Suhaib Jobst
9th August 2006, 03:00 AM
Can some PLEASE explain to me clearly in "bullet point" what is wrong with the Salafi’s?
Summary of the Deviations of the Madaakhilah
by Aboo Hafs Ash-Shaamee
Source: ClearGuidance.com
The Madaakhilah are the name of a sect which ascribes itself to Salafeeyah. They are named after Rabee' bin Haadee al-Madkhalee (from the Madkhalee tribe). Just like the Ashaa'irah are named after Abul-Hasan al-Ash'aree (from the Ash'aree tribe).
They have been named other things too
Jaameeyah: named after Muhammad Amaan al-Jaamee, a scholar from Africa, who started some of the criticisms of scholars, students, and callers early on. I personally don't like this name, because Muhammad Amaan al-Jaamee is not as well known as Rabee', nor does he hold as high a place amongst the sect, nor was he as extreme as Rabee'.
Salafeeyah Jadeedah: Neo-Salafeeyah.
Jamaa'at at-Tabdee' wal-Hijrah: The group of declaring others innovators and boycotting.
Ad'iyaa' as-Salafeeyah: Salafee claimants.
Khuloof: Which means those who came after (the Salaf), in reference to the Hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim, "Then there will come Khuloof, who will say what they do not do, and do what they were not ordered, so whoever does Jihaad against them with his hand, then he is a believer...etc."
Salafeeyoo Ahl al-Walaa': Those with alliance/friendship [to the government] Salafees. This term was coined up by a group of Madaakhilah in a research paper that they wrote for the interior minister of Saudi Arabia, to help him against "the callers to revolution." The label has also been used against them by some of the scholars.
Murji'at al-'Asr: The Murji'ah of the era, due to the fact that Irjaa' runs rampand amongst their followers, although it is not their most unique trait.
I prefer to call them Madaakhilah, because the person who spread their corrupt call east and west was Rabee', May Allaah Give him what he deserves. He is also the most famous of their scholars.
As for their most unique trait (not their worst), I personally believe that to be their exaggerated and extreme understandings of Jarh and Tabdee'. Jarh is the science of disparaging narrators due to deficiency in their trustworthiness. This was practiced by the scholars so as to know from who Hadeeth can be accepted from, and from who should it be rejected. They also used it in the later generations in the sense from who can knowledge be taken from. Tabdee' is to declare someone an innovator.
This extremity is most clear in their wrong application of the principle "whoever does not declare the innovator to be an innovator then he is an innovator." So they misapply this principle as the Takfeeree groups misapply the correct principle "whoever does not declare the Kaafir to be a Kaafir then he is a Kaafir." The starting point for the average and typical Madkhalee (layman or scholar) is Sayyid Qutb. Whoever does not declare him to be an innovator, then he is an innovator. Whoever does not declare the one who abstained from Tabdee' of Sayyid, to be an innovator, then he also is an innovator, and onwards, until noone is left on the earth except the few members of their sect.
Due to their extremism, they followed the habits of Ahl al-Bida' before them, so they further divided into subsects. Those who sided with Rabee' on some issues, and those who sided with an Egyptian by the name of Abul-Hasan al-Ma'ribee. The division started over Abul-Hasan's abstaining from declaring certain individuals innovators (in addition to other things), and those who abstained from declaring Abul-Hasan an innovator was grouped with him. This includes the Jordanian Madaakhilah who claim to be students of Shaykh al-Albaanee (which has been declared a false claim, by some of those who were close to the Shaykh, such as Aboo Maalik Muhammad Ibraaheem Shaqrah, an ex-Madkhalee).
The innovations and deviance of the Madaakhilah include:
Believing that legislating manmade laws, complete abstinence from ruling by the Sharee'ah, or resisting to rule by the Sharee'ah, seeking judgement from Taaghoot, are all just minor Kufr, that do not exit the doer from the religion of Islaam, except with Istihlaal. Istihlaal is to believe his sin to be permissible. So they make the sins of major Kufr and major Shirk equal to lesser sins like adultery, drinking alcohol, etc., by placing the condition of Istihlaal on the major Kufr, which only exists as a condition for minor Kufr.
Believing that actions of the limbs are not a pillar nor condition for the existence of Eemaan for one to be ruled a Muslim. So for them one can never pray, give Zakaah, fast Ramadaah, or do Hajj, never do Wudoo', never get Tahaarah, etc., and he would still be a Muslim, who's Islaam can save him from Hellfire eventually. They would label him a sinner, as for a Kaafir, then no. So they have followed the Murji'ah of the past.
Exaggerating the concept of excuse due to ignorance with regards to the rules of this life. So for them they excuse the one who calls himself a Muslim (i.e., they judge him a Muslim), in all situations, in all issues. So for them, there is no difference between the basis of Islaam, the matters that are known from the religion by necessity, or those issues that are less apparent or obvious. There is no difference between one who was raised amongst the Muslims, or the one who was not. There is no difference between the new Muslim, and others. All of them are always Muslims, even if they fall into many types of obvious Kufr and Shirk, because of the "possibility" of ignorance. This confusion amonst them also applies to the issue of Ta'weel (misinterpretation) by which (for example) they excuse many of the rulers who have pronounced their Istihlaal of their legislating manmade laws.
Believing that major Walaa' (alliance/friendship) with the Kuffaar is not major Kufr, unless the person internalizes a Kufr intention, such as wishing to aid the religion of Kufr, or to destroy Allaah's Religion, etc. So if one were to lead the crusade against Islaam, head it, support it by wealth and blood, he would still be a Muslim, until he pronounces the internalized intentions of Kufr. So they do not make the act itself Kufr, until this innovated condition is proven.
Believing that Jihaad cannot be Fard 'Ayn upon the whole Ummah. Also, related to Jihaad, is believing that Jihaad is not permissible without an Islaamic state whose Imaam directs it. Believing Jihaad to be forbidden without the permission of the Imaam. All of this is regarding defensive Jihaad.
Labelling those who do Takfeer of the apostate rulers and their soldiers to be Khawaarij or Takfeerees. They prohibit Khurooj against these apostate rulers, due to the fact that they rule them to be Muslims. If they rule some of them to be Kuffaar, they still prohibit it due to the fact it is not led by an Imaam (head of Muslim state).
Belittling the importance of awareness of current affairs and events, saying that such is only for the rulers and scholars, and that the laymen have no need for such. This foolish idea leads many laymen to believe the rulers in their lands to be Muslims, because they are unaware of the Kufr that he practices. So these laymen sometimes end up sacrificing themselves for the apostate ruler by being his sincere servants and slaves.
Testing people on their positions regarding certain individuals they have labelled innovators. If the person agrees with them regarding their Tabdee' then he is befriended, if not, he is taken as an enemy and belittled. The individuals they test people by, many times are labelled innovators based upon some of the above misunderstandings. Example: 'Abdullaah 'Azzaam said Jihaad is Fard 'Ayn, according the Madaakhilah this is an innovation, so he is an innovator. They ask Fulaan at the Masjid giving a lecture, what do you think of 'Azzaam? He says he is good, then they consider him an innovator, or hold him suspicious.
They blindly follow the official government scholars on their stances towards their governments and politics. So if the government scholars say peace with the Jews is fine in Palestine, the Madaakhilah parrot his words. Note: Not all government scholars are Madaakhilah, but the Madaakhilah blindly follow them in politics. Example, Ibn Baaz or Ibn 'Uthaymeen are not Madaakhilah, although they might possibly have some branches of the Madkhalee fundamentals, but the Madaakhilah blindly follow their opinions that are related to politics.
Holding a few people to be scholars in what they call "Manhaj." Noone else can be questioned on these "Manhaj" issues. These "Manhaj" doctors include Rabee', 'Ubayd al-Jaabiree, etc. They follow them blindly in issues of Jarh and Tabdee'.
The Madaakhilah tend to have a supportive position of the Saudi apostate regime, although they are supportive of most of the apostate regimes in general. But due to the fact that some of them do do Takfeer of some of these regimes (Syria, Libya, etc.), they always are in agreement in praising and supporting the Saudi regime by heart and soul.
They are very quick and easy in declaring people to be innovators, even over issues which are not innovation, rather from the best of Islaam! Like Jihaad. As for things that are indeed innovation, if one falls into them, they prohibit reading or praising anything that person wrote. For example, Sayyid Qutb had innovations, but so did many many scholars of the past and present, who Ahl as-Sunnah, as well as the Madaakhilah, both quote, such as Ibn Hazm, an-Nawawee, Ibn Hajr, etc. Yet they absolutely prohibit to treat the books of Sayyid Qutb, or others like him in the same respect.
Due to the fact that they hold many of these apostate rulers to be legit Muslims rulers/governments, and those who revolt against them to be rebellious Khawaarij bandits, they permit allying and befriending the apostate governments, even if that ends up in aiding these apostates against a Muslim. This is probably the worst of the Madaakhilah's crimes (for those who hold this position) since it is apostasy, the apostasy of Mudhaaharah (helping the Mushrikeen against the Muslims).
In the end, they tend to take positions that are favorable for Islaam's enemies, harsh against the Muslims, mimmicking the Khawaarij in their "killing of Islaam's people, leaving the idol-worshippers."
http://salafiyyah-jadeedah.tripod.com/Summary_of_Deviations.htm
abooturaab
4th October 2006, 01:54 PM
Al-Ajraamul-Mujrimeen min al-Mukaffireen wal Irhaabiyeen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Crime of the Criminals from among the people of takfeer and the terrorists:
A Reply to those upon the millah of revolt and takfeer from that which opposed the way of the salaf in the issues of emaan and kufr:
Also adresses a reply to Abu Hudhayfah's "SalafiPublications Refutation" and to the Administators at AHYA.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
below is takhreej taken from a multiplicity of sources some of them being from calltoislam, Shaykh Ahmad Fareed, fatwa-online, individual translations of texts, salafipublications, troid, and other organizations and personalities who wish not their name to be disclosed
Al-Muqadimah
Inal-Hamdalillah, Rabbil-Alameen, wa salatu wa salamu ‘ala ashraafil anbiyaa e wal-mursaleen, wa salatu wa salamu anan-nabi wa ala aalihi wa sahbebee ajma’een.
This is in relation to the latest history of the state of the muslim ummah that I write about the occurrence of this group from amongst the Muslims that have sprang about in recent years (in the past century). This group has many splinter groups and differing methodologies, all of it, which is opposed to the correct methodology in Islam. Of course the correct methodology laid by Islam is found with ahlul-hadeeth wal-ilm who have the best understanding of the deen from those of the past to those of today.
The following is a list of arguments and refutations brought forth by this group and injected in the ummah and has been spoken about by the people of knowledge. There is also some replies to doubts that have emerged from this group that aimed its doubts to discredit the people of knowledge by attributing labels on them and so on and so forth.
I will, inshallah, divide this risaalah in categories of topics which the topic leaders will be the schools or madhaahib and the aimahtu-salaf and the khalaf from those who take from the salaf and major students of knowledge within the first chapter. The reason for this dopcumentatin of the first chapter is because it is the ideological driving force for the modern day people of takfeer and revolt. And the second chapter I also have divided into sections this way the reply will be understood from one stage to another instead of flowing with the wind from one place and back to another.
