anonymouse
19th June 2008, 08:02 PM
the "takfir" problem on abandoning salah
http://www.darultawhid.com/en/forum/index.php?topic=1942.0
As the scholars made ijma regarding the takfir of those who perform shirk to Allah and those who deny the principles of iman known as the six conditions of iman; they have also made takfir of those who did not make takfir of the deniers. This is the meaning of the rule “man lam yukaffirul kafir fa huwa kafir” meaning “whoever does not call a kafir, kafir; will be a kafir”.
For the issue of ignorance not being an excuse in usuluddeen please see: BEWARE of Ignorance -it is not an excuse! (http://www.darultawhid.com/en/forum/index.php?topic=1792.0)
However as they have had ikhtilaf in some matters which are not included in usuluddeen and are matters of second degree (furuudeen) in aqidah whether or not takfir is valid, they also had ikhtilaf regarding whether or not ignorance is an excuse in such matters. In matters as such those who make takfir and those who do not make takfir have not made takfir of each other nor have they claimed deviation of one another moreover most of the time they did not even accuse their opponent of being wronged. However, they evaluated it as only a difference of an ijtihad. The issue of salah you have mentioned is in the same manner. Besides the issue of salah, there is also an ikhtilaf regarding sorcery among them. There are many more uncountable matters which there has been ikhtilaf regarding the denial of a matter of itiqad i.e. shafaa, punishment of the grave, ruyatullah, the creation of the Qur’an etc. If it is taken notice, none of these matters are directly related with tawhid uluhiyyah and rububiyyah. In summary those who take the ikhtilaf regarding salah as evidence for the takfir of those who have submitted to different types of taghout and claim there can be ikhtilaf regarding this, have no basis.
Those who are satisfied with the evidence regarding those who do not perform salah and claim this view, will give the same hukm to all those who abandon salah. The individual who does not perform salah being hanafee or shaafi does not change the situation. The reason is because everyone is agreed upon that the individual who deos not perform salah is performing a kebair (major sin). None of the madhab permits the abandoning of salah. Therefore no one has the right to say ‘I am hanafee and in my madhab it is not a major kufr to abandon salah therefore you can not make takfir of me’, hence he has even in his own madhab performed something that is haram. According to all the madhab he will be killed (according to the hanafee view the individual as such will be punished by being beaten until blood is shed, however even according to them if he insists abandoning salah he will be left in that state until he dies). However after the individual dies the matter of performing his salah and burial in a Muslim cemetery or treating him as a murtad and throwing his corps into a digged hole is an ikhtilaf. There is no scholar that consideres the abandoning of salah as halal and ijtihad made regarding this cannot be excused because there is open nass regarding salah being fard.
There is a very known incident that Imam Ahmad (ra) and Imam Shafii (ra) had discussed once. Although I do not know its authenticity the following clarifies the matter which they were opposed regarding abandoning salah: Imam Shafi (ra) asked how would the one who has become a kafir due to abandoning the salah become a muslim again? Imam Ahmad (ra) replied that he would need to repeat his shahada, so Imam Shafi said well he already says his shahada, therefore Imam Ahmad said that he would need to establish the salah, Imam Shafi said but the salah of a kafir is not accepted. Imam Ahmad did not respond him and the debate ended with these words. As seen Imam Shafii used salah is not of usuludden as an argument against Imam Ahmad.
What must be known here is that if the nass (evidence) regarding the individual who does not perform salah without denying it being fard had been established in certainty (qat'i thubut) and also definite in hukm (qat'i dalalat) the scholars would not have had ikhtilaf. However it must be known that if there was darul Islam and a qadi (judge) who made ijtihad according to the hanbali he will act upon his own view. Meaning just because the individual who abandoned salah is hanafee he will not give up performing the hukm he understands. According to him the conclusion he has come to is correct and he must act upon it. Not acting upon it, is not a possibility because in that case the truth he believed to be upon will have no significance. This is a matter of ijtihad which is left for the akhirah as the wronged and the right.
It would not be correct to compare the matter with todays kafir who do not perform salah because even if they do perform salah they are still kafir and the reason for this is because they are wronged in asluddeen and they associate partners to Allah.
