|Bismillaah Al-Hamdulillaah wa salatu wa salaamu 'ala rasulullaah
Shaykh al-Jarboo refutes Anwar Al 'Awlaki and his Dangerous Doubts, such as Suicide Bombings, Satanic Analogies
[The following is a translated transcript of a phone call with Shaykh Dr. 'Abdullaah ibn 'Abdur-Rahmaan al-Jarboo (hafidhahullaah), a Professor from the College of Da'wah "Usool ud-Deen", and a former head of the 'Aqeedah Department at Medinah University.]
A student of knowledge, Sa'eed Rhana al-Maghribee opened by giving the shaikh some background information on Anwar al 'Awlaki: Our shaykh, we would like to present to you some of the mistakes of a man called Anwar al 'Awlaki, who is Yemeni and is currently residing in Yemen but he used to be in the United States. He has a lot of affect on the youth all over the West and they raise him to the level of the scholars. Allaahu musta'aan (Allaah's Help is sought)! Awlaki has served as an imam in Colorado, California, and most recently in the Washington, D.C. area, where he headed the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Centre and was the Muslim chaplain at George Washington University. He studied under Shaykh 'Uthaymeen (rahimahullaah) for a short while (few months) and Salman 'Awdah. He received a general ijaza for the sciences of the Qur`an, Hadith, Sciences of Hadith, Tafsir, Fiqh, Usoolul Fiqh, and Arabic from Hassan Maqbooli al Ahdal, Hussein ibn Mahfoodh, 'Abdur-Rahman Shumailah al Ahdal, and Hamud Shumailah al Ahdal. And he has a strong relation with the Imaam of the University in Yemen, which is headed by 'Abdul-Majid Az-Zindaani, who considers him to be one of his "scholars." He published many CDs, lectures, and albums. From the most famous of which is called: Lives of the Prophets.
|He gives listeners doubts in their religion, and does not call to Da'wah Salafiyyah; rather he calls to praise the people of Desire and has great mistakes in his manhaj such as allowing suicide bombings. He also quotes from the people of bid'ah (innovation) in his lectures and CDs, such as Sayyid Qutb, Salman 'Awdah and Mawdudi.|
First Question by student of knowledge Sa'eed Rhana al-Maghribee : The first of the observances against him is his saying: "Brothers and sisters, whether you agree or not with "Martyrdom operations," let's leave our differences behind us and let us support our Muslim brothers who are in the frontlines. Just like we agree on many other issues, we should not let our disagreement stand in the way of our solidarity in the face of our adversaries. [Taken from his own website.] What is your comment concerning this, shaykh? BaarakAllahu fikum (May Allaah bless you).
First Answer by Shaikh al-Jarboo: In the Name of Allaah, Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim, All Praise is for Allaah, Lord of all that exists. And may the peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and his family, and all his companions.
Amma ba'd (as to what follows):
From what I heard of his [al 'Awlaki's] background, his "shaykhs", and his ideas in general, it is clear that this individual is affiliated with Ikhwanul Muslimoon [deviant sect which named themselves "Muslim Brotherhood"], especially one of their branches called "Suroorees." Ikhwanul Muslimoon has a distinct orientation, and their concerns revolve around certain contemporary issues in which they oppose those firmly rooted in knowledge. They oppose the scholars in their speech and verdicts. Therefore, if this man builds his orientation upon this thinking and ideology of those groups affiliated with and derived from the likes of the Islaamic Group of Pakistan at whose head al-Mawdudi - such as Ikhwanul Muslimeen of Egypt, and Hamaas of Palestine - then know that all these groups have a specific ideology for themselves. Thus, the awareness of this man's background, his ideological affliliation is very important in knowing his orientation, and making a ruling concerning him and his statements.
As far as the issue of suicide bombings, they call them "martyrdom operations" - and the scholars have labeled them as suicide. Then these acts are most of what the opposers, endorsers of takfeer (those who expel Muslims from the fold of al-Islam without right) from the "Muslim Brotherhood" sect, promote on the internet, in their writings, books, CDs, and lectures. They authorize these acts of violence for which they attempt to assemble proofs to validate them. These proofs and evidences that they seek to substantiate their position by have already been declared by the people of knowledge as "invalid" for their use as evidence in the supporting of these acts. The most important premise in their process of presenting the legitimacy of their stance is their use of al-Qiyas (analogy or comparative deduction).
