Some Islamic factions killed an Egyptian journalist who was insulting Islam and its people, so the government summoned Shaykh al-Ghazali to issue a ruling on this matter.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Shaykh, there is an Egyptian journalist in Egypt who is known for constantly writing against Islam, so some of the Islamic groups there killed him in Egypt, so he was summonedThe Shaykh : Muhammad al-Ghazali, who is contemporary to the testimony in this case, testified that it is permissible for any Islamic faction or sect to establish the hudud of Allah upon a Muslim if they are able to do so. Consequently, this person is an apostate, so it is permissible to kill him. Therefore, those who killed him are correct!
The Shaykh : Strange! Al-Ghazali says this?!
The questioner : Yes, so what is your opinion on this?!
Another questioner : This is a problem.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : A problem, the whole world spread it, and therefore even the... what is its name?! The International Human Rights League.
Another questioner : They protested, meaning?
The questioner : They didn't just protest, they demanded that Hosni Mubarak publicly disavow al-Ghazali's statement, the Human Rights Commission.
The Shaykh : The Human Rights Commission?
The questioner : The Human Rights Commission.
Another questioner : What is your comment on this statement, that if a group of Egyptians is able to apply the hudud of Allah in society, that this is permissible? Is this correct?
The Shaykh : No, this is not correct at all. But my brother, al-Ghazali and others like him, they bring back to us the memory of the old School of Opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y), who used to rule by their opinions and their minds. Whatever their minds preferred was the Shari'ah, and whatever they found ugly was not Shari'ah. We know that establishing the Shari'ah hudud is part of the duty of the Muslim ruler. But when he adopts such an opinion, he throws the words out casually, as it is said, "on their heads," and wants to appear before people as one who has moral courage. So he issues this ruling while knowing that the state under whose authority he lives denies it to him without a doubt. And yet he speaks with these words so that it can be said: "How knowledgeable he is, how courageous he is, and so on." There is absolutely nothing in Islam, no evidence from the Book, nor from the Sunnah, nor from the opinion of any of the Muslim scholars, that the individual Muslim takes upon himself the establishment of the hudud. If this were said to al-Ghazali: if a man killed a Muslim unjustly, is it permissible for the victim's family to kill him? I believe his opinion would change completely.
The questioner : No, he says: it is permissible.
The Shaykh : Even in this case?
The questioner : Yes, yes.
The Shaykh : This is strange.
The questioner : But I, but our Shaykh, do you know what he says?!
The Shaykh: No.
The questioner : There is a condition that Brother Abu 'Abd al-'Aziz forgot!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : He says: It does not mean that he says it is not permissible. He did not use this exact wording. He says: If one of the Muslims kills him, he is not to be killed for it, and he is sinful for his action.
The Shaykh : No, this is different!
The questioner : Yes, this is what he says.
The questioner : He is saying.
The Shaykh : No, this is completely different.
The questioner : Yes?
The Shaykh : This is different.
The questioner : Yes, this is what he says.
Another questioner : No, Shaykh, he is saying: that any faction of the Muslim community, if they agree to establish one of the hudud of Allah in the Muslim society, it is permissible!
The questioner : And he says this?!
Another questioner : And he cited as evidence the action of Ibn Taymiyyah, and this was in an Egyptian magazine that published this statement, more than the Jordanian newspapers.
The questioner : Because this opinion or this statement that I am saying with this condition and this, this is what the scholars have said before. So al-Ghazali, this is what I thought he was saying!
The Shaykh : Did you hear this statement?
The questioner : I read it.
The Shaykh : No, no, what Abu Malik is telling?
The questioner : No, no, it is not this.
The Shaykh : Meaning this is another issue!
The questioner : Ah, no doubt.
The Shaykh : This issue with this explanation is fine.
The questioner : Less harm, yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, ah.
The questioner : No, rather he cites as evidence the action of Ibn Taymiyyah, saying: that Ibn Taymiyyah in his era established some of the hudud with a group of his companions, for example, he rebuked the drinkers of alcohol, and he used to enter the taverns and break them while he was with a group of his companions, with the knowledge of the Muslim ruler who did not establish the hudud upon him. So if any group of Muslims agrees to establish one of the hudud of Allah and they are able to do so within the state, or in the presence of the caliph who does not deny this, there is no harm.
The Shaykh : Ha, now the statement has changed again, the topic has changed completely, my brother. Now:
The questioner : The evidences, meaning, for the statement we said first.
The Shaykh : Excuse me, but is his statement this, or is this your evidence?
The questioner : No, no, this statement is, he was summoned to testify in this matter, what is your opinion, this group of Takfir and Hijrah (Excommunication and Emigration) killed the Egyptian journalist, such as Fawda.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : So what do you say about this, is this permissible by the Shari'ah? He said yes, it is permissible, because this person is an apostate, his ruling is that of an apostate because he constantly attacks Islam and Muslims and says such and such. So if they are able to kill him, this means establishing the hudud within the state, so there is no harm upon them.
The Shaykh : Ha, but he cited the case of Ibn Taymiyyah!
The questioner : Among the circumstances, he brought evidence like Ibn Taymiyyah.
