The Refutation Against the Lies of Al-Anbaree and the Clarification of the Fasaad of the Basis of his Meth`haab in Al-Irjaa' [1]

Written by the Shaykh Hamoud bin ‘Aqlaa’ah Al-Shu’aybee - 1421 H.

Praise be to Allaah, Lord of the Worlds, and the reward is for the Mutaqeen, and there is no enmity except against the Thaalimeen, and I bear witness that there is no one worthy of worship except Allaah, alone and he has no partner, the God of the first and the last and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. May Allaah send blessings upon him and his family and his companions collectively, and to proceed:

I have looked at all of the sayings of Khaalid Al-Anbaree and it has become clear to me by my reading of these sayings and some of his books that he is a Murji'ee from the pure Murji'yah; the ones that are under the school of thought of Jahm bin Safwaan in Irjaa'.

That is the school of thought which – from its Usool – is that no one disbelieves accept with rejection (Juhood) or Istih'laal [2], but as far as the one who knows Allaah and approves of Him, then he does not disbelieve and he does not leave the Milla. And this going astray has spread in this era, and this spreading wasn’t due to anything accept for him and the likes of him, so they have went astray and made people go astray.

And Khaalid Al-Anbaree has lied upon the ‘Ulaama of the Ummah and its Imaams, the ones who see the Kufr of the one who rules with the fabricated laws. From those Imaams is our Shaykh; the Shaykh, the Imaam, the Mujaahid Muhammad bin Ibraheem Aal’a-Shaykh, may Allaah be merciful to him. And Al-Anbaree has lied and changed and acted with the words of our Shaykh and lied upon him in many instances as it will become clear shortly. And he wanted to trick the people into thinking that the Shaykh sees that the ruling with fabricated laws needs explanation, and that he doesn’t disbelieve unless he rejects and believes and makes that Halaal only, but if he rules with the fabricated laws without this then he isn’t a Kaafir. And far as his lies they are as follows:

The first lie: Al-Anbaree mentioned in his book (i.e. Al-Hukm bi'Ghayr ma-Anzaal'Allaah wa-Usool at-Takfeer) on page 131 from the Risaala of the Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraheem “Risalaat Tahkeem Al-Qawaneen”, he said, “Verily in this Risaala there is what indicates a clear indication that there is Tafseel.” And he means by fabricated laws; the one who does this does not disbelieve accept with Juhood or Istih'laal. And the text that he narrated was as follows: “So look how Allaah ta'ala recorded upon the rulers with other than what Allaah revealed the Kufr and the Thulm and the Fusooq and from that which is not possible is that Allaah calls the ruler with other than what Allaah revealed a Kaafir and then he not be a Kaafir, rather he is a total Kaafir, either Kufr 'Amilee or Kufr 'Atiqaadee. And what has come from Ibn Abbaas in the Tafseer of this Ayaah from the narration of Tawoos and others indicates that the ruler with that which Allaah did not reveal is a Kaafir; either Kufr 'Atiqaadee – that you out of the Milla, or Kufr 'Amilee - that does not take you out of the Milla.” And what he narrated is finished letter for letter.

However, he left what the Shaykh narrated and wrote after this, concerning the fabricated laws as the Shaykh said, “As far as the first; (which is) that the ruler with that which Allaah did not reveal, rejects the right of Allaah and his Messenger’s Hukm. The second; that the ruler by other than what Allaah revealed does not actually reject the fact that the Hukm of Allaah and His Messenger is the truth yet he believes that the Hukm of other than the Messenger is superior to his (i.e. the Prophet’s (sallallaahu 'alayhi wasallam) Hukm and more encompassing. The third, that he does not believe that it is superior to the Hukm of Allaah and His Messenger yet he believes that his (own) Hukm is equal to it. The fourth; that he does not believe that his Hukm of the one who rules by other than what Allaah revealed is equal to the Hukm of Allaah and His Messenger – and certainly not better than the Hukm of Allaah and His Messenger, yet he believes that it is permissible to rule with that which opposes the Hukm of Allaah and His Messenger. The fifth; and it is the greatest and the most encompassing and the clearest opposition of the Sharee’ah and stubbornness in the face of its laws and insulting to Allaah and His Messenger and opposing the courts of the Sharee’ah on their roots and branches and their types and their appearances and judgements and implementations the references and their applications.