A matter that needs to be clarified now is that in this risalaah, then it serves as the ideological cure and focus of debate in regards to the subject, and the great article called “wahhabi Myth” was more focused on the general issues and the actions of the current day people of this methodology and its relation to the current affairs of the world. So in a way, I would consider this as the part two to the wahhabi myth in its fundamental matters of belief, which is the heart and drive of these people that has been addressed in the wahhabi myth
Chapter 1: Al-Madhaahibu-Bida
Al-Irj’aa
Irj’aa linguistically has been defined as hoping, postpone, delay which would denote procrastination or to adjourn.
Islamically this term was applied to a group from the muslims in the issue of Uthmaan and Ali, radhiyallahu anhum, in which they did not take a side (in the issue) and so this denoted them as delaying on taking a position. So it was attributed to them that they had irj’aa on the issue. So them, as a group, were the first to become the murj’iah (those who had irj’aa)
In the shari’ah, then irj’aa is a concept, a belief in of itself, which means that acions are not connected to emaan (faith). So for those who held this concept, then this meant for them that actions was completely severed and had absolutely nothing to do with emaan hence a faasiq (sinner), mujrim (criminal, wrongdoer) were equal and on par with the zaahid (abstemious), noble and righteous person. So this meant that the worst muslim ever to exist in the ummah of Muhammad (salallahu alaihi wa salam) would be equal in faith with the best man after the prophet (salallahu alaihi wa salam) who was Abu Bakr as-Sadeeq (radhiallahu anhu).
There are differing levels of irj’aa from the original murjiah to the jahmiyyah who went further than the murjiah and said the emaan is also restricted and confined to knowledge of Allah and so no one can become kaafir except through ignorance of Allah. So from the words of Ibn Abil-Izz he declared Jahm to be a kaafir and stated that based off of Jahm’s own words, since they were the most ignorant about Allah and had no knowledge about Him, he was therefore a kaafir.
So in essence, Irj’aa was the idea of separating amaal (actions) of the limbs to be connected with emaan (faith) in the heart. The lightest off irj’aa was the declaration that emaan consist of faith in the heart and speech of the tongue, which is the position of Imaam Abu Haneefah, and is the only issue where he departed form the rest of the aimah in that it also consists of actions of the limbs.
Later on I will inshallah, contrast this very concept of irj’aa and add it to the takfeeri accusation of what irj’aa is upon ahlu-sunnah and we will see the wide variance between the two and the illmatic oppression of the takfeeris for stating one of the most reprehensible and repugnant slanders against ahlu-sunnah that has emanated form them as of yet.
Alamaah Saalih al-Fawzaan ibn Fawzaan stated
The Murji’ah are of four types:
1: Those who say that eemaan is merely knowledge (ma’rifah), even if this is not accompanied by testification (tasdeeq).
This is the statement of the Jahmiyyah.
This is the most evil and the ugliest of statements. It is in fact disbelief (kufr) in Allah Azza wa Jall, because the mushrikoon from the early times, and Pharaoh (Firawn), and Haamaan and Qaaroon and (even) Iblees all acknowledged (the existence) of Allaah, Azza wa Jall, in their hearts. However because they did not state this on their tongues, nor testify to this in their hearts, nor act upon it with their limbs, then this knowledge did not benefit them.
2: Those who say that eemaan is testification in the heart only.
This is the statement of the Ashaa’irah (the Ash’arees).
This is also a false statement since the disbelievers (kuffaar) testify in their hearts, they know that the Quraan is True and that the Messenger (sal Allaahu alaiyhi wa sallam) is True, and the Jews and Christians know that.
Those to whom We gave the Scripture (Jews and Christians) recognise him (Muhammad sal Allaahu alaihi wa sallam) as they recognise their sons; but verily, a party of them conceal the truth while they know it – [i.e. the qualities of Muhammad sal Allaahu alaihi wa sallam which are written in the Tawraat and the Injeel]. (Surah Al Baqarah: 146)
And they testify to it in their hearts.
Allaah Ta'aala says regarding the Mushrikoon: We know indeed the grief which their words cause you (O Muhammad sal Allaahu alaihi wa sallam); it is not you that they deny but it is the Ayaat of Allaah that the Dhaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) deny. (Surah Al An’aam: 33)
So these people did not state upon their tongues nor did they act with their limbs, yet they did testify in their hearts – so they did not become people of eemaan (mu’minoon).
3: The statement of those who are the direct opposite of the Ashaa’irah - and they are the Karaamiyah. Those who say that eemaan is statement on the tongue even if the person does not truly believe in his heart.
Without doubt, this is a false statement since the hypocrites (munaafiqoon) – those who are in the lowest depths of the Fire – say “We bear witness that laa ilaaha ill Allaah and that Muhammad rasool ullaah’ with their tongues and they act (accordingly) with their limbs, but they do not truly believe in that nor do they testify to it in their hearts.
This is just as Allaah Ta'aala says: When the hypocrites come to you (O Muhammad sal Allaahu alaihi wa sallam) they say: ‘We bear witness that you are indeed the Messenger of Allaah’. And Allaah knows that you are indeed His Messenger and Allaah bears witness that the hypocrites are liars indeed. They have made their oaths a screen (for their hypocrisy). In this way they hinder (men) from the Path of Allaah. Verily, evil is what they used to do. (Surah Al Munaafiqoon: 1-2)
And He says, Subhaanahu wa ta’aala: They say with their tongues what is not in their hearts. (Surah Al Fath: 11)
4: The statement of the murji’ah al fuqahaa, and they are the lightest of the groups in terms of irjaa’ - those who say that eemaan is belief (i’tiqaad) in the heart and statement upon the tongue, but action does not enter into it.
This is the statement of the Murji’ah al-Fuqahaa and this is a statement which is also incorrect since there is no eemaan without action.” Masaa'il fil Eemaan p18, 19
It also becomes necessary to enlighten the reader on the following as later on we will see the claims of people of takfeeer in their baseless accusation for the people of the sunnah that they are murji’aa and have irj’aa
Imaam al-Barbaharee has said
Whoever says that ‘emaan is speech and action, it increases and decreases’ has left irj’aa, all of it, both its beginning and its end” Sharhu-Sunnah p.132
Also the Imaam of the Beleivers Ahmad Ibn Hanbal was asked about the one who says ‘emaan increases and decreases’ he said “Such a one is free from Irj’aa” [al-Mukhtaar fi Usoolu-Sunnah of Ibn al-Bannaa]
Kharijiyyah
Kharaja linguistically means to leave off, to separate from, disassociate or to go out. So this was attributed to the group of Muslims that were with Ali radhiyallahu anhu who were responsible for the death of Uthmaan ibn Affan radhiyallahu anhu. So after their lack of satisfaction with Ali radhiyallahu anhu, then they left him. They separated themselves from the sahabah which will be brought later as more perspective to the bayaan.
Kharajiyyah is not a concept, but rather a belief, which opposes the belief of the sahabah in that they see it permissible to unrestrictedly perform takfeer upon muslims irregardless of whether the conditions for such actions (that warrant takfeer) were met. And this is the position of ahlu-sunnah, but by this view by unanimous agreement, the modern day khawaarij view this particular view of ahlu-sunnah to be of that of the murji’ah. In a way this resembles the views of the haddadiyyah that has occurred in our times in which they view rifq (gentleness) to be nothing but tamyee (to soften or liquefy the truth in order to accommodate the people of innovation). This will be addressed later on inshallah.
So kharijiyyah is to take all the issues pertaining to the rule of Allah and all the texts that pertain to identifying what nullifies or negates emaan in Allah, and making all of it, general and not conditional, to be general and unrestricted for all and anyone who fall into that which they viewed which negated one’s Islam. This, in of itself, is an innovated belief not found with the sahabah nor the tabi’een who followed them.
What strengthened this innovated belief in current times is another innovated concept called haakimiyyah which will be discussed later on inshallah.
Conclusion of this is that both of these innovative beliefs and concepts affected one issue, which is the issue of emaan. It is this issue (emaan) that much of what is brought forth is what is discussed.
Here is an excerpt of the Urdunee mashaykh about the khawarij and statements that nullify the accusation of irj’aa.
“Khaarijism is a deviant sect whose position is evil and false and they are outside of the methodology of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa‘ah Even though we do not consider them disbelievers, their apostasy has been narrated by some of the scholars of the Salaf.(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Although they hold the view of the majority of the salaf of this nation and Ibn Taymiyyah concerning the khawarij not to be kuffar others from the salaf did view them to be as such, and a present day scholar who does view them to be from the khawarij is Alaamah Saalih al-Fawzaan.
In relation to the Murji’ites, they represent the opposite end [of the spectrum]. However, both proceed from the same deviant original principle; [the belief] that eemaan is indivisible. On the basis of that [corrupt origin] they deviated and formed separate sects. Consequently, any deficiency in [eemaan] – according to the Khaarijites – represented disbelief as, in their view, sin totally erases and completely nullifies eemaan. This was in contrast to the Murji’ites who held that the existence of any sin would not have a negative effect on eemaan by decreasing it; likewise, the existence of any act of obedience would not cause its increase.
The previously mentioned detailed explanation regarding the issue of ruling according to what Allaah revealed is the correct way of the Salaf – and the path of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa‘ah. Whoever deviates from it by going beyond it agrees with the Khaarijites and whoever falls short of it agrees with the Murji’ites.(2)
Regarding the faith of the Khaarijites, Ibn Taymiyyah said:
“The proof that the Companions did not declare the Khaarijites disbelievers is that they offered prayers behind them. ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Umar and other Companions, for example, prayed behind Najdah [ibn ‘Aamir] al-Harooree (d. 686 – leader of the Najdite sect of the Khaarijites). They discussed with them various issues, gave them their opinions on religious matters put to them, and addressed them as a Muslim addresses another Muslim. ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Abbaas, for example, would answer the questions which Najdah al-Harooree sent to him. Al-Bukhaaree has recorded the hadeeth which Najdah has related… This was the practice of Muslims throughout the ages; they did not consider them apostates like those against whom Aboo Bakr declared war. They did this, even though the Prophet (r) had commanded to fight them, as is reported in authentic hadeeths. The hadeeth reported by Aboo Umaamah and collected by at-Tirmithee that they are the worst people under the sky to be killed and that the men whom they kill are the best men [Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. 3, p. 1334, no. 4747 and authenticated in Saheeh Sunan Abee Daawood, vol. 3, pp. 903-4, no. 3987]
All of this means that they are more harmful to Muslims than others. And it is true that they have done greater harm to Muslims than the Jews and Christians. They were zealous to kill any Muslim who did not agree with them, since they believed that it was quite lawful for them to take his life and property or kill his children, for he was a kaafir in their eyes. They considered it an act of devotion, as they were immersed in ignorance and heresy.” (Ibn Taymiyyah Expounds on Islam, p. 555, from al-Fataawaa, vol. 3, pp. 354-5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2: By declaring all Muslims who rule by other than Allaah’s law disbelievers, regardless of their circumstances and beliefs, one enters the excesses of the Khaarijites and by denying that Muslims who rule by other than Allaah’s law are disbelievers, regardless of their circumstances and beliefs, one enters the pitfall of the Murji’ites. So by this then this denotes that by default there are conditions and fulfilments required by the ruler to carry out and those who have knowledge have to have these conditions in their knowledge by way of judgement in order to arrive to that which is certain in oreder for any ruling whatsoever to be meted out and implemented.