The Shaykh : Now we say: Is the situation in Egypt now as it was in the era of Ibn Taymiyyah?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : Meaning: Ibn Taymiyyah was authorized by the implicit consent of the highest ruler. Now, they are not authorized to establish the hudud, rather they are being fought with the most severe fighting.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So his evidence with the action of Ibn Taymiyyah is not valid, because the situation has changed, and the results of the change are very serious!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : In the time of Ibn Taymiyyah, one of these people who established the hudud was not killed, whereas today in Egypt they are killed without establishing the hudud.
The questioner : Without anything.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Without anything!
The Shaykh : Without anything, so this is evidence, meaning, to the contrary of what he went to completely, and this indicates one of two things: the man is not truly a jurist, or that he follows his desire, for the reason I mentioned earlier, that he wants to appear before people as one who has moral courage.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, here he is in disagreement with them.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : He is in disagreement with them, Imam al-Ghazali is in disagreement with these Islamic groups now in Egypt!
The Shaykh : Yes, this is correct.
The questioner : So his statement supports them, even though he is in disagreement with them.
The Shaykh : Yes, and this confirms that the man's fatwa is not derived from Shari'ah evidence, but rather he wants to mislead people into thinking that he has evidence: the fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah. But Ibn Taymiyyah, the environment he was in was one where the ruler allowed him to act on his behalf in establishing the Shari'ah hudud, meaning as if the ruler's tongue at that time was saying: "May Allah reward you with good, you are performing a duty in which we are falling short." Whereas now the situation!
The questioner : He turned a blind eye to it!
The Shaykh : Yes, now the situation is completely different.
The questioner : No, there is another thing!!
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Meaning, one of the most dangerous results following from this: that I have the right, as long as this fatwa is heard and not denied, even by the ruler himself now, like one like Hosni Mubarak: that I can kill any disbeliever!
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Any disbeliever I can kill in any of the Muslim societies, and there will be no harm in that, neither to the Muslim killer himself, nor to the Muslim community itself. Imagine what the results will be!!
The Shaykh : No, I believe if there were a person who argued with al-Ghazali on this fatwa, he would be defeated miserably from the Shari'ah perspective, and he would be placed in, what should I tell you: a very difficult position for the ruling system there. And although we all deny the ruling system in Egypt now with the strongest denial, but his matter is strange with this fatwa!
The questioner : Shaykh, even the Islamic parties do like that man who killed ninety-nine souls and added to make it a hundred, they would catch up with him!
The Shaykh : Hehehe, yes, by Allah.
The questioner : No, he is on his share.
Another questioner : Strange, ah yes.
The questioner : Very strange, and I do not know why al-Ghazali specifically!
The Shaykh : Allah knows his intention!
The questioner : Why al-Ghazali?
Another questioner : Because he was like a defense lawyer for the government, between, meaning.
The questioner : Meaning this is it.
The Shaykh : Strange! Al-Ghazali says this?!
The questioner : Yes, so what is your opinion on this?!
Another questioner : This is a problem.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : A problem, the whole world spread it, and therefore even the... what is its name?! The International Human Rights League.
Another questioner : They protested, meaning?
The questioner : They didn't just protest, they demanded that Hosni Mubarak publicly disavow al-Ghazali's statement, the Human Rights Commission.
The Shaykh : The Human Rights Commission?
The questioner : The Human Rights Commission.
Another questioner : What is your comment on this statement, that if a group of Egyptians is able to apply the hudud of Allah in society, that this is permissible? Is this correct?
The Shaykh : No, this is not correct at all. But my brother, al-Ghazali and others like him, they bring back to us the memory of the old School of Opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y), who used to rule by their opinions and their minds. Whatever their minds preferred was the Shari'ah, and whatever they found ugly was not Shari'ah. We know that establishing the Shari'ah hudud is part of the duty of the Muslim ruler. But when he adopts such an opinion, he throws the words out casually, as it is said, "on their heads," and wants to appear before people as one who has moral courage. So he issues this ruling while knowing that the state under whose authority he lives denies it to him without a doubt. And yet he speaks with these words so that it can be said: "How knowledgeable he is, how courageous he is, and so on." There is absolutely nothing in Islam, no evidence from the Book, nor from the Sunnah, nor from the opinion of any of the Muslim scholars, that the individual Muslim takes upon himself the establishment of the hudud. If this were said to al-Ghazali: if a man killed a Muslim unjustly, is it permissible for the victim's family to kill him? I believe his opinion would change completely.
The questioner : No, he says: it is permissible.
The Shaykh : Even in this case?
The questioner : Yes, yes.
The Shaykh : This is strange.
The questioner : But I, but our Shaykh, do you know what he says?!
The Shaykh: No.
The questioner : There is a condition that Brother Abu 'Abd al-'Aziz forgot!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : He says: It does not mean that he says it is not permissible. He did not use this exact wording. He says: If one of the Muslims kills him, he is not to be killed for it, and he is sinful for his action.
The Shaykh : No, this is different!
The questioner : Yes, this is what he says.
The questioner : He is saying.
The Shaykh : No, this is completely different.
