دار التوحيد Dr'ul Tawhd



  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
  • O Lord truly I'm in need of any good that You send

Clarification Regarding Some of the Obscure Statements of the Ulamaa Regarding "The Silsilah (Chain) Takfir" and the Principle "Whoever Does not Declare Takfir of a Kafir Becomes Kafir Himself"

Quote from: Question
Salamu Alaykum,
People of ISIS and the Talafis say that; The person who does not declare Takfir upon the one who does not declare Takfir upon the Mushrik and the Kafir might have a Tawil and for this reason they remain as Muslim. They bring statements of Sulayman bin Sahman (Kashfu-Shubuhat, page 34) as evidence. Do you have this Fatwa in Arabic? How should its original translation be? Could you please provide its explantion?
Also they bring the statement of Shaykh Abdul Latif (Ad-Durar As-Saniyya, 10/443) as evidence regarding the same matter. I ask you for its Arabic, the correct translation of it and its explanations A.S.A.P.
My Allah bless your time. Amin. Salamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu


So you mentioned some people who claim to be Salafi have some doubts regarding the principle
"Whoever Does not Declare Takfir of a Kafir Becomes Kafir Himself" due to some statements of the Ulamaa. If this is the case then it is not correct to describe it as Shubhah (doubt), if their doubts are merely due to some statements that are quoted from the Ulamaa. These are merely Waswasah (suspicions) of the Shaytaan (devil) which gnaws inside of those Juhaal (pl. Jahil ignorant ones) who do not live according to his Din, who do not even intend to do so. It is because the person who claims to have built his Aqidah (creed) upon the Kitaab (Book; Quran), the Sunnah (of Rasulullah) and the Ijmaa (consensus) would only rectify his view with a Dalil (evidence) from the Kitaab, the Sunnah and the Ijmaa.

Once the individual identifies oneself with the Itiqaad, with Shari evidences that the person who does not declare Takfir upon a Mushrik becomes Kafir and then his Itiqaad is shook with a few statements of the Ulamaa in which there are possibilities concerning its explanation then how is there any relation with this attitude and the Ilm (sacred knowledge). Whereas this is accepted as Ilm in our day, only in the presence of the Juhaal.

An example of such attitude is the state of the one who supposedly- believed that
seeking judgment from the Taghout is Kufr then changed his Aqidah due to coming across a statement from Imam Sarakhsi. And the supposed reason for this attitude as they claim is in order to not declare Takfir upon Sarakhsi, so they cease from their belief which is seeking judgment from the Taghout being Kufr. How about all the evidences that he learned and accepted earlier which indicate seeking judgment from the Taghout being Kufr and foremost Kalimah (statement) Lailaha Illallah (there is no true- god deserved- to be worshiped but Allah)?

The principle "Whoever Does not Declare Takfir of a Kafir Becomes Kafir Himself" is also the same. We mentioned before the principle itself and the evidences that the principle is based upon. If these people and their likes have the proper knowledge of this matter, let them refute the evidences and the Usoul we provided. If not, without being able to say anything regarding the evidence, merely bringing forth some obscure statements of the Ulamaa regarding the matter is not a proper method of Ilm, which has no base and value in Islam.

After sharing this information, we would like to take the matters in hand Inshallah.
قولوا "لا إله إلا الله" تفلحوا

"Say, La Ilaha Illallh (there is no -true- deity -worthy of worship- except Allh) so that you are successful."


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
  • O Lord truly I'm in need of any good that You send

The statement of Shaykh Sulayman bin Sahman

The statement of Shaykh Sulayman bin Sahman is mentioned in his book Kashfush Shubhatayn, pgs. 33-34. In order to understand his statement, it is necessary to refer back to the context. Ibnu Sahman wrote it as a refutation against those who defended and objected the declaration of Takfir against the Ibadis of Oman, the grave worshipers and the Jahmiyyah of his time.

To whom Ibnu Sahman refuted -is the one who defended them and objected Ibnu Sahman due to declaring Takfir upon people- said:

فلما رأينا ناساً في هذا الزمان جعلوا همتهم وسعيهم في تكفير المسلمين، وإيذائهم، وتفسيقهم، وضيعوا أوقاتهم، ونَفّروا المسلمين عن الصراط المستقيم

Nowadays we see people who put their Himmah (effort) and keen in declaring Takfir upon the Muslimin (pl. Muslim), to harm them, declaring them as being Faasiq (corrupt), and waste their time with it. They cause the Muslimin hate the Siraat al-Mustaqim (Straight Path).

How similar is the above quoted statements of Yusuf al-Kuwaiti to whom Ibnu Sahman refuted about a hundred years ago- resembles the statements of the Murjiah of today? Yusuf al-Kuwaiti continued his statements in the following manner,

ولا يقول يا كافر ويا مشرك ويا جهمي ويا فاسق ويا مبتدع

Not say: O Kafir, O Mushrik, O Jahmi, O Faasiq, O Mubtadi (Bidah doer)!

Sulayman bin Sahman stated the following as a refutation against it,

أقول: أما في حالة الدعوة إلى الله فلا ينبغي أن يكافحهم بهذه الألفاظ ابتداء، بل الواجب أن تكون الدعوة إلى الله بالحكمة والموعظة الحسنة، وأما كون المسلم دائماً مع أعداء الله ورسوله في لين وتلطف فهذا لا يقوله من عرف سيرة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وسيرة أصحابه، كما قدمنا أن ذلك منهم قد كان مبدأ الأمر، وحال الضعف، وأما مع قوة شوكة المسلمين ودولتهم، وبعد قيام الحجة، وبلوغ الدعوة فحاشا وكلا بل قد قال صلى الله عليه وسلم لليهود: "يا إخوان القردة والخنازير" وكيف يكون اللين والتلطف دائماً مستمراً

I say, during the call to Allah it is not correct to dispute them (the Kuffar) with these statements in the beginning. Rather it is Waajib (obligatory) to call to Allah with the Hikmah (wisdom) and beautiful admonition. As for the Muslimin being kind and gentle all the time towards the enemies of Allah Taala and His Rasul (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) then the one who knows Sirah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and the Sirah of his Ashaab (pl. Sahabah; companions) does not say this. Just as we mentioned that this (i.e. being kind and gentle towards the Kuffar) was the case for them in the beginning of the matter (i.e. the call to Islam) and the state of weakness. As for (being kind and gentle towards the Kuffar taking place) along with the power, might and their state after the Qiyaamul Hujjah (establishing the proof) and reaching the call Hasha wa Kalla (never ever Allah forbid)! Rather Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) stated to the Jews:

يا إخوان القردة والخنازير
O brothers of monkeys and the pigs!

How could being kind and gentle -continuously and all the time- (towards the Kuffar) take place!?!

After stating this the Shaykh (rahimahullah) mentioned various evidences from the Quran including the Surah al-Kafirun. Then he mentioned what you pointed out from his book:

فإن كان مع من يواليهم، ويجالسهم فقوله لأحدهم: يا كافر أو يا جهمي خطأ، فإنه لا يقال هذا إلا لكافر أو جهمي قد قامت عليه الحجة وبعد ذلك كابر وعاند، ومن والاهم وجادل عنهم بعدما تبين له الحق، واتضح له كلام العلماء في تكفيرهم، وتحققوا أنه قد بلغتهم الحجة، وقامت عليهم بإنكار أهل الإسلام عليهم، وإن لم يفهموا الحجة، ثم كابر وعاند

So if it is incorrect to say O Kafir or O Jahmi to the one who takes them as Wali and who sits with them; indeed it will not be said to anyone except a Kafir or a Jahmi to whom the Hujjah is established upon him and after that he acted upon Kibr (haughtiness) and Inaad (obstinacy). The one who shows them Wala and disputes for them; after the Haqq (truth) is clarified for him, and elucidation of the statement of the Ulamaa regarding their Takfir, verfying the Hujjah has reached them, rejection of Ahlul Islam (People of Islam; Muslims) of him is established upon them even if they do not Fahm (comprehend) it- then he acted upon Kibr and Inaad (therefore O Kafir or O Jahmi can be said to them).