Chapter 2: Emaan and Kufr
Emaan (Faith)
Emaan comprises speech and action. It increases and decreases. The salaf had dealt in depth in this topic and here is what they have laid down.
Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajr said
“So the salaf say ‘emaan is aqeedah in the heart, statement of the tongue, and actions of the limbs.”
Stated by the Alamaah, al-Muhadith, the Muhaqiq Shaykh AbdulQaadr Arna’oot rahimahullah
“From the `aqeedah (beliefs) of the righteous predecessors is their saying: Eemaan is a saying of the tongue, an action by the limbs and a strong belief in the heart. Eemaan increases with obedience to Allaah and decreases with disobedience to Allaah.
So emaan in speech is of two types. 1.the speech of the heart and 2. speech of the tongue
Emaan in action is of three types. 1. Actions of the heart, 2. actions of the tongue, and 3. actions of the limbs.
Speech of the tongue is This refers to the tongue's confirmation of what the heart contains. In other words the tongue professes what the heart contains. When a person says with his tongue; "I testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah, alone without any partners and I testify that Muhammad is His servant and messenger" then he is confirming what is in his heart. So note how the 'speech of the tongue' still relates to knowledge.
As for speech of the heart then This actually refers to the belief of the heart with respect to Allaah and the other pillars of eemaan (such as the Angels, Books, Messengers, Qadr, the Last Day etc.). In other words it refers to the knowledge that the heart contains and its firm belief in this knowledge. So this would include Tawheed and its two categories of Ruboobiyyah and Asmaa was-Sifaat because both of these are related to knowledge.
As for emaan of action then the first category is action of the heart. This occurs through feelings of the heart such as love, submission, reliance, hope, fear etc. So the speech of the heart is knowledge and beliefs. So the action of the heart is from an emotional standpoint. Example of this is that one knows (with his heart) that Allah is one. This is emaan in speech of the heart. And you may find that same person hating the one who uttered speech that opposed this. This action of hating was the action of the heart.
Emaan of actions of the tongue refers to actions like dhikr, making istighfaar, and enjoining the good and forbidding the evil.
Emaan of actions of the limbs comprise of outward actions like performing all that is wajb and abstaining from that which is haraam.
Emaainn creases and decreases: Emaan increases with obedience to Allah and performing all the wajibaat, and superogatory, and increases through acts of righteousness, and emaan decreases through acts of disobedience to Allah and doing what is haraam and not performing all the obligatory duties.
Imaam Al-Laalikaa'ee (d. 418H) reports in his Sharh Usool I'tiqaad Ahl is-Sunnah (5/958) that Abdur-Razzaaq (as-San'aanee) said:
"I met sixty two Shaikhs, amongst them were: Ma'mar, al-Awzaa'ee, ath-Thawree, al-Waleed bin Muhammad al-Qurashee, Yazeed ibn as-Saa'ib, Hammaad bin Salamah, Hammaad bin Zaid, Sufyaan bin Uyainah, Shu'ayb bin Harb, Wakee' bin al-Jarraah, Maalik bin Anas, Ibn Abee Laylaa, Isma'eel bin Ayyaash, al-Waleed ibn Muslim and those I have not named, all of them saying: "Faith consists of speech and action, it increases and decreases."
Another report coming from Imaam al-Lalikaa’ee is in his Sharh Usool I'tiqaad Ahl is-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah (5/959) that Uqbah bin Alqamah said: "I asked al-Awzaa'ee about eemaan, can it increase? He replied; 'Yes until it becomes like the mountains.' I said: Can it decrease? He said: 'Yes, even until nothing remains of it.'"
Emaan has both an asl (foundation), and furoo (branches)
Stated by the Imaam Muhammad ibn Naasir al-Marwazi that
“And we say: that Emaan has an asl (foundation). If even an atoms weigth is removed from it, the appellation of emaan will be removed altogether (i.e. the whole of emaan will be gone). And from whoever this is not removed, the appellation of emaan will remain with him. However, after this it increases, adding emaan on top of his emaan. Then if there is any decrease in what is additional to this foundation (asl), the actual foundation does not decrease, what which is affirmation (iqraar) that Allah is the truth and what He says is the truth. This is because any deficiency with respect to this is actually shakk (doubt which is one of the pillars of kufr al-akbaar and presense of it in the heart negates emaan) about Allah, is He true or not true? And this is like the example of a date palm tree that has branches and leaves. Every time a branch falls form it, the appellation of the “tree” remains for it, however after this decreas it is in a state other than what it was before of perfection, but without its naming changing. It is a tree that is deficient in its branches, and other trees are more perfect than it sicne they are complete. And Alla the Mighty and Majestic said ‘The example of a good word is like a good tree whose foundation is firmly established and whose branches reach up to the heaven’ to the end of the verse.”
So here our salaf had defined the nature of emaan as having both a base (asl) and furoo (branch matters).
The revival of this belief was witnessed in Shaykhul-Islam’s words regarding this issue. Ibn Taymiyyah said in Majmoo al-Fatwaa (7/324-325)
“However we say that eman has an asl (foundation) and far (branch), and the opposite of emaan is kufr, in every meaning of the word. The foundation of emaan is iqraar (affirmation) and tasdeeq (attestation) and it’s far is ikmaal (completion, perfection) of action with the heart and body.
The opposite of iqraar and tasdeeq is kufr in Allah and in what He said, and abandoning tasdeeq in Him in what he said.
And the opposite of emaan that is action- and which is not iqraar- is kufr, but not the kufr in Allah which expels from the religion, but the kufr of the wastage, neglect of the actions (tadyee al-amaal)
Also the Imaam Ibn Mandah stated after mentioning the groups of the murjia, he said
“And Ahlu-Sunnah wa Jama’ah said: emaan is all of the acts of obedience, those of the heart, tongue and all of the limbs, and it has a foundation (asl) and a brach (far). Its foundation is knowledge of Allah and attestiation (tasdeeq) of Him and of what ever came from Him (revelation) by the heart and the tongue along with submission, love of Him, Fear of Him, reverence of Him and abandoning pride, arrogance and resistance. So if a person brings this foundation, then he has entered into emaan and the name of emaan is applied to him and the rulings of pertaining to it come into effect concerning him. And then such a person cannot have perfected his emaan until he acts upon the branches. And the branches are what are made obligatory upon him, or the avoidance of forbidden matters. [al-Emaan (1/331)]
Again the revered Imaam Muhammad ibn Jareer at-Tabari said in his quotation of the madhaab of ahlu-sunah on emaan
“So some of them said, ‘emaan is the knowledge (marifa) of the heart, affirmation (iqraar) with the tongue, and the action of the limbs. Whoever brought two of these but did not bring a third, then it is not permissible for it to be said about him that he is a believer. (Now check this out) However it is said to him, ‘If the two matters that he brought are the knowledge of the heart and the affirmation of the tongue, and yet he was neglectful in his actions, then he is a muslim’. And some others who hold onto this saying have said ‘If this is the case then we say that he is a believer in Allah and his messenger, but we do not call him a believer in the absolute sense’. And some others who are also upon the same view said, ‘If this is the case then it is said to him ‘Muslim’, and it is not said ‘beleiver’, unless the exception (istithnaa) is made such that it is said, ‘He is a believer if Allah wills” [Tafseer fi Ma’alimu-deen (188-189)]
Again the revival of this understanding was laid by al-Albanee when he said
“What we have understood from the book and the sunnah and the statements of the Imaams from the Sahaba and the Tabi’een and the Imaams who have witnessed them is that whatever exceeds the actions of the heart and passes it to what it has to do with the actions of the body (amaal), then it is a condition of the completeness and not a condition of it’s existence (of emaan)
Now, there has appeared an argument among certain muslims who do not ascribe to this millah of revolt and takfeer, however they critcised the legality of usool and furoo under the banner that this division of the masa’il was the invention of the mutazila and that Shaykhul-Islam has mentioned the baselessness of usool and furoo. Here is the text of Shaykhul-Islam and it shall be analyzed.
ÝÅä ÞÇá : ãÓÇÆá ÇáÃÕæá åí ãÓÇÆá ÇáÇÚÊÞÇÏ æãÓÇÆá ÇáÝÑæÚ åí ãÓÇÆá ÇáÚãá . Þíá áå : ÝÊäÇÒÚ ÇáäÇÓ Ýí ãÍãÏ Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã åá ÑÃì ÑÈå Ãã áÇ ¿ æÝí Ãä ÚËãÇä ÃÝÖá ãä Úáí Ãã Úáí ÃÝÖá ¿ æÝí ßËíÑ ãä ãÚÇäí ÇáÞÑÂä æÊÕÍíÍ ÈÚÖ ÇáÃÍÇÏíË åí ãä ÇáãÓÇÆá ÇáÇÚÊÞÇÏíÉ ÇáÚáãíÉ æáÇ ßÝÑ ÝíåÇ ÈÇáÇÊÝÇÞ ææÌæÈ ÇáÕáÇÉ æÇáÒßÇÉ æÇáÕíÇã æÇáÍÌ æÊÍÑíã ÇáÝæÇÍÔ æÇáÎãÑ åí ãÓÇÆá ÚãáíÉ æÇáãäßÑ áåÇ íßÝÑ ÈÇáÇÊÝÇÞ . æÅä ÞÇá ÇáÃÕæá : åí ÇáãÓÇÆá ÇáÞØÚíÉ Þíá áÇ : ßËíÑ ãä ãÓÇÆá ÇáÚãá ÞØÚíÉ æßËíÑ ãä ãÓÇÆá ÇáÚáã áíÓÊ ÞØÚíÉ æßæä ÇáãÓÃáÉ ÞØÚíÉ Ãæ ÙäíÉ åæ ãä ÇáÃãæÑ ÇáÅÖÇÝíÉ æÞÏ Êßæä ÇáãÓÃáÉ ÚäÏ ÑÌá ÞØÚíÉ áÙåæÑ ÇáÏáíá ÇáÞÇØÚ áå ßãä ÓãÚ ÇáäÕ ãä ÇáÑÓæá Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã æÊíÞä ãÑÇÏå ãäå . æÚäÏ ÑÌá áÇ Êßæä ÙäíÉ ÝÖáÇ Úä Ãä Êßæä ÞØÚíÉ áÚÏã ÈáæÛ ÇáäÕ ÅíÇå Ãæ áÚÏã ËÈæÊå ÚäÏå Ãæ áÚÏã Êãßäå ãä ÇáÚáã ÈÏáÇáÊå . æÞÏ ËÈÊ Ýí ÇáÕÍÇÍ Úä ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÍÏíË ÇáÐí ÞÇá áÃåáå : " { ÅÐÇ ÃäÇ ãÊ ÝÃÍÑÞæäí Ëã ÇÓÍÞæäí Ëã ÐÑæäí Ýí Çáíã ÝæÇááå áÆä ÞÏÑ Çááå Úáí áíÚÐÈäí Çááå ÚÐÇÈÇ ãÇ ÚÐÈå ÃÍÏÇ ãä ÇáÚÇáãíä . ÝÃãÑ Çááå ÇáÈÑ ÈÑÏ ãÇ ÃÎÐ ãäå æÇáÈÍÑ ÈÑÏ ãÇ ÃÎÐ ãäå æÞÇá : ãÇ Íãáß Úáì ãÇ ÕäÚÊ ¿ ÞÇá ÎÔíÊß íÇ ÑÈ ÝÛÝÑ Çááå áå } ÝåÐÇ Ôß Ýí ÞÏÑÉ Çááå . æÝí ÇáãÚÇÏ Èá Ùä Ãäå áÇ íÚæÏ æÃäå áÇ íÞÏÑ Çááå Úáíå ÅÐÇ ÝÚá Ðáß æÛÝÑ Çááå áå .
