In The Name of Allaah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

كما يقال إنه جمعني مجلس مرة مع قسيس من قساوسة النصارى فجرى بحث طويل بيني وبينه ، والقصة فيها طول وفيها فائدة ولكن الوقت ضاق يعني معنا نحو خمس دقائق .ولذلك فأذكر منها ما يتعلق بهذا المقام ، لقد أنكر هذا القسيس على المسلمين أنهم حكموا بكفر الذي كان من قبل يسمى بمصطفى كمال باشا ، ثم سمي بأتاتورك ، أبو الأتراك والذي حاد بالأتراك المسلمين عن كثير من أحكام دينهم كما هو معلوم ، هذا القسيس هاجم المسلمين ونسبهم إلى الغلو في تكفيرهم لأتاتورك هذا بزعمه هو أنه لم يصنع شيئا يذكر ويستحق عليه التكفير سوى أنه فرض على الشعب التركي القبعة ، البرنيطة معروفة هذه البرنيطة عندكم وهي القلنسوة التي لها مظلة ، إما مظلة كاملة أو مظلة أمامية ، فكان ردي عليه من ناحيتين ، الناحية الأولى ولا أطيل فيها أن الرجل لم يخالف الإسلام فقط في هذه الناحية وإنما غير كثيرا من أحكام الشريعة ، منها أن جعل للأنثى في الإرث مثل حظ الذكر ، أما فيما يتعلق بمسألة البرنيطة فهنا خضت معه بحثا طويلا خلاصته أن الإسلام من كماله أنه وضع أحكاما وتشريعات في سبيل أن يحافظ المسلمون بها على شخصيتهم الإسلامية لكي لا ينماعوا مع الزمن في شخصية أمة أخرى ، وذكرت له وهو رجل مع الأسف مثقف بأن علماء الإجماع يقولون بأن أي شعب يريد أن يحافظ على شخصيته فعليه أن يحافظ على تقاليده وعلى تاريخه وعلى لغته ، هذا أمر مسلم لديهم في علم الاجتماع ، فقلت له فكان من فضل الإسلام وكمال تشريعه أنه شرع للمسلمين أن يحافظوا على شخصيتهم المسلمة وأن لا يتشبهوا بالمخالفين لهم بل وأن يتقصدوا مخالفتهم كما شرحت لكم آنفا ، هذا الرجل أتاتورك وهنا الشاهد من هذا المثال لو كان يريد الخير للشعب التركي المسلم ووجد فرضا في القبعة مصلحة لا يجدها في لباس آخر فكان باستطاعته أن يجعل فارقا بين قبعة المسلم التركي وقبعة غير المسلم التركي ، كأن يجعل مثلا شريطا على قبعة المسلم كل من يرى هذا المسلم المتبرنط يقول هذا مسلم ولو أنه لبس لباس الكفار ، لكن الرجل فعل ما فعل عداء لدين الإسلام ولذلك حكم عليه علماء المسلمين بالكفر والردة والخروج عن دين الإسلام ، بحث طويل كان بيني وبينه في هذه القضية حتى ألهمني الله عزوجل فقلت له بعد أن قال هذه قضية أن هذا اللباس صار أمر أممي وليس خاصا بشعب من الشعوب أو بدين من الأديان فجئته من ناحية حساسة ، هذا القسيس لبناني والقساوسة اللبنانيون لهم زي خاص ، أولا لباسهم سواد في سواد وثانيا قلنسوتهم هي كطربوش تعرفونه الطربوش الأحمر ولكنه طويل ضعف الطربوش طولا وأسود
السائل
مثل الهرم يعني ؟
الشيخ : لا ، الهرم يكون رأسه رفيع ، هذا يكون مثل السطل هكذا ، الشاهد قلت له هل أفهم من كلامك أن اللباس ليس له علاقة بالدين أنه مث بالنسبة إليك أنت يجوز أن ترفع هذه القلنسوة وتضع على رأسك الطربوش الأحمر وعليه العمامة البيضاء ؟ فمن نظر إليك ظن فيك أنك شيخ من شيوخ المسلمين ؟ قال : لا ، لا ، لا ، قلت له لماذا فهذا لباس ؟ وليس له علاقة بالدين ؟ قال لا ، نحن علماء النصارى يعني ، نحن رجال الدين ولنا زي خاص من بين النصارى عموما لنا زي خاص ، فألهمني الله عزوجل وقلت له كلمة يعني سقط من بعدها تماما وتبين أنه لا مجال لأحد أن يجادل في الإسلام ، قلت له هذا هو الفرق بيننا نحن معشر المسلمين وبينكم أنتم معشر النصارى ، فنحن لا فرق عندنا بين عالم ومتعلم وغير متعلم مادام أنه يجمعنا الإسلام ، فما لا يجوز لأكبر عالم لا يجوز لأقل مسلم ، هذا عندنا ، أما عندكم فعندكم رجال دين ورجال لا دين ، هكذا قلت له ، بدليل أنك تقول هذا لباس خاص بكم أنتم معشر القسيسين ، أما النصارى الآخرون فيلبسون ما يشاءون ، لا هذا عندنا لا يجوز ، ما يحرم على أكبر إنسان وأتقى إنسان يحرم على أصغر وما لا يجوز أن يلبسه العالم لا يجوز أن يلبسه الأمي ، وهكذا ، فسقط في يده والحقيقة هذه من فضائل الشريعة الإسلامية ولعل في هذا القدر كفاية والحمد لله رب العالمين