Kufr is divided into sections within itself. The matters which form the foundation of tawhid are matters which can easily be comprehended by ‘aql and fitrah; in the same sense it can easily be comprehended by ‘aql that those which oppose tawhid is shirk and kufr. For example the recognition of the right of legislation and making dua to any other but Allah being shirk can be easily recognized by both ‘aql and fitrah; also there is open nass regarding it. For these reasons as there is no ikhtilaf among the ulama that these types of acts are kufr it is also not permissible to have ikhtilaf over the fact that these are acts of kufr and shirk. However there are some acts which are not known with ‘aql and are only known with nass meaning hujjah of risalah. These types of acts are called kufr of itiqad in some sources. They have been called such because regarding these types of acts the owner of the shariah Allah (awj) had not made and open explanation therefore we can only make itiqad that performing such acts are kufr, and we will not interfere with the rest.
The clearest example which can be given regarding this is the matter of (sihr) magic/sorcery. Allah (awj) has attributed sihr in Baqarah:102 as kufr and had not explained the hikmah of why this attribute of kufr had been given. "And they followed what the Shaitans chanted of sorcery in the reign of Sulaiman, and Sulaiman was not an unbeliever, but the Shaitans disbelieved, they taught men sorcery and that was sent down to the two angels at Babel, Harut and Marut, yet these two taught no man until they had said, "Surely we are only a trial, therefore do not be a disbeliever." Even then men learned from these two, magic by which they might cause a separation between a man and his wife; and they cannot hurt with it any one except with Allah's permission, and they learned what harmed them and did not profit them, and certainly they know that he who bought it should have no share of good in the hereafter and evil was the price for which they sold their souls, had they but known this." (Al Baqarah 2/102) The ulama have tried to give some explanations regarding this with the aim of explaining this hikmah. (ie the fact that sihr can only be done by kufr statement and by revering to the jinn etc.) Some scholars have found it sufficient that it is attributed in the nass as kufr without any other explanation and have generally made takfir of those who perform sihr. The opinion of the majority is in this direction. Imam Shafii had made tawil with the nass regarding the matter and had said only will the performer of sihr be made takfir of if it is performed with an open kufr if not he states it will be considered haram if there is no open kufr.
The matter of the tribes which made irtidat by not paying zakah is another example of this issue. Why did Abu Bakr (ra) wage war? (http://www.darultawhid.com/en/forum/index.php?topic=1467.0)
What the scholars who consider it kufr to abandon salah had meant by kufr is just like in sihr, kufr of itiqad (dogmatic belief). Hence we can only attain knowledge of why abandoning salah is accepted kufr from the nass. By ‘aql we cannot fully comprehend its reason. We can make many explanations regarding its hikmah but they will go no further than interpretations. There is no sarih -clear- evidence from the Qur’an regarding the abandoning of salah being kufr however from the guidance of some nass this hukm can be given. In the hadith it is openly attributed as kufr. It is certain that an individual being kafir only for abandoning salah is an opposing situation to the general analogy and rule that the one who commits major sin will not be kafir as long as they do not make istihlal. Therefore the majority of the ulama made tawil of the nass which indicates abandonment of salah as kufr with the commonly known principle of the ahl sunnah (an individual will not be kafir unless he makes istihlal) and also with the nass concerning, other than shirk, all sins will be forgiven. On the other hand the ulama who prefer athaar to qiyas (analogy) such as Hanbali and zahiri and in general ahl hadith take the zahir (appearent) of the nass regarding the abandonment of salah and they consult as an exceptional ruling (which is the right opinion wallahu alim) for the principle of “those who perform kabair will not be made takfir of”. Exceptions will not go against the general principles...
In this sense it is not possible that you find a scholar of sunnah or even bidah who claim salah is of usuluddeen. Just because salah is not of usuluddeen does not necessarily mean that it is unimportant. Salah is not included in aqidah it is included in the fard. For the individual who knows of salah being fard it is iman to state/express that salah is fard and it is kufr to deny it. However the individual in darulharb who has newly become Muslim cannot be made takfir of because he does not have the knowledge that salah is fard.