So, if he said the Usool are the issues of belief and the Furoo are the works, it is said to him: People differed on Muhammad PBUH did he see GOD or not? Or was Uthman better than Ali or the other way around? and in many of the meanings of the Qur'an? or in hadeeths that are debated. All are issues of belief and no one claims Kufr in them. As for the prayer and the fasting and the pilgrimage and making wine haram, leaving them makes one kafir even though they are practical and not belief issues. And if he said: The usool are the things that are Qatii=certain, it was said no for many of the issues of works are Qatii, while many of the issues of knowledge are not. And the Qatii and the Thanii=doubtful for Furoo are additional matters for a particular matter can be Qatii to a person because he had the proof as in he heard it from the prophet and knew the purpose of it, while for another the matter is not even thanni for he had not received the whole statement, or he had no proof of it's authenticity or he could not get the right message from it.
And then there is also the argument that is used to strengthen what Shaykhul-Islam said in light of their understanding about the hadeeth of the man who had his body cremated here is the hadeeth.
If I die then burn me and cut me into pieces and throw me at the sea. Because if GOD was able to get me then HE will torture me torture that no man had seen. So GOD oredered the land and the sea to put the man back together and then GOD asked the man: Why did you do this? The man said I feared you my lord, and GOD forgave him
So here, the man doubted the ability of GOD, but he thought that GOD will not be able to get him and GOD forgave him.
As for Shaykhul-Islam’s statement. It must be understood in light of all of his stances taken in this issue to lock separate statements that may seem contradictory to what is understood. So here this statement of Ibn taymiyyah contradicts (apparently) what he said about usool and furoo. So one needs to question what was the motive or the issues that was reaccuring when he was speaking about this.
As for his statement about belief, he was nto referring to the usoolu-sittah of aqeedah as we commonly know when we refer to aqeedah. He used the issue in regards to belief “people differed over whether Muihammad saw Allah”, and “in the meanings of the quraan (tafseer) and the hadeeths, and whether uthman was better than Ali. These matters do not enter anything of the usoolu-sittah of our way, they are a matter that relates to, but is not a fundamental part. In regards to tafseer it is known how the aimah differed in this regard. However the differing shurooh of many of the versus on are really on different subjects. Although tafseer is one of the fundamentals of Islam, knowing the tafseer of the ayaah about the miraj is not like the level of knowing the tafseer of let say ayaatu-kursi. This is also attested to by other statements of his were he says about the unanimous stance of the beleivers and the Imaams on certain issues by which there is no khilaaf about.
As for the actions that he was speaking of they are divided into two matters that is being addressed by what we know of his works.
the first is istihlaal
So here it is. Here he says leaving the salaah and the hajja , etrc, makes on a kaafir. This is differed upon by other Imaams who said the leaving of salaah is only kufr doona kufr. Yet all of them, including Shaykhul-Islam mentioned that the kufr can only be definate if he beleives in his heart that it is halaal (istihlaal) in leaving these matters of the amaal. Example is Gehghis Khan. He beleived that Hajj was not waajb even though he received the proof. This according to the explaination of Ibn Taymiyyah and every other muslim that ever existed understood that he became a kaafir due to this one preexisting matter.
The second matter that puts this contradictory statement in line with his established belief is that Ibn Taymiyyah gave his explaination of the hadeeth being used to support this unintended notion that some of these people received by Ibn Taymiyyah. He says about the hadeeth of the man who had his body cremated
"So this man thought that Allah (ta'ala) would not be able to take hold of him if he did this - so he thought that He would not be able to resurrect him - and both denying the power of Allah the Most High, and denying the resurrection of the bodies, even if they are dispersed - are Kufr. But he along with his belief in Allah and His orders and out of fear of Him - being ignorant of that and astray and mistaken in that thought - then Allah forgave him for that. And the hadeeth clearly shows that he hoped that Allah would not resurrect him if he did that - and that is at the very least doubting the Resurrection and that is Kufr if the Prophet proof is established against one who denies and he would then be judged a Kaafir - and would clearly show his lack of belief in Allah. And those who explain away his saying "If Allah takes hold of me " to mean : "If Allah deals with me harshly" - then this is incorrect and twisting of the words - because he ordered that he be burnt and dispersed in order to avoid being united and resurrected... and if he affirmed Allah’s power over him then he would not have done that as it would have been pointless." Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa (11/409)
so here, this statement alone repells both the notions of these people who brought up this argument which would seem to be a view of tammayyu or tamyee and repels the false mascinations of the heretical takfeeris.
And lastly I would like to bring forth a statement of Ibn Taymiyyah that locks this argument in place from the viewpoint of the people who disregard the concepts of usool and furoo. He said
“And as for whatever a person ascribes to the shariah that is not form it, such as the fabricated ahadeeth, or interpolating (ta’awwul) the texts in a way that opposes the desired intent of Allah, and other such things, then this is a form of tabdeel (altering and or changing). Thus it is obligatory to differentiate between the revealed legislation (ash-shar’ al-munazzal), the interpreted legislation (ash-shar’ al-mu’awwal), and the altered legislation (ash-shar’ al-mubaddal), just as it is to be differentiated between the creational reality and the commanded religious reality and also between that which the Book and the Sunnah give evidence to and that in which (a person’s) feelings and impulses are sufficed with” (Majmoo al-Fatawaa 11/265)
Since Ibn Taymiyya was known for his sharpness and keenness of his statements and action, one also must understand that since he had kept these views in mind (about about munazzal, mu’awwal and mubaddal) one can easily see that in regards to the argument brought forth by Ibn taymiyyah in regards to the leaving of usool and furoo that had no basis, it was in reference to either ash-shar’ al-mu’awwal or mubaddal, and mostly likely he was keeping in mind the shar of mu’awwall. Example of this is how the mufassireen differed, as he said, with regard to if Muhammad salallahu alaihi wa salam saw Allah or not, which would fall under mu’awwal but no one differs lets say in the ruling of eating pork, or khammar, or the idle speech and laghw, which would fall under munazzal. Hence, not understanding the differentiation of this as he noted resulted in certain people who had agreed that the classification of usool and furoo to be invalid.
And lastly if using the excuse that usool and furoo was an innovation of the mutazilah, then the reply to that is that this act of innocation has not, nor has it ever been deemed by any authority in the religion to be bidatun-shar’i. So form this aspect, the this innovation was like the innovation of the quraan being written on a mushaf or the ascription to the salaf, or the development of usool and mustalah of tafseer and hadeeth
Kufr (Disbelief)
Kufr is of two types
As for kufr then it is of two types. The first is major kufr and the second is minor kufr.
The following is an extraction from Ibnul-Qayyim’s Madarij us-Salikin from which he said
“And as for kufr it is of two types:
Kufr akbar (major kufr) and kufr asghar (minor kufr).
So kufr akbar - this necessitates eternity in the Hellfire.
And the (kufr) asghar: Necessitates the fulfilment of the threat (of Hellfire) without eternally abiding in it. As occurs in the saying of the Exalted - and it used to be from what was recited and then it was abrogated :
"And do not detest/hate your fathers, for that is disbelief from you"
and his (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) saying in the hadeeth:
"There are two matters in my ummah, by which (my) Ummah falls into kufr: Reviling the genealogy and wailing/lamenting (over the dead)"
And his saying in the Sunan:
"Whoever comes to a women from her anus has disbelieved in what was revealed upon Muhammad" and in another hadeeth: "Whoever comes to a sorcerer or a diviner and believes in what he says has disbelieved in what Allaah revealed upon Muhammad"
and his saying
"Do not become disbelievers after me, striking the necks of one another".
And this is the explanation of Ibn ‘Abbaas and the generality of the Companions regarding the speech of Allaah:
And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, then they are the disbelievers (5:44)
Ibn Abbaas said: "It is not the kufr that takes one out of the religion. Rather when he does it then it is [an act of] disbelief, and he is not like the one who disbelieves in Allaah and the Last Day" and Taawoos said the same and Ataa said: "It is disbelief less than disbelief, oppression less than oppression and rebellion less than rebellion"
And amongst them are those who interpreted the verse to mean the one who abandons the rule of Allaah while opposing and rejecting it (jahidan lahu) and this is the saying of Ikrimah! And this is a defective saying, since just the mere denial (juhud) of it is disbelief, regardless of whether he ruled by it or not. (3)
And amongst them are those who explained it to mean abandoning ruling by all of what Allaah revealed, he said, and who enters into this the judgement of Tawhid and Islam! This is the interpretation of Abdul-Aziz al-Kinani, and this too is far from what is correct!! Since the threat (contained in the verse) is for the negation of ruling by the revealed legislation, and this can apply to abandoning all of the legislation or just some of it.
And amongst them are those who explained it to mean to rule in opposition to the text, deliberately, without being ignorant of it and nor due to error in understanding or interpreting it. Al-Baghawee quoted this from the scholars generally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3: This should be ample proof right here that rebellion should not occur even if the common people believed the ruler to be a kaafir. That is because if it was the correct methodology to incur a rebellion by judging the outside actions of the ruler in not ruling by the rule of Allah, then the opposite of this would also have to apply in that if the ruler does rule by the rule of Allah and indeed it is known that this was not his desire and denied it with his heart, then his condition is the same as the first in that rebelling him would be obligatory and his removal of power would be as such according to this methodology.
And amongst them are those explained to refer to the Ahl ul-Kitaab. And this is the saying of Qataadah, Dahhaak and others. And this is far (from what is correct) - and it is in opposition to the apparent wording - so it is not to be inclined towards.
And amongst them are those who explained it to mean the kufr that takes one out of the religion!
And what is correct is that judging by other than what Allaah has revealed is both types of kufr (disbelief) - kufr asghar (the minor disbelief) and kufr akbar (the major disbelief) - and [which of the two it is] depends on the condition of the ruler. If he believes in the obligation of judging by what Allaah has revealed in this situation but turned away from it out of disobedience - and while acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment then this is kufr asghar (4).And if he (i’taqada) believes that it is not obligatory and that he has a choice in the matter , along with his firm belief that it is the judgement of Allaah - then this is kufr akbar - and if he was ignorant in the matter or made an error then he is one who errs (mukhtee’) and his ruling is as the same for those who err (i.e. one reward).
