← Back to Videos
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Why Rejoice Over Mufti Ahmad Hassoun?
Personal Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/EyadQunaibi ===== Twitter account https://twitter.com/Dr_EyadQun
Personal Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/EyadQunaibi ===== Twitter account https://twitter.com/Dr_EyadQun
Many people are sharing the scene of the trial of Dr. Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun, the former Grand Mufti of Syria, with either warmth or schadenfreude. But does he deserve it?
Hassoun used to tell Syrians that the "dog" oppressing them—whose name in Islamic law was "the legitimate ruler (wali al-amr)"—was their ruler. The man who subjected them to severe suffering for 55 years, along with his father, was, according to Hassoun, their "legitimate ruler" in Islamic terms. He thus granted him legitimacy, subjugated the people to him, and incited them against anyone who disobeyed this ruler. This earned him the title "The Mufti of Barrels" (a reference to the barrel bombs used by the regime).
Here, I would like to quote a text by Ibn Taymiyyah that dismantles the very deception Hassoun employed by calling Bashar al-Assad the "legitimate ruler" of the Syrians. May God have mercy on him:
"If a ruler abandons the forbidding of evil and the establishment of legal punishments in exchange for wealth he takes, he becomes like the leader of a band of thieves who shares the spoils with his fighters, or like a pimp who takes money to facilitate fornication between two people."
This means that even if we assume a Muslim ruler with a legitimate authority over Muslims, but he deviates and no longer forbids evil or enforces Islamic law—doing so only for the wealth he receives from a certain party—he is no longer called a "legitimate ruler." Instead, he becomes like the "leader of a band of thieves," the head of highway robbers who shares in what they plunder from people. He is like a pimp who facilitates adultery for money.
So how, O Hassoun, can Bashar al-Assad be considered a legitimate ruler? How can someone who was never a legitimate ruler in religion or loyalty—who was merely a dog unleashed upon them—be called their ruler? He received open economic, political, and military support from Russia, Iran, and others, not just to remain silent about forbidding evil, but to exterminate Muslims, destroy their mosques, and violate their honor!
Ibn Taymiyyah goes on to say in the same passage:
"The purpose of appointing a ruler is for him to command good and forbid evil. This is the very objective of authority. If a ruler enables evil in exchange for wealth he takes, he has done the opposite of its purpose—just as if someone you appointed to help you against your enemy instead aided your enemy against you, or if someone took money to fight in the cause of God but then used it to fight against Muslims."
So was Bashar al-Assad a protector of the Syrians' religion, lives, and honor, or merely a guard dog unleashed upon their necks? Anyone who supported him, like Hassoun, is a partner in his crimes.
What crime have those who subjugate people in the name of religion committed, enabling those who violate their dignity, corrupt their religion and worldly life? Corrupt scholars are worse than prostitutes and drug dealers—for while a prostitute corrupts with her body and a drug dealer with poison, a corrupt scholar misleads people by distorting the meanings of the Quran, the Sunnah, and Islamic legal terms.
So, to answer the question: Does Hassoun deserve schadenfreude? Yes, by God, he does—and he and his like deserve no honor.
Peace be upon you.