Regarding this matter in the work called Damad which has been classified according to the hanafee it is stated that if a kafir becomes Muslim in darulharb and spends some time not knowing salah and similar ibadaah are fard but later learns that they are fard it is not necessary that he performs the ibadaah which he had missed while he did not have knowledge regarding the fact that they were fard. It is also mentioned in the same work that if in darul Islam an individual becomes Muslim then he must make up for the past fard. The reason has been given that darul-Islam is darul-’ilm and darul-harb is darul-jahl and therefore not knowing is not an excuse in darul-Islam. (Sharh Multaka Damad)
Again an Imam of the Hanafee Imam Kasani stated that darul-Islam is darul-ilm which the ahkam are known widespread. And that darul-harb is darul-jahl which not having knowledge can be an excuse. However he also states that regarding iman in Allah there is no excuse in either dar. (Badaiussanai fi tartibisharai)
Narrating from Muhammad b. Nasir al Marwazi, Ibn Taymiyyah stated: “‘Ilm concerning Allah means iman, and ignorance concerning Allah means kufr. As such, knowledge regarding fard is iman; however ignorance prior to the commandment of the fard does not mean kufr. The reason behind this is that when Allah first sent RasulAllah (saw) to the ashab they confessed their iman however after this they did not know the commanded fard. Even so their ignorance of the, to be commanded fard was not kufr. Afterwards Allah sent them the fard. Their confession of these fard and performance of these fard became iman. Nevertheless those who rejected them became kafir for declaring the news from Allah to be untrue. If news from Allah had not come, being ignorant of this would not make one kafir. In the same sense after the arrival of the news if from among the Muslim there was some who did not hear of it, this ignorance would also not make one kafir. However ignorance regarding Allah is kufr, either before the arrival of the news or after.” (Fatawa, 7/325)
According to the author of Badai’ussanai Abu Yusuf had narrated from Abu Hanifah (ra) the following:
Abu Hanifah stated: No servant will be excused regarding recognition of His rabb. It is necessary that he knows the Rabb of all creation and make tawhid. The reason is because they see the creation of the ground and sky, their own creation and other things Allah (awj) had created. When it comes to the fard regarding those who do not know them and who the hujjah had not reached will be considered among those whom the evidence had not been fixed as a hukm of expression. (Badai’us-Sanai 7/132)
As these narrations we have made from the scholars show us that salah is not included in usuluddeen which ignorance is not an excuse, it also shows that the degree of tawhid and the degree of other fard are different. As none of the scholars see ignorance as an excuse in aqidah they have accepted not having knowledge of the fard i.e. while in darul-harb etc as an excuse. Although today those who live in the lands that used to be darul-Islam but later became darul-harb are not realy considered to be excused for not knowing the ahkam of Islam because in these lands even though they maybe little in numbers there are Muslims who live there which pay attention to the halal and haram and perform what is wajib. The disbelievers who see this are curious to learn what they are doing atleast to make a mockery of them and they learn. Also in these types of lands/countries ‘ilm regarding the fard and ahkam are widespread and everyone knows that salah, observing fast etc are fard and that khamr, fornication etc are haram. In today’s world it is not appropriate to excuse those who live in darul-harb but ofcourse this is another matter. Here we just are mentioning the least hukm.
As clearly seen here, the one who abandones tawhid is made takfir of the one who does not make takfir of him will also be made takfir of and regarding this matter there is no excuse. However in matters of ahkam there could be ikhtilaf and in some places ignorance can be an excuse. For those who wish to understand this is the scale which shows where the principle ‘the one who does not make takfir will be made takfir of’ (regarding silsilah takfir we will inshaAllah post an extensive work in the forum soon) will be used and where it will not be used.
For those cautious readers that which Abu Hanifah in Fiqhu'l-Akbar has explained is very clear:
In the first section Abu Muti states: Is the individual who is in the diyaar of shirk, who accept Islam in general, who does not know the fard and amal, although does not express the kitab and necessities of Islam but accepts Allah and iman but without expressing the necessities of iman, mu’min?
Abu Hanifah: Yes…
Abu Muti: If he dies without knowing anything else but the acceptance of iman and does not act upon it?