And the intent here is: That sins, all of them are of the minor form of kufr (kufr asghar). For they are the opposite of gratefulness - which is to act in obedience to Allaah. And the striving (of a person), either it constitutes gratefulness (shukr) or disbelief (kufr), or a third matter which is neither this or that (i.e gratefulness or disbelief), and Allaah knows best.
Another point of weight and importance in this matter is that which is derived from certain hadeeths (5) which is Leave that which makes you doubt for that which doesn’t make you doubt.”(Saheeh Sunan an-Nasaa’ee, vol. 3, p. 525, no. 5727.) So that which is applied from this issue is that “what has been established by certainty can only have it removed by certainty” which would only denote that “Whoever’s Islam is established by certainty, can only have it removed with certainty”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4: So here Ibnul-Qayyim demonstrates his position by saying that if the ruler believes (and this is emaan of the heart in knowledge and if he professes it with his tongue, then it would be emaan in the heart of action, regardless if he does not act with it from the limbs) which only shows that this denotes that the ruler himself who fell under this is not a kaafir even though this is kufr asghaar. And this is the main view of ahlu-sunnah wal-jam’ah, unfortunately, those who took the madhaab of the khawarij have viewed this to be irj-aa which automatically makes the claim nullified since the source view is from that which is incorrect.
5: this is what has strength in this area since this issue is dealing specifically in reference to a person’s Islam in which the right of defense should be met out until the time of the revealing (of that which is most certain and clear: meaning that it has been undebatably proven that the one in question is indeed a kaafir).
Below is an extract from a very serious knowledge based discussion put forth by al-Urdoonee mashaykh from which the treatise itself received much praise and agreement from all of the ulema of the mamlika of saoodiyyah.
It was stated
“Not every statement or act described by texts as kufr (disbelief) is major disbelief which ejects one out of the fold of Islaam, as there are two types of disbelief: minor and major. Thus the ruling on these statements and deeds should only be according to the methodology of the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah and their rules.
It is not permissible to pass the judgment of disbelief on any Muslim except those whose disbelief is clearly and explicitly indicated by the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. Doubts and suspicions are not sufficient in this matter.
There may exist in the Qur’aan and Sunnah texts which may be understood to mean that certain statements, acts or beliefs are equivalent to disbelief. However, no one specifically can be declared a disbeliever unless clear evidence is presented to him: by fulfilling the conditions of knowledge, intent and choice and removal of obstacles which are the opposite of these.”
So to clarify the last matter it was brought forth that even the obstacle have to be removed in which the following was stated in explanation of above, “Ignorance, accident and force are excuses mentioned in the Sunnah: “Error, forgetfulness and what is forced are removed as sins from my nation.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol.7, p.147, no.194) (6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6: As for this then, what should be noted is that many things from a political standpoint can happen suddenly and unimaginably since the emergence of political espionage and deception is not only rampant, but an actual piller or foundation for kuffaric imperialism. Much of this is known from both muslims and non muslim, but the scope of how great it is, is to great to even imagine and summarize. And so for this then a tactic used by the kuffar is in imaginary subordainance from their non allies and from the muslim perspective “their enemies”. And what can be imagined is that which results in submission to their ways and certain laws that must be obeyed by countries outside of their territory. The focus of this is that in current times it is easy for the kuffar to adopt tactics of submission and dominance from their counterparts and these countries cannot escape whatsoever either due to power (not enough), low income, arms, etc. So especially in these times it should not be excluded from the mind of the muslim who claims Islam that there can be indeed a ruler in any one of our countries secretly withheld to foreign dominance of the kuffar and any opposition could possibly bring more chaos and havoc to the already shocked and dismantled Muslim world today. And if this is not realized by the ummah then Allah’s refuge is sougth
Imaam 'Abdul Lateef Ibn 'Abdur Rahmaan Ibn Hasan aalush-Shaykh:
"Disbelief is of two types: disbelief in action and disbelief in obstinancy and denial. It - that is disbelief in denial - is to disbelieve in what the Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is known to have come with from Allaah by denying it and obstinantly refusing it, whether is concerns the Names of the Lord of His Attributes and His Actions and His Rulings whose origin is His Tawheed, and the worship of Him alone without any associate with Him." Usool Wa Dawaabit Fit-Takfeer (p. 36)
Al-Amaal (the actions: of the limbs)
Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, rahimahullah, said in explaination of the prophet, salallahu alaihi wa salam, “And then a group of people will be taken out from the fire who had not done any good whatsoever”, he said, ‘And what is meant by his saying, ‘who had not done any good whatsover’ is the actions of the limbs, even though they have the foundation (asl) of tawheed with them” and it was said by him again “this proves that those whom Allah will remove through his mercy, without any intercession from anybody else from the creation, are the people of tawheed who had not done a single deed of goodness with their limbs” in at-Takhweek Min an-Naar)
Shaykhul-Islam in Majmua al-Fatwa says concerning this issue
“However we say that eman has an asl (foundation) and far (branch), and the opposite of emaan is kufr, in every meaning of the word. The foundation of emaan is iqraar (affirmation) and tasdeeq (attestation) and it’s far is ikmaal (completion, perfection) of action with the heart and body.
The opposite of iqraar and tasdeeq is kufr in Allah and in what He said, and abandoning tasdeeq in Him in what he said.
And the opposite of emaan that is action- and which is not iqraar- is kufr, but not the kufr in Allah which expels from the religion, but the kufr of the wastage, neglect of the actions (tadyee al-amaal)
It is clear here, that all actions, whether by heart or by body is appearently the furoo or the branch matters of emaan and kufr and is not the base foundation for emaan. And the utterance of this is not tantamount to irj’aa nor does it come close to it.
It is strange how Shaykhul-Islam stated exactly what Imaam al-Albanee stated concerning emaan yet, the khawarij in our era who accuse him of irj’aa do not accuse Ibn taymiyyah for stating the exact same usool. Compere the following of Muhamamd Naasiru-Deen al-Albanee with what Shaykhu-Islam has said about emaan and its relation to amaal
Shaykhul-Islam Naasiru-Deen al-Albanee said
“What we have understood from the book and the sunnah and the statements of the Imaams from the Sahaba and the Tabi’een and the Imaams who have witnessed them is that whatever exceeds the actions of the heart and passes it to what it has to do with the actions of the body (amaal), then it is a condition of the completeness and not a condition of it’s existence (of emaan)
Not much is stated here in this subject for the fact that even the opposser would accept this. This is because the point of the matter is in trying to make plain the reality that some people just simply don’t meet the criteria for anyone to justify the absence of imaan. So the difference is in kaafir or not. The opposser and user of hawaa says kaafir, absolutely without any tafsil in it whatsoever. Ahlu-sunnah say, no, until all the necessary conditions are met, so by this condition is how they charge ahlu-sunnah with irj’aa which will be clarified later on inshallah.
Chapter 3: The Imaams and Scholars regarding Takfeer and the issue of Secular Laws and the ruling on the hukaam
In this chapter then what has been brought forth are the statements of the recent Imaams regarding the neo khawarij (kharijyyatun assriyyah) and the recent events concerning emaan and kufr and ruling by other than what Allah has revealed brought forth from those who have been infected with this methodology.
I will, inshallah, bring those scholars first, who the people infected with kharijiyyah believe that they have clinged to them and their millah of revolt and unrestricted takfeer based off of outward actions. The reason for this is that by them holding on to these scholars is only by way of deception by making the common people believe that their views are actually halaal in the realm of Islam and ahlu-sunnah. So because of this action many have become deceived. Another point is that they take the words of these scholars that have ambiguity in them or have not been explained and use them in their appearent state just as the they do with certain texts only to attribute to them in front of the people they give dawah to that many of the scholars are upon their views and those who don’t are actually murj’ee.
Secular Laws
I have also added the statements of the same Imaams regarding the issue of ruling by secular laws and contrasted them with their (the Imaams) beliefs in the issue of emaan and kufr to lock in place what was general which the takfeeris of the era have used to promote in the general sense and left off the clear stances of the scholars concerning emaan and kufr
Shaykh Abdul-Azeez ar-Rajihee was asked the following
“This person asks about the shari’ah ruling concerning the ruler who rules by French secular laws alongside the knowledge that he claims Islam, Salaah, Saum, and makes Hajj. So what is to be said about him”
the Shaykh Answers “When he believes in (their) permissibility (al-I’tiqaadul-jawaaz), when he believes that the judgement by the french laws is permissible, then he is a kaffir. When he believes that it is permissible for him (to do that).
As for when he does not believe this, or he has doubt, then it is necessary for the proof to be established against him.
And some of the people of knowledge have held that when he alters the religion in all of the affairs of the state, then he is a kaafir, because he has changed the religion, and al-Hafidh Ibn Katheer rahimahullah has gone to this in his tafseer, and also Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ibraheem rahimahullah, in his treatise ‘Tahkeemul-Qaaaneen’. So when he changes the religion, the whole of it, from head to heal, in all of the affairs of the state, in everything, not part of it, then he is a kaafir, because he has altered the religion.
And then some others have said that is it necessary for the proof to be established against him, for he could be ignorant or have some doubt. Our respected Shaykh Abdul-Azeez Bin Baz rahimahullah chose this view.”
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraheem aalu-Shaykh- said concerning secular laws
"… The fifth, and it is the greatest and the most encompassing and the clearest opposition of the Shari'ah and stubbornness in the face of its laws and insulting to Allah and His Messenger and opposing the courts of the Shari'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 Shari'ah there are references, all of them returning back to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger like that, these courts have references, which are laws that are assembled from many legislations and laws like the laws of France and America and England and other laws and from the Metha'hib of some of the innovators who claim to be under the Shari'ah.
And these courts are now fully operational in the settlements of Islaam, people entering them one after another, their rulers judge upon them with what opposes the Sunnah and the Book with the rules of that law and they impose that on them and approve it for them. So what Kufr is there beyond this Kufr and what nullification of the Shahaadah of Muhammadar Rasool-Allah is there beyond this nullification?!
– "Tah'keem Al-Qawaneen"
Exoneration and clarity upon our shaykh is a must for us since he was one of the main scholars who those who opposed the methodology laid down in this risalaa actually hijacked his words to mean that which he did not intend in order to justify the incorrect position they have concerning takfeer and revolt.
