What is your opinion of one who wrote a treatise on assassinations in Algeria and claimed that they are among the abandoned Sunnahs?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : There is a caller from Algeria who wrote a book in which he claims that assassinations are among the abandoned Sunnahs, and he argues for this by citing the story of the killing of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf and the killing of the Jew who spied on the private parts of a Muslim woman. What is your opinion, O honorable one, regarding this?
The Shaykh : Since you have reminded me, may Allah bless you, that in the introduction to your first question you used this phrase which I found strange; I was surprised to hear it from you, and when you quoted it from someone else, you led me to believe it was your own wording. "The abandoned Sunnahs"—I wish this author you are referring to knew the abandoned Sunnahs and would join us in reviving them truly. As for this one he claims is an abandoned Sunnah and that it should be revived in our time, this is part of what we complain about, namely ignorance of the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). We understand the first incident of killing, which is authentic, and we doubt the authenticity of the other incident. However, whether this one is authentic or not, the answer regarding the first authentic incident covers it as well. We say that this killing, in that manner which some people might call assassination, did not occur, first of all, when the Muslims were weak and in a time of weakness where the polytheists were torturing them in various ways. Rather, it happened when the Islamic state had begun to establish itself in the Holy City of Madinah, where the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was. This is the first point. The summary of what I want to say is that this was in a time of strength and unity, not in a time of weakness and division. Second, it was not an individual act driven by emotion, even if it was an Islamic emotion, but it was not an emotion accompanied by correct Islamic knowledge. This is because the one who carried out that killing did so under the direction of the Muslim ruler, who was the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Therefore, we say to this person who calls that killing an abandoned Sunnah: take the legitimate means I referred to in the details of my previous speech, namely purification and education, so that Muslims begin by establishing a Muslim state in one of the lands of Allah's vast earth. And when the Muslims are established and a Muslim man who meets the conditions becomes an imam over a Muslim group, then if this imam orders such an order, it must be executed. But for every individual to act on his own opinion without being ordered by one whose command must be obeyed, this is not of the Sunnah at all. Rather, this falls under the rule we always and forever emphasize, which is of great wisdom, confirmed by the events we hear about every day, which are very regrettable. That rule states: "Whoever hastens a matter before its time is tried with its deprivation". This is because the one who takes the path of assassination, even if he is a disbeliever with power and a state, the outcome will be that the disbelievers will take revenge, because they are stronger than this Muslim and those around him, and the outcome will be weakness for the Muslims upon weakness. Whereas the outcome of that incident was victory for the Muslims. How great is the difference between this outcome and that outcome. And the matter is as he (peace be upon him) said, even if it was not in this context: This is my answer regarding this so-called abandoned Sunnah.
The Shaykh : Since you have reminded me, may Allah bless you, that in the introduction to your first question you used this phrase which I found strange; I was surprised to hear it from you, and when you quoted it from someone else, you led me to believe it was your own wording. "The abandoned Sunnahs"—I wish this author you are referring to knew the abandoned Sunnahs and would join us in reviving them truly. As for this one he claims is an abandoned Sunnah and that it should be revived in our time, this is part of what we complain about, namely ignorance of the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). We understand the first incident of killing, which is authentic, and we doubt the authenticity of the other incident. However, whether this one is authentic or not, the answer regarding the first authentic incident covers it as well. We say that this killing, in that manner which some people might call assassination, did not occur, first of all, when the Muslims were weak and in a time of weakness where the polytheists were torturing them in various ways. Rather, it happened when the Islamic state had begun to establish itself in the Holy City of Madinah, where the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was. This is the first point. The summary of what I want to say is that this was in a time of strength and unity, not in a time of weakness and division. Second, it was not an individual act driven by emotion, even if it was an Islamic emotion, but it was not an emotion accompanied by correct Islamic knowledge. This is because the one who carried out that killing did so under the direction of the Muslim ruler, who was the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Therefore, we say to this person who calls that killing an abandoned Sunnah: take the legitimate means I referred to in the details of my previous speech, namely purification and education, so that Muslims begin by establishing a Muslim state in one of the lands of Allah's vast earth. And when the Muslims are established and a Muslim man who meets the conditions becomes an imam over a Muslim group, then if this imam orders such an order, it must be executed. But for every individual to act on his own opinion without being ordered by one whose command must be obeyed, this is not of the Sunnah at all. Rather, this falls under the rule we always and forever emphasize, which is of great wisdom, confirmed by the events we hear about every day, which are very regrettable. That rule states: "Whoever hastens a matter before its time is tried with its deprivation". This is because the one who takes the path of assassination, even if he is a disbeliever with power and a state, the outcome will be that the disbelievers will take revenge, because they are stronger than this Muslim and those around him, and the outcome will be weakness for the Muslims upon weakness. Whereas the outcome of that incident was victory for the Muslims. How great is the difference between this outcome and that outcome. And the matter is as he (peace be upon him) said, even if it was not in this context: