Call to Tawhid

DID ALLÂMAH AL-ÂLÛSÎ EXCUSE THE IGNORANCE OF THE GRAVE-WORSHIPPERS?

Started by Mudâfa’at’ut Tawhîd, 28.12.2022, 03:06

Previous topic - Next topic

Mudâfa’at’ut Tawhîd


Did Allâmah Al-Âlûsî Excuse the Ignorance of the Grave-Worshippers, and Not Declare Takfîr Upon Them?

QuoteBismillah (In the name of Almighty Allah)

My question today is related to the fatwa of the Ottoman scholar al-Alusi. I would like to state beforehand that I do not have a doubt concerning the subject I will ask Alhamdulillah. I only want a knowledgeable explanation from you concerning al-Alusi's fatwa.

There is a caller to jahannam in Azerbaijan who propagates this fatwa by al-Alusi amongst people trying to prove that ignorance is an excuse[!]


والذي تحصّل مما سقناه من النصوص: أن الغلاةَ ودعاةَ غير الله وعَبَدَةَ القبور إذا كانوا جهلة بحكم ما هم عليه ولم يكن أحد من أهل العلم قد نبههم على خطئهم فليس لأحد أن يكفرهم.
وأما من قامت عليه الحجة وأصرّ على ما عنده واستكبر استكباراً، أو تمكّن من العلم فلم يتعلّم فسنذكر حكمه في الآتي.
[ كتاب غاية الأماني في الرد على النبهاني (٥٣/١) ] .

What is your knowledgeable explanation of this fatwa?

I have already said that I do not have a doubt concerning the subject at hand. Meaning, the one who associates partners to Allah with major shirk is a mushrik. Even if the one who associates is IGNORANT...

Bismillâh'ir Rahmân'ir Rahîm.

All praise is due to Allâh, who left remnants from people of knowledge in the times of Fatrah (times when no prophet is around) who call the misguided to guidance, show patience towards their harms, revive the dead with the Book of Allâh, and make the blind see with the light of Allâh. He sent the prophets as bearers of glad-tidings and warners so that people do not have any proof against Allâh. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, the Master of the children of Âdam, his family, and companions who waged war to spread Tawhîd and warn against its opposite which is Shirk through their words, pen, and sword.

To proceed:

The scholar who is the subject of your question is Allâmah Mahmûd Shukrî bin Abdillâh bin Shihâb'id Dîn Mahmûd al-Âlûsî al-Husaynî, from the scholars of Baghdad. He was born in the year 1273 H. He is the grandson of the famous Mufassir Shihâb'ud Dîn Mahmûd al-Âlûsî. His lineage reaches Husayn Radiyallâhu Anh from his father's side and Hasan Radiyallâhu Anh from his mother's side. He was from the Shâfi'î Madhhab.

He was affected by the religious and moral corruption and disarrays in the region he lived in. So much so that Shirk became widespread, the traces of knowledge had been eradicated, tombs of some who were Dajjâls and others who were righteous were built, and people had begun to seek help and aid from them. He was a blind follower and a fanatic. After reading the books of Ibnu Taymiyyah and Ibn'ul Qayyim Rahimahumâllâh, in his thirties, he chose the path of the Salaf. He passed away in the year 1342 H.1

This problematic statement brought from the scholars by those who excuse ignorance in the fundamental of Tawhîd and Shirk that negates it, belongs to the Allâmah Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsîzâdah Rahimahullâh. In the above-mentioned statement, Sayyid Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsîzâdah says,


والذي تحصّل مما سقناه من النصوص: أن الغلاةَ ودعاةَ غير الله وعَبَدَةَ القبور إذا كانوا جهلة بحكم ما هم عليه ولم يكن أحد من أهل العلم قد نبههم على خطئهم فليس لأحد أن يكفرهم.
وأما من قامت عليه الحجة وأصرّ على ما عنده واستكبر استكباراً، أو تمكّن من العلم فلم يتعلّم فسنذكر حكمه في الآتي
"What is deduced from what we cited from the Nass (textual proofs) is that if the extremists, those who invoke other than Allâh, and the grave-worshippers are ignorant regarding the ruling of what they are upon, and if none of the scholars warned them against their mistake; then no one can declare Takfîr upon them. As for those whom the Hujjah (proof) is established to and insists on what they are upon and act arrogantly, or who are able to attain knowledge but do not learn, we will mention their ruling later."2

The book given as source in the Arabic narration and in which the scholars statement is mentioned is the work called Ghâyat'ul Amânî fi'r Raddi ala'n Nabhânî. It consists of two volumes and is about 1150 pages. Yûsuf an-Nabhânî3, one of the enemies of Tawhîd, wrote a work called Shawâhid'ul Haqq fi'l Istighâthati bi Sayyid'il Khalq (The Truth's Witnesses Concerning Seeking Aid from the Master of the Creation) in refutation of the scholars of Najd whom he labeled Wahhâbî. In his work, Sayyid Mahmûd Shukrî Rahimahullâh refuted his false claims and demonstrated its faultiness. The issues that constitute the subject of the book are Tawassul and seeking aid from other than Allâh, travelling to the graves and asking the dead for help, invoking them, and defending Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullâh against slanders.

Not a day goes by without the preachers of hell -who are deviator Bal'âm's- raising new doubts trying to include the ignorant polytheists who associate partners to Allâh in the party of the Muslims and count them from the people of Paradise. For centuries, they have been making multiple false arguments to defend these polytheists, argue on their behalf, and claim that this religion, which the Messenger of Allâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam was sent to all mankind to warn against, is the religion of Islâm.

They take shelter behind and try to prove their views through problematic statements, such as the incident of Dhâtu Anwât that occurred amongst the Companions; the Hadîth of Ashes mentioned by the Messenger of Allâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam; the prostration of Mu'âdh Radiyallâhu Anh; the question of our mother Â'ishah Radiyallâhu Anhâ regarding the might of Allâh; the Hadîth of Abû Mûsâ Radiyallâhu Anh regarding the explanation of Shirk; the incident of the Disciples of Îsâ Alayh'is Salâm; the statements by Ibrâhîm Alayh'is Salâm; some statements narrated from Ibnu Hazm, Ibnu Taymiyyah, Muhammad bin Abd'il Wahhâb, and the Scholars of Najd; Siddîq Hasan Khân's quotation from ash-Shawkânî, and al-Qâsimî's quotation from Abû Bakr Ibn'ul Arabî. They put forward these and many other evidences and statements they deem to be doubts.

Books have been authored addressing and refuting these doubts. However, the conflict between truth and falsehood has not ceased; such statements are still voiced as doubts today. While doing so, they claim that they are the ones who understand these scholars and their statements the best. Some collide the statements by the scholars and argue that these issues are disputed among the Ummah and for this reason, Takfîr cannot be declared upon the ignorant Mushrikûn who associate partners with Allâh and those who refrain from declaring Takfîr upon them cannot be considered disbelievers.

Moreover, some of the so-called evidences we have mentioned are related to Minor Shirk and not Major Shirk such as the Incident of Dhâtu Anwât. Again, some of them are not Kufr but are Harâm such as the prostration of Mu'âdh Radiyallâhu Anh. Some of them are related to Khafî (obscure) issues such as the Hadîth of Ashes mentioned by the Messenger of Allâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam. Although all these supposed proofs have been brought forth regarding ignorance being an excuse in Major Shirk concerning matters related to the foundation of religion, as can be seen, these are issues that are not directly related to the subject.

Whereas, it is necessary to try to understand the problematic words by the scholars through referring to the clear words of the same scholar and the explanations made by his students. We believe that these and similar doubts will be removed in this way and will not be brought to us. To date, many doubts have been brought to us. After explaining one, another was brought. This has been going on, and now, a problematic statement by al-Âlûsî has been brought to us. The laymen must ignore the doubts raised by the preachers of hell -who are deviator Bal'âm's- and thereby remove these doubts and doubters from the agenda. For one of the greatest slanders against the learned scholars is to claim that they excused those who associate partners with Allâh and the grave-worshippers and gave them the ruling of Islâm. A person who possesses reason and fairness would not believe such a lie. This is because their works, treatment of people, and life shows the opposite.

Today, unfortunately, there exists a group of people who try to dilute Tawhîd and claim that there is a controversy among the scholars regarding the fundamentals of the religion and that ignorance is an excuse for these matters of the fundamentals of the religion. To defend this thesis, they bring the problematic, obscure, or irrelevant statements by the scholars as evidence. Their aim is to not declare Takfîr upon people who have nothing to do with the religion of Islâm and that these people are Muslims. The psychology of being unable to declare Takfîr upon those who associate partners with Allâh distanced them from understanding the truth. Their own lack of understanding and blindness compelled them to quote and follow the problematic words by the scholars and abandon the clear proofs. They specified the open Nass with these statements they misunderstood and claimed that they found support from the scholars for their views. Thereby, they relieved their souls a little bit...

The disease of abandoning the manifest and unchangeable entirely clear statements that debunk the slanders of the opponents and adhering to the open-ended obscure statements that Allâh made to test His servants by His wisdom is the attribute of those who have deviated hearts, as stated in the Noble Qur'ân, the Word of our Lord. As a matter of fact, Allâhu Taâlâ says,

"It is He Who has sent down to you the Book. In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Fitnah, and seeking for its interpretation, but none knows its interpretation except Allâh. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: We believe in it; all of it are from our Lord. And none receive admonition except men of understanding." (Âl-I Imrân, 3/7)

As stated by Shaykh Ishâq bin Abd'ir Rahmân Âl'ush Shaykh Rahimahullâh,


وَمِمَّا هُوَ مَعْلُومٌ بِالِاضْطِرَارِ مِنْ دِينِ الْإِسْلَامِ أَنَّ الْمَرْجِعَ فِي مَسَائِلَ أُصُولِ الدِّينِ إِلَى الْكِتَابِ وَالسُّنَّةِ وَإِجْمَاعِ الْأُمَّةِ الْمُعْتَبَرِ وَهُوَ مَا كَانَ عَلَيْهِ الصَّحَابَةُ وَلَيْسَ الْمَرْجِعُ إِلَى عَالِمٍ بِعَيْنِهِ فِي ذٰلِكَ فَمَنْ تَقَرَّرَ عِنْدَهُ هٰذَا الْأَصْلُ تَقْرِيرًا لَا يَدْفَعُهُ شُبْهَةٌ وَأَخَذَ بِشَرَاشَيِرِ قَلْبِهِ هَانَ عَلَيْهِ مَا قَدْ يَرَاهُ مِنَ الْكَلَامِ الْمُشْتَبِهِ فِي بَعْضِ مُصَنَّفَاتِ أَئِمَّتِهِ إِذْ لَا مَعْصُومَ إِلاَّ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ.
"That which is known by necessity in the religion of Islâm is that the reference regarding matters of Usûl'ud Dîn (fundamentals of the religion) is the Kitâb (the Book of Allâh), the Sunnah, and the esteemed Ijmâ (consensus) of the Ummah, which is what the companions were upon. The reference is not a particular scholar in this regards. So for whomever this fundamental is settled such that he is not driven by suspicion and embraces it whole-heartedly, then what he sees from the allegorical statements in some of the works of his scholars will be easy for him to comprehend. This is because there is no one who is innocent other than the Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam."4

Even today, the issues of Usûl'ud Dîn are unfortunately debated over the explanation of this statement by a scholar and the statement by another scholar. The fundamental is to return to the essence and to resolve the dispute in accordance with the Book, the Sunnah, and the esteemed consensus of the Ummah.

These claimants, who have the Jirjîsî creed and methodology, claim that they are Salafî just like their predecessor Dâwûd bin Jirjîs5, and that they follow the methodology and belief of Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah and his student Allâmah Ibn'ul Qayyim Rahimahumâllâh.

Modern-day Jirjîsî's, on the other hand, go even further and allege that they are the flagbearers of the call of the Scholars of Najd who strived day and night to decipher and authored refutations against Ibnu Jirjîs and his likes. They overlooked the call, works, and letters of Shaykh'ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd'il Wahhâb Rahimahullâh and other scholars who called to Tawhîd and ignored the clear statements where they openly declared Takfîr upon the grave-worshippers...

The modern-day Jirjîsî's are more ignorant and heretic, evil-minded, and try to sow seeds of doubt. How similar is their situation to the following famous story narrated from Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd'il Wahhâb Rahimahullâh,


أَنَّهُ ذَاتَ يَوْمٍ يُقَرِّرُ عَلَى أَصْلِ الدِّينِ وَيُبَيِّنُ مَا فِيهِ وَرَجُلٌ مِنْ جُلَسَائِهِ لَا يَسْأَلُ وَلَا يَتَعَجَّبُ وَلَا يَبْحَثُ حَتَّى جَاءَ بَعْضُ الْكَلِمَاتِ الَّتِي فِيهَا مَا فِيهَا فَقَالَ الرَّجُلُ مَا هٰذِهِ كَيْفَ ذٰلِكَ؟ فَقَالَ الشَّيْخُ: قَاتَلَكَ اللهُ ذَهَبَ حَدِيثُنَا مُنْذُ الْيَوْمِ لَمْ تَفْهَمْ وَلَمْ تَسْأَلْ عنْهُ فَلَمَّا جَاءَتْ هٰذِهِ السَّقْطَةُ عَرَفْتَهَا، أَنْتَ مِثْلُ الذُّبَابِ لَا يَقَعُ إِلاَّ عَلَى الْقَذْرِ أَوْ كَمَا قَالَ.
"One day, while he was explaining Asl'ud Dîn (fundamentals of the Religion of Islâm) and clarifying what is related to it, a man who was sitting did not ask any questions, he was not astonished, and he was not interested. This continued until the Shaykh stated some (obscure) statements just like this (i.e. his statements regarding the Dome of Kawwâz), so the man said, "(And) what is this? How is this so?" Thereupon, the Shaykh said, "May Allâh curse you! Our conversation has continued since this morning and you neither comprehended anything nor asked about anything! But as soon as this error came, you immediately recognized it! You are just like a fly which does not perch on anything but dirt!" Or he said something along those lines."6

As for the claim that al-Âlûsî excused the people of Shirk: Al-Âlûsî openly declared Takfîr upon those who committed Shirk and did not excuse those who committed Shirk due to their ignorance. We will cite clear statements by al-Âlûsî regarding this. In his work al-Âyat'ul Kubrâ which he wrote in refutation to an-Nabhânî, he says,


كذب أيضاً في هذا القول فإنَّ أهل الحق الذين ناصبهم النبهاني وعاداهم لم يكفّروا المسلمين، ولم يضللوا الموحدين ولا رموهم بالشرك، بل إنَّهم كفّروا غلاة القبوريين ومن اتخذ مع الله إلها آخر.
"An-Nabhânî also lied in this statement. For, the people of truth whom an-Nabhânî displayed a hostile attitude and treated as an enemy did not declare Takfîr upon the Muslims nor did they claim that the Muwahhidûn are misguided and accuse them of Shirk. Rather, they declared Takfîr upon the grave-worshippers and those who acquired a deity alongside Allâh."7

من أثبت لمخلوق أيا كان صفات الربوبية والألوهية، كان مشركاً بالله بنص الكتاب الكريم، وقول الرسول الرؤوف الرحيم.
"Whoever affirms for a creature any of the attributes of Rubûbiyyah (Lordship) and Ulûhiyyah (Divinity) is a person who associates partners with Allâh according to the text of the Noble Book and the words of the merciful and compassionate Prophet."8

In the work called Ghâyat'ul Amânî which you quoted from, the statement in its entirety is as follows,


والذي تحصّل مما سقناه من النصوص: أن الغلاةَ ودعاةَ غير الله وعَبَدَةَ القبور إذا كانوا جهلة بحكم ما هم عليه ولم يكن أحد من أهل العلم قد نبههم على خطئهم فليس لأحد أن يكفرهم.
وأما من قامت عليه الحجة وأصرّ على ما عنده واستكبر استكباراً، أو تمكّن من العلم فلم يتعلّم فسنذكر حكمه في الآتي.
والمقصود؛ أن من تمسّك من المسلمين بما كان عليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من المعتقد والدّين الذي خالفوا به أهل البدع وباينوهم فلم يذهبوا إلى ما ذهبت إليه الجهمية المعطلة، ولا إلى ما ذهبت إليه القدرية النفاة، والقدرية المجبرة، ولا إلى ما ذهبت إليه الخوارج والمعتزلة، ولا إلى ما ذهبت إليه الرافضة والمرجئة، ولم يذهبوا إلى ما افتراه الغلاة في الأولياء والصالحين من عباد القبور ونحوهم؛ فإن هؤلاء لا يسمون عند أهل السنة والجماعة غالية، كما سموا به من غلا في عليّ وزعم أنه الإله الحق، فاستتابهم عليّ، فأبوا، فخذّ لهم الأخاديد، وأوقد فيها النيران وقذفهم فيها، وقال إني إذا رأيتُ أمراً منكراً ... أجّجْتُ ناري ودعوتُ قنبراً
وفي رواية: لما رأيت الأمر أمراً منكراً إلخ.
فهؤلاء هم المسلمون الذين لا يكفرون، وتسمية من عبد غير الله مسلماً فهو إلى أن يعالج عقله أحوج منه إلى أن يقام عليه الدليل
"What is deduced from what we cited from the Nass (textual proofs) is that if the extremists, those who invoke other than Allâh, and the grave-worshippers are ignorant regarding the ruling of what they are upon, and if none of the scholars warned them against their mistake; then no one can declare Takfîr upon them.

As for those whom the Hujjah (proof) is established to and insists on what they are upon and act arrogantly, or who are able to attain knowledge but do not learn, we will mention their ruling later.

What is meant is that whoever of the Muslims adheres to what the Messenger of Allâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam was upon from creed and religion through which he opposes the people of innovation and disassociates from them, and thus does not hold the view of the Mu'attilah Jahmiyyah, does not hold the view of the Qadariyyah who deny the attributes and the Jabarî Qadariyyah, does not hold the view of the Khawârij and Mu'tazilah, does not hold the view of the Râfidhah and Murji'ah, and does not believe in what the extremists from the grave-worshippers and others fabricate against the saints and pious people; according to Ahl'us Sunnah wa'l Jamâ'ah, these people are not called extreme, like Ahl'us Sunnah wa'l Jamâ'ah called those who went in extremes regarding Alî Radiyallâhu Anh and deemed he was the true deity extreme.
Alî Radiyallâhu Anh invited them to repent, however, they refused. Thereafter, Alî Radiyallâhu Anh dug trenches, lit a fire therein, and threw them into the fire. Alî Radiyallâhu Anh said, "When I saw a reprehensible act, I ignited my fire and called Qanbar."

In another narration, he said, "When I saw an act to be reprehensible. Until its end."

So, these are the Muslims whom Takfîr is not declared upon. When it comes to naming a person who worships other than Allâh as Muslim, such person is needier of mental treatment than the establishment of evidence to himself."9

Although there is a contradiction between these statements in the eyes of the ignorant, factually, there is no paradox. In the first two quotations from al-Âlûsî's work al-Âyat'ul Kubrâ, we see that he declared Takfîr upon the grave-worshippers with clear expressions. In the narration you quoted, grave-worshippers who are ignorant of the ruling of the situation they are upon and whom no one from the people of knowledge warned against their mistakes are mentioned. Immediately afterwards, mentioned are those whom the Hujjah was established to and who are arrogant by insisting on what they are upon or have the opportunity to attain knowledge but do not learn. In the continuation of the narration, Takfîr is clearly declared upon the grave-worshippers and it is said, "When it comes to naming a person who worships other than Allâh as Muslim, such person is needier of mental treatment than the establishment of evidence to himself."

The quotation from al-Âlûsî stating that he did not declare Takfîr upon the grave-worshippers to whom the Hujjah did not reach is not related to the majority of the grave-worshippers. The people whom he says Takfîr will not be declared upon are those who have not reached the Hujjah and have no means of reaching the Hujjah. Since the Hujjah was not established, he did not declare Takfîr upon them meaning that they are not entitled to punishment in this world and in the Hereafter until the Hujjah is established. However, this does not mean he considers them Muslim. The situation of the people mentioned by al-Âlûsî is like the situation of the people of Fatrah who are tried in the Hereafter. Like the people of Fatrah, they are not treated as Muslims, and they are not treated as disbelievers in the sense of being sentenced to punishment in the world and the hereafter. The preachers of hell who put forth this narration as a doubt are unaware of the terminologies used by the scholars in their books and are ignorant of the matter.

As with other narrations that are problematic for people, first, we must look at the context of the statement in order to comprehend it.

In the beginning of the book, al-Âlûsî describes the third issue he draws attention to while touching on some issues that need attention,


أن من مكايد الغلاة؛ التشنيع على أهل الحق ودعاة التوحيد من المؤمنين أنهم يكفّرون المسلمين، ومقصودهم من ذلك تنفير القلوب عنهم، ولذلك يلقبونهم بألقاب مشعرة بالذم، كالمجسّمة والحشوية، وفي هذه الأزمنة يلقبونهم بالوهَابية، وبالمنكرين ونحو ذلك، وقد برأهم الله تعالى من كل ما لا يرضيه سبحانه، ومعلوم أن المسلمين من يعتقد عقيدة الإسلام، وقد فُسِّرت في حديث جبريل المشهور، فمن كان معتقداً تلك العقيدة كان مسلماً، ولا يخرج عن الإسلام إلا إذا أخل بتلك العقيدة، كأن يعتقد أن مع الله إلهاً آخر يعبده بأي عبادة كانت، فإنها أنواع مختلفة، فحينئذ يخرج عن الإسلام، ولا يقال لمن عبد غيره تعالى مسلماً، ولا لمن كفّره أنه كفر مسلماً، ومنه يُعلم أمر الغلاة، وأما أهل البدع فلم يكفَرهم أهل الحق
"One of the traps of the extremists is that they slander the people of truth and the preachers of Tawhîd from the believers, stating that they declare Takfîr upon the Muslims. Their intention is to alienate the hearts from them. Therefore, they label them names that give a sense of derogation, such as Mujassimah and Hashawiyyah. In this era, they label them as Wahhâbiyyah, Munkirîn, and etc. Allâhu Taâlâ -who is free from all defects- has freed them from all things that do not please Him. It is known that the Muslims are the ones who believe in the Islâmic creed, which was explained in the famous Hadîth of Jibrîl. Whoever believes in this creed is a Muslim and does not leave Islâm unless he violates this creed, such as believing that there is another deity alongside Allâh, whom he worships through any form of worship, since there are various kinds of worship. In this case, one exits the fold of Islâm. It is not said that those who worship other than Allâhu Taâlâ are Muslims, and it is not said that the one who declares Takfîr upon them has declared Takfîr upon a Muslim. With this, the situation of the extremists is known. As for the people of innovation, the people of truth did not declare Takfîr upon them."10

After this statement, he included a Fatwâ by Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullâh about the people of innovation who declared Takfîr upon Ahl'us Sunnah because of the disagreement between themselves and Ahl'us Sunnah, and a Fatwâ in which he negates from separation, controversies, and fanaticism. In the place where al-Âlûsî quoted, Shaykh'ul Islâm says,


فليس كل من أخطأ يكون كافراً ولا فاسقاً ولا عاصياً، بل قد عفا الله لهذه الأمة عن الخطأ والنسيان ... لاسيما وقد يكون من يوافقكم في أخص من الإسلام، مثل أن يكون مثلكم على مذهب الشافعي، أو منتسباً إلى الشيخ عدي، ثم بعد هذا قد يخالف في شيء وربما كان الصواب معه، فكيف يستحل عرضه أو دمه أو ماله مع ما قد ذكر الله من حقوق المسلم والمؤمن ... وجماع ذلك: الأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر ... فمن الأمر بالمعروف؛ الأمر بالائتلاف والاجتماع، والنهي عن الاختلاف والفرقة، ومن النهي عن المنكر؛ إقامة الحدود على من خرج عن شريعة الله تعالى، فمن اعتقد في بشر أنه إله أو دعا ميتاً، أو طلب منه الرزق والنصر والهداية، وتوكّل عليه، وسجد له؛ فإنه يستتاب فإن تاب وإلاّ ضُربت عنقه
"Not everyone who is mistaken becomes a disbeliever, Fâsiq, or rebel. On the contrary, Allâh has forgiven the mistakes and forgetfulness of this nation. (...) In particular, perhaps those who agree with you, agree with you on something more specific than Islâm. Such as adhering to the Shâfi'î Madhhab like you, or being affiliated with Shaykh Adî. But after that, he may oppose you on an issue while the truth may be with him. While Allâh has mentioned the rights of the Muslims and the believers, how can this person's honor, wealth, and blood be considered lawful? (...) What brings all these matters together is enjoining good and forbidding evil (...) Enjoining harmony and unity and prohibiting from separation and division is from enjoining good. Applying the legal punishments to those who leave the fold of the Sharî'ah of Allâhu Taâlâ is from forbidding evil. Therefore, whoever believes with regards to a human being that he is a deity, or invokes a dead person, or asks him for sustenance, help and guidance, trusts in him and prostrates to him, this person is called to repent. If he does, he does, otherwise his neck will be struck."11

After quoting this Fatwâ, al-Âlûsî Rahimahullâh says,


فعُلم منه حكم من ابتدع وحكم الغلاة، فإن من اعتقد في بشر أنه إله أو دعا ميتاً أو طلب منه الرزق وغير ذلك ليس حكمه حكم المبتدع كما قال، ولا يشترط في الخروج عن الدين- والعياذ بالله- أن يكفر المكلّف بجميع ما جاء به الرسول، بل يكفي في الكفر والردة أن يأتي بما يوجب ذلك ولو في بعض الأصول، وهذا ذكره الفقهاء من أهل كل مذهب، ومن أراد الوقوف على جزئيات وفروع في الكفر والردة فعليه بما صنف في ذلك (كالإعلام بقواطع الإسلام) وما عده الفقهاء من أهل كل مذهب في باب حكم المرتد، فمن نطق بالشهادتين ثم أتى بما يعارضهما فلا تنجيانه
"From this, the ruling of the innovators and the ruling of the extremists is known. Thus, whoever believes with regards to a human being that he is a deity, or invokes a dead person, or asks him for sustenance and the likes, the ruling of this person is not the ruling of the innovator, just as Ibnu Taymiyyah said. In order to exit the fold of the religion, the legally responsible person does not have to deny everything that the Messenger brought, and we seek refuge in Allâh from it being so. However, even if it is in some of the fundamentals, it is sufficient for him to commit something that makes disbelief and apostasy obligatory. This was mentioned by the jurists from every Madhhab. Whoever wants to view the section and chapters regarding disbelief and apostasy, then let him look at what was written in this regard, like al-I'lâm bi Qawâti'il Islâm and what the jurists from every Madhhab reckoned in the chapter of the rulings of the apostate. So whoever utters the two testimonies and then commits something that opposes them, the two testimonies will not save him!"12

Al-Âlûsî quotes another Fatwâ by Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullâh as follows,


فإذا كان على عهد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وخلفائه ممن انتسب إلى الإسلام من مرق منه -مع عبادته العظيمة حتى أمر صلى الله عليه وسلم بقتالهم- فليعلم أن المنتسب إلى الإسلام والسنة في هذه الأزمان قد يمرق أيضاً من الإسلام وذلك بأسباب؛ منها بالغلوّ الذي ذمه الله في كتابه حيث قال: {يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلا تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ}.
وعليّ بن أبي طالب حرّق الغالية من الرافضة فأمر بأخاديد خُدّت لهم عند باب كندة فقُذِفوا فيها، واتفق الصحابة على قتلهم، لكن ابن عباس كان مذهبه أن يقتلوا بالسيف بلا تحريق، وهو قول أكثر الصحابة، وقصتهم معروفة عند العلماء.
وكذلك الغلو في بعض المشايخ، بل الغلو في علي بن أبي طالب، بل الغلو في المسيح ونحوه، فكل من غلا في نبي أو رجل صالح وجعل فيه نوعاً من الإلهية، مثل أن يقول: يا سيدي فلان انصرني، أو أغثني، أو ارزقني، أو اجبرني، أو أنا في حسبك، ونحو هذه الأقوال؛ فكل هذا شرك وضلال، يستتاب صاحبه، فإن تاب وإلا قُتل. فإن الله إنما أرسل الرسل وأنزل الكتب ليُعْبَدَ وحده لا يُجعل معه إله آخر. والذين يدعون مع الله آلهة أخرى مثل المسيح والملائكة والأصنام لم يكونوا يعتقدون أنها تخلق الخلائق وتنزل المطر وتنبت النبات، إنما كانوا يعبدونهم أو يعبدون قبورهم أو صورهم، ويقولون: {مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونَا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفَى} ويقولون: {هَؤُلاءِ شُفَعَاؤُنَا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ} فبعث الله رسولَهُ ينهى أن يُدعى أحد من دونه، لا دعاء عبادة، ولا دعاء استغاثة، وقال تعالى: {قُلِ ادْعُوا الَّذِينَ زَعَمْتُمْ مِنْ دُونِهِ فَلا يَمْلِكُونَ كَشْفَ الضُّرِّ عَنْكُمْ وَلا تَحْوِيلاً *أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ يَبْتَغُونَ إِلَى رَبِّهِمُ الْوَسِيلَةَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ} قال طائفة من السلف: كان أقوام يدعون المسيح وعزيراً والملائكة، فأنزل الله هذه الآية، ثم ذكر آيات في المعنى
"If there were those who ascribed to Islâm in the era of the Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam and his caliphs and left Islâm despite worshipping a lot, to the point that the Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam ordered to fight them, then let it be known that those who ascribe to Islâm and the Sunnah at these times could likewise leave Islâm. This is based on a number of reasons. One of them is extremism, which Allâh condemns in His Book with His statement,

"O People of the Scripture, do not go extreme in your religion or say about Allâh except the truth." (an-Nisâ, 4/171)

Alî bin Abî Tâlib burnt those who went to extremes from the Râfidhah. He ordered trenches to be dug for them near the Kindah Gate. Those who went to extremes were thrown into it. The companions agreed upon killing them. However, Ibnu Abbâs held the view that they should be killed by the sword without being burnt, which is the view of the majority of the companions. Their story is well-known by the scholars.

Likewise, is going to extremes with regards to some Shaykhs, rather, going to extremes with regards to Alî bin Abî Tâlib is the same and even going to extremes with regards to the Messiah and the likes is the same. So, all of those who exceed the bounds with regards to a prophet or a pious man attributing to him a type of divinity such as saying things like, "My master so-and-so, help me," "aid me," "provide me with sustenance," "cure me," "I am under your guardianship," and similar statements, will be asked to repent if he repents, he repents, otherwise he will be killed because all of these are Shirk and misguidance. This is because Allâhu Taâlâ sent His messengers and revealed His books so that He is worshipped alone and that no one is adopted as a deity alongside Him.

Those who invoke deities alongside Allâh, such as the Messiah, angels, and idols, did not believe that these deities created the creation, brought down rain, and cultivated the vegetation. They only worshipped them, their graves, or statues, while saying,

"We only worship them that they may bring us near to Allâh." (az-Zumar, 39/3)

They also said,

"These are our intercessors with Allâh." (Yûnus, 10/18)

This is why Allâh sent His Messenger Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam to prohibit invoking upon anyone other than Allâh -both the invocation of worship and the invocation of seeking aid. Allâhu Taâlâ says,

"Say: Invoke those you have claimed (as gods) besides Him, for they do not possess the (ability to) remove harm from you, nor to change it. Those whom they invoke seek means of access to their Lord, (striving as to) which of them would be nearest." (al-Isrâ, 17/56-57)

A group from the Salaf (predecessors) said, "There were tribes invoking the Messiah, Uzayr, and the angels. So Allâh revealed this verse."

Then Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullâh mentioned some verses with the same genre.13

Al-Âlûsî then stated,



والمقصود منه: أنه جعل عُبّاد القبور من شر الخوارج المارقين، فهم شر أصناف الخوارج، وقد توقف بعض السلف في تكفير الخوارج، قيل لعلي: أكفّار هم؟ قال:"من الكفر فرّوا".
وعُبّاد القبور لم يتوقّف أحد من أهل العلم- الذين يرجع إليهم- في كفره.
غاية ما قالوا: لا يقتل حتى يستتاب، أو لا يكفر حتى تقوم عليه الحجة أو نحو هذا الكلام، والمسلمون لم يكفّرهم أحد من أهل العلم
"The intent with this is that Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullâh ranked the grave-worshippers from amongst the evilest of the Khawârij who left the religion. So they are the worst of the categories of the Khawârij. Some of the Salaf refrained from declaring Takfîr upon the Khawârij. It was said to Alî Radiyallâhu Anh: Are they Kuffâr? Alî said, "They have fled Kufr." As for the grave-worshippers, none of the people of knowledge whom are referenced authorities, refrained from declaring Takfîr upon them. The apex of what they said concerning the grave-worshippers is that they will not be killed without being asked to repent, or that Takfîr will not be declared upon them without the Hujjah being established to them or something similar. As for the Muslims, none of the people of knowledge declared Takfîr upon them."14

Al-Âlûsî then narrates another verdict by Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullâh. In this verdict, Shaykh Rahimahullâh says that Ahl'us Sunnah do not declare Takfîr upon their opponents even though they declare Takfîr upon Ahl'us Sunnah, and that the permissibility of declaring Takfîr upon and killing an individual depends on the reaching of the prophetic Hujjah. Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullâh said,


نعلم بالضرورة أنه لم يشرع لأمته أن يدعوا أحداً من الأموات، لا الأنبياء، ولا الصالحين ولا غيرهم، لا بلفظ الاستغاثة ولا بغيرها، ولا بلفظ الاستعاذة ولا بغيرها، كما أنه لم يشرع لأمته السجود لأحد لا لحيّ ولا إلى ميت ونحو ذلك، بل نعلم أنه نهى عن كل هذه الأمور، وأن ذلك من الشرك الذي حرمه الله ورسوله.
لكن لغلبة الجهل وقلة العلم بآثار الرسالة في كثير من المتأخرين لم يمكن تكفيرهم بذلك حتى يتبين لهم ما جاء به الرسول مما يخالفه
"We know by necessity that Rasûlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam did not prescribe for his nation directing supplication to anyone among the dead, be it a prophet, righteous person, or other, neither by the wording of seeking help or other than it, nor by the wording of seeking refuge or other than it. Just as he Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam did not prescribe for his nation to prostrate to anyone; not to the living nor to the dead and its likes. Rather, we know that he Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam prohibited from all of this and that it is from Shirk that Allâh and His Rasûl Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam made unlawful. However, because of the prevalence of ignorance and the decrease of knowledge regarding the traces of the Risâlah among many of the latter-day people, it is impossible to declare Takfîr upon them by reason of these until what the Rasûl Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam brought -which they oppose- is clarified to them."15

Thereafter, in order to clarify the matter, al-Âlûsî cited a verdict from Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullâh's Fatwâ on Mardin regarding praying behind the people of desires.


وحقيقة الأمر في ذلك: أن القول قد يكون كفراً؛ فيطلق القول بتكفير صاحبه، ويقال: من قال كذا فهو كافر، لكن الشخص المعين الذي قال لا يُحكم بكفره حتى تقوم عليه الحجة التي يكفر تاركها، وهذا كما في نصوص الوعيد، فإن الله تعالى يقول: {إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَأْكُلُونَ أَمْوَالَ الْيَتَامَى ظُلْماً إِنَّمَا يَأْكُلُونَ فِي بُطُونِهِمْ نَاراً وَسَيَصْلَوْنَ سَعِيراً}. فهذا ونحوه من نصوص الوعيد حق، لكن الشخص المعين لا يُشهد عليه بالوعيد، فلا يُشهد على معيّن من أهل القبلة بالنار، لجواز أن لا يلحقه الوعيد لفوات شرط أو ثبوت مانع، فقد لا يكون التحريم بلغه، وقد يتوب من فعل المحرم، وقد تكون له حسنات عظيمة تمحوا عقوبة ذلك المحرم، وقد يُبتلى بمصائب تكفر عنه، وقد يُشفع فيه شفيع مطاع، وهكذا الأقوال التي يكفر قائلها قد يكون الرجل لم تبلغه النصوص الموجبة لمعرفه الحق، وقد يكون بلغته ولم تثبت عنده أو لم يتمكن من فهمها، وقد يكون عرضت له شبهات يعذره الله بها، فمن كان من المؤمنين مجتهداً في طلب الحق وأخطأ فإن الله يغفر له خطأه كائناً ما كان، سواء كان في المسائل النظرية والعلمية، أو المسائل الفروعية العملية، هذا الذي عليه أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وجماهير أئمة الإسلام
"The reality of the matter is that a view can be Kufr, so therefore, it is said that the possessor of this view must be declared Takfîr upon and said: Whoever says such-and-such is a disbeliever. However, the individual who holds this view is not ruled with Kufr before the Hujjah -that those who abandon it become disbelievers- is established to him. This is like it is in the Nass of threats. For Allâhu Taâlâ said,

"Surely, those who unjustly devour the property of the orphans do nothing but devour fire into their bellies, and soon they shall enter a blazing hell." (an-Nisâ 4/10)

This and the similar threatening Nass are true. However, no threat is testified for an individual. For this reason, hellfire is not testified for an individual from Ahl'ul Qiblah. This is because it is permissible that the threat does not afflict that person because of the absence of a condition or the establishment of a preventative. For, the prohibition of that thing may not have reached that person, he may have repented from the act which is forbidden, he may have great good deeds which erase the punishment of this forbidden thing, he may be afflicted by misfortunes that are atonement for him, or an intercessor who is obeyed (answered) may intercede for him. The views that make the one who holds them a Kâfir are like this. The Nass that requires knowing the truth may not have reached this person, the Nass may have reached him and at the same time, they may not be established to him or he may be unable to comprehend them. Or, some doubts that Allâh would excuse him for may have come to his mind. Whoever among the believers strives to seek the truth and makes a mistake, surely Allâh will forgive him no matter what his mistake is, whether his mistake is in speculative or knowledge-based matters or in the subsidiary practical matters. This is the view that the companions of the Prophet Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam and the majority of the Imâms of Islâm held."16

After mentioning Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullâh's statements concerning the Hadîth of Ashes and those who alleged the Qur'ân is created, Alûsîzâdah Rahimahullâh finally said,


والذي تحصّل مما سقناه من النصوص: أن الغلاةَ ودعاةَ غير الله وعَبَدَةَ القبور إذا كانوا جهلة بحكم ما هم عليه ولم يكن أحد من أهل العلم قد نبههم على خطئهم فليس لأحد أن يكفرهم.
وأما من قامت عليه الحجة وأصرّ على ما عنده واستكبر استكباراً، أو تمكّن من العلم فلم يتعلّم فسنذكر حكمه في الآتي.
والمقصود؛ أن من تمسّك من المسلمين بما كان عليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من المعتقد والدّين الذي خالفوا به أهل البدع وباينوهم فلم يذهبوا إلى ما ذهبت إليه الجهمية المعطلة، ولا إلى ما ذهبت إليه القدرية النفاة، والقدرية المجبرة، ولا إلى ما ذهبت إليه الخوارج والمعتزلة، ولا إلى ما ذهبت إليه الرافضة والمرجئة، ولم يذهبوا إلى ما افتراه الغلاة في الأولياء والصالحين من عباد القبور ونحوهم؛ فإن هؤلاء لا يسمون عند أهل السنة والجماعة غالية، كما سموا به من غلا في عليّ وزعم أنه الإله الحق، فاستتابهم عليّ، فأبوا، فخذّ لهم الأخاديد، وأوقد فيها النيران وقذفهم فيها، وقال إني إذا رأيتُ أمراً منكراً ... أجّجْتُ ناري ودعوتُ قنبراً
وفي رواية: لما رأيت الأمر أمراً منكراً إلخ.
فهؤلاء هم المسلمون الذين لا يكفرون، وتسمية من عبد غير الله مسلماً فهو إلى أن يعالج عقله أحوج منه إلى أن يقام عليه الدليل
"What is deduced from what we cited from the Nass (textual proofs) is that if the extremists, those who invoke other than Allâh, and the grave-worshippers are ignorant regarding the ruling of what they are upon, and if none of the scholars warned them against their mistake; then no one can declare Takfîr upon them.

As for those whom the Hujjah (proof) is established to and insists on what they are upon and act arrogantly, or who are able to attain knowledge but do not learn, we will mention their ruling later.

What is meant is that whoever of the Muslims adheres to what the Messenger of Allâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam was upon from creed and religion through which he opposes the people of innovation and disassociates from them, and thus does not hold the view of the Mu'attilah Jahmiyyah, does not hold the view of the Qadariyyah who deny the attributes and the Jabarî Qadariyyah, does not hold the view of the Khawârij and Mu'tazilah, does not hold the view of the Râfidhah and Murji'ah, and does not believe in what the extremists from the grave-worshippers and others fabricate against the saints and pious people; according to Ahl'us Sunnah wa'l Jamâ'ah, these people are not called extreme, like Ahl'us Sunnah wa'l Jamâ'ah called those who went in extremes regarding Alî Radiyallâhu Anh and deemed he was the true deity extreme. Alî Radiyallâhu Anh invited them to repent, however, they refused. Thereafter, Alî Radiyallâhu Anh dug trenches, lit a fire therein, and threw them into the fire. Alî Radiyallâhu Anh said, "When I saw a reprehensible act, I ignited my fire and called Qanbar."

In another narration, he said, "When I saw an act to be reprehensible. Until its end."

So, these are the Muslims whom Takfîr is not declared upon. When it comes to naming a person who worships other than Allâh as Muslim, such person is needier of mental treatment than the establishment of evidence to himself."17

Our lengthy quotation from Allâmah Alûsîzâdah Rahimahullâh ends here.

To summarize the subject, Alûsî said these in response to the slander that the Muslims declare Takfîr upon other Muslims. He mentions that the Muslims who invite to Tawhîd do not declare Takfîr upon the People of Innovation and other fellow Muslims, but only declare Takfîr upon those who associate partners to Allâh and those who leave Islâm. As a matter of fact, in the following pages, he quotes the following from Shaykh Abd'ul Latîf bin Abd'ir Rahmân Âlu'sh Shaykh Rahimahullâh,


قال رحمه الله: ‌فجنس ‌هؤلاء ‌المشركين ‌وأمثالهم ‌ممن ‌يعبد ‌الأولياء ‌والصالحين ‌نحكم ‌بأنهم ‌مشركون، ‌ونرى ‌كفرهم ‌إذا ‌قامت عليهم الحجة الرسالية وما عدا هذا من الذنوب التي دونه في الرتبة والمفسدة لا نكفر بها، ولا نحكم على أحد من أهل القبلة -الذين باينوا عباد الأوثان والأصنام والقبور- بكفر بمجرد ذنب ارتكبوه، وعظيم جرم اجترحوه
"Abd'ul Latîf Rahimahullâh said: So, we rule the genus of these polytheists and their likes who worship the saints and the righteous as Mushrikûn. We are of the opinion that they are Kâfir when the Hujjah of Risâlah is established to them. As for the sins that fall below of it in terms of rank and corruption, we do not declare Takfîr by means of them. Again, we do not judge anyone from the Ahl'ul Qiblah who is far from the idol-worshippers, statue-worshippers, and grave-worshippers with Kufr because of a sin he has committed and because of a grave crime he has committed."18

As known, Takfîr means to say that a person is a Kâfir (disbeliever).19 It also means to take up arms and fight. Ibn Mandhûr says in Lisân'ul Arab,


قَالَ الأَزهري: ... أَن الْكُفْرَ فِي اللُّغَةِ التَّغْطِيَةُ، وَالْكَافِرُ ذُو كُفْرٍ أَي ذُو تَغْطِيَةٍ لِقَلْبِهِ بِكُفْرِهِ، كَمَا يُقَالُ لِلَابِسِ السِّلَاحِ كَافِرٌ، وَهُوَ الَّذِي غَطَّاهُ السِّلَاحُ، ... وَفِي الْحَدِيثِ: ... أَلا لَا تَرْجِعُنَّ بَعْدِي كُفَّاراً يَضْرِب بعضُكم رقابَ بَعْضٍ ... ؛ قَالَ أَبو مَنْصُورٍ: فِي قَوْلِهِ كُفَّارًا قَوْلَانِ: أَحدهما لَابِسِينَ السِّلَاحَ مُتَهَيِّئِينَ لِلْقِتَالِ مَنْ كَفَرَ فوقَ دِرْعِه إِذا لَبِسَ فَوْقَهَا ثَوْبًا كأَنه أَراد بِذَلِكَ النهيَ عَنِ الْحَرْبِ، وَالْقَوْلُ الثَّانِي أَنه يُكَفِّرُ الناسَ فيَكْفُر كَمَا تَفْعَلُ الخوارجُ إِذا اسْتَعْرَضُوا الناسَ فيُكَفِّرونهم
"Al-Azharî said: Linguistically, Kufr means to cover. A Kâfir is a possessor of Kufr, that is, a person who covers his heart with his Kufr. Just as the one who equips with weapons is called a Kâfir, who is the one who is covered by weapons... It is reported in the Hadîth, "Oh, do not revert to Kufr after me, striking the necks of one another!" Abû Mansûr said: There are two views on the word Kuffâr in his statement found in the Hadîth. The first: Those who take up arms preparing for war. This usage means that when he wore clothes over his armor, he covered his armor. It was as if he intended to prohibit from fighting. The second view is that such person declares Takfîr upon people and thus becomes Kâfir, as the Khawârij do when they inspect people and declare Takfîr upon them."20

In some of their works, the scholars of Najd stated that they did not declare Takfîr -in the sense of punishment- upon the grave worshippers, which caused a great problem for people. An example for this usage is the words by Shaykh'ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd'il Wahhâb Rahimahullâh about the dome of Kawwâz. In this first citation, he only mentions war without mentioning Takfîr and says,


وَإِذَا كُنَّا لَا نُقاتِلُ مَنْ يَعْبُدُ قُبَّةَ الْكَوَّازِ حَتَّى نَتَقَدَّمَ بِدَعْوَتِهِ إِلَى إِخْلَاصِ الدِّينِ لِلّٰهِ، فَكَيْفَ نُكَفِّرُ مَنْ لَمْ يُهاجِرْ إِلَيْنَا وَإِنْ كَانَ مُؤْمِنًا موَحِّدًا؟
"While we do not fight those who worship the Dome of Kawwâz until we primarily call them to solely devote the religion to Allâh, then how could we declare Takfîr upon those who do not emigrate to us especially if they are Mu'min, Muwahhids?"21

In another place, he uses the terms Takfîr and fighting in the same context,


وَإِذَا كُنَّا لَا نُكَفِّرُ مَنْ يَعْبُدُ الْكَوَّازَ وَنَحْوَهُ وَنُقاتِلُهُمْ حَتَّى نُبَيِّنَ لَهُمْ وَنَدْعُوهُمْ فَكَيْفَ نُكَفِّرُ مَنْ لَمْ يُهاجِرْ إِلَيْنَا؟
"While we do not declare Takfîr upon those who worship the Dome of Kawwâz and its likes and we do not fight against them until we clarify to them and do Da'wah to them, then how could we declare Takfîr upon those who do not make emigrate to us?"22

It is understood from these narrations that Shaykh'ul Islâm Muhammad bin Abd'il Wahhâb Rahimahullâh, like al-Âlûsî Rahimahullâh, has said that those to whom the Hujjah did not reach would be evaluated like the People of Fatrah and refrained from declaring Takfîr upon them in the sense of being punished. For Allâhu Taâlâ says,

"And never would We punish until We sent a messenger." (al-Isrâ 17/15)

In this verse, both the punishment of this world and the Hereafter is meant.23 The Kufr that causes punishment only occurs after the Risâlah (prophetic evidences) has reached.24 The intent here is "we do not treat them as Kuffâr" in the sense of fighting them and killing them. For, before waging war against those whom the Da'wah (call to Islâm) has not reached, they must be invited to Islâm.25 It cannot be said that such people -whom Takfîr is not declared upon in this sense- are Muslims, as the sons of Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd'il Wahhâb Rahimahullâh and Shaykh Hamad bin Nâsir Rahimahullâh said,


إِذَا كَانَ يَعْمَلُ بِالْكُفْرِ وَالشِّرْكِ، لِجَهْلِهِ، أَوْ عَدَمِ مَنْ يُنَبِّهُهُ، لَا نَحْكُمُ بِكُفْرِهِ حَتَّى تُقامَ عَلَيْهِ الْحُجَّةُ؛ وَلٰكِنْ لَا نَحْكُمُ بِأَنَّهُ مُسْلِمٌ، بَلْ نَقولُ عَمَلُهُ هٰذَا كُفْرٌ، يُبِيحُ الْمَالَ وَالدَّمَ، وَإِنْ كُنَّا لَا نَحْكُمُ عَلَى هٰذَا الشَّخْصِ، لِعَدَمِ قِيَامِ الْحُجَّةِ عَلَيْهِ؛ لَا يُقَالُ: إِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ كَافِرًا، فَهُوَ مُسْلِمٌ، بَلْ نَقُولُ عَمَلُهُ عَمَلُ الْكُفَّارِ، وَإِطْلَاقُ الْحُكْمِ عَلَى هٰذَا الشَّخْصِ بِعَيْنِهِ، مُتَوَقِّفٌ عَلَى بُلوغِ الْحُجَّةِ الْرِّسَالِيَّةِ. وَقَدْ ذَكَرَ أَهْلُ الْعِلْمِ: أَنَّ أَصْحَابَ الْفَتَرَاتِ، يُمْتَحَنُونَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فِي الْعَرَصَاتِ، وَلَمْ يَجْعَلُوا حُكْمَهُ حُكْمَ الْكُفَّارِ، وَلَا حُكْمَ الْأَبْرَارِ
"When a person commits an act of Kufr and Shirk due to ignorance or lack of someone who would warn him, then we do not rule him with Kufr until the Hujjah is established upon him, however, we also do not rule him stating that he is a Muslim. Rather, we say that this act of his is Kufr which makes his wealth and blood (life) permissible (to take). The situation is such, even though we do not rule upon this person because the Hujjah was not established to him. It is not said that if he is not Kâfir, then he is Muslim. Rather, we say that the act he committed is an action of the Kuffâr, and designating a ruling for this specific person is dependent on the reaching of the Hujjah of Risâlah. The People of knowledge mentioned that the Ahl'ul Fatrah (people who lived in the era of interval when no prophet was sent or lived between two prophets) will be tested on Yawm'ul Qiyâmah (the Day of Judgement) at al-Arasât. They did not consider their ruling as the ruling of the Kuffâr nor the ruling of the Abrâr (pl. Birr; doer of virtuous, pious deeds)."26

In a Fatwâ which they jointly issued, Ibrâhîm and Abdullâh, the two sons of Shaykh Abd'ul Latîf, and also Sulaymân bin Sahmân Rahimahumullâh said,


أَمَّا قَوْلُهُ - عَنِ الشَّيْخِ مُحَمَّدٍ، رَحِمَهُ اللّٰهُ - : إِنَّهُ لَا يُكَفِّرُ مَنْ كَانَ عَلَى قُبَّةِ الْكَوَّازِ، وَنَحْوِهِ، وَلَا يُكَفِّرُ الْوَثَنيَّ حَتَّى يَدْعُوهُ، وَتَبْلُغُهُ الْحُجَّةَ، فَيُقَالُ: نَعَمْ، فَإِنَّ الشَّيْخَ مُحَمَّدًا رَحِمَهُ اللّٰهُ، لَمْ يُكَفِّرِ النَّاسَ ابْتِداءً، إِلَّا بَعْدَ قِيَامِ الْحُجَّةِ وَالدَّعْوَةِ، لِأَنَّهُمْ إِذْ ذَاكَ فِي زَمَنِ فَتْرَةٍ، وَعَدَمِ عِلْمٍ بِآثَارِ الرِّسَالَةِ، وَلِذٰلِكَ قَالَ: لِجَهْلِهِمْ وَعَدَمِ مَنْ يُنَبِّهُهُمْ، فَأَمَّا إِذَا قَامَتِ الْحُجَّةُ، فَلَا مانِعَ مِنْ تَكْفيرِهِمْ وَإِنْ لَمْ يَفْهَمُوهَا. وَفِي هٰذِهِ الْأَزْمَانِ، خُصُوصًا فِي جِهَتِكُمْ، قَدْ قَامَتِ الْحُجَّةُ عَلَى مَنْ هُنَاكَ، وَاتَّضَحَتْ لَهُمُ الْمَحَجَّةُ، وَلَمْ يَزَلْ فِي تِلْكَ الْبِلَادِ مَنْ يَدْعُو إِلَى تَوْحيدِ اللّٰهِ، وَيُقَرِّرُهُ، وَيُنَاضِلُ عَنْهُ، وَيُقَرِّرُ مَذْهَبَ السَّلَفِ، وَمَا دَلَّتْ عَلَيْهِ النُّصُوصُ مِنَ الصِّفاتِ الْعَلِيَّةِ، وَالْأَسْماءِ الْقُدْسِيَّةِ، وَيَرُدُّ مَا يُشْبِهُ بِهِ بَعْضَ أَتْباعِ الْجَهْميَّةِ، وَمَن عَلَى طَريقَتِهِمْ.
"As for his statement regarding Shaykh Muhammad Rahimahullâh that he did not declare Takfîr upon those who are upon (worship) the Dome of Kawwâz and its likes, and that he did not declare Takfîr upon the idol-worshippers until he made Da'wah to them and conveyed the Hujjah to them, then it is said (in response): Yes, for verily, the Shaykh Muhammad Rahimahullâh did not initially declare Takfîr upon people until after establishing the Hujjah and making Da'wah. This is because in that era, they were in an era of Fatrah and lack of knowledge of the traces of Risâlah. This is why he said, '...due to their ignorance and lack of someone who warns them.' However, once the Hujjah is established, then there is no obstacle from declaring Takfîr upon them. This is so even if they did not comprehend the Hujjah. In this era, especially in your region, the Hujjah has been established upon those who live there, and the path became evident to them. Those who call to the Tawhîd of Allâh, relate it, defend it, relate the Madhhab of the Salaf and what the textual proofs indicate of the Supreme Attributes and the Divine Names (of Allâh), and refute what some of the followers of the Jahmiyyah and those who are upon their path come up of doubts are still present in these lands..."27

