Bilal Abdul Kareem: Everyone by now knows what took place last summer in that the group known as the ISIS or ISIL or tanzeem ad dawlah in Arabic, declared a khilafa, Now this khilafa means that they are now an Islamic state and that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is the leader of all of the muslims, Now do you see that this so called khilafa is valid?
Abu Qatada: You will not find a single Muslim who is serious about his faith and afterlife except that he knows he must work to re-establish the rule of Allah. It has been termed in political spheres as “Khilaafa”.
It’s a name which came from Abu Bakr (ra) who succeeded the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa salam) in leading the Muslim nation, that’s why he was called the khalifa of the Prophet (salallahu alayhi wa salam).
The general meaning is the application of the law of Allah on both Muslims and non-Muslims; this is the belief of all Muslims. Therefore no one has the right to obstruct the establishment of the Islamic state. If this state is established then it is upon the Muslims to support it and give the oath of allegiance to its leader.
However this is not the topic of the question. The topic of the question is about that which is taking place in Iraq and Syria, is this the leadership upon which it is obligatory upon the Muslims to give the oath of allegiance to its leader? Is it obligatory upon them to fight alongside them and oppose those who oppose them? This is the real question.
I believe this has been explained before. This declaration has no right to be given the honourable name of the “Khalifa”, this is a false claim and incorrect call. This is my stances which I have mentioned in the book “The Cloak of Khilaafa”.
There are some issues which have become more apparent concerning this group. We love those who fight against the enemies of Islam, however this group, in Syria, fights against the mujahideen. They are usurping the name “Mujahid” but in reality they are not fighting in Syria from an Islamic standpoint, this is clear both from their actions and their statements.
They call for oath of allegiance from the Muslims yet they cause division, chaos and strife between Muslims in every country .They incite the common people against the scholars and actually to kill the scholars and to point the weapons at mujahideen .There is no benefit of jihad in Syria if it’s going to be carried out in this fashion. This group called “The state” does not represent Islam, not because they oppose the enemies of Allah, if that was the premise then it would obligatory on myself and every Muslim to support those fighting enemies of Allah.
We don’t oppose ISIS because they oppose the enemies of Allah, One might say: “Look! He prefers ISIS enemies against them.” This is a lie. History will bear witness and the true state of affairs will bear witness that we made no deal with non-Muslims against any Muslims. And if… and I would like to touch on an important point. Because and only because ISIS makes takfir on the Muslims and kills them do I and others have the right to speak against them, Even if it is an Islamic state. We’d say: “ what you’re doing is wrong. May Allah correct you. Check the path that you’re on regarding fighting for Allah’s sake” and we’d make supplication for them just like other mujahid. Let no one come and say that we stand with the enemies of Islam against ISIS because this is a lie!
We stand against ISIS because they are targeting the Muslims. This is our position. As for their fighting against the Iranian Shia in Iraq, apostates, and Alawites then this is a praiseworthy jihad. However generally speaking this is not what we see them doing, specifically in the Syrian territories, I want to make these points clear as the ignorant person may not have the ability to make sense of it or convey it. We don’t oppose ISIS because they oppose the enemies of Allah, we oppose them because they oppose sincere mujahideen, they made takfir on them , fought them, slaughtered them, enslaved their women and other things that are known to everyone.
Bilal Abdul Kareem: Now some people are saying that knowing who the people are who gave Abu Bakr Al Bagdadi the mandate to declare himself to be the Khalifa is not actually a condition for accepting him as the leader or accepting his leadership. What is the Islamic position concerning this declaration of people who no one actually knows who they are?
Abu Qatada: If we want to discuss the oath of allegiance to a Khalifa from an Islamic legal perspective then we will find that their oath is invalid. Here I want to officially say something most haven’t head from me except those closest to me, and they have heard it many times. I want to say it now in hopes that it would spread. They should have declared the caliphate on the methodology of Ahlus Sunnah, meaning that they shouldn’t have made takfir on the Muslims and shouldn’t have killed the Muslims and shouldn’t have called for the splitting of the ranks of the Mujahideen.
