What is your opinion on the killing of President Hamad Bou Ziyaf? And what is the ruling on the one who killed him?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The second question: A Shaykh asks about Muhammad Bou Ziyaf. Is it permissible to kill him, knowing that the one who comes after him may be worse than him, and that in times of fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), one must stay in one's home?
The Shaykh : And what is it?
The questioner : In times of fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), one must stay in one's home.
The Shaykh : Ah, we previously said, along with some of the brothers present, first, deep in our hearts, we were pleased with his killing. This is the truth, and we cannot hide it, because he was a tyrant and a rebel. But at the same time, we said, perhaps it will be good for us and bad for our enemies. Because this kind of killing is not part of our Islamic methodology as we understand it from the Book of our Lord and the Sunnah of our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and as practiced by our righteous predecessors. We know well that the kings who came after the Rightly Guided Caliphs were not committed to the Book and the Sunnah as they were, nor did they follow their path. They deviated, slightly or greatly. And the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) of al-Ma'mun is an example for you. He forced the scholars of Islam in his time to say that the speech of Allah, which is one of His attributes (Blessed and Exalted is He), is created. Many of the Muslims were afflicted by this, especially the Imam of the Sunnah, Imam Ahmad. Many were killed and many were tested. Yet none of these Imams thought to send someone to kill such a person who imposed this misguidance on the Imams of the Muslims, or to plot against him. Because they knew that such treachery, first, is not part of the methodology of the predecessors, and second, the harms that result from it may be greater than the benefit of eliminating such a tyrant. Therefore, I said, while we are pleased with his killing, we hope that the outcome will not be worse. What is the benefit? You know our opinion regarding what is called the "stone children" and the Palestinian Intifada. We say this adds nothing at all—peace be upon you—because if they kill a Jew, a greater number are killed in return, and if they kill a Jew, more Muslims are killed, and so on. Therefore, we do not approve of this killing and this treachery, because first, there is no Islamic state that commands and the Muslims must execute, but rather these are impulsive, airy opinions that do not consider the bad consequences that follow them. In summary, we do not approve of this killing and this treachery.
The questioner : ... Regarding the killing of the killer, my Shaykh, the killer is sinful for the killing.
The Shaykh : No, this depends on the motive and the cause.
Mashhur: Our Shaykh, you mentioned during the discussion that no one rose up against al-Ma'mun and did what he did, except Ibn Jarir.
The Shaykh : Excuse me, I did not say no one rose up against him. Yes, none of these Imams sent a sincere man to kill him and rid the believers of his evil.
The Shaykh : And what is it?
The questioner : In times of fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), one must stay in one's home.
The Shaykh : Ah, we previously said, along with some of the brothers present, first, deep in our hearts, we were pleased with his killing. This is the truth, and we cannot hide it, because he was a tyrant and a rebel. But at the same time, we said, perhaps it will be good for us and bad for our enemies. Because this kind of killing is not part of our Islamic methodology as we understand it from the Book of our Lord and the Sunnah of our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and as practiced by our righteous predecessors. We know well that the kings who came after the Rightly Guided Caliphs were not committed to the Book and the Sunnah as they were, nor did they follow their path. They deviated, slightly or greatly. And the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) of al-Ma'mun is an example for you. He forced the scholars of Islam in his time to say that the speech of Allah, which is one of His attributes (Blessed and Exalted is He), is created. Many of the Muslims were afflicted by this, especially the Imam of the Sunnah, Imam Ahmad. Many were killed and many were tested. Yet none of these Imams thought to send someone to kill such a person who imposed this misguidance on the Imams of the Muslims, or to plot against him. Because they knew that such treachery, first, is not part of the methodology of the predecessors, and second, the harms that result from it may be greater than the benefit of eliminating such a tyrant. Therefore, I said, while we are pleased with his killing, we hope that the outcome will not be worse. What is the benefit? You know our opinion regarding what is called the "stone children" and the Palestinian Intifada. We say this adds nothing at all—peace be upon you—because if they kill a Jew, a greater number are killed in return, and if they kill a Jew, more Muslims are killed, and so on. Therefore, we do not approve of this killing and this treachery, because first, there is no Islamic state that commands and the Muslims must execute, but rather these are impulsive, airy opinions that do not consider the bad consequences that follow them. In summary, we do not approve of this killing and this treachery.
The questioner : ... Regarding the killing of the killer, my Shaykh, the killer is sinful for the killing.
The Shaykh : No, this depends on the motive and the cause.
Mashhur: Our Shaykh, you mentioned during the discussion that no one rose up against al-Ma'mun and did what he did, except Ibn Jarir.
The Shaykh : Excuse me, I did not say no one rose up against him. Yes, none of these Imams sent a sincere man to kill him and rid the believers of his evil.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.