So just like the courts of the Sharee’ah there are references, all of them returning back to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam) like that, these courts have references, which are laws that are assembled from many legislations and laws like the laws like the laws of France and America and England and other laws and from the Metha’haab of some of the innovators who claim to be under the Sharee’ah. – until he said – So what Kufr is there beyond this Kufr and what nullification of the Shahadah of Muhammadar Rasool-Allaah is there beyond this nullification?!

So look at Al-Anbaree! He wants, with his aforementioned quotation, to reveal to you that the Shaykh does not make Takfeer concerning the fabricated laws. Even though here, he says concerning them, “So what Kufr is there beyond this Kufr,” meaning the ruling with the fabricated laws.

The second lie: Al-Anbaree mentions in his sayings in the first statement, he said, “I have found other words of the Shaykh (i.e. Muhammad bin Ibraheem) in his Fataawa Vol. 1/80. He (i.e. Muhammad bin Ibraheem) says words more clear than to need clarification dated 9/1/1385 five years after the publication of the “Risaala Tah’keem Al-Qawaneen”.

And soon we will quote the words of Al-Shaykh Muhammad, but the point is that here he intended to convince the reader that the Shaykh turned back from his Fatwaa concerning the fabricated laws and for this, he mentioned the date after it by five years so the letter abrogates the first saying, while he mentioned the same saying, “…and I do not say that he changed his opinion…” Yet, after that by about a few lines, he says that the Shaykh changed his mind so that he can mislead (the reader) and make it seem like he did actually change his mind. So he claims that he does not say that he (i.e. Muhammad bin Ibraheem) changed his mind and then he lies upon the Shaykh Muhammad that he (did actually) change his mind. [3]

The third lie: that when he quoted him as having changed his mind, as he assumes from the Fatwaa of Shaykh Muhammad Vol. 1/80, Al-Anbaree said that the text of him changing his mind is, “And like that is the manifestation of the meaning ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah’ from ruling with his Sharee’ah exclusively and discarding what opposes it from laws and conditions and other things which Allaah did not reveal and that the one who rules with it or takes the judgement to it, believing that it right and believing that it is permissible then he is a Kaafir with the Kufr which removes one from the Milla.

And if he does that without believing that and that it is permissible, then he is a Kaafir with the Kufr Al-’Amilee, which does not remove one from the Milla.” Al-Anbaree said, “So this clear explanation from the Shaykh Al-’Allaamah Muhammad bin Ibraheem, may Allaah be merciful to him, is what I have based my book upon and I faced (i.e. opposed) the ones who make Takfeer to the Haakim unconditionally.” And this lie is responded to with answers:

How is it that the Shaykh would change his mind and it was unknown and not spread among his students and among the people? And if there was a change in his opinion, it would have not have been hidden from the Shaykh Muhammad Abdur-Rahmaan Al-Qassim, the compiler of the Fataawa of Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraheem and his books.

As well, he even mentioned the “Risaala Tah’keem Al-Qawaneen” in the latter editions of the (published) Fataawa. Even his student, the one who collected the Fataawa, narrated the approval of Shaykh Muhammad in Vol. 12/284. Shaykh Muhammad said, “…And the laws are Kufr, which takes one outside the Milla believing that they are Hakima (i.e. applicable) and some of them see it greater.” Then he said, “As for the one who puts laws in order and to be submitted to, then this is Kufr even if they say, ‘We have made a mistake. And the Hukm of the Shara’ is more just,’ because there is a difference between the one who approves and the implication and the reference. They made it a reference and this is Kufr, which take one outside the Milla.” And Al-Qassim also narrated under the chapter heading “Ruling with the Laws is from the Kufr Al-Akbaar”, and then proceeds to quote from the same “Risaala Tah’keem Al-Qawaneen”.