They conclude that these acts are the same as al-Iqtihaam (attacking the enemy ranks individually), or at-Tatarrus (killing those who are used as human shields by the enemy).
|Because of this - and pay close attention to the following - there exists not one explicit text, nor any historical account from the companions, radiallaahu 'anhum (may Allaah be pleased with them), nor in the history of Jihaad that can be used to prove the validity of their ideology having a basis in the religion. There is no precedent in history (i.e. Islaamic) of anyone committing suicide in Jihaad!|
Rather there was one who committed suicide during a battle in the era of the Messenger (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam), but the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) condemned him for that.
On the account of there not being any clear text to support them, they resort to analogical deduction by comparing suicide bombings to al-Iqtihaam (attacking the enemy ranks individually), exposing oneself to the possibility of being killed, or they compare these bombings with at-Tatarrus, which is killing the one whom the enemy has used as a human shield. It is permissible to kill him if there was a great benefit for the Muslims. So they said: if it is permissible to kill others for a benefit, then it is permissible to commit suicide for a benefit - from the angle of analogy. All of their proofs that they use return to analogical deduction in their comparing suicide attacks with al-Iqtihaam or at-Tatarrus.
Consequently, the response to this is that they oppose the verdict (fatwah) passed by those firmly rooted in legislated knowledge, which is the outlawing (prohibition) of killing of one's self. The people of knowledge - the (genuine) scholars - have explained that there are definitive texts showing that the one who kills himself with anything will be punished with the same object and method from his death until the Day of Resurrection. In addition to this, whoever killed himself deliberately - in any way - then he is considered as having committed suicide, and is included among those threatened with the fire of Hell.
The scholars have clarified that the approved warfare mentioned in Allaah's statement: ...They fight in Allaah's Path, wherein they kill or are killed by the enemy... (At-Tawbah 9:111) They kill the enemy or are killed by them. There is not a third situation, wherein it is mentioned that they kill themselves! This is what is connected with the definitive texts that prove the illegality of killing one's self in any condition. As far as the verdicts of those firmly rooted in knowledge, then those such as Shaikh 'Abdul-Aziz ibn Baaz, The Permanent Committee for the issuance of Verdicts in Saudia Arabia, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen, Shaikh saalih al-Fawzaan, and Imam Shaikh al-Albanee, and many others known for their knowledge, righteousness and understanding have agreed with the Ijma` (consensus) and following the example of those firmly established scholars before them, that killing oneself is haram (prohibitted)!
Now for those who oppose the scholars, then they do so from two approaches:
1- Their opposition is the result of their lack of understanding of the religion (al-Islaam). They seek to prove their position with arguments leveled by the takfiree groups or from the splinter groups of Ikhwanul Muslimeen, and use their methods of proof. And there are those from the people of knowledge who have issued verdicts (in favor of), but the reality of their proof do not extend beyond the previously mentioned arguments, or they are ambiguous evidences. However, the explicit and detailed proofs point to the illegality of such activities.
2- Secondly, from the angle of Qiyaas (comparative deduction) in their use of comparing suicide bombing with al-Iqtihaam and at-Tatarrus to what they call "martyrdom operations," this is an invalid conclusion involving two errors:
First of all, it is the use of deduction in the presence of explicit texts regarding the forbidden nature of killing one's self, and in that case there is no basis for the use of comparative deduction. This type of deduction is called "al-Qiyas al-Ibleesee" (Satanic analogy). This Satanic reasoning happens when one seeks to employ analogy in a matter where there exists a clear text, and a conclusion is drawn by this reasoning. This is similar as what occurred when Iblees (Satan) used his own analogy in the face of an explicit text. Allaah subhanahu wa taa'aala ordered him to prostrate to Adam. This is a clear text. So Iblees resorted to analogy, by saying that "fire is superior to mud," so how can one superior prostrate to one inferior? Thus, they seek to prove their position while there are explicit texts (to the contrary of what they promote). This is why the people of knowledge have said that every analogy made when there is a presence of a specific text is called "al-Qiyas al-Ibleesee" (Satanic analogy). The evidence for the forbiddance of suicide is clear and definite.
