Listen to RealAudio
Questioner 1: There is someone who has made a fourth category for Tawheed
and called it Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah
Shaikh Fawzaan: [interjecting]... This is misguidance..., this is
misguidance. This is misguidance and an [unnecessary] addition, which the people
of knowledge have not affirmed. Tawheed is but two or three categories...
this is contradictory, one person says Tawheed is only one category and another
says it is four categories. All of this is misguidance.
Questioner 1: This person's evidence is that the basis for this
categorisation...
Shaikh Fawzaan: [interjecting]... [words unclear].. Tawheed
ul-Haakimiyyah an independent category and it does not enter into Tawheed
ul-Uloohiyyah? It enters into Tawheed ul-Uloohiyyah! It is a type of worship and
is a type of devotion to Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic.
Questioner 2: He says that these three categorisations, al-Uloohiyyah,
ar-Ruboobiyyah and al-Asmaa was-Sifaat, he says that this is a matter which is
arrived at by the ijtihaad of the scholars, or by way of investigation and analysis (istiqraa').
Shaikh Fawzaan: That is sufficient for us, we will not add to what they
have unanimously agreed upon, and they agree upon this.. [then] there comes an
ignoramus in the twentieth century... he says 'I am a Mujtahid and I will add to
what the People of Knowledge have agreed upon'. This is misguidance...
Questioner 2: [interjecting]...
Shaikh Fawzaan:This is clear error! Because al-Haakimiyyah enters into
Tawheed ul-Uloohiyyah. Who has made it another category or made it an
independent category? Will he make the prayer into a fifth or sixth category and
jihaad a seventh category? [Because] all of the types of worship are from the
types of Tawheed? This is not correct...
Questioner 2: So this is an innovated saying, this saying [Tawheed
ul-Haakimiyyah]?
Shaikh Fawzaan: Yes, there is no doubt in this, it is in opposition to
the Ijmaa [of Ahl us-Sunnah]. None of the people of knowledge have ever spoken
with it. It is in opposition to the Ijmaa." End
Comments: The Ruwaibidah have attempted on numerous occasions to distort
the concepts of Sunnah and Salafiyyah and spread cancerous teachings within the
body of the Ummah, introducing innovations and newly-invented matters under the
guise of rectification and the fiqh of priorities.
When the Salafi Imaams and Mashayikh stood to refute this innovation, the
political activists, then refrained from using the term "Tawheed ul-Haakimiyyah"
and spoke just of "al-Haakimiyyah", but never did they repent and recant from
this innovation - (the while the whole Ummah to them is apostate merely because of the absence of total Sharee'ah rule - and such was their absolution and generalisation - having derived this teaching from their sayyid, Sayyid Qutb) [1].
And Despite the fact that there was unanimous
agreement on this issue amongst the major and senior scholars, another one of
their well known ploys was unleashed. To portray this issue as one of ijtihaad
in which the people of knowledge differ. To this end they used the words of
Shaikh Ibn Ghunayman which they thought supported them but which were in reality
against them – as we shall see further below. So they made it permissible for
themselves to depart from the Ijmaa of Ahl us-Sunnah, to deviate from the muhkam
and instead to follow what was other than that and which was but
ambiguous.
The Statement of Shaikh al-Ghunayman
One of those upon whose words the Qutubiyyah relied upon is Shaikh
al-Ghunayman. The Shaikh stated when asked about Tawhid ul-Haakimiyyah, "It is
not permissible to deny Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah, for it is from the types of
Tawheed. But it falls under Tawheed al-‘Ibaadah with regards to the ruler
himself as a person. With regards to it meaning Tawheed, then it falls under
ar-Ruboobeeyyah, because the Ruler is Allaah. So it should be that the Rabb
is the Muttasarrif (Controller of affairs), He is the One who has the Hukm, so
it falls under Tawheed Ar-Ruboobiyyah with regards to ruling, ordering,
prohibiting, and carrying out, whereas regards to application and action then
the slave is responsible for following the Hukm of Allaah, so then it is from
Tawheed Al-‘Ibaadah in this sense. And making it into a fourth category
doesn’t make sense because it falls into the three categories. And the division
without a reason is a cause of extra words which are not needed, and it is a
simple matter anyway. If he makes it a separate category then he is being
redundant, and there is no harm it."
So the Shaikh used the term ‘Tawhid al-Haakimiyyah’ saying it must not be
denied (remember, at this stage he has not discussed it in the context of a
fourth category) and that it actually comes under Ruboobiyyah and Uluhiyyah –but
then the Shaikh said that making it a "fourth category" does not "make
sense" because it falls into the well known "three categories". Which
is what we maintain – following the Ulamaa in that.
So the Qutubis jumped upon this and took it to mean a tazkiyah for their
methodology. But as we have always preached to the Qutubiyyah for many years,
that it is necessary to take all of the words of the Ulamaa together, to
reconcile them and not to strike them one against the other and to give rise to
repugnant and harmful differences, which separate the hearts and cause disarray
in the ranks. But even in the words of Shaikh Ghunayman there is a refutation of
them, if they but knew. For he stated, "And making it into a fourth category
doesn’t make sense because it falls into the three categories", which is in
conformity to the remainder of the Imaams and Mashayikhs of our time. Then he
said, emphasising again, "And the division without a reason is a cause of
extra words which are not needed". And he finished by saying, … "and it is a
simple matter anyway. If he makes it a separate category then he is being
redundant, and there is no harm it".
And it is here that the Qutubiyyah will consider these words. "and there is
no harm in it" to mean a victory and a tazkiyah for their manhaj.
