the Sake of Allâh, and it was allowed for the Mashâyikh to issue rulings regarding it, and material and moral support of it. And whoever participated in it from the youth was presented with that which would facilitate his going there, and he was referred to as a ‘Mujâhid’!

And when the Jihâd now in Afghânistân and ‘Irâq is against America and against the interests of America, it is ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’ and its people are hunted and killed. And whoever supports them with a fatwâ or with wealth is imprisoned – let alone those who support them with men – and it is not allowed for the scholars to issue fatâwâ regarding it. Rather, it is the opposite: they are to issue verdicts forbidding anyone from going to ‘Irâq and that the actions that take place there are ‘terrorist’ acts, not Jihâd.

So, the issue is very clear, and it is: that this (Saudi) state does not know of Jihâd or anything else for the sake of Allâh. Rather, it only knows Jihâd for the sake of America. So what the Crusaders allow, it (the Saudi government) allows and supports; and what the Crusaders don’t allow, then they don’t allow either.

And Allâh is Controlling of His Affairs, even if the disbelievers hate that.

(Sidenote: So, its support of the Afghân Mujâhidîn in the past was because of that serving American interests in the region, just as in the 1980s (during the Reagan administration), the Saudi state supported the Contra rebels in Nicaragua – as the American president himself embarrassed them by exposing this – because the revolution there served the interests of America. Otherwise, both sides of that conflict were disbelievers, the region is empty of resources and there was no interest for the Muslims in that war. Rather, it was Jihâd for the sake of America!!)