Abu Hanifah: He is mu’min…
What they have mentioned is an explanation of the separation of usuluddeen and furuuddeen and ignorance not being an excuse in the prior yet it being an excuse in the later. Later by beginning with the explanation of usuluddeen the following takes place:
Abu Muti: If an individual says he does not recognize a kafir to be a kafir?
Abu Hanifah: He is like the kafir.
Abu Muti: If he says I do not know the last place the kafir will go?
Abu Hanifah: He will have denied the book of Allah and become a kafir.
Later he distinguishes between the matters of first degree which are included in usuluddeen and those of second degree which are not included in usuluddeen:
Abu Hanifah: Iman is making shahadah that there is no other deity but Allah, that He is one and has no partner, to His angels, books, prophets, jannah, qiyamah, khayr and sharr, that no one has been given the strength of creating his own amal, that mankind has been created for Himself, in qada and qadr.
Abu Muti: If he accepts all of this but because of the ayah “…Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)” (Al-Kahf 18/29) he says that wishing belongs to me if I wish I will have iman if I wish I will not, what will happen?
Abu Hanifah: He is a liar in his claim. Don’t you see the ayah of Allah “Nay, this surely is an admonition: Let any who will, keep it in remembrance! But none will keep it in remembrance except as Allah wills: He is the Lord of Righteousness, and the Lord of Forgiveness. (Al-Muddaththir 74/54-56) “But ye will not, except as Allah wills; for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom.” (Al-Insan 76/30) The ayah “…Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)” (Al-Kahf 18/29) was for threat. That individual has not become kafir because he had not rejected the ayah with this statement. He had not rejected the tanzil of the ayah but had mistaken in its tawil.
An individual who rejects one of the six conditions of iman is kafir. Therefore the individual who completely denies qadr is kafir. However being from the qadariyyah and mutazilah and although not rejecting the ‘ilm of Allah and His creation but rejects with tawil the second degree matters of qadr will not become kafir. Basicaly this division shows the volume of fiqh and ‘ilm of the Imam Abu Hanifah.
Wallahu mustaan.
http://www.darultawhid.com/en/forum/index.php?topic=1942.0
As the scholars made ijma regarding the takfir of those who perform shirk to Allah and those who deny the principles of iman known as the six conditions of iman; they have also made takfir of those who did not make takfir of the deniers. This is the meaning of the rule “man lam yukaffirul kafir fa huwa kafir” meaning “whoever does not call a kafir, kafir; will be a kafir”.
For the issue of ignorance not being an excuse in usuluddeen please see: BEWARE of Ignorance -it is not an excuse! (http://www.darultawhid.com/en/forum/index.php?topic=1792.0)
However as they have had ikhtilaf in some matters which are not included in usuluddeen and are matters of second degree (furuudeen) in aqidah whether or not takfir is valid, they also had ikhtilaf regarding whether or not ignorance is an excuse in such matters. In matters as such those who make takfir and those who do not make takfir have not made takfir of each other nor have they claimed deviation of one another moreover most of the time they did not even accuse their opponent of being wronged. However, they evaluated it as only a difference of an ijtihad. The issue of salah you have mentioned is in the same manner. Besides the issue of salah, there is also an ikhtilaf regarding sorcery among them. There are many more uncountable matters which there has been ikhtilaf regarding the denial of a matter of itiqad i.e. shafaa, punishment of the grave, ruyatullah, the creation of the Qur’an etc. If it is taken notice, none of these matters are directly related with tawhid uluhiyyah and rububiyyah. In summary those who take the ikhtilaf regarding salah as evidence for the takfir of those who have submitted to different types of taghout and claim there can be ikhtilaf regarding this, have no basis.