So if there were any change of opinion, he would have made that clear or he would have omitted this Risaala and certainly would not have included it in the volumes who succeeded the volume which has been claimed to contain a change of opinion. And how would the Shaykh change his opinion from a general Fatwaa, which became clear and widespread to that which would be contained in a specific letter written to a specific group?! It would have been more likely that he would change his opinion in a general letter because the text – wherein Al-Anbaree claims to contain a change of opinion – is within a specific letter of response which he wrote to the central committee of ‘Ulaama in Deli wherein he praises the committee and its aims to bring about a benefit. And we see that the “Risaala Tah’keem Al-Qawaneen” has been published multiple times and if there were a change of opinion, then its publishing would not have been repeated. The Shaykh Abdullah Ibn Jibreen, may Allaah preserve him, is from the students of the Shaykh and he objected to the those who claimed that Al-Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraheem changed his opinion like it is (written) in his commentary upon the words of Al-Anbaree and they are in the first saying of Al-Anbaree. And also, Al-Lajnaa Ad-Da’imah li’l-Bu’hooth Al-’Ilmeeyah wal-Iftaa’; have declared about the book of Al-Anbaree “Al-Hukm bi’Ghayr ma-Anzaal’Allaah wa-Usool at-Takfeer,” “Lying upon the people of knowledge. From that, him attributing to the ‘Alaamah Shaykh Muhammad Ibraheem Ahl’a-Shaykh, that which he did not say.”

We will now return to the text, which Al-Anbaree claimed contains a change of opinion and we will mention how it relates and its full text and it is in the Fataawa of Shaykh Muhammad Vol. 1/78. And it is a letter of reply sent to the General Secretary for the Central Committee of ‘Ulaama (in) Deli. The committee decided to call upon the Islaamic committees and determine the opinions of its members concerning the laws, which are implemented for the sake of benefit in the Deen and the society, which are suitable for the Islaamic education and etiquettes while planing to raise general laws for the Muslims in India. So they asked Al-Shaykh Muhammad questions concerning Fiqh so that they might benefit from his opinion concerning them (i.e. those issues). So he answered their Fiqh related questions but firstly, he made an introduction before proceeding with the answers: “I would like to like to begin with a small introduction. From the things which please us and please every Muslim with Ghirah [4] about his Deen is that we find committees whose goal is to correct the conditions and to hold onto the basis of the Deen and its noble teachings. And also to wage war against everything, which opposes the Islaamic Sharee’ah from innovations and heresies and lies. And also, (to wage ware against) what is even more important than that, concerning what the atheists and Zanadiqa [5] and Orientalists and others who attempt to enter into the beliefs of some of the Muslims by giving them doubts in the basis of their Deen and causing them to go astray from the Sunnah of their Prophet and his Sharee’ah and ruling with the fabricated laws, which oppose the Islaamic Sharee’ah. And more importantly, knowing the basis of the Tawheed, which Allaah sent His Messenger with and implicating it through knowledge and action and waging war against that which opposes it from Shirk Al-Akbaar, which takes you outside the Milla or from the types of Shirk Al-Asgaar. And like that is the manifestation of the meaning ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah’ from ruling with his Sharee’ah exclusively and discarding what opposes it from laws and conditions and other things which Allaah did not reveal and that the one who rules with it or takes the judgement to it, believing that it right and believing that it is permissible then he is a Kaafir with the Kufr which removes one from the Milla. And if he does that without believing that and that it is permissible, then he is a Kaafir with the Kufr Al-’Amilee, which does not remove one from the Milla.” – completed word for word.

So Al-Shaykh Muhammad spoke twice about the laws. In the first instance, he said, “…the laws…” and he added to that, “…the fabricated…” and he considered the fabricated laws from the handiwork of the atheists and Zanadiqah and Orientalists, who have entered them upon the Muslims. So he encouraged the committee to wage war against it out of defence of the Muslims and he mentioned the fabricated laws here, under the category of the manifestation of ‘Uloohiyyah and the meaning of ‘La Illaaha il-Allaah.’ As for the second instance where he mentioned the laws, is was under the category of the manifestation of ‘Muhammad Ar-Rasool Allaah.’ And the point of concern here is that he did not add the word “fabricated”. Rather, he only added to it other things such as “…laws and conditions and other things which Allaah did not reveal…” So he meant by “…the laws and conditions…”, innovations that the innovator adds, which nullifies the manifestation of the following of the Messenger. And he added to these laws and these conditions an explanation because it is from the category of Bid’ah. So he mentioned the laws twice; once in the meanings of the manifestation of the meaning of ‘La illaaha il-Allaah’ and once in the meaning of the manifestation of the meaning of ‘Muhammad Ar-Rasool Allaah.’ For this, they are two manifestations so their meanings are different. Otherwise, it would have been redundant. Also, in the first, he added to it, “…the fabricated…” and the second is isolated. He only added to it the “…conditions and other things which Allaah did not reveal…” and in this, there was a need of an explanation. In any matter, this is an explanation based upon the positive assumption of the Shaykh Muhammad and also based upon his Fatwaa concerning the fabricated laws and the fact that we let his words explain one another. This is more fitting than having his words contradict one another and claiming the change of opinion and contradiction and difference.