Yet the follower of truth, will reflect and see the harm caused by those who
raised the banner of al-Haakimiyyah, intending by it purely political agendas
and what is attached to it of violent and bloody revolutions and a destructive
jihad against the Muslims themselves, let alone the non-Muslims. And in the
works of Qutb, Mawudi and those upon their thought and methodology there is
sufficient evidence of that. Rather, in the disaster of Algeria, there is a
proof that the words of the Shaikh "and there is no harm it" are not entirely
accurate, for those poisoned with Qutubism (through the books of Sayyid Qutb),
the Khawarij of the Era, raised high the banner of al-Haakimiyyah, leading to
the takfir of all and sundry, and eventually leading to the death and slaughter
of innocent men, women and children.
Further, one who carefully ponders on the words of Shaikh Ghunayman will
actually realise that they are in perfect agreement with the words of all of
those Mashayikh who declared this matter to be an innovation. From the point of
view of the foundation, asl, of his words, then it is clear that
"making it into a fourth category doesn’t make sense because it falls into
the three categories" and that it is "not needed" and that it is
"redundant". So a just person would say, ‘Yes, so making it a fourth and
separate, independent category is an innovation if we reconcile this with
the words of the other scholars, for that is how they described the making of
Tawhid al-Haakimiyyah as an independent category, outside of Uluhiyyah and
Ruboobiyyah.
Further, the words of the Shaikh, "there is no harm in it" in no way
contradict the foundation of his statement that the division is "not
needed", it is merely his view or opinion that such an affair brings about no
harm. And it is here that there is a difference of opinion – not in the
fundamental aspect of the issue - but in a subsidiary matter, which is whether
there is any harm in making Tawhid ul-Haakimiyyah an additional category.
Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen, when asked, "How are we to rebut them?", meaning those
who make Tawhid al-Haakimiyyah into a fourth category, he replied: "We rebut
them by saying to them, 'What does 'al-Haakimiyyah' mean?' It does not mean
except their saying that judgement is for Allaah alone ' and that is
Tawheedur-Ruboobiyyah. So Allaah, He is the Lord, the Creator, the Sovereign
Owner, the One in control of the affairs. But as for what they intend by it and
an explanation of the danger of this idea of theirs, then we do not know their
intentions and desire, so therefore we cannot estimate the seriousness of this
matter." (Al-Muslimoon no.639)
Imaam al-Albani stated, "'Al-Haakimiyyah' is a branch of the branches of
Tawheedul-Uloohiyyah, and those who focus their attention upon this newly
invented saying in the present age use it as a weapon not to teach the Muslims
the Tawheed that all of the Prophets and Messengers came with, but rather as a
political weapon…So if it were not for the fact that they use this saying as
a tool for political propaganda of theirs, then we would say, 'This is our
merchandise that has been returned to us'…So we are the ones who propagated this
hadeeth, and then it reached the others. Then they advanced one part of
Tawheedul-Uloohiyyah or worship, with this innovated title for political
aims." (Al-Muslimoon no.639)
So the difference is not in the innovated nature of the fourth categorisation
– that is agreed upon -, but it is in the perceived harm arising from making Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah independent. And such perceptions vary from Shaikh to Shaikh, as we have
seen, but they are all agreed on the fundamental principle of it being
newly-introduced.
However, the destitution did not end there. The desperation increased and
increased until the Qutubiyyah resorted to truly laughable modes of argument and
extraction of proof. So then they sought to use as evidence the praise of Imaam
Ibn Baaz for the book ‘as-Sirat’ in which there is a chapter called "Tawhid
ul-Hukm" – and tried to convince the unsuspecting that this is a justification
of their bid’ah. But the truth of the matter is that al-Hakimiyyah comes under
both ar-Ruboobiyyah and al-Uloohiyyah, and Ibn Baz’s silence about this chapter
heading is to be understood from this angle – that sovereignty in rulership and
legislation belongs to Allaah and comes under Ruboobiyyah – and no Salafi denies
this or has ever denied this, despite the cleverly orchestrated Qutubi
propaganda against the concepts of Sunnah and Salafiyyah.
Know – O brother and sister for the sake of Allaah – that a major part of the
methodology of the Qutubis in their argumentation is not too dissimilar to what
we have illustrated in this particular example. When something comes that
supports them, then it is obligatory to blindly follow it. And when something
comes that refutes them, they go looking for a difference of opinion, to justify
their stance. And when there is even the slightest hint in the words of a
particular Shaikh of support for their viewpoint, they will jump on it. In other
words, they will leave the muhkam (decisive) rulings of the ‘Ulamaa and adopt
the mutashabihat (ambiguous). And you should also know that many of the texts
they bring as evidence are actually against them, not in favour of them, and
from Allaah is the refuge.
NOTES
[1] Fareed Abdul-Khaliq (one of the Murshids of Ikhwaan) said, "We have pointed out in what has preceded that the spread of the ideology of takfir occurred amongst the youth of the Ikhwaan who were imprisoned in the late fifties and early sixties, and that they were influenced by the ideology of the Shaheed Sayyid Qutb and his writings. They derived from these writings that the society had fallen into Jahiliyyah (of kufr), and that he had performed takfir of the rulers who had rejected the Haakimiyyah of Allaah by not ruling by what Allaah has revealed, and also takfir of those ruled over (i.e. civilians), when they became satisfied with this." Ikhwaan ul-Muslimoon Fi Mizaan il-Haqq (p.115)
Shaikh Salih al-Fawzaan on Tawheed ul-Haakimiyyah