They should have said “we’ve raised the banner of khilafa for those who are willing then let them enter our ranks, for those that don’t then we will not force it upon you”
Because enjoining the khilaafa only happens under two circumstances: the first is by way of willing acceptance. If they are willing to accept it then they are part of it.
However whoever refuses it then it is only obligatory to accept it if it has been imposed by force. Anyway this way is not permissible. it’s not permissible for them to begin in this fashion.
However if power has been usurped through force by an oppressor and he is ruling only then do we accept it. Not in the beginning and not in the middle but only when his power grab is complete.
But they have corrupted this understanding.
They made takfir…. this takfir has no attachment to the religion. They are using takfir to take away the legitimacy from other groups. This is something in which they’re deceivers and ignorant. They use issues to make takfir on others that they’ve fallen into.
If others dealt with them using the same principals they use to judge then they themselves would be put out of the religion.
Therefore I say, if the caliphate was built upon that, and they say “We don’t make takfir, nor do we fight so the leadership is only for us, nor do we call to division of the Muslims, actually we call for unity”. Even then the issue of caliphate would be an open interpretation.
It is permissible to overlook some small innovations that don’t amount to one being outside of the ranks of Ahlus Sunnah.
If it’s an issue of difference of opinion. Like a group that splits from the rest we could say “You have done something wrong” But don’t make takfir and possibly enter area’s that take you out of Ahlus Sunnah. The split occurred but maybe it will be reconciled.
The tragedy is that they don’t only affect themselves but others as well. They made takfir on all the groups in Syria. They made takfir in general on these groups as if it’s a malicious game. They even made takfir on those doing good works!
Amazing. If these issues were minor then it wouldn’t be allowed to call them innovators or declare them out of Ahlus Sunnah.
But they are khawaarij, killers and criminals.
The catastrophe now after all that has taken place as a result of their actions we needn’t talk about a caliphate. I’m sorry for taking so mch time but I must say it. The current moment is not the time to be discussing a Caliphate. That which is worthy of discussing now is what will happen after the Caliphate.
This innovated, corrupt and lame caliphate is on its sharp decline.
Someone might say “You’re happy about what is happening in Iraq!”. To that I would say I am more distressed than them. I know the ramifications and the consequences that have started to appear in the killings of the Sunni women. You can hear it on the news, the killing of members on the scholars council, the imaams of the Masajid, the weak. Look what the Yazidis do the the people in the cities after Baghdadis group withdraws. There are huge tragedies.
Who is responsible? The criminal Baghdadi and his group.
Bilal Abdul Kareem: You are particularly concerned about the people of, the sunni Muslims in the areas controlled by ISIS. If this group (ISIS) should fall then your concern what will happen to the Sunni Muslims from what we have seen from some of the Shia death squads. You are concerned about that?
Abu Qatada: Without a doubt I am concerned and very afraid for Sunni Muslims in Iraq. This deviant group has given a free license to other factions to kill Sunni Muslims.
Now they are being pushed out of towns and villages and they surrender these places to the enemies of Sunni Muslims. So when these factions re take these places they come with extreme hatred. This hated is a result of what these ignorant ones have done.
The catastrophe I fear will happen in Syria is regarding the foreign fighters and their wives. It is upon the Mujahideen and the scholars to prepare themselves for how they will deal with the difficulties ahead after ISIS has fallen.
The thinking now has to be what will happen after the fall of ISIS. ISIS is on the sharp decline.
Even when ISIS was at the height of its power I said it was a bubble. Now that reality is apparent as it collapses from within.
Trusted sources from within have said many of those who went to ISIS full of enthusiasm looking for the image that was advertised to them were disappointed as the illusion has begun to fade.
The trials and tribulations have come to the point that many of them feel that they live in a police state. A few days ago they killed two persons who tried to flee.
There are groups of individuals who have left already but they fear publicizing it for a host of reasons. There are those thinking of ways to escape.
ISIS has begun to crack from within This is more dangerous to them than external threats.
ISIS has provoked the world in the most foolish way and gone about waging warfare impermissibly in fighting the Mujahideen. So the mujahideen are leaving them and resisting them. Thus the success from Allah is withheld from them as they will see.