His lying upon our Shaykh Muhammad Al-‘Ameen Ash-Shanqeetee, may Allaah be merciful to him:

Al-Anbaree quoted in his book “Al-Hukm bi’Ghayr ma-Anzaal’Allaah wa-Usool at-Takfeer,” on Pg. 70-71 and attempted to dupe (his reader) that Al-Shaykh Shanqeetee does not see the fabricated laws as Kufr as he narrates the words of our Shaykh Ash-Shanqeetee. And he is from the ‘Ulaama that Al-Anbaree claims do not make Takfeer concerning the fabricated laws except with Juhood and this quotation which he mentions from Ash-Shanqeetee: “And know that the reason for this part of the project is that Al-Kufr and Al-Thulm and Al-Fisq; all of these have been used in the Shara’ sometimes intending sins and other times, the Kufr which removes one from the Milla. ‘And whosoever does not judge by what Allaaah has revealed, such are the Kaafireen,’ opposing the Messengers and abandoning the laws of Allaah, then his Thulm and his Fisq does not take him outside the Milla.” However, here he does not even mention the fabricated laws and Al-Anbaree omitted the words of our Shaykh Ash-Shanqeetee, which are clear concerning the fabricated laws as he said in his Tafseer of Surat Al-Kahf, about the Ayaah: ‘And He makes none to share in His Hukm.’ So he said, “And with these Heavenly texts that we have mentioned, it becomes quite clear that the ones who follow the fabricated laws, which the Shaytaan has legislated upon the tongues of his ‘Auliya and which oppose that Allaah, jala-wa’ala has legislated upon the tongues of His Messengers (peace be upon them) that no one doubts their Kufr and their Shirk except him who Allaah has removed his sight and has blinded them to the light of the revelation as they are!” And then Ash-Shanqeetee says immediately, “Take note: Know that it is Waajib to differentiate between the invented institutions, which are Kufr in the Creator of the Heavens and Earth to judge according to them and between the institutions, which aren’t.” Then he said, “As for the legislative institutions, which contradict the legislations of the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, then judging with these is Kufr in the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth.” Then he mentioned some of their laws concerning inheritance and marriage and Hudood and how they oppose the Shara’. Then he says, “So ruling by institutions such as these upon individuals and the society and their wealth and their property and minds and Deen is Kufr in the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth…”

So how could he (i.e. Al-Anbaree) omit these clear words concerning the fabricated laws for other than them?!

His lie upon the Imaam Ibn Katheer, may Allaah be merciful to him:

As he quotes from him texts, which he uses to deceive (his reader) to show that he (i.e. Ibn Katheer) is among those who do not make Takfeer concerning the fabricated laws as he quotes from him on Pg. 69 among those who, he claims, do not make Takfeer concerning these laws. Even though Ibn Katheer has clear words concerning the Yasaaq of the Tartars stating that it is a collection of fabricated laws and he made Takfeer with that – even going as far as narrating an Ijmaa’ upon this (matter) as he said, may Allaah be merciful to him, in his Tafseer of the Ayaah: ‘Is it the Hukm of Jahiliyyah that they seek?’ (Surat Al-Ma’idah) He said, “Allaah, ta’ala makes Inkaar (i.e. vehemently objects to) those who turns away from Allaah’s Sharee’ah; the laws that are good for the Muslims; the laws that forbid what is evil. Allaah rejects those who follow laws of personal desires and who adopt laws of Kufr such as the laws enforced by the Tartars who were under the control of Gengiz Khan, their King. These laws were a mixture of Judaism, Christianity and laws chosen by their King which suited his desires. Should we prefer these laws over the Sharee’ah of Allaah and His Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam)?! Whoever does this is a Kaafir and killing him is Waajib!”