Imaam Al-Albaanee [may Allaah have mercy upon him] said:

Once I sat with a Christian priest, so a lengthy discussion and scrutiny took place between him and I. The story is lengthy and it contains benefit, but we do not have enough time, meaning we only have 5mins. Therefore, due to this I will mention from it that which is relevant to this occasion. This priest disapproved of the Muslims [i.e. the scholars of the Muslims] because they passed the judgement of disbelief against the one called Mustapha Kamaal Pasha- later named Ataturk [the father of the Turks], who hindered the Turkish Muslims from many of the rulings of their religion as it is well known. This priest verbally attacked the Muslims and ascribed extremism to their act of excommunicating this Ataturk- claiming that Ataturk did not do anything that makes him deserving of being excommunicated other than the fact that he made the hat compulsory for the Turkish people [i.e. western style hats for civil servants such as the felt hat etc]. So my rebuttal against this priest was from two angles: firstly, I will not prolong in stating the fact that not only did the man oppose Islaam in relation to this first affair, but rather he changed many rulings of the Sharee’ah, such as equating the inheritance of a female to that of a male. (I)

As for with regards to the subject matter of the hat, I went into a long discussion and scrutiny whose summary is….”One aspect of Islam’s perfection is that it established rulings and divine regulations so that Muslims might maintain their Islamic identity and not – at any time – sway towards the (unIslamic) identities of other peoples”. I mentioned to him that the scholars who deal with the subject matters of Ijmaa [religious consensus] say that any society that wants to preserve their personality must preserve their traditions, history and language, and this is an indisputable affair to them in the knowledge [or subject matter] related to consensus. (II) So, I told him that from the virtues of Islam and the perfection of its legislation is that it has legislated for the Muslims to preserve their Muslim personality and not to imitate those who are in opposition (to their identity); rather they should aim to be in opposition to the path of those who are in opposition to their identity.

And if this man Ataturk -and here is the testimony of an example regarding this – wanted good for the Turkish Muslim society and he saw a benefit in making the hat an obligation, which he could not find in another type of clothing, then he had the ability to make a distinction between the Turkish Muslim hat and the non-Muslim Turkish hat, such as placing – for example – a band on the Muslim’s hat, and everyone who sees this banded Muslim would say, “This is a Muslim”, even if he wore the garments that are (specific) to the disbelievers; however, the man did what he did in opposition to the Islamic religion and due to this the Muslim scholars passed the judgement of disbelief and apostasy against him.

