Administrator
Posts: 846
Joined: Sep 2002
|
On the Issue of Wearing the Cross and Takfeer
(by Abul-Hasan ad-Daraqutni, posted on an arabic discussion board) |
|
Three precursors:
Firstly, there is no difference between a cross being worn on the chest, or the hand or in any other place of the body, since all of this is considered to be "wearing", just as the Fuquhaa do not differentiate between those who have impurity upon him during prayer, regardless of where that impurity is on his body.
Secondly, there is no difference, between the cross being woven into the garment, or etched, painted onto it, or engraved into a ring, or a watch or a medal.
Thirdly, just as the cross is the emblem of the Christians, then likewise, from their emblems is the Church which is the known place of their worship. Hence, the ruling with respect to them is the same, since both of them are a sign, emblem for them.
[In light of this] some enquiries:
1. The one who makes takfir of the one who wears a cross, unrestrictedly (mutlaqan), does he also make takfir of the one who wears a watch or a ring or a medal which contains a cross? And if he does not make takfir, then what is the difference, and is the difference one that is counted, and effective (i.e. applicable).
2. The one who makes takfir of the one who wears a cross, unrestrictedly (mutlaqan), does he he see any binding link between (the actions of) wearing the cross and entering ito a church and between love of the cross and loving the religion of the people of the cross?
3. The one who makes takfir of the one who wears a cross, unrestrictedly, does he have any of the Salaf who said this?
Texts and Conveyance:
Firstly:
Al-Bukhaaree said in Kitaab us-Salaat of his Saheeh, chapter no. 15, "Chapter: If he prays in a garment with a cross, or with pictures, is his prayer corrupted?" Ibn Hajr said (al-Fath, 1/577), "And what is meant is "or he prayed in (the presence of) pictures". Then al-Bukhaaree quoted the hadeeth of Anas, "Aa'ishah used to have screen, curtain, by which she used to conceal one part of her house, so the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, "Remove this curtain of yours from us, for its pictures do not cease to distract me in my prayer." So why did al-Bukhaaree link between the garment which has pictures and the garment which has a cross? And, in his view, are they both the same in the ruling? The answer: Ibn Hajr said, "...and secondly, then by putting together the garment with a cross and that with a picture due to their both having something in common, which is what is worshipped besides Allaah the Most High...", then he went on to mention the second angle. So what did Ibn Hajr chose as hte stronger view with respect to whether the prayer is correct or corrupt? The answer: Ibn Hajr said, "it is not corrupted by that, since he (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) did not interrupt his prayer or repeat it".
So here a question arises: al-Bukhaaree spoke about the correctness of the prayer or its absence and Ibn Hajr preferred the view of it being correct and the absence of it being corrupt. Do you not see that neither of them said, "the person is a disbeliever by his wearing of the cross to begin with, without even looking at whether his prayer is correct or corrupt? And I will leave the answer to you.
Secondly:
The Permanent Committee responded to the takfir of the one who wore a cross, is it unrestrictedly, or is it with detail (tafseel), with the following: "Adhering to tafseel (detail) in this matter and other matters like it is obligatory. So when it is made clear to him the ruling of wearing a cross, and that it is a sign and emblem of the Christians, and that it is an evidence to show that the one who wears it is pleased with ascribing himself to them, and pleased with what they are upon, and then he persists upon that, then the ruling of kufr is passed over him..." (Fatawaa al-Lajnah 2/119), by Abdul-Azeez bin Baaz, 'Abdur-Razzaaq Afeefee, Abdullaah bin Ghudayan, Abdullaah bin Qu'ood.
So the saying of the Committee, "and that it is an evidence to show that the one who wears it is pleased with ascribing himself to them" the its meaning is that we say that if you persist in wearing this cross, alongside this being from their signs and emblems, and alongside Allaah having declared them liars concerning the crucifixion of Eesaa (alaihis salaam), then your persistence is an evidence to us that you are pleased with this belief.
Hence, the affair goes back to being pleased with the deen, not merely the wearing of the cross by itself. And for this reason, we will see the members of the Committee not actually making takfeer of the one who wears a watch which has cross on it.
Thirdly:
The Permanent Committee answered about the ruling on the prayer of the one who wore a watch which has a cross on it, as follows, "It is not permissible to wear a watch containing a cross, neither in the prayer nor outside of it, until he removes the cross (from it)... however if he was to pray while it is on him, then his prayer is still correct..." (Fataawaa al-Lajnah 6/185).
Fourthly:
The Permanent Committe answered about praying on a mat which has a cross etched, painted onto it, as follows, "The prayer is correct, if Allaah wills, alongside this being disliked. So when the question is posed, then it is upon him to remove, erase the cross from this mat..." (Fataawaa al-Lajnah 6/185) Abdul-Azeez Ibn Baz, Abdur-Razzaaq Afeefee, Abdulllaah bin Ghudayan, Abdullaah bin Qu'ood.
Fifthly:
Praying inside a church is permissible, and this is even more far-reaching than just entering it - with the condition that there are no statues present in it. Ibn al-Mundhir said, (in al-Awsat 2/194), "Prayer in the church is permissible due to it coming under the generality of his saying, "the whole earth has been made a masjid and as purity for me", and it is disliked to enter the parts of churches where there is pictures and other such things." And ash-Shawkaanee quotes two narrations (in Nail al-Awtaar 2/162), concerning 'Umar and Ibn 'Abbas permitting this, and then he said, "And the two narrations show the permissibility of entering them for trade and prayer, except if there are statues within them".
So here a question arises: If wearing a cross automatically necessitates being pleased with their religion, then why is the ruling on entering a church not exacty the same?
And after all of this, I warn from two matters: the first, hastening towards takfir without any evidence and on account of matter which is subject to interpretation and in which there is no certainty "yaqeen". The second, from wearing a cross and acquiring or purchasing it (i.e. on watches, clothes etc.), for it is obligatory that we differentiate from them and not resemble them. And Allaah grants success to every good. |
|
______________
www.spubs.com
|
|
spubs.com
23-04-2003 @ 12:00 AM