Those who are satisfied with the evidence regarding those who do not perform salah and claim this view, will give the same hukm to all those who abandon salah. The individual who does not perform salah being hanafee or shaafi does not change the situation. The reason is because everyone is agreed upon that the individual who deos not perform salah is performing a kebair (major sin). None of the madhab permits the abandoning of salah. Therefore no one has the right to say ‘I am hanafee and in my madhab it is not a major kufr to abandon salah therefore you can not make takfir of me’, hence he has even in his own madhab performed something that is haram. According to all the madhab he will be killed (according to the hanafee view the individual as such will be punished by being beaten until blood is shed, however even according to them if he insists abandoning salah he will be left in that state until he dies). However after the individual dies the matter of performing his salah and burial in a Muslim cemetery or treating him as a murtad and throwing his corps into a digged hole is an ikhtilaf. There is no scholar that consideres the abandoning of salah as halal and ijtihad made regarding this cannot be excused because there is open nass regarding salah being fard.
There is a very known incident that Imam Ahmad (ra) and Imam Shafii (ra) had discussed once. Although I do not know its authenticity the following clarifies the matter which they were opposed regarding abandoning salah: Imam Shafi (ra) asked how would the one who has become a kafir due to abandoning the salah become a muslim again? Imam Ahmad (ra) replied that he would need to repeat his shahada, so Imam Shafi said well he already says his shahada, therefore Imam Ahmad said that he would need to establish the salah, Imam Shafi said but the salah of a kafir is not accepted. Imam Ahmad did not respond him and the debate ended with these words. As seen Imam Shafii used salah is not of usuludden as an argument against Imam Ahmad.
What must be known here is that if the nass (evidence) regarding the individual who does not perform salah without denying it being fard had been established in certainty (qat'i thubut) and also definite in hukm (qat'i dalalat) the scholars would not have had ikhtilaf. However it must be known that if there was darul Islam and a qadi (judge) who made ijtihad according to the hanbali he will act upon his own view. Meaning just because the individual who abandoned salah is hanafee he will not give up performing the hukm he understands. According to him the conclusion he has come to is correct and he must act upon it. Not acting upon it, is not a possibility because in that case the truth he believed to be upon will have no significance. This is a matter of ijtihad which is left for the akhirah as the wronged and the right.
It would not be correct to compare the matter with todays kafir who do not perform salah because even if they do perform salah they are still kafir and the reason for this is because they are wronged in asluddeen and they associate partners to Allah.
Kufr is divided into sections within itself. The matters which form the foundation of tawhid are matters which can easily be comprehended by ‘aql and fitrah; in the same sense it can easily be comprehended by ‘aql that those which oppose tawhid is shirk and kufr. For example the recognition of the right of legislation and making dua to any other but Allah being shirk can be easily recognized by both ‘aql and fitrah; also there is open nass regarding it. For these reasons as there is no ikhtilaf among the ulama that these types of acts are kufr it is also not permissible to have ikhtilaf over the fact that these are acts of kufr and shirk. However there are some acts which are not known with ‘aql and are only known with nass meaning hujjah of risalah. These types of acts are called kufr of itiqad in some sources. They have been called such because regarding these types of acts the owner of the shariah Allah (awj) had not made and open explanation therefore we can only make itiqad that performing such acts are kufr, and we will not interfere with the rest.
The clearest example which can be given regarding this is the matter of (sihr) magic/sorcery. Allah (awj) has attributed sihr in Baqarah:102 as kufr and had not explained the hikmah of why this attribute of kufr had been given. "And they followed what the Shaitans chanted of sorcery in the reign of Sulaiman, and Sulaiman was not an unbeliever, but the Shaitans disbelieved, they taught men sorcery and that was sent down to the two angels at Babel, Harut and Marut, yet these two taught no man until they had said, "Surely we are only a trial, therefore do not be a disbeliever." Even then men learned from these two, magic by which they might cause a separation between a man and his wife; and they cannot hurt with it any one except with Allah's permission, and they learned what harmed them and did not profit them, and certainly they know that he who bought it should have no share of good in the hereafter and evil was the price for which they sold their souls, had they but known this." (Al Baqarah 2/102) The ulama have tried to give some explanations regarding this with the aim of explaining this hikmah. (ie the fact that sihr can only be done by kufr statement and by revering to the jinn etc.) Some scholars have found it sufficient that it is attributed in the nass as kufr without any other explanation and have generally made takfir of those who perform sihr. The opinion of the majority is in this direction. Imam Shafii had made tawil with the nass regarding the matter and had said only will the performer of sihr be made takfir of if it is performed with an open kufr if not he states it will be considered haram if there is no open kufr.