Even if we were to accept that analogy in this matter is permitted - when in fact it is not - but if we did (to prove a point), then this analogy would be false. The false analogy is one wherein there exists disparity between the situations compared. The primary disparity is that the mutatarus bihi (those Muslims that the enemy has used as human shields) or al-Iqtihaam (attacking the enemy ranks individually), this person does not kill himself; others kill him. Thus, the one who does al-Iqtihaam, the enemy kills him. He doesn't kill himself. Nor did he set out to kill himself. Nor did he slaughter himself. Rather the one who killed him is the enemy.
Furthermore, the mutatarus bihi as well; the Muslims kill him, because they shoot their arrows with the intention to kill the disbelievers. However, the arrow might strike and kill him (the Muslim human shield). And in this case as well, the Muslim didn't set out with the intention to kill himself. He dies in the course of the battle. You will not find any of them killing themselves.
The second disparity is that the scholars gave al-Iqtihaam an important pre-condition, that this Iqtihaam has to be done during a crowd of combatants. When the battle starts - and you are face to face with the disbelievers - then it is permissible for one to commit Iqtihaam against the column of the enemy, and to put his life in danger in order to ruffle/distract the enemy and to show them the bravery of the Muslims.
Likewise, the fuqaaha (jurists) have made a pre-condition that the mutatarrus bihi is not killed except in dire necessity - in dire necessity. And that is that there is no other way (to get to the enemy except by killing those human shields).
Consequently, comparing suicide attacks to al-Iqtihaam or at-Tatarrus is impermissible and is considered "al-Qiyas al-Ibleesee" (Satanic analogy) when made in contradiction to definitive texts. Furthermore, if we accept that suicide is lawful [when in fact it is not] (to prove a point), then it is an invalid analogy because of existing disparities. And the disparity here is that the one doing al-Iqtihaam or mutatarrus bihi didn't set out to kill himself, and that the one who kills him is the enemy or he is killed by someone other than himself.
Similarly, the jurists have explained (for both cases) that there exists the condition of the battle taking place among a crowd of combatants, and of there being a dire necessity.
It has become clear to us that the Takferees' dependance upon these proofs is futile. As a result of this, they contradict and oppose the scholars deeply rooted in knowledge, and muddle up the issue by resorting to analogy to prove their stance, which is not allowed and is considered "al-Qiyas al-Ibleesee" (Satanic analogy). None of their methods of proof goes beyond what we have stated, and all Praise is due to Allaah, Lord of all that exists.
Sa'eed Rhana al-Maghribee commented: Possessor of excellence, they also seek to prove their position by using the story of the Boy and the King, and the story of Baraa ibn Maalik (radiallaahu 'anhu). [Then a tape recording of Anwar al 'Awlaki's speech was played for evidence.]
Shaikh al-Jarboo answered: Their means of using these stories as proof is well known. I myself have researched this issue, and all who seek proof by their methods goes back to what I mentioned. In so far as using the proof of the narration of Baraa ibn Maalik is concerned, then this story is a proof for al-Iqtihaam (attacking the enemy ranks individually), because Maalik attacked the enemy lines by himself. This is their seeking proof by comparing suicide attacks to al-Iqtihaam. And they use another "proof," and that is the story of the boy. Now as far as the boy is concerned, then:
The boy did not kill himself; he was killed by the king. [The call was interrupted, then the connection was re-established with the shaikh, wa lillaah il Hamd, and the salaams were re-established:] We say that the story of Baraa ibn Maalik falls under the category of al-Iqtihaam. And they use a lot of "proofs", all of which returns back to al-Iqtihaam. Furthermore, we say that Maalik did not kill himself, and he was not killed in this instance. For if he was killed, it would have been the enemy that had done so, and any way, he didn't kill himself to begin with. Also, this was in a situation where the ranks were tight and crowded. What he did was advantageous for the Muslim army in a throng of soldiers; it does not compare to these suicide attacks.
|For them (the Takfirees/Jihaadees), there is a comparison with existing disparities, and they are not at all permitted to make analogies in this case. They make analogies upon analogies. They compare the texts with what they call "martyrdom operations" - these bombings. They compare this with al-Iqtihaam, so we say that this analogy is exceedingly impermissible, and it is Ibleessee (Satanic) when there is a found explicit text regarding this issue.|
We also say that this analogy is futile as it is a comparison with obvious disparities. The reason for this is that Baraa ibn Maalik advanced to the enemy ranks by himself, during a face-to-face battle. None who do this all together and are killed is considered to have committed suicide - they were killed by the enemy. This is contrary to what one who blows himself up does. The jurists have stipulated that there is a crush and jam of combatants for this type of strategy to be valid. The attacks that they carry out do not include this condition. Rather, they carry them out in a sneaky fashion.
