“The call to evolution is a call to kufr and apostasy from Islam.
Ibn al-Uthaymeen in particular, he was asked this question about a teacher who comes into the classroom and teaches evolution. He said that not only this person, who is in a position of a teacher at school, should be expelled, but even outside of school he should be monitored in terms of his activities and his contacts to make sure he is not misguiding others. And he should be stopped by any means necessary even if it means his execution.
Upon that Ibn al-Uthaymeen was asked ‘do you mean that it is permissible to execute him?’. Ibn al-Uthaymeen says ‘Yes, if there is absolutely no other way of stopping this person except execution, then this person should be executed because he is an apostate and apostates are executed.’
The point of quoting this fatwa is not that people or individuals listen to this message and to figure out for themslves what to do but only this fatwa is only being quoted for information purposes because executing people is solely the responsibility of the Imam who is implementing sharia in a Muslim country and is not up to individuals to take the law into their own hands and contemplate executing Usama Hasan.
Secondly he’s also made statements regarding hijab, he’s appeared and he’s said and questioned the obligation of wearing the headscarf, not the niqab but covering of the women’s hair. And he said it’s not an obligation.
If a person denies the obligation of wearing the hijab, which is to cover the head for women of course, then this person is an apostate. He is no longer a Muslim.
The third charge of kufr is for him to call for secularism and he actually gave lectures at the launch of the Quilliam Foundation, which is an anti-Muslim secular organisation that seeks to shape Islam from within and shed Islam of all its political aspects, the sharia in its entirety. And the other organisation called British Muslims for Secular Democracy. He gave a lecture at both of these events. At the second lecture in particular he claimed that Islam has no problem with political secularism.
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan he says about anybody who attributes themselves to kufr philosophy, such as communism, secularism, capitalism, that these people are apostates and if they claim to be Muslims then these people are major hypocrites, major munafiqeen because on the one hand they outwardly claim to be Muslims whilst they are inwardly kuffar, disbelievers.
Anybody who mocks Allah or his messenger or anyone or any aspect of religion which is known from the deen, by necessity is a kaffir and a murtad and is subject to execution because the prophet said ‘execute the one who changes his religion.’ “
Charges of Kufr against Usama Hasan:
“The belief that the origin of man was the apes then this is disbelief in Allah because it involves rejecting the Quran and what the Muslims have agreed upon, nay, what the humanity has agreed upon because it is now clear that this view is utterly false devoid of any truth. As far as this person’s teaching position in the school is concerned then it is not permissible for him to remain a school teacher. It is incumbent upon the headmaster to refer his case to his superiors so that he could be kept away from education. It is also obligatory to monitor him outside the school to make sure that he does not mislead others. But if he returns to the truth, then this is what is sought of him. That would be merciful of Allah to him and others. Otherwise, he must be dealt with in order to prevent his harm through any means, even if it be execution.” The Questioner asked: “Is it permissible for him to be executed in this situation?” Ibn Uthaymin, “If he cannot be stopped except by this method, and he further becomes an active caller to this atheism and disbelief then it is obligatory to execute him because he is an apostate. And apostate must be executed.” The kufr and apostasy of the one who holds such beliefs is a matter of consensus amongst all the scholars of Islam.
Shaykh Salih al-Munajjid writes about those who deny the obligation of Hijab (covering the head): “But if what is meant by hijab is covering the head, then there is no difference of opinion among the scholars concerning the fact that it is obligatory. His rejection of both types (hijab and niqab), and his making fun of them, is apostasy from Islam, because even though covering the face is not obligatory according to some scholars, they are unanimously agreed that it is prescribed in Islam and that it is part of the religion of Allah, so denying it and making fun of it is kufr which puts one beyond the pale of Islam.”
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan says, “Adherence to philosophies of disbelief, such as communism, secularism, capitalism and other such philosophies of disbelief is apostasy from the religion of Islam. If an adherent to these philosophies also claims to be a Muslim, then this is from major hypocrisy. This is because the hypocrites outwardly attribute themselves to Islam, while inwardly they are disbelievers.”
Shaykh Ibn Baz said, “The scholars of Islam in all times and places have agreed on the disbelief of the one who mocks Allah, His Messenger, His Book, or anything from the religion. They also agreed that anyone who makes mockery of any of this, while being a Muslim, he becomes a disbeliever and an apostate by doing so, and it becomes incumbent to execute him, due to the saying of the Prophet SAW: “Execute the one who changes his religion.”
While some may disagree with excommunication of Usama Hasan (supported by the Quran and the Sunnah, and the four Sunni schools), it remains an undeniable fact that he stands accused of disbelief on all the aforementioned counts which make his Imamate of the mosque untenable.”
‘No Thanks’ to Tariq Ramadan – Abuz Zubair
“Therefore, in order to establish and protect religion, the Shariah obliges the society to establish the various acts of worship in isolation as well as congregation, just as it sanctions the punishment for apostasy, or Jihad in defence of the faith; in order to preserve life, the Shariah sanctions the right of retribution (Qisas), prohibits suicide and calls for the aversion of any harm that may lead to the loss of human life; in order to preserve dignity and lineage, the Shariah legislates marriage, forbids fornication and sanctions the Hudud punishment for it; in order to preserve wealth, the Shariah legalises trade while prohibiting usury, and forbids the destruction and usurpation of wealth, and sanctions the Hadd punishment for theft; and in order to preserve the intellect, the Shariah forbids all intoxicants and sanctions the Hadd punishment for consuming alcohol.