This is the saying from the Shaykh in a fatwa he gave puts everything in its correct context fatwa (1/80) 9/1/1385 hijrah
Then, the Imaam, the fountain of Knowledge Muhamamd ibn Ibraheem has clarified this issue above with the following
“And likewise, the implementation of the meaning of ‘Muhammad is the messenger of Allah’ is by judging to his shari’ah and confining oneself to that while rejecting whatever opposes it from the secular laws and all those matters for which Allah sent no authority. And the one who judges by them (secular laws) or refers to them for judgment while believing in the correctness of that or the permissibility in it, then he is a kaafir with the kufr that ejects from the religion. And if he does that without belief in their correctness and regarding it permissible to judge by them, then he is a kaafir with the kufr of action, which does not eject from the religion” [Fatwa 1/80] 1385 hijri
Subhaanallah. So by this fatwa from him then is this a statement of irj’aa? No. It is what all the imams were upon. Anything less than this would be falling into irj’aa and any more to this or changing the intent to be specific to all rulers and applying the ayah and statements to be general without tafseel is to fall into kharijiyyah.
Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan exonerates the Shaykh Muhmmad ibn Ibraheem in the following.
It was asked “Someone has understood from your words in ‘Kitaabu-Tawheed’, which are your comments, with regards to the issue of al-Haakimiyyah and ruling by other than what Allah had revealed. So they have understood from them (his words) that (by the act alone) you perform specific takfeer of a specific ruler who does not judge by what Allah has revealed. And then they applied (this understanding) to the rulers of the gulf states’
So the first action eminating from the shaykh was that he laughs. So he says ‘It is due to hawaa….words unclear, there is no ambiguity in them …….words unclear. The distinction that is mentioned (in the beginning of that chapter) relates to them (gulf rulers). And it was then said after that, that the one who banishes the shari’ah entirely and puts another law in it’s place, that this indicates that he views the secular law to be better than the shari’ah, and whoever holds this opinion, he is the one who is a kaafir (emphasis given). This is in the same book itself, however they (these people upon he millah of revolt and takfeer) only take according to their own understanding of it and what is of benefit to them, yet they abandon the rest of the words. If they had read the words from the beginning, the matter would have been clear (to them).
So it was asked ‘And the statement of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Ibraheem is (understood) in the same way?
Shaykh Fawzaan said “yes, it is the same. His words mean that the one who abolishes the shari’ah and puts in its place another law, then this indicates that he considers this law to be better than the shari’ah. And whoever considers this law to be better than the shari’ah, then such a one is a kaafir in the view of everybody, there is no doubt in this.”
.
So here is the speech of the people of takfeer and revolt as they use the proofs of Ibn taymiyyah in his speech regarding the unjustified millah that they are upon. So he said
"And it is known by necessity in the Deen of the Muslims and by the agreement of all the Muslims that whoever follows a Shari'ah other than the Shari'ah of Muhammad then he is a disbeliever in some of the Book. “Kaafir” and it is like the Kufr of the one who believes in some of the Book and and disbelieves in some of the Book."
–"Majmoo al-Fataawa", Vol. 28/ 524
So the Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah says in Majmoo Fatawaa (7/324-325)
“However we say that eman has an asl (foundation) and far (branch), and the opposite of emaan is kufr, in every meaning of the word. The foundation of emaan is iqraar (affirmation) and tasdeeq (attestation) and it’s far is ikmaal (completion, perfection) of action with the heart and body.
The opposite of iqraar and tasdeeq is kufr in Allah and in what He said, and abandoning tasdeeq in Him in what he said.(1)
He also says regarding the issue of the hukaam the following which is very important as al-Izz noted the mandation of this knowledge on every muslim so he says
"When a person makes halaal something that is agreed upon to be prohibited or he prohibits something that is agreed upon to be halaal or when he alters the Revealed Law that is agreed upon, he becomes an apostate disbeliever by agreement of the fuqahaa. The likes of this has been revealed in His statement…
"And whoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed, then these are the disbelievers." [Sooratul Maa`idah 5:44]
That is to say that he makes ruling by other than what Allaah revealed halaal." Mujmal I'itqaadus Salaf (3/267)
Shaykhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah also said:
"There is nothing wrong in holding that whoever does not believe in the obligation of ruling by what Allaah revealed upon His Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to be a disbeliever. So whoever holds it halaal to rule between the people by what he sees as justice without following what Allaah revealed, then he is a disbeliever…"
He has also noted that:
"So many of the people accept Islaam, but despite this they do not rule except by the customs of their neighbours who command them to follow. So if they know that it is not permissible to rule except by that which Allaah revealed, then they are not bound to that (meaning bound to the previous usool of takfeer of the one who rules by other than what Allah revealed). Rather if they make it halaal to rule by other than what Allaah revealed, then they are disbelievers, except if they are ignorant like those whose case has preceded." Minhaajus Sunnah (5/131)
Imaam Ibn Abil 'Izz al-Hanafee said:
"So here is a matter that is obligatory to comprehend, and it is that the rule by other than what Allaah revealed can be disbelief that expels one from the Religion and it can be a sin: major or minor. It can be disbelief that is either figurative or minor disbelief and that is according to the condition of the ruler. So if he believes that Ruling by what Allaah revealed is not obligatory or that he has an option in it or if he undervalues it along with certainty that it is the rule of Allaah, then this is major disbelief.
If he believes in the obligation of ruling by what Allaah revealed and he knows of it in this event, but he forgoes it - along with knowledge that it is worthy of being implemented - then he is a sinner and he is called a disbeliever with figurative disbelief, or with minor disbelief." Sharhul 'Aqeedatit-Tahaawiyyah (p. 323-324)
Imaam al-Qurtubee said in his tafseer:
"Ibn 'Abbaas and Mujaahid said: 'Whoever does not judge by what Allaah revealed in rejection of the Qur`aan, and in denial of the statement of the Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam), then he is a disbeliever”. This statement is taken from al-Jaami' li Ahkaamul Qur`aan (6/188)
'Allaamah Muhammad al-Ameen ash-Shanqeetee commented upon this statement of Imaam al-Qurtubee:
"So disbelief is either disbelief less than disbelief (kufr doona kufr), or it can be that one sees it to be permissible or he intends to deny the Judgements of Allaah and reject them despite knowledge of them. As for the one who rules by other than what Allaah revealed and he knows that it is a crime, and that the one who does it is impudent - and he only does it due to his desires - then he is from those Muslims who sin."
Then he said:
"Know that the liberating position in this research is that…whoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed in opposition to the Messengers, and he has nullified the Judgements of Allaah, then his transgression and his corruption and his disbelief - all of it - is disbelief that takes one out of the Religion. Whoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed, believing that he is perpetrating a prohibited action, the doer of which is foul - then his disbelief and his transgression and his corruption does not take him outside the Religion." Adwaa`ul Bayaan (2/104)
Ibn al-Arabi al-Malikee said
“If he rules with (the rules he brought from himself) holding that they are from Allah, then that is tabdeel of the rule of Allah and necessitates kufr and if he ruled by them due to a desire and out of obedience, then that is a sin and upon the principle of ahlu-sunah regarding the forgiveness of the sinners, he will be able to reach forgiveness” (Ahkaam ul-Quraan 2/642)
Shaykhul Islaam Muhammad Ibn 'Abdul Wahhaab said:
"We do not declare a person to be a disbeliever, except by what all of the scholars have gathered upon, and it is the two testimonies (shahaadataan)." Durarus-Sunniyyah (1/70)
al-Imaam 'Abdul Lateef Ibn 'Abdur Rahmaan Ibn Hasan aalush-Shaykh said:
"So the Shaykh ('Abdul Wahhaab) - may Allaah have mercy upon - did not declare a person to be a disbeliever except one who disbelieved in Allaah and His Messenger; and the Ummah is united upon this takfeer." Usool Wa Dawaabit Fit-Takfeer (p. 15)
Imaam Abdur-Rahman Bin Naasr as-S’adi said
"So ruling by other than what Allaah revealed is from the actions of the people of disbelief and it can be disbelief that expels one from the Religion (and here is the condition) if one believes that it is halaal." Tayseeru-Kareemu-Rahman
Again al-Imaam Shaykhul-Islam Muhamamd ibn Abdul-Wahhab was asked regarding takfeer
He was asked concerning that for which he fights, and upon what does he make takfeer of a person. He replied
“The 5 pillars of Islam. The first of them (by which he disbelieves) is the two testimonies of faith, then the remaining four pillars. However, if he affirms their obligation but abandons them out of neglect, then even though we fight him in order to make him act upon them, we do not declare him being a disbeliever by mere abandonment of them. The scholars have differed about the disbelief of the one who abandoned the prayer out of laziness, without willful denial, juhood. So we do not perform takfeer on account of anything except what all of the scholars united upon, and that is the two testimonies of faith. [ad-Durar as-Sunniyyah 1/102]
Imaam Ibnul Jawzee said:
"The decisive speech is that whoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed in denial of it and he knows that Allaah revealed it - as the Jews did - then he is a disbeliever. Whoever does not rule by it due to an inclination towards his desires - without denial of it - then he is a transgressor and a sinner." Zaadul Maseer (2/366)
Shaikh Muhammad al-Ghunaymaan was asked:
"The one who leaves the Hukm by what Allah revealed; if he makes the general judgements with the fabricated laws, does he disbelieve? And is there a difference between that and the one who judges with the Shari'ah but then he opposes the Shari'ah in some of the matters due to desire or bribery or other than that?"
So he answered, "Yes, it is Waajib to differentiate between them. There is a difference between the one who throws away the Hukm of Allah, jala-wa'ala and replaces it with the judgements with the laws and the judgement of mankind. This is Kufr, which takes one outside the Milla of Islaam. But the one who is Multazim (i. e. religiously committed) upon the Deen of Islaam except that he is disobedient and a Thaalim by following his desires in some of the Ah'kaam and goes after a benefit from the Dunya, while accepting that he is Thaalim with this, then this is not Kufr, which takes you out of the Milla. And whoever sees the Hukm with the laws to be equal to the Hukm of the Shara' and makes it Halaal, then he also disbelieves with the Kufr that takes one outside the Milla, even if it is in one instance."
– "Mujaalit Al-Mishkaat", Vol. 4/ 247
Al-Imaamu-Haafidh Ibn Hazm al-Andaloosee, the one strong against the murji’aa, and one who is not murji stated
He (the Messenger) did not declare a kaafir one who abandoned action, but he declared a kaafir the one who abandoned the kalima (testimony of faith). This is because the Messenger of Allah salallahu alaihi wa salam made the judgement of kufr upon the one who refused to make the saying (testimony), even if he knew of its correctness in his heart. And he also judged that the one who knew with his heart and pronounced with the tongue to be removed form the fire, even if he did not do a single deed of goodness” [as-Durrah Fima Yajib Itiqaaduhu (337)]
Likewise the Imaam of the Sunnah al-Haafidh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali stated in explaination of the saying of the Messenger of Allah “And then a group of people will be taken out from the fire who had not done any good whatsoever’, so he said
‘And what is meant by his saying, ‘who had not done any good whatsoever’ is the actions of the limbs, even though they have the foundation (asl) of tawheed with them” [at-Takhweef Min an-Naar (255)]
al-Haafidh Ibnul-Qayyim al-Jauziyyah said about emaan and kufr
And what is correct is that judging by other than what Allaah has revealed is both types of kufr (disbelief) - kufr asghar (the minor disbelief) and kufr akbar (the major disbelief) - and [which of the two it is] depends on the condition of the ruler. If he believes in the obligation of judging by what Allaah has revealed in this situation but turned away from it out of disobedience - and while acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment then this is kufr asghar .And if he (i’taqada) believes that it is not obligatory and that he has a choice in the matter , along with his firm belief that it is the judgement of Allaah - then this is kufr akbar - and if he was ignorant in the matter or made an error then he is one who errs (mukhtee’) and his ruling is as the same for those who err (i.e. one reward).