And Ibn Katheer said in “Al-Bidaayah wa Nihaayah”, Vol. 13/118-119, “So whoever leaves the clear Sharee’ah, which was revealed to Muhammad ibn Abdullah, the Seal of the Prophets, and takes the Hukm to other than it from the laws of Kufr which are abrogated, he has disbelieved. So what about the one who takes the Hukm to the ‘Yasaaq’ and puts it before it?! Whoever does that, he has disbelieved by the Ijmaa’ of the Muslims!”

The other matter is how Al-Anbaree quotes the words of ‘Ulaama who did not see the era in which the ruling with fabricated laws were introduced, rather they died before it. So he quotes their words (trying to) mislead and demonstrate that they (i.e. those whom he quotes) were upon his Meth’haab in that no one disbelieves with the ruling of the laws unless he makes Juhood or makes that Halaal.

And this era, which came upon the Muslims – that is the ruling with the fabricated laws, did not occur except in the era of the Tartars during the time of Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn Katheer. So he avoids quoting the words of these two Imaams, which (clearly) show the Kufr of those who take the Hukm to the “Yasaaq”. And instead, in his aforementioned book, on page 138, he mentions that the Takfeer of Ibn Katheer and Ibn Taymiyah towards the Tartars, was due to them possessing other nullifications besides the “Yasaaq” even though the words of Ibn Katheer are clear that the ruling concerning them based upon the “Yasaaq”. Then this era fell (upon the Muslims) again and that was the era of ruling with the (fabricated) laws of the West during the military colonisation period of the Islaamic world when they brought their courts of law. So the ‘Ulaama who lived during this era spoke about it such as Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir as he said during his verification of “Tafseer Ibn Katheer” of the Ayaah: ‘Is it the Hukm of Jahiliyyah that the seek?’ He said, “The matter in these fabricated laws is clear with the clearness of the sun. It is clear Kufr and there is nothing hidden about it and there is no excuse for anyone who attributes themselves to Islaam, whoever they may be, to act according to it or to submit to it or to approve of it.”

And also, Al-Shaykh Mah’moud Shaakir, whom Al-Anbaree attempted to – in his book on page 131 – deceive (the reader) into thinking that he does not make Takfeer for the fabricated laws except to the one who rejects (the Sharee’ah laws).

Shaykh Mah’moud Shaakir said – and his brother Muhammad Shaakir narrated his words from him in “Tafseer Ibnu Katheer”, Mah’moud Shaakir said, “…and their (the Ibaadheeyah’s) question wasn’t about what the innovators of our time argue with. They were asking about the act of the judges in blood, money and property who went away from the Sharee’ah occasionally (based upon their occasional whims or desires) not about those who bring about a new legislation of laws upon the people of Islaam and ruling with the Hukm of other than what Allaah sent down in His Book or upon the tongue of His Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam). This action is turning away from Hukm of Allaah, being displeased with His Deen and being influenced by the laws of the people of Kufr instead of the laws of Allaah. This is (the type of) Kufr that there is no doubt about from the people of the Qiblah in declaring Takfeer upon the one who says it, does it or calls to it.” And like our Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraheem , when he ruled concerning the fabricated laws and like out Shaykh Muhammad Ash-Shanqeetee – all of them as well as others from those who lived during the eras of the fabricated laws – it is more deserving that he (i.e. Al-Anbaree) would take from their words concerning the laws. But instead, he brings other words concerning these laws to make one assume that they are upon his Meth’haab and his belief that the one who rules with these laws, does not disbelieve except with making it Halaal or with the rejection (of the Sharee’ah laws), therefore it would only be a major sin. Al-Anbaree even goes further than that to claim that there is Ijmaa’ that then one who rules by other than what Allaah revealed with the laws in Tashree’ Al-’Aam does not disbelieve except for the one who makes it Halaal, knowing that Al-Anbaree does not differentiate between the ruling by other than what Allaah revealed due to desire (i.e. in particular instances) or with the fabricated laws (in general); both of them being the same according to him. And if he narrated the Ijmaa’, then he means all of them and he does not differentiate.