The matter of the tribes which made irtidat by not paying zakah is another example of this issue. Why did Abu Bakr (ra) wage war? (http://www.darultawhid.com/en/forum/index.php?topic=1467.0)
What the scholars who consider it kufr to abandon salah had meant by kufr is just like in sihr, kufr of itiqad (dogmatic belief). Hence we can only attain knowledge of why abandoning salah is accepted kufr from the nass. By ‘aql we cannot fully comprehend its reason. We can make many explanations regarding its hikmah but they will go no further than interpretations. There is no sarih -clear- evidence from the Qur’an regarding the abandoning of salah being kufr however from the guidance of some nass this hukm can be given. In the hadith it is openly attributed as kufr. It is certain that an individual being kafir only for abandoning salah is an opposing situation to the general analogy and rule that the one who commits major sin will not be kafir as long as they do not make istihlal. Therefore the majority of the ulama made tawil of the nass which indicates abandonment of salah as kufr with the commonly known principle of the ahl sunnah (an individual will not be kafir unless he makes istihlal) and also with the nass concerning, other than shirk, all sins will be forgiven. On the other hand the ulama who prefer athaar to qiyas (analogy) such as Hanbali and zahiri and in general ahl hadith take the zahir (appearent) of the nass regarding the abandonment of salah and they consult as an exceptional ruling (which is the right opinion wallahu alim) for the principle of “those who perform kabair will not be made takfir of”. Exceptions will not go against the general principles...
In this sense it is not possible that you find a scholar of sunnah or even bidah who claim salah is of usuluddeen. Just because salah is not of usuluddeen does not necessarily mean that it is unimportant. Salah is not included in aqidah it is included in the fard. For the individual who knows of salah being fard it is iman to state/express that salah is fard and it is kufr to deny it. However the individual in darulharb who has newly become Muslim cannot be made takfir of because he does not have the knowledge that salah is fard.
Regarding this matter in the work called Damad which has been classified according to the hanafee it is stated that if a kafir becomes Muslim in darulharb and spends some time not knowing salah and similar ibadaah are fard but later learns that they are fard it is not necessary that he performs the ibadaah which he had missed while he did not have knowledge regarding the fact that they were fard. It is also mentioned in the same work that if in darul Islam an individual becomes Muslim then he must make up for the past fard. The reason has been given that darul-Islam is darul-’ilm and darul-harb is darul-jahl and therefore not knowing is not an excuse in darul-Islam. (Sharh Multaka Damad)
Again an Imam of the Hanafee Imam Kasani stated that darul-Islam is darul-ilm which the ahkam are known widespread. And that darul-harb is darul-jahl which not having knowledge can be an excuse. However he also states that regarding iman in Allah there is no excuse in either dar. (Badaiussanai fi tartibisharai)
Narrating from Muhammad b. Nasir al Marwazi, Ibn Taymiyyah stated: “‘Ilm concerning Allah means iman, and ignorance concerning Allah means kufr. As such, knowledge regarding fard is iman; however ignorance prior to the commandment of the fard does not mean kufr. The reason behind this is that when Allah first sent RasulAllah (saw) to the ashab they confessed their iman however after this they did not know the commanded fard. Even so their ignorance of the, to be commanded fard was not kufr. Afterwards Allah sent them the fard. Their confession of these fard and performance of these fard became iman. Nevertheless those who rejected them became kafir for declaring the news from Allah to be untrue. If news from Allah had not come, being ignorant of this would not make one kafir. In the same sense after the arrival of the news if from among the Muslim there was some who did not hear of it, this ignorance would also not make one kafir. However ignorance regarding Allah is kufr, either before the arrival of the news or after.” (Fatawa, 7/325)
According to the author of Badai’ussanai Abu Yusuf had narrated from Abu Hanifah (ra) the following:
Abu Hanifah stated: No servant will be excused regarding recognition of His rabb. It is necessary that he knows the Rabb of all creation and make tawhid. The reason is because they see the creation of the ground and sky, their own creation and other things Allah (awj) had created. When it comes to the fard regarding those who do not know them and who the hujjah had not reached will be considered among those whom the evidence had not been fixed as a hukm of expression. (Badai’us-Sanai 7/132)
As these narrations we have made from the scholars show us that salah is not included in usuluddeen which ignorance is not an excuse, it also shows that the degree of tawhid and the degree of other fard are different. As none of the scholars see ignorance as an excuse in aqidah they have accepted not having knowledge of the fard i.e. while in darul-harb etc as an excuse. Although today those who live in the lands that used to be darul-Islam but later became darul-harb are not realy considered to be excused for not knowing the ahkam of Islam because in these lands even though they maybe little in numbers there are Muslims who live there which pay attention to the halal and haram and perform what is wajib. The disbelievers who see this are curious to learn what they are doing atleast to make a mockery of them and they learn. Also in these types of lands/countries ‘ilm regarding the fard and ahkam are widespread and everyone knows that salah, observing fast etc are fard and that khamr, fornication etc are haram. In today’s world it is not appropriate to excuse those who live in darul-harb but ofcourse this is another matter. Here we just are mentioning the least hukm.