Regarding the story of the Boy and the King, firstly, the Boy did not kill himself. The oppressive, misguided King killed him. Secondly, the Boy's situation is from the category of extraordinary phenomena. And miracles are manifest among people in accordance with a wisdom that Allaah desires. Allaah prevented the killing of the boy by the king by any method except for one. Allaah informed the boy of the method, and the boy - in turn - informed the king, thus achieving the wisdom that Allaah desired from the boy's death.
Thus, what happened was nothing other than from the category of miracles. What proves this is that the boy was thrown from a mountain - and lived. He was thrown into the sea and did not drown; he came out. In addition to what is mentioned in the narration is that the King said to the boy: "Your fame has reached the extent that it is said you can return sight to the blind, and raise the dead"... The boy was also thrown to a lion, and killed it. This proves that he was given miracles. Miracles cannot be employed in the use of analogy; there is no comparison to be made with them. They are special incidents that cannot be used as proof in legal matters.
Shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen (rahimahullaah) said:
|"This miracle has a benefit, and that this benefit is in accordance with Allaah's wisdom, meaning that Allaah is the One Who desired that benefit and that he arranged the means by which the boy was not killed except in a certain manner."|
Therefore the seeking of proof for these suicide bombings by employing this story is not acceptable from [three] matters.
1. The boy did not kill himself, the boy did not kill himself; the disbelieving King killed him.
2. This story is from the category of miracles and extraordinary phenomena, and comparison is not allowed to be made to them. This happening was specifically for the boy. This is because Allaah informed him of the manner by which he could be killed, and he said he could not be killed except by such and such manner.
3. There is also a third important prespective that the people of knowledge have explained; it is that the boy was under a legislation of those nations who came before us. If we accept this and assessed the permissibility of using this as a proof, then this is from a legislation of those who came before us. And it is not permissible to use as a proof for ourselves in a case where we find that is in contradiction to and/or abrogated by our legislation. We have in our legislation the clear forbiddance of suicide.
From these three prespectives, it is clear that it is not allowed to use the story of the Boy and the King as a proof supporting suicide attacks - and Allaah knows best.
Second Question by Sa'eed Rhana al-Maghribee: Ahsan Allaahu ilaykum (May Allaah grant you the best). Sahib al Fadeela (possessor of excellence). This man Anwar al 'Awlaki incites the Somali youth here in the state of Virginia and other than it to leave and enlist with the al-sahaab movement. It is known that they are irhabieen (terrorists) in Somalia. So he incites them and he says in one of his speeches - in a commentary of a hadeeth of the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) - that one of the companions killed one of the slave girls, meaning a woman that used to serve him. He killed her because she used to curse the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam). So he warned her not to do it, and she refused, so he killed her. So he made a commentary about this hadeeth, and he says that it is permissible for a Muslim to enforce the laws such as this [example] if one of the People cursed the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) so it is permissible for him to kill him, and it is not important to return matters to those in authority. So this is how he is in his itlaqaat (releases). So what do you say Sahib al Fadeela (possessor of excellence)?
Second Answer by Shaikh al-Jarboo: In the Name of Allaah, Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim, All Praise is for Allaah, Lord of all that exists. And may the peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and his family, and all his companions.
Amma ba'd (as to what follows):
From the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jama'ah - the Salaf-us-Saleh - of which the people of knowledge have mentioned in their 'aqeedah (creed) that enforcing the Islamic laws (hudood), the enjoining of the good and forbidding of the evil with the hand, and Jihaad, and the general affairs are entrusted to the people in authority. They stress greatly on this. And they show that negligence in this principle - which is from the most important of foundations with Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jama'ah - leads to a greater evil. In that every person will deduce [shar'ee] rulings on his own. ...He deduces [shar'ee] rulings on his own, that his neighbors or close relatives or so and so is an adulterer. Then he claims that he wants to enforce the due punishment on them, and [then] stones them. And this one deduces a [shar'ee] ruling that this one is shaarik (an idolater) and that one deduces a [shar'ee] ruling that and says "so and so is murtad (an apostate)."