But as for the ‘Ulaama of Islaam, they have differentiated. And if they mention the ruling by other than what Allaah revealed, here they differentiate concerning the one who does it due to desire but if they speak about the fabricated laws, they do not differentiate between the one who makes it Halaal and the rejecter or the one who does it due to desire, just as the approval (of this concept) has passed of Muhammad bin Ibraheem. As he said, “As for the one who puts laws in order and to be submitted to, then this is Kufr even if they say, ‘We have made a mistake. And the Hukm of the Shara’ is more just,’ because there is a difference between the one who approves and the implication and the reference. They made it a reference and this is Kufr, which take one outside the Milla.”

And like that, is what we have narrated from Ibn Katheer that he made Takfeer from them (i.e. the tartars) taking the Hukm (to the Taghoot) so refer to his saying. And like him, is our Shaykh Ash-Shanqeetee and the two sons of Shaakir and other than them. All of them did not differentiate concerning the fabricated laws.

This is what we have been able to put together as a refutation against him, quickly and busily and we ask Allaah to guide all towards what he loves and is pleased with and to let Al-Anbaree and the likes of him, from the Murjiyaat Al-’Asr (i.e. the Murji’yah of our era). To return to the Meth’haab of the Salaaf of the Ummah. Verily, He is able to do all things. And may Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad and his family and his companions altogether.

Recited by Hamoud bin ‘Aqlaa’ah Al-Shu’aybee
The teacher formerly in the faculty of the Sharee’ah and Usool Ad-Deen in the Islaamic University Muhammad

 

FOOTNOTES
[1] And this was the title of the Shaykh's Fatwaa itself. We have not given this Fatwaa any other title than the one it was written with.
[2] Isti`hlaal is the act of making something which Allaah has forbidden as halaal. In this context, the people of Irjaa` say that nothing expels one from the religion unless they make something that Allaah has forbidden Halaal in their hearts.
[3] And the point of Shaykh Hamoud here is that Al-Anbaree first claims that he is not trying to convince his reader that Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraheem changed his opinion but then he immediately mentions that he has found some “other words” – which is intended to mean “words with opposite meaning” – which were written by the Shaykh five years after the publication of the “Risaala Tah’keem Al-Qawaneen”. And he then attempts to use these “other words” to give strength to his own opinion, which is that the ruler who legislates and rules with fabricated laws that oppose the Sharee’ah does not disbelieve unless he considers that permissible or he rejects the laws of the Sharee’ah. And so his statement, “…and I do not say that he changed his opinion…” is in fact abrogated by the fact that he brings words which he attempts to interpret as being in agreement with his own opinion and then punctuates that by mentioning that these words were written five years after the Shaykh’s earlier words which do not comply with the opinion of Al-Anbaree. And so he is, by implication, claiming that Muhammad bin Ibraheem did, in fact, change his mind to the opinion that Khaalid Al-Anbaree holds and because of this, we are not sure which is the bigger lie: his lie that Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraheem changed his opinion or his lie that he wasn’t trying to claim that the Shaykh changed his mind!
[4] Ghirah: Emotions related to the rights of the person and the Deen (i.e. becoming enraged when Islaam is disrespected)
[5] Zanadiqah: plural of Zandiqh, which is a Munaafiq whose Kufr is seen and yet claims to be upon Islaam) Abu Idrees narrated, “People from the Zandiqah who had apostated were brought to ‘Alee. He asked them (about their Kufr) and they denied it so it was made clear to them (that they truly were upon Kufr). He (i.e. Abu Idrees) said, “So he killed them without giving them time to repent (and return to Islaam). He (i.e. Abu Idrees) said, “A man who was a Christian and became a Muslim but latter apostated, was brought before him (i.e. ‘Alee) and he asked that man (about his apostasy) and that man admitted to what he had done. Then (‘Alee) asked him to repent and it was said to him (i.e. ‘Alee), “Why did you ask him to repent but you didn’t ask the others to repent?” He said, “This one admitted what he had done but those others did not admit it and they even denied (their Kufr) until it was proven to them. So this is why I did not give them time to repent.’ And according to another narration, “Do you know why I asked the Christian to repent? I asked him to repent because he (openly) showed his religion but the Zandiqah – those, who required it to be proven to them, rejected (the charge). So I killed them because they denied it until it was proven to them.” – Narrated by Ibn Taymiyah in “As-Saraam al-Masluul ‘ala Shatim ar-Rasool”, Pg. 360

It is of benefit to mention that the Shaykh Hamood bin `Uqlaa ash-Shu`aybee (rahimahullah) was, in fact, a student of the noble scholars he mentions in the above fatwaa - Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraaheem and Shaykh ash-Shanqeetee.