As understood from the context of the text, Ibnu Sahman did not stipulate the establishment of the Hujjah to rule the doers of the Shirk with Irtidaad (apostasy) from Islam or those who do not declare Takfir upon them. Rather he stipulates the establishment of the Hujjah for the people who are Mushrik in order to confront them and start being tough towards them during Dawah (call) and leaving the treatment of kindness and gentleness towards them. It is because such person acts knowingly and intentionally with Inaad towards the Haqq even though his Jahl (ignorance) has lifted.

This statement does not convey the following conclusion: The ruling of Kufr can not be given to those who perform Shirk or those who do not declare Takfir upon them before establishing the Hujjah to them. Remarking the statement in this manner would be going against the purpose this Risalah (pamphlet) was written for per se-.

In short, what is mentioned here is related with a matter regarding the methodology of the Dawah. As the Shaykh remarked, it is understood from the Siyar of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and his Ashaab which is also the performance of the Ulamaa, that in the beginning of Dawah it is necessary to be kind towards the Kuffar to whom Dawah is being made, avoiding things and manners that may cause the Kuffar to flee from Islam.

Just as Shaykh Abdur Rahman bin Hasan (rahimahullah) mentioned in the very end of the Risalah Aslud Din al-Islam, it happened to his grandfather Shaykhul Islam Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhab (rahimahullah) in the beginning of his Dawah, that when he heard some people invoking Zayd Ibnul Khattab (radiyallahu anh) instead of Allah Taala, he (rahimahullah) said: Allah is better than Zayd in order to negate their Shirk. Shaykhul Islam (rahimahullah) addressed them with soft words in order to distance them from the Shirk. It is because the important point in this scenario is Maslahat (benefit) and not earning their hatred. Wallahu Alam (And Allah knows the best)!
قولوا "لا إله إلا الله" تفلحوا

"Say, La Ilaha Illallh (there is no -true- deity -worthy of worship- except Allh) so that you are successful."


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
  • O Lord truly I'm in need of any good that You send

The Fatwa of Muhammad bin Abd'il Latif

As for the second quotation; this Fatwa (verdict) belongs to Muhammad, son of the Shaykh Abdul Latif. It was issued in 1359H which is if I am not mistaken- 1940AD. He stated it as a response to the questions of some people from Yemen. He stated the following in response regarding a question related with some Bidah (religiously innovation) that takes place in the performance of the Hajj (pilgrimage).

المسألة الثانية: فيمن خصص بعض المواضع، كبعض
الأحجار التي يعتقدون فيها، أن من وقف بها نهار تاسع ذي الحجة، كأنما وقف بعرفة، وبذلك يسقط عنه فرض الحج، فهل يكفر معتقد ذلك، أم لا يكفر إلا بعد التعريف، والإصرار على ذلك؟

"The second issue: Regarding places specified such as stones which they have Itiqaad (creed/belief) in. According to them, the one who stands near to them during the 9th day of (the month) Dhil Hijjah is as if the one who performs Waqfa (stands) at Arafat and with it (i.e. standing near to them during the day of the 9th of Dhil Hijjah) the Fardh (obligatory) of Hajj will be dropped from him. So would he who believes in this be declared Takfir upon or would not be declared Takfir upon until after the Tarif (establishing the proof) and if he persists upon that?

الجواب: إن هذه المسألة كالتي قبلها، لأن من خصص بعض المواضع بعبادة، أو اعتقد أن من وقف عندها سقط عنه الحج، كفره لا يستريب فيه من شم رائحة الإسلام؛ ومن شك في كفره، فلا بد من إقامة الحجة عليه، وبيان أن هذا كفر وشرك، وأن اتخاذ هذه الأحجار مضاهاة لشعائر الله، التي جعل الله الوقوف بها عبادة لله، فإذا أقيمت الحجة عليه، وأصر فلا شك في كفره

"The response: This very issue is the same as the one before it. It is because the one who specified some places for Ibadaah (worship) or believes that standing in their presences will drop the Hajj from him, the one who tastes the smell of Islam would not doubt his Kufr. For the one who doubts his Kufr then it is unavoidable to Iqamatul Hujjah (establish the proof) upon him, and clarifying that this is Kufr and Shirk, and that such places resembled the Shaair (pl. Shiar; symbols/rites) of Allah that which Allah made Waqf (standing) near them, Ibadaah to Allah. So if he persists on it after the Hujjah is established upon him, then there is no doubt for his Kufr. (ad-Durarus Saniyyah, 10/442-443)