The meaning of the reaching of the Hujjah is the Qur'ân reaching a person or a person having the means to access the Qur'ân. Ibn'ul Qayyim Rahimahullâh said with this regard,


فإنَّ حجّةَ الله قامت على العبد بإرسال الرَّسول وإنزال الكتاب، وبلوغِ ذلك إليه، وتمكُّنِه من العلم به، سواءً علِمَ أو جهل. فكلُّ من تمكَّن من معرفة ما أُمِر به ونُهِي عنه، فقصَّر عنه ولم يعرفه، فقد قامت عليه الحجّة. والله سبحانه لا يعذِّب أحدًا إلّا بعد قيام الحجّة عليه، فإذا عاقَبه على ذنبه عاقَبه بحجَّتِه على ظلمه
"For, the Hujjah of Allâh is established upon the slave by means of sending the Messenger, revealing the Book, this reaching the slave, and he being able to know it -regardless if he is knowledgeable or ignorant of it. So, whoever is able to know what he is commanded with and forbidden from, and then acts negligently and does not know, then the Hujjah has been established to him. Allâh, who is free from deficiencies, does not punish anyone only after the Hujjah is established to him. When Allâh punishes a servant because of his sin, He punishes him by His Hujjah for his oppression."28

Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullâh said,


يُبَيِّنُ حَقِيقَةَ الْحَالِ فِي هَذَا أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَقُولُ: {وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا} وَالْحُجَّةُ عَلَى الْعِبَادِ إنَّمَا تَقُومُ بِشَيْئَيْنِ: بِشَرْطِ التَّمَكُّنِ مِنْ الْعِلْمِ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَالْقُدْرَةِ عَلَى الْعَمَلِ بِهِ. فَأَمَّا الْعَاجِزُ عَنْ الْعِلْمِ كَالْمَجْنُونِ أَوْ الْعَاجِزِ عَنْ الْعَمَلِ فَلَا أَمْرَ عَلَيْهِ وَلَا نَهْيَ
"The reality of the situation in this regard is clarified by Allâhu Taâlâ saying,

"And never would We punish until We sent a messenger." (al-Isrâ 17/15)

The Hujjah is only established upon the slaves by two things: Knowing what Allâh has revealed -with the condition of having the means-, and being capable to act upon it. As for those who are incapable of attaining knowledge like a person who is insane or incapable of acting upon it, then there is no command or prohibition for them..."29

The Mu'tazilî theologians of rhetoric, Jâhidh and Thumâmah said that the common blind-followers of the Kuffâr would not be punished and that they would not be treated as Kuffâr since they did not understand the Hujjah. This view is defended today by some who attribute themselves to Tawhîd but refrain from declaring Takfîr upon the Mushrikûn. These people claim that if a person who has access to the Qur'ân or who has the opportunity to do so will not be punished, be Kuffâr in terms of the worldly ruling, and be considered Muslim if they do not understand the Hujjah. This is because they stipulate the knowledge and comprehension of Hujjah for Takfîr.

With the following words, Qâdhî Iyâdh Rahimahullâh expressed that this view is Kufr by Ijmâ,


وَقَال نَحْو هَذَا القَوْل الجاحظ وثمامة فِي أَنّ كثيرًا مِن العامة والنساء والبُلْه ومُقَلّدَة النصارى واليهود وَغَيْرِهِم لَا حُجَّة لله عَلَيْهِم إِذ لَم تَكُن لَهُم طِباع يُمْكن معها الاسْتِدْلال وَقَد نحا الغزالي قريبًا من هَذَا المَنْحى فِي كِتَاب التَّفْرِقَة وقائِل هَذَا كُلُّه كافر بالإجْماع على كفر من لم يُكَفِّرْ أحدًا مِن النَّصَارَى واليَهُود
وَكُلّ من فَارَق دِين الْمُسْلِمِين أَو وَقَف فِي تكفيرهم أوشك قَال الْقَاضِي أَبُو بَكْر لِأَنّ التّوقِيف والإجْماع اتّفَقَا عَلَى كُفْرِهِم فَمَن وقف فِي ذَلِك فَقَد كذّب النَّصّ والتّوْقِيف أَو شَكّ فِيه والتكذيب أو الشك فِيه لَا يقع إلا من كافر
"...Al-Jâhidh and Thumâmah expressed a similar view that Allâhu Taâlâ doesn't have a Hujjah upon many of the laymen, the women, those who are weak minded, those who imitate the Christians and the Jews, and others than them. This is because they do not have a Tabî'ah (nature) which is possible to make Istidlâl (deduction) with. In his book "at-Tafriqah", al-Ghazzâlî also inclined to a view similar to this.

The one who says all of this is Kâfir by Ijmâ. Hence, the one who does not declare Takfîr upon anyone amongst the Christians and the Jews and all of those who separated from the Dîn of the Muslimûn, or those who paused to declare Takfîr of them, or those who have Shakk (doubts) to declare Takfîr of them is Kâfir with Ijmâ.

Al-Qâdhî Abû Bakr said, 'This is because the Tawqîf (ruling which has been set by the Nass) and the Ijmâ on this issue indicate their Kufr. So, whoever makes Waqf (pauses) on this matter has denied the Nass and the Tawqîf or has doubt about it. Both denying and doubting this do not occur in anyone except a Kâfir."30

As for those mentioned in the narration above, which was brought forth as a doubt, not being given the name Kâfir, this means refraining from calling them Kuffâr without giving them the verdict of Muslim because it is unknown if they will be punished in the Hereafter. In other words, the word Kufr in this sentence means being doomed to eternal punishment in the Hereafter. The ruling mentioned here is related to the rules of Takfîr and punishment and is not related to the characteristic of Îmân (faith). For this reason, those who associate partners to Allâh are given the name Mushrik by consensus. However, Takfîr is not declared upon all Mushrikûn in the sense that they deserve punishment in this world and in the next. The legal punishments and waging Jihâd is also included under this ruling. This is why it is forbidden to attack and wage war against tribes who have never heard of Islâm and have never been preached to, without inviting them to Islâm. However, even before the Hujjah is established to them, they are Mushrik and not Muslim.

In short, the words by al-Âlûsî Rahimahullâh mean the following: Although the deed committed by the grave-worshippers is Kufr that makes it lawful to take their wealth and their lives, since the Hujjah is not established to them, war cannot be waged against them until the Hujjah is established, nor can they be judged as Kuffâr in the sense that they are deserving of punishment. However, this does not mean that they are Muslim. The situation of these people is like that of the People of Fatrah who are tested in the Hereafter. They are not treated as Muslims just like the People of Fatrah and are not treated as Kuffâr in the sense of being punished in this world and in the next.

As mentioned in the introduction, today's preachers of hell do not refer to the clear statements by the learned scholars who invite to Tawhîd and to the statements by their very disciples and other scholars who are the authority to best explain them, but they twist and distort their statements to make them evidences for their own beliefs. On the basis of the problematic statements of the scholars, they allege that just like themselves, the scholars too regard the Mushrikûn as Muslim because of their ignorance.

These preachers of hell fall into doubt and mention Tawhîd with Shirk because they do not know the meaning of the terms Takfîr and Hujjah in the terminology of the scholars, prefer to follow their own whims in these issues, do not even bother to do the necessary research, and because they do not learn Tawhîd properly and act upon it. The statements of the scholars regarding the establishment of Hujjah are sometimes related to Tawhîd. Sometimes they are related to obscure issues that are from the subsidiary issues of religion. Some of them require Takfîr but not war. Some of them require declaring Takfîr upon those who deny it after the Hujjah reaches. Since these people do not make a distinction between the two, they evaluate the issues differently than they are, and they deviate and cause deviation to others. As for those who incline to the earth and follow their desires, the doubts they bring forth are not to be complimented. The falsehood of such doubts is as obvious as the sun, but there is nothing to be said to one who denies the sun at noon; he must be left alone with his demon.

We conclude our article with the following words of Shaykh Ishâq bin Abd'ir Rahmân Rahimahullâh,


فَتَأَمَّلْ إِنْ كُنْتَ مِمَّنْ يَطْلُبُ الْحَقَّ بِدَلِيلِهِ وَإِنْ كُنْتَ مِمَّنْ صَمَّمَ عَلَى الْبَاطِلِ وَأَرَادَ أَنْ يَسْتَدِلَّ عَلَيْهِ بِمَا أُجْمِلَ مِنْ كَلَامِ الْعُلَمَاءِ فَلَا عَجَبَ
"If you are among those who seek the truth with its evidences, then ponder upon this. If you are among those who set your heart on falsehood and wish to base it on some ambiguous statements of the scholars, then there is nothing to be surprised at."31

Allâh knows best! May the peace and blessings of Allâh be upon our prophet Muhammad, his family, and companions!

