Shaykh Ibn Jibreen and the Innovators

Shaykh Ibn Jibreen was a person of knowledge who in the early 1990s got involved, unfortunately, with personalities like Muhammad al-Misery and his organization called CDLR (an organization practically working to effect Leninist and Marxist type revolutions in Muslim lands). Through this interaction the Shaykh was led to hold erroneous opinions towards Innovators such as Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb. He proceeded to defend these individuals, not upon knowledge and baseerah or any kind of detailed research, but out of sentiments and out of the affectation he suffered from as a result of being involved with such unsavouries. Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen (rahimahullaah) and other scholars blasted the CDLR in very powerful words (we have the audio and will publish separately on this site inshaa'Allaah) and the scholars expressed their disappointment with the likes of Ibn Jibreen getting involved with these people. Unfortunately that connection harmed the Shaykh in that he became blinded to what these people were really upon, for he, in his methodology, was not upon what these takfiri revolutionaries were upon, even if he was deceived by them. To see a proof for that go and read this article in which Shaykh Ibn Jibreen, in one statement alone, demolishes, annihilates, pulverizes, renders illegitimate and sends to the dustbin of history, the very root, foundation and basis of the da'wah of the Leninist Qutbiyyah, Takfiris, Khawaarij and all other Innovators who oppose and fight against us!

In this article we present another proof to show that Shaykh Ibn Jibreen defended Sayyid Qutb upon ignorance of the true realities and not upon knowledge:

Sayyid Qutb: Islam is a Mixture of Communism and Christianity

To the right is the inside page of the 13th edition and print of Sayyid Qutb's "Ma'arakat ul-Islam war-Ra'samaaliyyah", published in 1993CE (1414H). The books of Sayyid Qutb continue to be published under the supervision of his brother Mohammad Qutb who has been instrumental behind much of the progapanda for the Takfiri and Leninist doctrines of Sayyid Qutb.

This indicates that the works of Sayyid Qutb and all that they contain of the innovations of the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah, Raafidah, Soofiyyah, Hulooliyyah, and Takfir of all Muslim Societies and the inciting of violent revolutions based upon the manifestos of secular atheist Jews, continue to be published, printed and propagated, with full knowledge and intent. And alongside that the Qutbiyyah do not hesitate to show disdain, scorn, Mockery, belittlement, and some of them make Takfir, against those who point out these great and serious deviations, some of which reach the level of kufr. And there could not be a level of extremist Irjaa' greater than this, for these people by these actions of theirs are testifying against themselves that to them, the actions of the heart are not from eemaan, and that it is possible for an individual to claim love and attachment to the particulars of the Salafi aqidah, and at the same time hate those who defend it, to despise them, scorn them, and utterly detest the fact that they point out and refute what clashes with this aqidah, and then use all ways and means to discredit their defence of this aqidah and to attack their persons, expending great efforts and spending from their wealth, (going to such desperation and depravity that they are prepared to part with their wealth and pay Google for it), and so on. Doing this all for the defense of a man in whose books there can be found the majority of the major innovations in the entire history of Islaam, as well as statements amounting to kufr. There could not be a greater humiliation than this and there could not be Irjaa' worse than this, and this is why the Scholars have labelled these people the Ghullaat Ghullaat al-Murji'ah the foundation of whom is expelling the actions of the heart from eemaan.

Qutb says (p. 61):

And it is necessary for Islaam to judge, since it is a unique, constructive and positivist aqidah which has been moulded and shaped from Christianity and Communism together, [with a] blending in the most perfect of ways and which comprises all of their (i.e Christianity and Communism's) objectives and adds in addition to them harmony, balance and justice.

The words used by Qutb (تصوغ) - forming, shaping, moulding something from something, to forge, fabricate something. And (مزيجا) - compounded, blended, a mixture, medley, blend, combination, compound, alloy - from (مزج) - to mix, mingle, incorporate, blend, i.e. a thing with water, or a thing with something else. And he added to that (كاملا) - complete, perfect. All this from Lane's Lexicon So we have a complete, perfect, mix and blend of each of Communism and Christianity into a medley, compound and alloy, to make up Islam.

