The Kufr of former Saudi king Abdullah

Proof 1:

I've read the book Explanation of the Nullifiers of Islam by Shaykh Abdur Rauf Shakir, student of Shaykh Muhsin Al Abbad, and there he mentions in page 32 (see footnote at the right, bottom):

Soorah Al Maida 5:44.....many people refer to the words of Ibn Abbas (radiallahu anhu) that it means Minor Kufr which does not constitute apostasy. But the narration of the words of Ibn Abbas is weak because it came in one way through Hisham Ibn Hujjar whom was considered weak by Imam Ahmad, Yayha ibn Maeen, Yahya ibn Saeed, and Al-Awqaily (Ad-Duafa Volume 4, pg 337).

the truth about this issue and Allah knows best, it is Major Kufr as was narrated by Abdur Razzaq in his Tafseer, that Ma'Amr and Ibn Taw'wose said his father said that Ibn Abbas was asked and Ibn Abbas said: It's Kufr

He also mentions another source: Fiqh Al-Ibadat by Shaykh Bin Saalih Al-Uthaymeen: Pg 60, Question 30.

Proof 2:

[From SPUBS]

Shaykh Salih al Fawzan, [quoting Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim], stated:

"And Shaikh Muhammad bin Ibraaheem said, As for what has been said regarding it, that it is the lesser disbelief (kufr doona kufr) when he judged to someone other than Allaah (or something other than what Allaah has revealed) while believing that he is disobedient and that the judgement of Allaah is the truth, then this is something that occurs from him once or something like that (i.e. occurs infrequently). As for the one who lays down laws in an organised and arranged manner and requests submission and compliance to them, then this is disbelief, even if he says, We have erred, and the Shariah laws are more just, so this is disbelief that expels from the religion."

And Shaykh Salih al Fawzan stated when answering a question about the meaning of these words:

"His [Muhammad ibn Ibrahim] words mean that the one who abolishes the Shariah and puts in its place another law, then this indicates that he considers this law to be better than the Shareeah"

So you see that it is the view of Shaykh Salih al Fawzan and Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim that the very action of ruling by other than Allah, except in minor instances here and there, is an indication of his belief that they are better.

Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen (commenting on the words of Shaykh ALbaani) said:

And these words of Shaikh al-Albani are very good indeed, however, we would differ with him on the issue where he does not make a ruling of disbelief over them (the rulers) except when they held that to be permissible (as a matter of belief). This matter needs further investigation, because we say: Whoever rules by what Allaah has revealed yet he holds that something other than the rule of Allaah is better or more befitting, then he is a kafir - even if he judged by the rule of Allaah - and his kufr is a kufr of belief. However, our discussion here is concerning an action. And it is in my opinion (dhann) that it is not possible for a person to apply and establish such laws that oppose the Shari'ah and which are referred to by the slaves of Allaah for judgement except that he declares this to be permissible (istahallahu) and holds the belief (ya'taqidu) that such laws are better the Shari'ah laws. Hence, he is a disbeliever. This is what is apparent, and if not then what [motive] is it that carried him to undertake this.

The above quotes were Taken from Salafi Publications

Proof 3 (and this is the most important part):

Khalid AL Anbaari (a murji) had a QA session with Shaykh Albaani back in 2001. And after that, there he provided many evidences saying that the verse is minor kufr. He went to the point that he insisted that it's minor kufr, and also tried to use Shaykh Albaani as a shield and said that whoever calls Khalid Anbbari a murji is also calling Shaykh Albaani a murjiah. This caused many people toa ccuse Shaykh Albaani a murji. Even the great Ahle Hadis schoalr of Pakistan (Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai) releaseda video on YouTube saying Albaani showed Irja in his speech. Unfortunately, Anbaari's paper was also published at Salafi Publications. Thus, some students of knowledge went to great lengths to refute Khalid Anbaari. Their book was known as "A Decisive Refutation of Salafi Publications" (later the authors emailed SPUBS and eventually SPUBS removed that article from Anbaari). The book addresses ALL the points, and goes to tremendous details (and it also quoted all the salaaf from their actual books, as well as from Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, as well as Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Nasiruddin Sa'ad - teacher of Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen). They also mentioned that SPUBS altered about some fatwas of Ibn Baz at their site. For proof those authors provided camera pictures of the texts of the book of Ibn Baz from directly at the Library. You can read part 1 of the 2 books here: http://islamicline.com/islamicbooks/Refutation_of_salafipublications-1_(revised)(www.islamicline.com).pdf

When you're done reading it, I can send you part 2. I have both of them on my cell phone.

Proof 4

The aqeedah of Ahle Sunnah wal Jamah is that Actions are a condition for Iman.

We all know that Shahadah has 3 conditions for Iman to be valid:

  1. Speech.

  2. Actions.

  3. Heart

If one of them is invalid, the person's Iman remains invalid. And thus he's not a Muslim.

Problem is, Shaykh Albaani and Shaykh Ibn Baz (rahimahullah) accidentally mentioned that actions are a condition for perfection of Imaan, [and not a condition for validity of Iman].

Normally, this belief is held by the murjis (one extreme is the murji, and the other extreme is the khawarij, while the Ahle Sunnah wal Jamah is in the middle). The murjiah say that actions are not a part of Imaan. While the Khawarij say that actions are the only condition for iman (thus they make takfir on account of major sins- even those sins that don't constitute apostasy - such as lying, zina etc). While the Salafis (ahle-Sunnah) say that actions are A condition for Iman (and not the only condition for iman).

However, a person can not be called a murjiah if the following happens:

  1. He declares statement of irja out of ijtihad. (Shaykh Albaani and Ibn Baz did irja out of ijtihad - they made ijtihad that the Hadith of Ibn Abbas is sahih, while they didn't take into account the sahih Hadith of Ibn Masood - which the Above book mentions). So they made speech of irja through ijtihad. Thus they made errors here. And so they can NOT be called Murjiahs.

  2. By mistake (none of us are infallible).

But the problem is, many people and even some schoalrs outright called Albaani and Ibn Baz murjiahs.

So, as a response Shaykh Rabee Al Madkhali defended Albaani from the accusations that he's a Murji. There he did say that Albaani had made a slight error in his speech. And he also said "May Allah pardon him". Here's his quote:

...they accused al-Albaani of Irjaa' because this expression occurred from him, may Allaah pardon him, the likes of this expression occurred from the Imaams (of the past) and no one judged them with Irjaa'. Mis'ar (bin Kidaam) did not make exception (istithnaa) in eemaan... and it was said to Imaam Ahmad, "Is he a Murji'?" and he said, "No." And we do not know Mis'ar (rahimahullah) to make war against Irjaa' as Ahl al-Sunnah (meaning al-Albaanee) wage war (against it), those whom you (Haddaadiyyah) accuse of Irjaa', out of oppression and wrongdoing. For if Imaam Ahmad was asked today about the expression of al-Albaanee [actions are a condition for the perfection of eemaan] he would have said, "He is not a Murji'" ... and I, by Allaah, I rejected this expression from others, even BEFORE al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) said it, this expression, "Action is a condition of perfection in eemaan" and Ibn Baz (rahimahullaah) shares with him somewhat, they asked him about action, is it a condition of perfection (kamaal) or of correctness (validity)?

You can read it here (Ustadh Abu Ilyah wrote the article).

/r/Islaam Thread Parent Link - youtube.com