It was a lengthy discussion and scrutiny between him and I regarding this issue until Allaah [The Mighty and Majestic] made me mentally stimulated and bestowed on me a timely statement when he said, “This clothing is a global affair and neither is it a specific clothing of a society amongst the societies nor that of a religion amongst the religions”. I responded to him from a touchy (or sensitive) perspective! This priest is Lebanese and the Lebanese priests have a special costume. Firstly, they wear black in black, and secondly, their hoods are like a cowl; you know the red cowl, but it is long- twice as long and blacker. I said to him, “Do I understand from your speech that indeed the clothing has nothing to do with religion, and that for example in relation to you, it is permissible for you to remove this hood and put a red cowl on your head with a white turban on it; so whoever looks at you would think that you are indeed a Shaikh amongst the Shaikhs of the Muslims?” He said, “No, no, no”. I said to him, “Then, why this clothing and it has no connection to religion?” He said, “No, we are scholars of the Christians, I mean, we are men of religion and we have a specific clothing among the Christians in general. We have a specific dress”. Then Allaah [The Mighty and Majestic] made me mentally stimulated and bestowed on me a timely statement, meaning, he was completely toppled after it, and it became clear that there was no room for anyone to argue against Islaam. I told him, “This is the difference between us Muslims and you Christians; we do not have a difference between a scholar, a learner and other than a learner, as long as we are united upon Islaam. That which is not permissible for the greatest scholar is not permissible for a Muslim of the lowest level [i.e. in knowledge]. This is what is between us, but as for yourselves, you have ‘Men of Religion’ and ‘Men who not men of Religion’”. This is how I stated the affair to him, based on evidence that “You [i.e. the priest] say, ‘This is a specific clothing for you priests, as for others (i.e. other Christians), they wear what they want’. This is not what it is for us – not permissible. What is impermissible for the greatest and most pious person is impermissible for the one with the lowest status (i.e. in knowledge, piety etc). That which is impermissible for the scholar to wear is impermissible for the common person’”. So, he found himself in a state of regret and was dumbfounded. The reality is that this is from the virtues of the Islamic Sharee’ah. [https://youtu.be/iKlyiyjwyRw Paraphrased. Your feedback is welcomed to improve the content of this article Jazaakumullaahu Khayran]

Footnote I: Inheritance– Benefit from clarifications By Shaikh Abu Khadeejah, Shaikh Uways At-Taweel and Shaikh Abu Hakeem [may Allaah preserce them]

A man has sons and daughters―so he decided to give his sons some wealth and parcels of land and other gifts but he did not give anything to his daughters. Is this allowed? (Ibn Bāz)

Ar-Rahbiyah – In The Laws of Inheritance by Abu Hakeem Bilāl Davis

Introduction to the Science of Inheritance – By Uways At-Taweel

Footnote II: Muslim life – By Shaikh Abu Khadeejah [may Allaah preserve him]

The importance of the Muslim lifestyle and community (Islam 4.9)

Muslim lifestyle choices, and adopting non-Muslim practices that conflict with Islamic teachings: (Islam 4.1)

Muslim lifestyle choices, and adopting non-Muslim practices that conflict with Islamic teachings: (Islam 4.1)

Living With Non-Muslims In The West: With Fine Conduct

Valentine’s Day, Mothers Day, Halloween, April Fools, Easter, Christmas, Thanksgiving and Holi: Ibn Taymiyyah on the Prohibition of Participating in the Festivals and Annual Celebrations of the Unbelievers.

The origin of the Piñata and why it is a must that Muslims do not use it in their days of celebration

Finally: NB: Imaam Al- Albaanee [may Allaah have mercy upon him] only mentioned one amongst some of Ataturk’s misguidance, rather the upright scholars declared him a disbeliever due to his many evil beliefs and deeds that are founder on secularism. Al-Allaamah Muhammad Amaan Al-Jaami [may Allaah have mercy upon him] said, “Secularism is disbelief and the mother of all evil”. [Asbaab Al-Ijaabah Cassette 2] However, we are reminded of the fact that removing someone from Islaam is the job and responsibility of the upright scholars of Ahlus Sunnah- neither the responsibility of the common people nor the misguided sects such as the khawaarij. Read and Listen Regarding Principles of Takfeer (excommunication)

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?secID=MNJ&subsecID=MNJ09&loadpage=displaysubsection.cfm

http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ09&articleID=MNJ090006&articlePages=1

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ05&articleID=MNJ050003&pfriend=

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/downloads/pdf/MNJ050018.pdf

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ05&articleID=MNJ050018&articlePages=1