And the intent here is: That sins, all of them are of the minor form of kufr (kufr asghar). For they are the opposite of gratefulness - which is to act in obedience to Allaah. And the striving (of a person), either it constitutes gratefulness (shukr) or disbelief (kufr), or a third matter which is neither this or that (i.e gratefulness or disbelief), and Allaah knows best.
Al-'Allaamah Muhammad Rasheed Ridhaa said about the aayatul hukm:
"As for its apparent sense, then no one from the famous Imaams of fiqh ever spoke of it, rather not a single person ever spoke of it. So verily its apparent sense represents anyone who has ruled by other than what Allaah revealed, regardless of the rule that was other than what Allaah revealed. This does not make anyone from among the Muslims a disbeliever… Tafseerul Manaar (6/604)
It is clear from the above that these Imaam have clarified that the abandonment of actions does not constitute kufr that negates emaan in the heart, as they understood perfectly well the principle that emaan has an asl and furoo, and the action of the limbs are form the furoo matters of emaan and nots its asl.
Compare, oh reader, these statements of the wise Imaams, those who have not been infected with irj’aa and then compare this to the statement of the miskeen asghaar named Faalih bin Naafi al-Harbi, the deviant who left the manhaj in jarh and t’adeel and in this issue of emaan and kufr in which a phone call from the brothers at sahab.net took place whereby this fallen shaykh Faalih had said the following
“the belief that the one who leaves all actions of the limbs is still muslim is the kalaam of the murji;ah!!!!!”
Masakeen wallahi masakeen
I am not at all surprised, as the Imaam of the sunnah has spoke in the matter by which he clarified that the khawarij tend to this accusation against ahlu-sunnah wal jama’ah.
It is to clear, and to open for there to even be an opposition to the previous statements of the Imaams and scholars of the sunnah regarding this issue about the reality of kufr inherent upon the doer of it. It is clear in light of the above that all the Imaams that have spoken understood the reality that kufr that is commited by the one who ruled by other than what Allah has revealed must be in the realm of itiqaad (believed in) by the one in question in order for the warrant of takfeer to be issued upon such a one. Anything that falls short oft his understanding does not lead to the warrent of takfeer on the rulers, nor is it based on the beliefs of the salaf, nor is it the prophetic manhaj.
The amazing matter regarding this is that these people, those infected with this heresy do not consider the very statements of the scholars that they follow who had refuted the very beliefs they hold regarding the takfeer of the rulers, to be irj’aa, ySet the affirmer of this creed among the commoners and certain scholars they attribute irj’aa to them, and the worst of their affair is that they accuse them with the ijr’aa that is worse than the worsest irj’aa which is the ijr’aa of Jahm ibn Safwaan.
Takfeer
In the topic of this chapter, takfeer, there are two positions regarding it. As for the first, is unrestricted takfeer and the second is conditional takfeer. So takfeer in Islam is something that is established and praticed and is known to ahlu-sunnah that this arena or affair is left to those of ahlul-ilm or the people of knowledge and hadeeth. Those who hold this methodology base their proofs from the imams of the salaf, the sahaba, and the present day scholars who follow their way. This methodology, unfortunately, is not taken or even considered a sunnah and believed as a bida for those who hold the other path which is unrestricted takfeer. In the sense of unrestricted takfeer, then what ahlu-sunnah mean by this is takfeer of the rulers. This is because there is really little to no deviation between ahlu-sunnah and the present day people of takfeer until the issue of the rulers come up. It is from this standpoint that the people of takfeer and revolt hold no principles of takfeer concerning the rulers whereas ahlu-sunnah does have conditions for such an important matter of the religion.
So as for describing both types then first is unrestricted takfeer. And in this there is not much to explain (since it is unconditional) except that when it comes to the rulers then if they do not rule by what Allah has revealed in totality and abolish some parts of the shariah or replace it or add on even one law outside of the shariah then they are disbelievers in truth outside the fold of Islam and there is no ikhtilaaf in this and the one who holds that there is conditions to it is a murji. Basically they hold this to be major kufr and minor kufr is not in this topic.
However, here are the statements of the aimah of this nation of ahlu-sunnah that such a belief is not to be the way of the salaf in this regard and such a belief actually coincided with the belief of the khawarij of the days of old.
Imaam Abu Ja'afar at-Tahaawee said in Mushkilul Aathaar (4/228)
"No man can be a disbeliever when he is a Muslim and submits to and confesses Islaam. So likewise, his apostasy does not come about except by denial of Islaam."
What the Imaam Abu Jaffar at-Tahawee has affirmed as is known to the ulema in regards to fiqh is that “whatever was established by certainty can only be removed by certainty”.
And this is why we find the ulema like Shaykh Hussein Alauwaish, Shaykh Saleem, and Shaykh Ali al-Halabee stating in their bayaan in the issue of disbelief where they said
“It is not permissible to pass the judgment of disbelief on any Muslim except those whose disbelief is clearly and explicitly indicated by the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. Doubts and suspicions are not sufficient in this matter.
There may exist in the Qur’aan and Sunnah texts which may be understood to mean that certain statements, acts or beliefs are equivalent to disbelief. However, no one specifically can be declared a disbeliever unless clear evidence is presented to him: by fulfilling the conditions of knowledge, intent and choice and removal of obstacles which are the opposite of these.”
So to clarify the last matter it was brought forth that even the obstacle have to be removed in which the following was stated in explanation of above, “Ignorance, accident and force are excuses mentioned in the Sunnah: “Error, forgetfulness and what is forced are removed as sins from my nation.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol.7, p.147, no.194) (6)”
Imaam Abu Hayyaan al-Andaloosee described the way of the Khawaarij concerning the aayatul hukm when he said:
"So the Khawaarij seek to prove with this aayah that everyone who disobeys Allaah is a disbeliever! They say: 'It is a text showing that everyone who does not rule by what Allaah revealed is a disbeliever and everyone who sins, indeed he rules by other than what Allaah revealed. So it is incumbent that he be a disbeliever.'"[ Bahr al-Muheet (3/493)]
Takfeer does not come from the avenue of opinion, emotions, or ones reasoning
This issue in and of itself does not constitute a large proportion of the methodology of those who taken the path of takfeer, as they tend to use ayah and hadeth to justify their takfeer, no matter how general and non specific in nature these texts are. So I will limit my evidence on this to a few passages just in case there are some remnants of people among this group of muslims who tend to this notion of takfeer can be done on the grounds of the above (emotion, reasoning and opinion)
The principle with ahlu-sunnah is “No one is declared a kafir except those who have been declared such by Allah and His Messenger (S).
In meaning, this principle is that kufr, the negation of emaan, only lies in that which Allah has clarified in his book to what indicates disbelief, and what His Messenger have described as disbelief. So whoever falls into them, and believes in them after appearent clarification regarding whatever issue in question, then, and only then, does the warrant of takfeer actually take affect upon the one in question. From this aspect there are two people who deviate concerning this
The people of the negation of takfeer. Such a people totally negate the concept of takfeer to the point that there is no takfeer upon the one whom takfeeer is ought to be pronounced at. This is represented as the irj’aa of the Jahmiyyah, but is noy stated in principle by these people. This people are existent in out times and they are few in number and have no one from ahlul-ilm that supports their view. This is because there is no basis for their idea. To them, the issues of shirk and kufr that a muslim does fall into as was revealed by the two sources that negates emaan are matters that they reject due to their reject of the performance of takfeer in the absolute sense. However these people are not the ones in question in this risalaah.
The people of Takfeer. Not only do they accept the implications of disbelief in the quraan and sunnah, they fall into two errors concerning this.
A. they rely on general statements of Allah and his messenger and the general statements made by the salaf and the Imaams to support their specific stances of rebelion against the rulers and the takfeer of them and the takfeer those who do not perform the takfeeer with them.
B. The second error is their also relying on their preconceived notions of the actions that eminate from the rulers and certain muslims and their reasoning behind what they hold to be an action that negates islam like the kaba’ir (major sins)
And so we have the statements of the Imaams to clarify
Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said:
"This is the opposite of what some people say, like Abu Ishaq al-Isfaraaynee and those who follow him; they say, 'We do not make takfeer of anyone except for those who make takfeer of us' But labelling one with disbelief is not their right, it is Allah's right. People do not have the right to lie about those who lie about them, nor to commit fornication with the women of those who have committed fornication with their women. Even if a man is raped by another man he doesn't have the right to rape him in retaliation... because these are offenses against Allah (T). Even if a Christian slanders our Prophet (S), it is not allowed for us to slander al-Masih, and if the Rawafid make takfeer of Abu Bakr and 'Umar, it is not right for us to make takfeer of 'Ali ..." Manhaj as-Sunnah 5:244
In another place he said:
"Similarly, the people of knowledge and the Sunnah do not make takfeer of those who oppose them even if their opposition comes in the form of takfeer of them, for one's disbelief is determined by the shari'ah. People do not have the right to punish with it as revenge. Just like if someone lies about you or fornicates with your women, it is not your right to lie about him and fornicate with his wife, because lying and fornication is among the forbidden things, due to Allah's right to determine them as such, and similarly takfeer is Allah's right, so takfeer is not applied to one unless it was applied to him by Allah or His Messenger (S)" Ar-Radd 'alal aI-Bakri p.257
Al-Qurafi said:
"A matter is not determined to be kufr by reason, rather it is a legislated matter of the shari'ah. So if the shari'ah says about a matter, 'It is kufr' then it is kufr, and it is the same whether it is a thing written or stated." Tahtheeb al-Furuuq 4:158
Al Imaam al-Ghazali said:
"Kufr is a shari'ah ruling like enslavement and freedom etc. It makes blood lawful and warrants eternity in the Fire. It is determined by the shari'ah so its realization is either by a text, or by qiyaas concluding from what occurred in the texts." Faysal at-Tafriqah bayn ul- Islam wa-Zinadiqah 128.
Ibn al-Wazir said:
"Takfeer is based purely upon what has been revealed, there is no room for the use of reason in determining it, and the evidences for kufr can be established only by revelation alone, and there is no dispute over this” A1-Awasim wal-Qawasim 4:178.
Shaykh al-Alamaah Muhammad ibnu-Saalih Ibn 'Uthaymin was asked the following
Question:Are the people of ta'weel (misleading interpretation) considered disbelievers or just fasiqs6 ?
Answer:"To apply the judgement of disbelief and fusuq is not for us, rather it is for Allah (T) and His Messenger (S). It is a judgement of the shari'ah based upon the Book and the Sunnah. So it is necessary that its application is affirmed. None is considered a disbeliever or a fasiq without proof from the Book and the Sunnah for his disbelief or fisq.