FURTHER READING:

For a better understanding of the issue, please refer to the following treatises, the translations of which we have published on our website regarding the excuse of ignorance and Mu'ayyan (Individualistic) Takfîr:





1- Az-Ziriklî, al-A'lâm, 7/172-173; Muhammad Bahjat al-Atharî, A'lâm'ul Irâq; Majallat'ul Manâr, 12/785; Kahhâlah, Mu'jam'ul Mu'allifîn, 12/169-170; Abd'ur Rahmân bin Abd'il Latîf bin Abdillâh Âl'ush Shaykh, Mashâhîru Ulamâ'i Najd, 286-287.

2- Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsîzâdah, Ghâyat'ul Amânî, 1/53.

3- Yûsuf bin Ismâ'îl bin Hasan an-Nabhânî ash-Shâfi'î. He was from the Sufis. He was born in the year 1265 H. He was the maternal grandfather of Taqiyy'ud Dîn an-Nabhânî, the founder of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Since his grandson did not acquire knowledge at Azhar University, he nicknamed him Shaqiyy'ud Dîn. He was a judge and chairman in many courts that did not rule by what Allâh has revealed. He has works such as Jâmi'u Karâmât'il Awliyâ, Shawâhid'ul Haqq fi'l Istighâthati bi Khayr'il Khalq, al-Anwâr'ul Muhammadiyyah fi'l Mawâhib'il Ladunniyyah. In his work titled Shawâhid'ul Haqq fi'l Istighâthati bi Khayr'il Khalq, he refuted Ibnu Taymiyyah and the scholars of Najd. He perished in Beirut in the year 1350 H. (Summarized from the biographies added by the verifiers of al-Âlûsî's works al-Âyat'ul Kubrâ and Ghâyat'ul Amânî.) He is one of the greatest enemies of the Najdî call. Today, many people who are hostile to the Najdî call voice the claims he mentions, especially in his book Shawâhid'ul Haq. In this book, he addressed the following points with his Sufi approach: Tawassul, visiting the graves of Rasûlullâh and the righteous, asking Rasûlullâh for help and seeking aid from him, intercession, ascribing Jihah (direction) to Allâh and Ilhâm (inspiration).

4- Ishâq bin Abd'ir Rahmân, The Ruling of Mu'ayyan Takfîr.

5- Dâwûd bin Sulaymân bin Jirjîs al-Baghdâdî. He was born in the year 1231 H. He followed the Khâlidî branch of the Naqshbandi Tariqah and the Shâfi'î Madhhab. He is one of the greatest enemies of the Tawhîd call of Najd. He authored the books Sulh'ul Ikhwân min Ahl'il Îmân wa Bayân'ud Dîn'il Qayyim fî Tabri'ati Ibni Taymiyyah wa Ibn'il Qayyim, Ashadd'ul Jihad fî Ibtâli Da'wati Ijtihâd and al-Minhat'ul Wahbiyyah fî Radd'il Wahhâbiyyah in refutation to the scholars of Najd while ignoring the clear and apparent words by Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah and his student Ibn'ul Qayyim and citing a number of problematic, allegorical, and obscure statements from Ibnu Taymiyyah and Ibn'ul Qayyim. Today, those who ascribe themselves to Tawhîd and those who are hostile to Tawhîd express their doubts and hostilities based on his works and ideas. Many scholars refuted him and the ideologies he held. Some of these refutations are:

1. Abâ Butayn (1282 H), al-Intisâr li Hizbillâh'il Muwahhidîn wa'r Raddu ala'l Mujâdili an'il Mushrikîn.

2. Abâ Butayn (1282 H), Ta'sîs'ut Taqdîs fî Kashfi Talbîs Dâwûd bin Sulaymân bin Jirjîs.

3. Muhammad bin Nâsir al-Hâzimî (1283 H), Îqâdh'ul Wisnân alâ Bayân'il Khalal fî Sulh'il Ikhwân.

4. Abd'ur Rahmân bin Hasan (1285 H), Kashfu mâ Alqâhu Iblîs min'al Bahraj wa't Talbîs alâ Qalbi Dâwûd bin Jirjîs.

5. Abd'ul Latîf bin Abd'ir Rahmân (1293 H), Minhâj'ut Ta'sîs fî Kashfi Shubahâti Ibni Jirjîs.

6. Abd'ul Latîf bin Abd'ir Rahmân (1293 H), Tuhfat'ut Tâlib wa'l Jalîs fî Kashfi Shubahi Dâwûd bin Jirjîs.

7. Nu'mân al-Âlûsî (1317 H), Shaqâ'iq'un Nu'mân fî Raddi Shaqâ'iq Dâwûd bin Sulaymân.

8. Ishâq bin Abd'ir Rahmân (1319 H), The Ruling of Mu'ayyan Takfîr.

9. Ahmad bin Îsâ (1327 H), ar-Raddu alâ Shubahâ'til Musta'înîn bi Ghayrillâh.

10. Mahmûd Shukrî al-Âlûsî (1342 H), Fath'ul Mannân.

According to the information provided by Shaykh Abd'ul Latîf, Dâwûd bin Jirjîs had a role in the Ottomans coming to the Arabian Peninsula and declaring war against the scholars of Najd who called to Tawhîd. He perished in the year 1299 H. (Abâ Butayn, Ta'sîs'ut Taqdîs, p. 19-20; az-Ziriklî, al-A'lâm, 2/322; Muhammad Bahjat al-Atharî, A'lâm'ul Irâq, p. 67; Majmû'at'ur Rasâ'il wa'l Masâ'il'in Najdiyyah, 3/275)

6- Ishâq bin Abd'ir Rahmân, The Ruling of Mu'ayyan Takfîr.

7- Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsîzâdah, al-Âyat'ul Kubrâ, p. 85.

8- Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsîzâdah, al-Âyat'ul Kubrâ, p. 96.

9- Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsîzâdah, Ghâyat'ul Amânî, 1/53-54.

10- Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsîzâdah, Ghâyat'ul Amânî, 1/42-43.

11- Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsîzâdah, Ghâyat'ul Amânî, 1/43-44.

12- Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsîzâdah, Ghâyat'ul Amânî, 1/44-45.

13- Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsîzâdah, Ghâyat'ul Amânî, 1/45-46.

14- Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsîzâdah, Ghâyat'ul Amânî, 1/46.

15- Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsîzâdah, Ghâyat'ul Amânî, 1/48.

16- Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsîzâdah, Ghâyat'ul Amânî, 1/50-51.

17- Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsîzâdah, Ghâyat'ul Amânî, 1/53-54.

18- Mahmûd Shukrî Âlûsîzâdah, Ghâyat'ul Amânî, 1/131-132.

19- Al-Fayyûmî, al-Misbâh'ul Munîr, 2/535.

20- Ibnu Mandhûr, Lisân'ul Arab, 5/145-146; also refer to Qurâ'un Naml, al-Munajjid fi'l Lughah, p. 152.

21- Abd'ul Latîf bin Abd'ir Rahmân, Minhâj'ut Tâ'sîs, p. 99.

22- Abd'ul Latîf bin Abd'ir Rahmân, Minhâj'ut Tâ'sîs, p.

23- Al-Qurtubî, al-Jâmi'u li Ahkâm'il Qur'ân, 10/231.

24- Majmû'u Fatâwâ Shaykh'il Islâm Ahmad Ibni Taymiyyah, 2/78.

25- Al-Buhûtî, Kashshâf'ul Qinâ, Wazârat'ul Adl, 7/26; al-Haytamî, Tuhfat'ul Muhtâj, 9/242; ad-Dusûqî, Hâshiyah ala'sh Sharh'il Kabîr li'd Dirdîr, 2/176; al-Kâsânî, Badâ'i'us Sanâ'i, 7/100.

26- Ad-Durar'us Saniyyah, 10/136-137.

27- Ad-Durar'us Saniyyah, 10/434-435.

28- Ibn'ul Qayyim, Madârij'us Sâlikîn, 1/340.

29- Majmû'u Fatâwâ Shaykh'il Islâm Ahmad Ibni Taymiyyah, 20/59.

30- Qâdhî Iyâdh, ash-Shifâ, 2/280-281.

31- Ishâq bin Abd'ir Rahman, The Ruling of Mu'ayyan Takfîr.
قَالَ ابْنُ عَقِيل رَحِمَهُ اللهُ: «إذَا أَرَدْت أَنْ تَعْلَمَ مَحَلَّ الْإِسْلَامِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الزَّمَانِ فَلَا تَنْظُرْ إلَى زِحَامِهِمْ فِي أَبْوَابِ الْجَوَامِعِ، وَلَا ‌ضَجِيجِهِمْ فِي الْمَوْقِفِ بِلَبَّيْكَ، وَإِنَّمَا اُنْظُرْ إلَى مُوَاطَأَتِهِمْ ‌أَعْدَاءَ الشَّرِيعَةِ.»
Ibnu Aqîl Rahimahullâh said, "If you want to learn the status of Islâm among contemporary people, then do not look at their crowds at the doors of the mosques and their crying Labbayk at the Mawqif (during Hajj). On the contrary, look at their collusion with the enemies of the Sharî'ah!" (Ibnu Muflih, al-Âdâb'ush Sharî'ah, 1/237)

🡱 🡳

Similar topics (2)