Below are comments from the Shaykh on the two, and this is an excerpt from As-Seerah Thaatiyah li Samaahat ash-Shaykh Hamood bin `Uqlaa ash-Shu`aybee:

Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraaheem
The eminent father was one of the most attentive Shaykhs in teaching students, and his method of teaching was as follows:

He would sit with the students in the Masjid after Fajr and we would read the Al-Fiyyah and the Buloogha and the al-Zaad and the Qatr al Nidaa - and we would memorise them all. Then the Shaykh would ask us to spell/conjugate (na’rib) the complete verses. Then Shaykh Muhammad bin Qaasem would read the Sharh of Ibn Aqeel to the Shaykh - and it is a explanation of the verses we read earlier, then half an hour after sunrise, the Shaykh would go to his home followed by his students, and after a little while he would make Adhaan for them, they would enter his home and he would start reading the abbreviations of Kitaab at-Tawheed then Kashf ash-Shabaahaat, then Al-Waasitiyah, then if there was a private lesson for any of the students, whomever wants to read the Qur’an would do so, then the reading of the prolongations would start like Saheeh al-Bukhaari or al-Mughnee or the Minhaaj of the Prophets' Sunnah (Mihaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah) by Shaykh ul-Islam (Ibn Taymiyyah), and it is called Al-Mutawalaat (The Reading of the Prolongations), the person would read the Shaykh would listen only, and if one of the students has a problem, he would ask the students, because the Shaykh would not explain, and the Shaykh has a third sitting before Ishaa where he would listen to Tafseer Ibn Katheer, which would be read by Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin Shalhoob and sometimes the Shaykh would comment on the tafseer, and he would only have these sittings.

Shaykh Muhammad al-Ameen ash-Shanqeetee
I was taught on the hands of the Shaykh in the college (kulliyah) or at home, and I had daily lessons with him in Usool and Al-Mantiq (Rhetoric), and in Rhetoric there was 'Salm al-Akhdari' and his explanation (sharh), and in tradition (usool) 'Rawdat an-Naadhir', and I completed it on the Shaykhs hands - rahimahullah - and my studying of it was good, and I used to study alone after Maghrib, and I remember when I graduated I was appointed Judge in the valley of ad-Dawaasir, so Shaykh Shanqeetee went to see Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraaheem and he told him: This individual cannot be appointed in the judge field (fil qadaa'), but he should be in the teaching field because he excels in it, and Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraaheem would never go back on his actions whenever he appointed anyone to the judgeships, but he respected Shaykh ash-Shanqeetee a lot, and the knowledge of Shaykh ash-Shanqeetee was extremely vast especially in traditions (usool) and Rhetoric (mantiq) and explanations (tafseer) and history (taarikh) and language (lugha) and literature (adab) and he was virulent in those and he knew other matters too.

And earlier in the seerah, the Shaykh mentions in his upbringing:

...Then I went to read with his eminence, Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraaheem Aal ash-Shaykh in 1368 H (1947 CE) and I started by reading Zad al Mustaqni, Kitab at-Tawheed, Kashf ush-Shubuhaat, Al-Waasitiyyah by Shaykh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Arba'een An-Nawawiyyah, Al-Fiyatu Ibn Malik, and Buloogh al Maraam. These were all read with the Shaykh as a norm, and as a must. I then augmented these with other books, which I used to read alone with the eminent Shaykh (rahimahullah): At-Tahawiyyah, Ad-Durrah al Mudayyinah by As-Safaareeni, and Al-Hamawiyyah by Ibn Taymiyyah. I read these alone with the eminent father, Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibraaheem (rahimahullah) until the Institute of Knowledge was opened in 1371 H (1950 CE). This was the first institute of its kind to be opened in the region. I memorised all these books just like I had memorised Surat Al-Fatihah.