The Rebuttal of His Argument Citing the Battle of Ain Jalut and the Presence of a Group of Scholars and the General Commander, Who Was "Saf al-Din Qutuz," Who Appointed Himself
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : He argues with the Battle of Ain Jalut against the Tatars; he says: This happened in the presence of the great scholars, "Izz al-Din ibn 'Abd al-Salam" and others, and indeed the Muslim commander in this battle, "Saf al-Din Qutuz," had appointed himself Sultan over Egypt.
The Shaykh : I do not remember how the incident occurred; do you or anyone else have details of it? Do you have any, Professor Mahmoud? Do you remember anything?
The questioner : ... I remember it.
The Shaykh : But when did this take place?
The questioner : It took place in the year 658 AH.
The Shaykh: All right.
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Then. No problem, but is this not of the category: "Necessities permit the prohibited"?
Please proceed.
Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, here there was a deposition.
The Shaykh: What?
Al-Halabi : There was a deposition and the appointment of an Imam, and this is a matter discussed in the books of Islamic political jurisprudence.
The Shaykh : Yes.
Al-Halabi : That he deposed "al-Mansur" and became Sultan.
The Shaykh : Yes.
Al-Halabi : So this is a matter that differs, and Allah knows best; they say - our Shaykh -: whoever took power by force.
The Shaykh : Yes.
Al-Halabi : Has authority.
The Shaykh : Yes.
Al-Halabi : But it does not mean he imposed himself on the people like this; he deposed ... .
The Shaykh : Excuse me, I want to visualize the incident and connect it to the question; to see how they understand it?
Al-Halabi : I will read to you - our Shaykh - a part of the biography of "Qutuz"; meaning a few lines.
The Shaykh : No problem, but is this connected to his question?
Al-Halabi : Of course it is connected; because he says what? That he appointed himself for the sake of jihad; his words, although the matter is not so, he deposed "al-Mansur" and became Sultan in his place; he became Sultan; so at that point, allegiance to him becomes obligatory.
The Shaykh : Ah, is that it?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay; this has a relation to the issue that whoever rebels against the pledged Caliph, whoever rebels against the pledged Caliph from among the Muslims; this rebellion from the legal perspective is not permissible, but in order to preserve the blood of Muslims, one does not rebel against this rebel, rather as long as he is following the rulings of Allah, the Shari'ah of Allah, and as long as he is raising the banner of jihad in the path of Allah; then the Muslims must obey him; so what is the relation of this to the previous speech? This - also - indicates that the group, meaning the woodcutters, are gathering things from here and there that they think are evidence for them, but they are not evidence for them, rather they are doubts for them.
Other than that?
The Shaykh : I do not remember how the incident occurred; do you or anyone else have details of it? Do you have any, Professor Mahmoud? Do you remember anything?
The questioner : ... I remember it.
The Shaykh : But when did this take place?
The questioner : It took place in the year 658 AH.
The Shaykh: All right.
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Then. No problem, but is this not of the category: "Necessities permit the prohibited"?
Please proceed.
Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, here there was a deposition.
The Shaykh: What?
Al-Halabi : There was a deposition and the appointment of an Imam, and this is a matter discussed in the books of Islamic political jurisprudence.
The Shaykh : Yes.
Al-Halabi : That he deposed "al-Mansur" and became Sultan.
The Shaykh : Yes.
Al-Halabi : So this is a matter that differs, and Allah knows best; they say - our Shaykh -: whoever took power by force.
The Shaykh : Yes.
Al-Halabi : Has authority.
The Shaykh : Yes.
Al-Halabi : But it does not mean he imposed himself on the people like this; he deposed ... .
The Shaykh : Excuse me, I want to visualize the incident and connect it to the question; to see how they understand it?
Al-Halabi : I will read to you - our Shaykh - a part of the biography of "Qutuz"; meaning a few lines.
The Shaykh : No problem, but is this connected to his question?
Al-Halabi : Of course it is connected; because he says what? That he appointed himself for the sake of jihad; his words, although the matter is not so, he deposed "al-Mansur" and became Sultan in his place; he became Sultan; so at that point, allegiance to him becomes obligatory.
The Shaykh : Ah, is that it?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay; this has a relation to the issue that whoever rebels against the pledged Caliph, whoever rebels against the pledged Caliph from among the Muslims; this rebellion from the legal perspective is not permissible, but in order to preserve the blood of Muslims, one does not rebel against this rebel, rather as long as he is following the rulings of Allah, the Shari'ah of Allah, and as long as he is raising the banner of jihad in the path of Allah; then the Muslims must obey him; so what is the relation of this to the previous speech? This - also - indicates that the group, meaning the woodcutters, are gathering things from here and there that they think are evidence for them, but they are not evidence for them, rather they are doubts for them.
Other than that?
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.