As clearly seen here, the one who abandones tawhid is made takfir of the one who does not make takfir of him will also be made takfir of and regarding this matter there is no excuse. However in matters of ahkam there could be ikhtilaf and in some places ignorance can be an excuse. For those who wish to understand this is the scale which shows where the principle ‘the one who does not make takfir will be made takfir of’ (regarding silsilah takfir we will inshaAllah post an extensive work in the forum soon) will be used and where it will not be used.
For those cautious readers that which Abu Hanifah in Fiqhu'l-Akbar has explained is very clear:
In the first section Abu Muti states: Is the individual who is in the diyaar of shirk, who accept Islam in general, who does not know the fard and amal, although does not express the kitab and necessities of Islam but accepts Allah and iman but without expressing the necessities of iman, mu’min?
Abu Hanifah: Yes…
Abu Muti: If he dies without knowing anything else but the acceptance of iman and does not act upon it?
Abu Hanifah: He is mu’min…
What they have mentioned is an explanation of the separation of usuluddeen and furuuddeen and ignorance not being an excuse in the prior yet it being an excuse in the later. Later by beginning with the explanation of usuluddeen the following takes place:
Abu Muti: If an individual says he does not recognize a kafir to be a kafir?
Abu Hanifah: He is like the kafir.
Abu Muti: If he says I do not know the last place the kafir will go?
Abu Hanifah: He will have denied the book of Allah and become a kafir.
Later he distinguishes between the matters of first degree which are included in usuluddeen and those of second degree which are not included in usuluddeen:
Abu Hanifah: Iman is making shahadah that there is no other deity but Allah, that He is one and has no partner, to His angels, books, prophets, jannah, qiyamah, khayr and sharr, that no one has been given the strength of creating his own amal, that mankind has been created for Himself, in qada and qadr.
Abu Muti: If he accepts all of this but because of the ayah “…Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)” (Al-Kahf 18/29) he says that wishing belongs to me if I wish I will have iman if I wish I will not, what will happen?
Abu Hanifah: He is a liar in his claim. Don’t you see the ayah of Allah “Nay, this surely is an admonition: Let any who will, keep it in remembrance! But none will keep it in remembrance except as Allah wills: He is the Lord of Righteousness, and the Lord of Forgiveness. (Al-Muddaththir 74/54-56) “But ye will not, except as Allah wills; for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom.” (Al-Insan 76/30) The ayah “…Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)” (Al-Kahf 18/29) was for threat. That individual has not become kafir because he had not rejected the ayah with this statement. He had not rejected the tanzil of the ayah but had mistaken in its tawil.
An individual who rejects one of the six conditions of iman is kafir. Therefore the individual who completely denies qadr is kafir. However being from the qadariyyah and mutazilah and although not rejecting the ‘ilm of Allah and His creation but rejects with tawil the second degree matters of qadr will not become kafir. Basicaly this division shows the volume of fiqh and ‘ilm of the Imam Abu Hanifah.
Wallahu mustaan.