So he makes people attack and kill each other in the claim that everyone of them is qualified to deduce a ruling on his own, and every one of them can enforce the Islaamic laws [pertaining to crime] on his own.
|There is no doubt that in this is a great corruption, and no sane person would say this.|
Rather, the great texts explain that if there is no Walee-ul-Amr (ruler), then the legal punishments are not to be established. And nobody should attack anything, even if it be statues. He should not break them if the ruler did not order him with that.
|And from this, the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) and his companions were in Makkah. And [keep in mind] the Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) was with them (the companions). Evil was widespread, and statues were in the Ka'bah, and this is more evil and the greatest of all evils. And there was no narration from the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) that he ordered the killing of a disbeliever from those who were transgressing against the Muslims. Nor did he order the breaking of the statues that were in the Ka'bah, because he (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) was not the ruler. And the ruler in Makkah at the time was not a Muslim. |
And when Makkah came under the state of Muslims, the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) became the new ruler. And one of the first things he did was to break and demolish the statues. And he allowed the blood (killing) of those who used to harm the Muslims.
So this shows that there must be a ruler, and must be by his permission.
The people of knowledge have clarified that killing someone in specific or establishing the punishment upon him, or establishing the legislated laws upon him must have two very important matters.
The first matter is to seek the fatwah (verdict) from a qualified judge who has insight of the case, and can look carefully into the matter. And the people of knowledge have also clarified that there must be a claimant in the case. There must be a person to establish his claim, either a general claimant or one from the Muslims.
And the claimant should come with the evidences that is required to convict this person, and the qualified governor should look at it. So if the notable judge issued his verdict in the Islaamic country, then the implication of this verdict returns to the ruler. For he is the one who will charge whoever it may be with the implementation of this verdict. And it is not permissible for the one who carries out this ruling to implement it until he looks at the ruling and that it was issued from one who is notable and qualified.
And the absence of this principle will result in great corruption, as we said before.
Even if the person was in the land of disbelief, it is not permissible for him to kill the disbelievers, even if they are transgressing against the Muslims. This is because killing and upholding the Islamic laws is for the ruler.
And an example of this is the story of Musa ('alaihi salaam). For he killed a man in Egypt from the people of Fir'awn (Pharoah). And it is known that Fir'awn and his people were tyrannizing over the Muslims - on the people of Musa, the Muslims. And as Allaah, 'azza wa jall, said (what means): "...Who were afflicting you with a horrible torment..." (Al-Baqarah 2:49)
And even with this, when Musa killed the man, He (Musa) said (what means): "This is of Shaitan's (Satan) doing, verily, he is a plain misleading enemy." (Al-Qasas 28:15)
So he [Musa] said that this doing that he did - which is the killing of the disbeliever (who, along with his people, use to tyrannize the Muslims) - is from shaytan's doing.
And it shows in the hadeeth of Shafa'aa (intercession), that he (Musa) said: "Verily I killed a man whom I was not commanded to kill" or "I killed a soul that was not ordered to be killed." So he pointed this out that it was not ordered; the soul was not commanded to be killed. Because the command is for the ruler, and he is not the ruler. And the ruler did not order him to kill him. So he (Musa) was not commanded to kill him. Then, he (Musa) said: "My Lord! Verily, I have wronged myself, so forgive me." (Al-Qasas 28:16)
So Allaah forgave him. Allaah, 'azza wa jall, said: Then He forgave him. Verily, He is the Oft-Forgiving, the Most Merciful. (Al-Qasas 28:16)
So this also shows that it was a crime and considered a sin by Allaah, 'azza wa jall.
Also, when he (Musa) went to give da'wah to Fir'awn (Pharoah), Fir'awn tested him and told him: "And you did your deed, which you did (i.e. the crime of killing a man). And you are one of the ingrates." (Ash-Shu'ara 26:19)
Musa, who had since been given prophethood, told him: "I did it then, when I was an ignorant (as regards my Lord and His Message)." (Ash-Shu'ara 26:20) So it showed that it was a misguidance.
So after this, whoever now calls to establishing war, or calls to join those who war against the rulers, those who war against the rulers, the Islamic government...