Interestingly, exactly a year after the report was released, Amina Wadud lead the first Friday congregational prayer, in a public event organised entirely by the secularist extremists, attended by no more than a hundred men and women, but nevertheless, given wide media coverage, with the objective of sending shockwaves throughout the Muslim world, either in an attempt to encourage the Muslims to challenge and question their faith, or merely as an exercise to test the waters.
Only twelve days after the Amina Wadud incident, came yet another attack on the Shariah, this time by a prominent professor and ‘Islamist’, Dr. Tariq Ramadan, who made ‘An International call for Moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in the Islamic World’. This article comes as a response to the latter call.
The secularists would argue that to temporarily lift the Hudud is perfectly in line with the objectives of Shariah – that is to preserve life – if it involves lifting the Hudud even to save one innocent soul. The argument only sounds reasonable to those who lack a deep understanding of the Shariah objectives behind the legislation of each of the Hudud with its respective set of rigorous conditions and impediments. This is because what they do not realise is that they may be saving the lives of a handful of innocent people by halting the Hudud, whereas on the other hand, they are opening the floodgates for all kinds of crimes and vices in the society, along with the mass devaluation of human life on a social scale, and that is a far worse outcome than a handful of innocent victims losing their lives or limbs. The ever-increasing crime rate and immorality in the Muslim countries, since the abolishment of the Shariah in its entirety, is perhaps the greatest proof against the practicality of the call for moratorium on Hudud.
Some secularists argue that since poverty is rife, ignorance is prevalent and the level morality is lacking and slowly fading away in the Muslim countries, it follows that the application of Hudud in our current social context would result in mass executions and amputations, and hence, they declare that a moratorium is needed until the society is revived through educational and spiritual processes, not before poverty is defeated and moral values are restored, particularly when the Hudud are not the sole factor in defining a society to be Islamic. Upon analysis, we find that their argument is based on two misconceptions; firstly, that it is possible to revive a society morally and spiritually without the need of Hudud; and secondly, that the application of Hudud in a corrupt society leads to mass executions and amputations, and not to the restoration of social peace and security.
In response to the first misconception, we may confidently assert that those troubled with this argument simply have not grasped the objectives of Shariah behind the legislation of the Hudud. This is because the Hudud are primarily sanctioned for the prevention of crime, in as much as they are a measure to keep the society in shape morally, spiritually, socially and economically; although there is no doubt that the Hudud alone cannot completely rid the society of all evils, for surely the combination of morality, theology and spirituality has been the bedrock of any Islamic civilisation. The point being made here, however, is the Hudud are an essential component of the comprehensive Islamic solution for social reform. Allah promises the righteous in this world with a prosperous hereafter, as it also reminds them of the severe torment as a deterring factor from committing vice; similarly, Islam promises those who follow the moral and spiritual code of Islam, a prosperous and happy life in this world, just as it sanctions the Hudud and other measures as a deterring factor from committing crimes. Hence, a reform must be composed of both of these two components, for one without the other is bound to fail. It is also true that Hudud is not the Shariah in its entirety, but it nonetheless is a fundamental aspect of the construction of the entire Shariah, such that its absence renders a society to be un-Islamic, just as the presence of Hudud without other essential components of Shariah does not necessitate that a society is Islamic.
In response to the second misconception, it is inconceivable that the application of the Hudud with all its applicable conditions and impediments would fail to reform a corrupt society and result in mass amputations. In fact, anyone who objectively analyses the Hudud system in Islam will no doubt agree that it is the wisest and the most effective solution to criminality and to moral decline by being a two-edged sword, because it efficiently decreases the crime rate on the one hand by the harshness and the fear factor, and on the other hand, the preliminary conditions for the Hudud make it more than difficult for the punishments to be applied. If we look at the Hadd punishment for adultery, for instance, the punishment for which is stoning to death, applicable equally to both male and female, we find that such punishment cannot be carried out except in two cases. One such case is for four upright men known for their integrity (‘Udul) to testify in the court that all four of them literally witnessed the penetration. Such a condition is nearly impossible to fulfil, for in most cases it is inconceivable for four righteous and upright men, who are known for their integrity to be bystanders while unmarried couples engage in sexual intimacy. They are also required to testify that they literally ‘witnessed the male organ in the private part of the female’, for if they do not, then there is always the doubt factor that the couples may have been caught in an act of intimacy not reaching the level of intercourse, for which they deserve a punishment at the discretion of the judge, but the Hadd is not to be applied to them. Moreover, those who agree to testify against a person in a court always carries the risk of the Hadd of slander, if their testimony were to fail due to other factors; as well as the fact that a Muslim society is encouraged not to report such crimes, in order to hide the sins of others, and preserve the marriage in hope that the person will repent, unless of course, the person is a criminal by profession who will not be stopped by anything except the Hadd punishment.
The Islamists are in agreement that our decline is primarily due to our own disregard for the application of Shariah, and that the only way to a social reform is precisely to adhere to the teachings of Islam in all aspects of human life, from worship to politics. This recent call emerges in manifest opposition to the agreed upon solution. Although, the call itself is more theoretical than practical, since the Shariah is already absent in most Muslim countries, it still poses a great threat to the Islamic thought process, known traditionally as the Principles of Jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) as well as fundamentals of Islamic theology, which categorically regards ruling with other than the Law of Allah as tantamount to witchcraft.”