Therefore Qutb has stated that Islam is a mixture and blend, a mingling of those ideologies of men that are founded upon atheism and Shirk and shares in their ideals and goals, and that it simply adds the elements of harmony, balance and justice to a combination of those man-made religions and secular systems.

Shaykh Ibn Jibreen on the Statement of Sayyid Qutb that Islam is a Mixture of Communism and Christianity - The One Who Says This Has Disbelieved

It's time now to smite the lips of the allies and defenders of the mockers of the prophets, the propounders of the doctrines of the Jahmiyyah that there is no Lord above the heaven, and no deity above the Throne, the revilers of those Companions promised Paradise, the utterers of the innovations entailing kufr, and callers to the manifestos of secular atheist Jews, and to make it known that it is their own deeds that have humiliated them and passed judgement upon them, for the hujjah and bayaan has driven a stake into their evil, and has indicated that they are the Ghullaat Ghullaat al-Murji'ah to whom it is permissible and admissible that a person can hold the Islamic aqidah in his heart and claim to love it, but at the same time wage the severest of wars, show the greatest of rage, enmity and hatred, and stoop to the utmost depths of depravity, all of which is translated in outward action against those who defend that very same aqidah, out of love, loyalty and allegiance for it - and that all of this does not contradict and invalidate the actions of the heart, rather that such an aggressor, hater and reviler of those defending and clarifying the aqidah and protecting it from statements of innovation and outright disbelief, is the greatest of believers, overflowing in his actions of the heart and his love for the aqidah! This conception is from the greatest of the forms of Irjaa', and these people testify to this conception in their minds and hearts by the tongue of their disposition and demeanor (i.e. their stances and actions), for they knowingly and willingly pledge allegiance to people of a baatil aqidah, showing love and hate for their sake and for the sake of their doctrines.

Shaykh Ibn Jibreen was asked about such a saying and here is his response:

The questioner says:

If it was said that Islam is blended from [a mixture of] Socialism, capitalism and corroborates their goals ... so what is the ruling upon that?.

The Shaykh answers:

There is no doubt that this is a criticism upon Islaam [that] is kufr, [the saying] that it [Islaam] is taken from this and from that, and that it is blended from the deen of the Christians, and their likes, or the deen of the Communists, who are the Socialists, or the deen of the Jews who are the capitalists, [the one who says this] then he has disbelieved.

And we should add here that in his commentary on the Qur'an, Sayyid Qutb advocates the confiscation of wealth from the rich for redistribution to the poor (outside over, and beyond the issue of zakah) - Qutb did not suffice with treating Islam as a blend of Christianity and Communism, he also legislated Communist doctrines too - and this will be addressed in a separate article inshaa'Allaah.

This should be considered the second of two great and mighty stakes in the heart of the Leninist Qutbi doctrine and methodology. The other one is right here.

Also refer to this article:

• Shaykh Hammad al-Ansari on the Saying of Sayyid Qutb That Islam is a Mixture of Communism and Christianity - (see here)

Note: Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan said (in his checking and notes upon this book "al-Baraa'ah"), commenting upon the statement of Hammaad al-Ansari (see here) regarding establishing the hujjah upon the utterer of this statement:

The hujjah (proof) is established upon the one whom the Qur'an and the Sunnah reach. And the disbelief of the Christians is clear in the Qur'an, and more clear than that is the disbelief of the Communists, so how can he mix between kufr and eemaan.

This would indicate that Qutb essentially left the religion through these words of his, and became a kaafir, and it is not known that he recanted and repented from this statement.