If the Muslim ruler becomes known, and he observes the salat (prayer), and complies with the laws of Share'ah, then this is a Muslim ruler.
|And it is not permissible to revolt against him - even if he does not enforce the Islamic Laws.For revolting against him has conditions. From the most important ones is that the one who assumes this are the scholars and those in authoritative positions in the same country. Secondly, it should be in their notion that it will not lead to corruption. From chaos, disorder, and fighting the people. So if there will be fighting and war, then it will not be permissible. And if a person serves this and knows that he fell into a war between the Muslims in that country, then he entered into fitnah, and in chaos and disorder. |
And he opposed the command of the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) who ordered to leave off all these groups completely, and not to help one over the other.
In conclusion, that this which this man [Anwar al 'Awlaki] calls to is far away from the evidences and far away from the manhaj (methodology) of the Salaf-us-Saleh, and that great corruption emits from it, that is not hidden from those with intellect. And we have seen what happened in Algeria and we have seen what happened in Afghanistan, where its sons fought for authority. And we have seen what happened in countries, especially in Somalia. For in Somalia, they transgressed against each other for decades due to them fighting for authority.
So we advise our brothers to fear Allaah, 'azza wa jall, and not to listen to these types of calls [which are given] by those whom are described by the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) in his statement: "Towards the last days, a people will emerge who will be young in age and have foolish ideas. They will speak with the best speech of the creatures..."
Yes, so he said: "So wherever you encounter them, kill them, for indeed there will be a reward for the one who kills them on the Day of Judgment."
And he (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said in another hadeeth: "Whosoever revolts against my Ummah, striking its righteous and its disobedient ones, not excluding the believer and not honoring the treaties of those under protection, then he is not from me and I am not from him."
We ask Allaah to return the Muslims to these principles, and to preserve us and you from deviating from the Sunnah and the truth, and all Praise is for Allaah, Lord of all that exists.
Third Question by Sa'eed Rhana al-Maghribee: Ahsan Allaahu ilaykum (May Allaah grant you the best). Sahib al Fadeela (possessor of excellence). He (Anwar al 'Awlaki) mocks the scholars and those who oppose him in speech. He says look at those (people). They want to go to the ruler and ask his permission for their affairs, etc... And that they have to return their affairs to the rulers. So he (Anwar) says that this man (the companion) who killed this women - the mother of his child - didn't ask the permission of the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam), and the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) cleared him of blame for killing her. So [Anwar] uses this as a proof, and he says: that if someone breaks in your house, do we say that you have to go to the ruler and ask for his permission (to defend)? Or what do you do? When the Prophet (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said: Whoever dies protecting his wealth is a shaheed (martyr). [Then a tape recording of Anwar al 'Awlaki's speech was played for evidence.] So with these hadeeth, he uses [distorts] to cause doubts in the people and deceive them. Tafadal (feel free to answer), Sahib al Fadeela.
Third Answer by Shaikh al-Jarboo: As for his first proof, and it is what happened from some of the salaf, that they killed some of the magicians or they killed or enforced the laws themselves, then this returns to two matters. Firstly, that the Walee-ul-Amr - and he was 'Umar ibn al-Khattab - commanded them. He commanded them to kill every magician. So when he ordered this, whoever showed the signs of being a magician and became known that he or she was a magician, then he should kill him/her because the ruler ordered them with this. So if a ruler justifies the killing of someone, and a person sees that (same) person, then he should kill him, and this way the order would have come from the ruler.
And as for what some of the salaf did, from enforcing the laws without the permission of the ruler, then Jundu ibn 'Abdullaah (radiallaahu 'anhu) did this when he killed a magician. And the khalifa detained him - even though he was a companion. And the scholars and judges pointed this out and showed that he made a mistake, and that he put himself forward before the ruler.
So the Imam (ruler) put him in jail, after the scholars pointed this out - and he was a companion! So he put him in jail from the door [as a way] of disciplining him. And the companions made mistakes, like what happened to Khalid, and what happened to Usamah, and other than them. And this is from their kind of mistakes, that no one holds onto except a follower of desires. This is in relation to what happened to some of the salaf, or the companions with killing the magicians or what resembles that without returning it to the ruler. And as it was said previously, either the ruler has justified their killing and ordered whoever found them to kill them, and therefore this order would have come from the ruler, or it was a mistake from them