The questioner : Yes?
The Shaykh : This is different.
The questioner : Yes, this is what he says.
Another questioner : No, Shaykh, he is saying: that any faction of the Muslim community, if they agree to establish one of the hudud of Allah in the Muslim society, it is permissible!
The questioner : And he says this?!
Another questioner : And he cited as evidence the action of Ibn Taymiyyah, and this was in an Egyptian magazine that published this statement, more than the Jordanian newspapers.
The questioner : Because this opinion or this statement that I am saying with this condition and this, this is what the scholars have said before. So al-Ghazali, this is what I thought he was saying!
The Shaykh : Did you hear this statement?
The questioner : I read it.
The Shaykh : No, no, what Abu Malik is telling?
The questioner : No, no, it is not this.
The Shaykh : Meaning this is another issue!
The questioner : Ah, no doubt.
The Shaykh : This issue with this explanation is fine.
The questioner : Less harm, yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, ah.
The questioner : No, rather he cites as evidence the action of Ibn Taymiyyah, saying: that Ibn Taymiyyah in his era established some of the hudud with a group of his companions, for example, he rebuked the drinkers of alcohol, and he used to enter the taverns and break them while he was with a group of his companions, with the knowledge of the Muslim ruler who did not establish the hudud upon him. So if any group of Muslims agrees to establish one of the hudud of Allah and they are able to do so within the state, or in the presence of the caliph who does not deny this, there is no harm.
The Shaykh : Ha, now the statement has changed again, the topic has changed completely, my brother. Now:
The questioner : The evidences, meaning, for the statement we said first.
The Shaykh : Excuse me, but is his statement this, or is this your evidence?
The questioner : No, no, this statement is, he was summoned to testify in this matter, what is your opinion, this group of Takfir and Hijrah (Excommunication and Emigration) killed the Egyptian journalist, such as Fawda.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : So what do you say about this, is this permissible by the Shari'ah? He said yes, it is permissible, because this person is an apostate, his ruling is that of an apostate because he constantly attacks Islam and Muslims and says such and such. So if they are able to kill him, this means establishing the hudud within the state, so there is no harm upon them.
The Shaykh : Ha, but he cited the case of Ibn Taymiyyah!
The questioner : Among the circumstances, he brought evidence like Ibn Taymiyyah.
The Shaykh : Now we say: Is the situation in Egypt now as it was in the era of Ibn Taymiyyah?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : Meaning: Ibn Taymiyyah was authorized by the implicit consent of the highest ruler. Now, they are not authorized to establish the hudud, rather they are being fought with the most severe fighting.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So his evidence with the action of Ibn Taymiyyah is not valid, because the situation has changed, and the results of the change are very serious!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : In the time of Ibn Taymiyyah, one of these people who established the hudud was not killed, whereas today in Egypt they are killed without establishing the hudud.
The questioner : Without anything.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Without anything!
The Shaykh : Without anything, so this is evidence, meaning, to the contrary of what he went to completely, and this indicates one of two things: the man is not truly a jurist, or that he follows his desire, for the reason I mentioned earlier, that he wants to appear before people as one who has moral courage.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, here he is in disagreement with them.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : He is in disagreement with them, Imam al-Ghazali is in disagreement with these Islamic groups now in Egypt!
The Shaykh : Yes, this is correct.
The questioner : So his statement supports them, even though he is in disagreement with them.
The Shaykh : Yes, and this confirms that the man's fatwa is not derived from Shari'ah evidence, but rather he wants to mislead people into thinking that he has evidence: the fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah. But Ibn Taymiyyah, the environment he was in was one where the ruler allowed him to act on his behalf in establishing the Shari'ah hudud, meaning as if the ruler's tongue at that time was saying: "May Allah reward you with good, you are performing a duty in which we are falling short." Whereas now the situation!
The questioner : He turned a blind eye to it!
The Shaykh : Yes, now the situation is completely different.
The questioner : No, there is another thing!!
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Meaning, one of the most dangerous results following from this: that I have the right, as long as this fatwa is heard and not denied, even by the ruler himself now, like one like Hosni Mubarak: that I can kill any disbeliever!
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Any disbeliever I can kill in any of the Muslim societies, and there will be no harm in that, neither to the Muslim killer himself, nor to the Muslim community itself. Imagine what the results will be!!
The Shaykh : No, I believe if there were a person who argued with al-Ghazali on this fatwa, he would be defeated miserably from the Shari'ah perspective, and he would be placed in, what should I tell you: a very difficult position for the ruling system there. And although we all deny the ruling system in Egypt now with the strongest denial, but his matter is strange with this fatwa!
The questioner : Shaykh, even the Islamic parties do like that man who killed ninety-nine souls and added to make it a hundred, they would catch up with him!
The Shaykh : Hehehe, yes, by Allah.
The questioner : No, he is on his share.
Another questioner : Strange, ah yes.
The questioner : Very strange, and I do not know why al-Ghazali specifically!
The Shaykh : Allah knows his intention!
The questioner : Why al-Ghazali?
Another questioner : Because he was like a defense lawyer for the government, between, meaning.
The questioner : Meaning this is it.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.