Shaykh Ahmad an-Najmee's Refutation of Ibn Jibreen's Defence of the Soofee Mufawwidh Hasan al-Banna - Part 5 - Legislating Hizbiyyah Into Islaam
Monday, December 21 2009 - by Admin
Read more articles at TheMadkhalis.Com


The Noble Shaykh, Ahmad an-Najmee (rahimahullaah) wrote a book called: (المورد العذب الزلال فيم انتقد على بعض المناهج الدعوية من العقائد والأعمال) - The Sweet Cool [Water] Spring Regarding What Has Been Criticized of Beliefs and Actions of Some of the Methodologies of Da'wah" in which he covered the mistakes, innovations and deviation of many groups and movements including al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen and Jamaa'at ut-Tableegh.

Shaykh Ibn Jibreen sent a letter to Shaykh Ahmad an-Najmee requesting him not to print the book, and he said, as quoted by Shaykh an-Najmee in his response to him (p. 3):

ولمّا وصلتُ إلى الباب التاسع وقعت على مالم أكن أتوقع

And when I reached the ninth chapter, I came upon what I did not expect...

Shaykh Ibn Jibreen was surprised at the criticisms and pointing out of the errors of Hasan al-Banna. In this series we want to mention some of what Hasan al-Banna was criticised for by Shaykh Ahmad an-Najmee, by quoting from Shaykh Najmee's response to Shaykh Ibn Jibreen.

Making Tashree' (Legislation) Into the Deen of Allaah

Shaykh Ahmad an-Najmee (rahimahullaah) said, addressing Ibn Jibreen:

فكّر ما الذي حملني على الكلام في رجل قد مات وأنا في سن الطفولة ولم يسفك لي دماً ولم ينتهك لي عرضاً ولم يأخذ عليَّ مالاً , فما الذي يحملني على الكلام فيه ولم يظلمني أنا شخصياً بشيء , إن كنت تكلمتُ فيه من غير سابق ظلم منه لي ولا مصلحة دينية تكلمت فيها من أجلها فأنا ظالم معتدي وسيأخذ الله له بحقه مني

Reflect upon what has carried me to speak about a man who died whilst I was only young in age, and he did not shed any blood of mine, and nor violate my honour and nor take wealth from me. So what has carried me to speak about him when he personally has not wronged me? If I had spoken about him without him having previously wronged me, and it was not for any religious benefit that I spoke about him, then I am an oppressor, transgressor, and Allaah will soon take from me his right.

And thereafter, he addresses Shaykh Ibn Jibreen on the matter:

تاسعاً: فسِّر لي أركان بيعته العشرة بتفسير مرضٍ لله ولرسوله ثم للمؤمنين غير إتيانه للدعوة بتشريع جديد . عاشراً: فسِّر لي أخذه للبيعة من أقوام في أعناقهم بيعة غير العصيان لله ولرسوله وإدخال تشريعات جديدة على الإسلام لم يأذن الله بها ولا رسوله . الحادي عشر: فسِّر لي جعله للطاعة الذي جعلها شرطاً في البيعة واجبة الإنفاذ توّاً أي فوراً بدون مراجعة , مع أن الطاعة في الشرع الإسلامي مقيدة بشيئين :

أن تكون في المعروف . أن تكون مقيدة بالإستطاعة .

أليس هذا تشريع في الدين لم يأذن به الله ولا رسوله ! الحادي عشر: فسر لي حصره للإسلام في أصوله العشرين أو جعله لأصوله المذكور أهمية قصوى بتفسير يرضاه الله ورسوله ثم المؤمنون غير إدخال تشريع جديد على الإسلام .

Ninth: Explain to me the ten pillars of his bay'ah (pledge of allegiance) with an explanation pleasing to Allaah and His Messenger and then the believers, other than [the explanation] that he brought a new legislation to the Dażwah.

Tenth: Explain to me why he took the bay'ah (pledge of allegiance) from people who bay'ah was binding on other than that it was because he was disobeying Allaah and His Messenger and introducing new laws into Islaam, which neither Allaah nor His Messenger gave permission for.

Eleventh: Explain to me why he made obedience to him, which he placed as a condition in his bay'ah, as something obligatory to be carried out immediately and without any reservations, even though according to Islaam, obedience is restricted by two things:

  1. It must be with regard to something good, and
  2. It is dependent upon one's ability.

So isn't this legislating a law into the Religion, which neither Allaah nor His Messenger authorized?!

Twelfth: Explain to me why he limited Islaam to just twenty principles or why he gave these principles the ultimate importance with an explanation that Allaah and His Messenger, and then the believers would be pleased with, other than that it was because he introduced a new legislation into Islaam.

And it is no surprise that Umar at-Tilmisani (d. 1986CE), the third general director (al-murshid al-aamm) of al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen should write in his book "Dhikriyyaat Laa Mudhakkaraat", as mentioned about him by Aa'id ash-Shimree, in his lecture on the legacy of Hasan al-Banna and the Ikhwaan:

( أنه كان بين يدي حسن البنا كما يكون الميت بين يدي مغسله ) وهذا شعار الصوفية وأنه (كان يسمع بسمع البنا ويرى برأي البنا ) وغير ذلك

That he (at-Tilmisani) used to be towards Hasan al-Banna "like a dead person was in front of the one washing him", and this is one of the slogans of the Soofees, and that "he used hear with the hearing of al-Banna and see with the seeing of al-Banna" and other such things.

This is the vile hizbiyyah and legislation that these people introduced into the Ummah, which was exported to many other places, and it caused the Ummah to split more than it already had, every party rejoicing with what it had. And these were the people who introduced this vile hizbiyyah into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which knew nothing of the Jamaa'aat, so these Soofees, approvers of grave-worship, upon the creeds of the Ash'ariyyah, Mufawwidah, are the ones who put the Ummah to trial - not the ones who refuted them and said to them "a single jamaa'ah" not tens of jamaa'ahs, and "the all-inclusive comprehensive Tawheed", not a narrow, restricted tawheed that relies upon the Leninist Manifesto for its actualization!

In any case, there was no response from Shaykh Ibn Jibreen as Shaykh Ahmad sent this to the Shaykh and allowed him ample time to respond. So when it angers a person that Hasan al-Banna is refuted for these actions, more than it angers them that Hasan al-Banna actually did these actions, then that is a calamity indeed!

Related Articles: