DO THE MASHĀYIKH ALLOW TAHAKUM FOR “MONEY?”
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم، والصلاة والسلام على نبيه محمد، وبعد:
There has been a group of brain-dead kids who have been lingering in the shadows, like hungry rats — declaring Takfir of giants within this Deen, such as Shaykh Al-Islam, and likewise our contemporary Imams of Tawheed, like Shaykh Ahmad Musa Jibril حفظه الله تعالى, Shaykh Nasir Al-Fahd and Shaykh Ali Al-Khudayr فك الله بالعز أسرهم — by falsely claiming these Mashayikh allow unrestricted Tahākum to the Taghūt. Apart from this being a slanderous and baseless lie, for which they attempted to substantiate by citing Shaykh Ahmad not making Takfir of one who goes to the courts out of desire to save his children from shirk.
These heretic didn’t know, that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of “WHAT IKRAH IS,” not whether or not “TAHAKUM IS ALLOWED.” Due to their brain-dead status and likely cursed state, these rats can’t make this necessary distinction, and thereby unleash their filthy tongues on the Scholars of Haqq.
After they got refuted on the issue of Tahakum to save one’s kids from shirk, they backtracked and said, “Your Shaykh allows Tahakum for money! So he’s a Kafir!” Further exposing their brain-dead status. The Shaykh in the clip they’ve continuously circulated like crackheads, He حفظه الله تعالى clearly cites the reasoning of some of the Scholars, by saying “loss of wealth that’s DEVASTATING,” meaning some
scholars excuse one under Ikrah, not “for money.”
Here’s a teaching moment for anyone adhering to this brain-dead heretical cult:
What is deemed as “اكراه ملجئ” is differed upon amongst the scholars — meaning it goes back to Usūl Al-Fiqh. What اكراه ملجئ is, is a matter that is derived from Usūl Al-Fiqh, not Aqeedah. The Aqeedah portion of the matter, is that one isn’t excused from Shirk, UNLESS he’s under Ikrah, whilst his heart is firm with belief. Which the Shaykh has proved, not only by his clear belief which he’s consistently and continuously preaching, but with what he lives by — حفظه الله تعالى. So to spell it out plainly, no one but a Mushrik says you can desire to seek the judgement of the Taghut unrestrictedly. The point of contention is WHAT IKRAH IS, not whether or not Tahakum is allowed — so when these slanderous rats begin their slander with “Your Shaykh allows…” — know from the getgo they’re absolutely clueless and simply parroting nonsense and slander.
Thirdly, to prove the Shaykh was citing “DEVASTATING” loss of wealth within the context of Ikrah (apart from the clear context that’s conveniently clipped) is that he said if one does it, and I quote: “…if one’s heart is full of belief…”
Which corresponds directly to the Ayah:
An-Nahl 16:106
مَن كَفَرَ بِٱللَّهِ مِنۢ بَعۡدِ إِيمَٰنِهِۦٓ إِلَّا مَنۡ أُكۡرِهَ وَقَلۡبُهُۥ مُطۡمَئِنٌّۢ بِٱلۡإِيمَٰنِ وَلَٰكِن مَّن شَرَحَ بِٱلۡكُفۡرِ صَدۡرًا فَعَلَيۡهِمۡ غَضَبٌ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ وَلَهُمۡ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
Whoever disbelieved in Allâh after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith; but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allâh, and theirs will be a great torment.
Some scholars did in fact consider a devastating loss of wealth as اكراه ملجئ, while others didn’t. No where in Islamic history did anyone make Takfir of those who took this opinion over the other — until of course this brain-dead cult appeared less then a decade ago. Unless these Zanadiqa believe that Tawheed was hidden and suddenly found in the slums of some European country by some donkey who can’t speak Arabic?
Just to give you an idea, the author of the famous Hanbali work زاد المستقنع, Al-Hajāwi رحمه الله said in another work [كتاب الإقناع في فقه الإمام أحمد بن حنبل 4/4]:
“…وإن هدده قادر بما يضره ضررا كثيرا كقتل وقطع طرف وضرب شديد وحبس وقيد طويلين وأخذ مال كثير وإخراج من ديار ونحوه أو بتعذيب ولده بسلطان أو تغلب كلص ونحوه يغلب على ظنه وقوع ما هدده به وعجزه عن دفعه والهرب منه والاختفاء فهو إكراه…”