Now, we personally would not call Qutb a kaafir, and still, despite all of his statements (mocking the prophets, accusing the choicest of the Companions with hypocrisy, speaking with the creation of the Qur'an, negating their is a deity above the Throne), we are prepared to make excuses (he may have repented in secret and private before his death from mocking the prophet Moses or saying Islam is a concoction of Communism and Christianity) and give him the excuse of ignorance in some of those issues (the issues in creed, just like we do not make Takfir of the Ash'aris for holding the Qur'an to be created, due to their ignorance and faulty ta'weel). Our thing is to reduce this man's burden and to stop his ignorant deluded fanatical followers from oppressing him and making the situation worse for him. The real problem here is for the Qutbiyyah, the question for them is did Qutb become a kaafir through these words or not? It is they who MUST answer this question, not us, we've already made our stance clear. The problem for the Qutbiyyah is to show their zeal and fervor regarding the criterion between eemaan and kufr and for them to corroborate, practically, whether kufr is through all of beliefs, statements and actions or not (see here, here and here). They need to explain why they continue to aggrandize a man, his books, his doctrines, his methodologies, when according to them, if they are truthful and sincere to what they believe and hold, the man left Islaam and became a kaafir through statement(s) he made, and it is not known (to them) that he recanted or repented from them. And who else is more suitable to corroborate that the statement is one of kufr and its utterer does become a kaafir, other than Shaykh Ibn Jibreen? Comrade, to where is the refuge?

Update 1 - 3rd January 2010

No response from the allies and defenders of the proponents of the methodologies and manifestos of secular atheist Jews in inciting revolutions and turmoil in the Muslim lands, except:

Mockery of what is in the title of this article as a means of sidetracking. There is something called Takfir bil-wasf, which is making Takfir based upon a description (i.e. a belief, or a saying, or an action) and there is also Takfir bil-'ayn, which is Takfir of a specific individual - and the Scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah make this distinction. Thus, when we say "takfir upon the saying..." it means Takfir bil-wasf, declaring a saying (or belief or action) to be or constitute kufr, without that necessitating that the perpetrator is a kaafir. The Qutbiyyah were not able to fault the substance of the article, knowing that it is a stake in their da'wah through its numerous implications and the trial it puts them in. Instead they are mocking something which is an irrelevant side point, indicating their ignorance. It's also what you call bankruptcy.

Bending over backwards to try and explain away the statement - well you have Shaykh Ibn Jibreen whose explained it for you - it's kufr.

Desperation in trying to get a ruling of Takfir bil-'ayn from us. Takfir of an individual is a great and mighty affair, and despite all the circumstances mentioned above, we do not say Qutb was a kaafir. We will say he fell into kufr, uttering kufr, and his affair is between him and his Lord. But what the Qutbiyyah are really saying is this: "Please, please, we beg you, please say he was a kaafir explicitly, so we can then run with this and use it to attack you and announce it to the world" - just like Abdullaah Azzaam slandered Shaykh al-Albaani with the same by accusing him of making Takfir of Sayyid Qutb! - [and that article is coming soon!]. Our position on this has been made clear in this article.

The crux of the matter is that the Qutbiyyah - upon their applied doctrines - have no choice but to declare Sayyid Qutb a kaafir, and one who died a kaafir, because it is not known to them that he made tawbah from this statement, and they see it continuing to be published after his death without any clarification having been made in his lifetime. That's the point. Their Takfir of the rulers and scholars are served on plates because they are "protecting Islaam from kufr and from the doctrine of Irjaa". So while we've made clear our position, we have wara' with respect to Takfir of an individual, and there are no Scholars who were bold to venture into that arena, then we do not speak with it. But we need an answer from the Qutbiyyah, for them to show us their consistency and their inclusion of beliefs, statements and actions, together, into the realm of kufr, and for them to show the same fervor and zeal in defending against "kufr", whether it is belief, statement or action, and in making Takfir where it is necessitated (according to them) and to raise the banner of protecting the deen of Allaah, especially considering this book has reached 13 editions and is propagated to this day and we wouldn't want people going away with the belief that Islam is a medley, mixture and compound of Communism and Christianity.