The rule for one who appears to be a true Muslim is that his Islam and its fidelity remains until it has been determined by proof from the shari'ah that this has ceased. It is not allowed to indulge in declaring him a disbeliever or a fasiq because this may result in one of the two following grave dangers:
1. Forging a lie against Allah (T) by judging and sentencing another with the description (kaafir) that he labelled him with.
2. What he accused his brother with may return to him if his brother was in fact innocent of it. In Sahih Muslim it is reported that 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar (R) said that the Prophet (S) said: "When a man calls his brother a kafir it surely comes back to one of them"
So accordingly, before judging a Muslim to be a kafir or a fasiq, it is necessary to be sure of two matters:
1. The Book and the Sunnah prove that these statements or actions necessitate a declaration of kufr or fisq.
2. The judgement is applied to the individual who said or did the act, only when the conditions of takfeer and declaring one a faasiq truly apply to him, and all obstacles are removed.
One of the most important conditions is that the offender is aware of the violation which made him a kafir or fasiq, as Allah (T) said: "Whoever contends with the Messenger (S) after the guidance has been made clear to him and he follows other than the way of the believers, We shall leave him in the path he has chosen and land him in Hell. What an evil refuge" [An-Nisa' 4:115]
And: "And Allah does not allow a people to stray, after He has guided them, until He makes what they should avoid clear to them" [At-Tawbah 9:115] Al- Qawaa'id al-Muthlaa fee Sifa at Allaah wa Asmaa'hil-Husna 88-89
The Salaah and its relation to the base of Emaan and what the Aimah of the Salaf and the Khalaf who followed them have viewed on it
This issue at hand, is very important and intergral to the whole understanding on the issues of emaan and kufr and the issue that is being discussed in this risalaa as this issue is one of the back bones to both emaan and kufr and the issue of takfeer and the khilaaf (difference) between the people of the sunnah and the people of takfeer (Jama’ahtu-Takfeer)
Stated by the Imaam Abu Fadl al-Abbass Ibn Mansoor as-Saksakee
The Imaam said some words regarding the people of the sunnah (ahlu-sunnah wal jama’ah) who are the people of truth, sunnah, adl (just balanced) and upright, he stated concerning them
“And every sect has called them with a name that is not in agreement with the true reality, out of envy of them and as a fabrication against them. And they ascribed to them (ahlus-sunnah) that which they did not hold as their doctrine. So the qadariyyah labeled them “al-Mujbirah”, the Murjia called them “Shakkaakiyyah” (Doubters). The raafidha called them “an-Naasibah”, the Jahmiyyah called them “al-Mushabbihah” (Anthropomorphists just because they hold the attributes of Allah in their appearent meaning while they negated them). The Ashariyyah called them “al-Mujassimah”. The Ghaaliyyah called them the “Hashawiyyah (worthless ones). The Baatiniyyah called them the “Muswaddah”.
The Mansooriyyah (a sect of the khawarij), and the associates of Abdullah Ibn Zayd, labeled them as Murji’ah due to their saying (Ahlu-sunnah Imaams) that the one who abandons the prayers, without rejecting it’s obligation, is a muslim based upon the correct view in the madhaab. And they (al-Mansooriyyah) say that this saying of their’s (the saying of Ahlu-sunnah) leads to the saying that emaan is speech without action. Yet all of this is incorrect regarding them. Rather they are the firqat al-Hadiyyah al-Mahdiyyah (the guiding and guided sect) and its creed is the correct creed and the clear emaan (faith), that with which the quraan was revealed and which has coe in the sunnah, and that which the Ulema of the Ummah form ahlu-sunnah wal Jama’ah have agreed upon” [al-Burhaan Fi Ma’rifat Aqa’idi Ahlil-Adyaan (65-66)]
Khilaaf (difference) concerning the matters of the one who leaves the salaah and whether such a one becomes a kaafir or not.
It is no doubt that the people under discussion in this issue consider the one who leaves the salaah (does not perform it) even if they believe in its mandation is still a kaafir without question.
The correct matter, in reality, unlike what these people say, is that in this issue, there is khilaaf within ahlu-sunnah and their Imaams, and to make this a matter of abandonment and enmity or to the leading of takfeer for the one who opposes is not only baseless and incorrect, it is also against the action of the aimah of the salaf who also differed on this and there is no where in their difference that lead them to make tabd’ee (declare an innovator) or takfeer for the one who differs.
It is pertinent to mention that the scholars from among the sunnah who consider that the leaving of the salaah consititues negation of Islam in the person are first and foremost Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahya Ibn Ma’een, and from the later scholars, Imaam Ibn Uthaymeen, Abdur-Rahman al-Ghudayaan, and our shaykh Imaam Muqbil bin Hadee al-Wadi’ee and many others.
When it was asked to Imaam Muqbil this is what happened.
Question: Is the person who abandons the prayer (As-Salaah) considered a disbeliever?
Answer: The person who abandons the prayer is considered a disbeliever (Kaafir) due to what Al-Imaam Ahmad reported in his Musnad and also Muslim in his Saheeh, from Jaabir (Radhiyallaahu 'anhu) who related from the Prophet (Sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) that he said, "There is nothing between the servant (of Allaah) and disbelief (Al-Kufr) or polytheism (Ash-Shirk) except the prayer (As-Salaah)." It is also due to what Aboo Dawood reported in his Sunan from Buraydah (Radhiyallaahu 'anhu) that he said that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, "The covenant that stands between us (the Muslims) and them (the disbelievers) is the prayer (As-Salaah), so whoever abandons it then indeed he has disbelieved." And the Lord of Might says in His Noble Book, "So there succeeded them successors who lost (i.e. neglected) the prayer (As-Salaah) and followed the lusts, so they will meet with misguidance (i.e they will be astray)."
Therefore, the correct view among the statements of the people of knowledge is that the person who abandons the prayer is considered a disbeliever (Kaafir), regardless of whether he abandoned it due to rejecting its obligation or if he abandoned it without rejecting its obligation. This is the opinion of Al-Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal and it is also the opinion of a group among the companions. Rather, Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm mentioned a group among them (who held this view) and then he said, "I do not know anyone who disagreed with these companions."
Notice, oh reader, how the Shaykh specifically stated that a group among the companions had believed this, not all of them. I will show you this light of belief and understanding between the people of truth and the people of falsehood.
And the following is a list of those who hold the opposite of this idea.
when Hudhaifah ibn al-Yamaan - one of the foremost of those Companions - replied to Silah ibn Zafr who was about to understand the matter in the same way as Ahmad, so he said : "`Laa ilaaha illallaah’ will not benefit them if they do not know what is Prayer," so Hudhaifah replied after turning away from him : "O Silah it will save them from the Fire" three times. So this is a clear statement from Hudhaifah (radiallaahu anhu) that the one who abandons Prayer - and likewise the other pillars of Islaam - is not a Kaafir, rather he is a Muslim who will be saved from remaining eternally in the Fire."
It is also quoted from Imaam as-Sakhawee rahimahullah
who after mentioning the ahaadeeth about the Kufr of one who abandons Prayer, who says : "But all of this is taken at face value with regard to one who abandons it whilst denying its obligation after having grown up amongst the Muslims - since in that case he will be a Kaafir and an apostate by ijmaa’ of the Muslims - so he either returns to Islaam or is killed - but as for the one who abandons it without valid excuse but out of laziness whilst still believing in its obligation then what is correct and clearly stated by the majority failing to pray a Prayer in its essential time - such as leaving Zuhr until the sun sets, or Maghrib until the sun rises - then his repentance is sought just as the repentance of the apostate is sought - then if he does not repent he is executed, then he is washed, prayed over and buried in a Muslim graveyard - and the rest of the rulings applicable to Muslims apply to him and application of the term `kufr’ to him is explained to be due to the fact that he shares with the Kaaafir in some rulings with regard to action, this explanation is in order to harmonize between these texts and the texts such as what is authentic from him (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) that he said : There are five Prayers which Allaah prescribed... if He wishes He punishes him and if He wishes He forgives him and he also said : He who dies knowing that none has the right to be worshipped but Allaah enters Paradise Therefore the Muslims have not ceased to give inheritance to and to inherit from those who abandon Prayer. And if he were a Kaafir then he would not be forgiven and would not inherit or be inherited from." Al-Fataawaa al-Hadeethiyyah (2/84)
Shaikh Sulaimaan ibn ‘Abdullaah said :
"And because that is the ijmaa’ of the Muslims because we do not know of any time when a person who abandoned Prayer was not washed and prayed over, nor whose inheritance was prevented - even though those who abandon Prayer are many - whereas if he were a Kaafir then these rulings would apply - and as for the preceding ahaadeeth then they are to be taken as a sever warning and as describing their condition as being similar to the Kaafirs - not that it is to be taken literally - such as his (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wasallam)saying : Abusing a Muslim is open sin and fighting him is Kufr and He who swears by other than Allaah has committed Shirk etc Al-Muwaffiq said : "And this is the most correct of the two sayings."
Haashiyatul-Muqni’ (1/95-96)
Yet it is imperative to know, oh brothers, those of you who have disdain or just mere opposement of Imaam al-Albanee for his views, by which it may have been distorted throughout the kalaam of the mutakalimeen (takfeeris in this case) that he rahimahullah said the following.
"And there is a fine point here which I have rarely seen pointed out or noticed so it is essential to point it out and explain it, so I say : That the one who abandons Prayer out of laziness is judged a Muslim as long as there is nothing to reveal the secrets of his heart or indicate that and he dies before repentance is sought from him - as is the case these days - but if he is given the choice between death and between repentance and returning to regular Prayer, but he chooses death then in this case he dies a Kaafir. Shaikhul-Islaam said : And when a man refuses to pray even if he is to be killed then he will not be inwardly agreeing to the obligation of Prayer nor one who establishes it - and he is a Kaafir by agreement of the Muslims as is shown by the many reports from the Companions that such a one is a Kaafir - and as is shown by the authentic texts." Abbreviated from `as-Saheehah’ (1/117) and the saying of the Shaikul-Islaam is quoted from `Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa’ (2/48)
I do wish to mention the variance between the beliefs and understanding of the people of the sunnah with regards tot his difference and caste this light upon the dark and twisted hizbiyyah of the takfeeri kharijyaatun asriyyah.
All of the Imaams of the muslims, from the salaf and the khalaf among the later day scholars such as in our time have agreed and understood that in this issue (the abandoning of salaah) there exist a clear khilaaf (difference) by which both sides or stances are within the fold of ahlu-sunnah. This means, that according to the Imaams, those who hold their views and those who hold the opposite fall within the fold of ahlu-sunnah. The 2 opinions are
The leaving of the salaah negates emaan in the heart whether he believes in the permissibility of leaving it in his heart, or not.
The leaving of the salaah does not negate emaan until the person who does it beleives in its permissibility
So in both stances, which ever of the two stances both constitute a view that resides within the fundamentals of ahlu-sunnah wal jama’ah. So this means, in reality, that whoever differs in these two issues, then enmity and disassociation cannot occur nor can there be rivalry among the adherents to these two opinions. Unfortunately, there is one group who have opposed this asl (that enmity cannot be made off of this basis with