As understood, in this passage the matter turns around a claim regarding a specific place that whoever performs Waqf (stand) near it then his obligation of performing Hajj drops from him, which is not Shirk per se. Therefore, a Baatil (invalid) claim is made regarding a Fardh, which is not directly related with Tawhid itself. This claim is Kufr due to stipulating Hajj with a condition not found in the Shriah (Islamic law). It also consists of the Kufr that is likening some places to the Kabah; the Sacred Land of Allah, Masjidi Haraam. Some people might not fully understand this statement and what the claimer intended with it. Those who do not declare Takfir upon them, after explaining to them and insists on not declaring Takfir upon them are Kafir, just like those who make the claim.
قولوا "لا إله إلا الله" تفلحوا

"Say, La Ilaha Illallh (there is no -true- deity -worthy of worship- except Allh) so that you are successful."


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
  • O Lord truly I'm in need of any good that You send


At this point, we would like to draw attention to a matter; as we mentioned before the principle "Whoever Does not Declare Takfir of a Kafir Becomes Kafir Himself" relies upon some Illah (reason). The foremost Illah is denying the Shari (lawmaker). If a person names Kufr as Iman he becomes Kafir due to attributing as Muslim to whom the Shari attributed as Kafir. This is the reason for the statement that whoever does not declare Takfir of a Kafir becomes Kafir himself.

There is no doubt this is bound upon the person knowing the content of the act that he acts upon, meaning his having information regarding the fact he goes through. There may be Jahl (ignorance) regarding the fact/occurrence and Udhr (excuse) for him however; the Jahl concerning the content of Iman and Kufr is not an Udhr for him.

The individual who has Iman over everything that Allah Taala and His Rasul (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) informed regarding the borders of Iman and Kufr may have doubts to pass a judgment due to the obscurity of the statement or the act. Once the meaning of the statement or the act is explained to him, he would accept and affirm its being Kufr without hesitating.

Some people who have Kufr Itiqaad were mentioned above. However, others may not fully understand their Itiqaad, their state and their stance. If they persist upon or hesitate after the statement or the act is clarified for them- to not declaring Takfir upon them then they will be declared Takfir upon them.

In short, as much as we understand- people that are mentioned here are in a state that they are not Jaahil (ignorant) of the Hukm (ruling) but Jaahil of the fact. This is what we humbly understood from the above-mentioned Fatwa. People who hesitated regarding the ruling of those who openly perform Shirk were not mentioned in the Fatwa. It includes some matters that become obscure for some people that which are other than open Shirk. After the obscurity of the matter is removed by establishing the Hujjah, the Kufr that lay behind it becomes clear therefore, one who hesitates after the establishment of the Hujjah is accounted as one who doubts regarding the Din itself. Wallahu Alam.

This is what we understood from the statements of the scholars who lived in the final era of the Dawah of Najd. These Fatawa (pl. Fatwa; verdicts) are related with the specific people and specific events. If the principle "Whoever Does not Declare Takfir of a Kafir Becomes Kafir Himself" was bound by the Iqamatul Hujjah in every case as some people claim, then the scholar would have specifically mentioned it.

In short, in these Fatawa there is no Dalil (evidence) for the claimant. Even if their claim which consisted of many Baatil- is accepted from them for a second, basic principles of the Shariah can not be invalidated with it. Since statements of the Ulamaa are not Dalil itself but a means that which leads to the Dalil. Dalil can only be searched and found in the Kalaam (speech) of the Shari and the Ijmaa of the Ummah.

Akhiru Dawana anil Hamdu lillahi Rabbil Alamin (Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds)!"
قولوا "لا إله إلا الله" تفلحوا

"Say, La Ilaha Illallh (there is no -true- deity -worthy of worship- except Allh) so that you are successful."

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 458
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid

Quote from: Question, 23.08.2017
Muhammad bin Abdilwahhab makes takfir of the kharj taghut mentioned in Durarus Saniyyah volume 1 page 52. But he does not make takfir of those who do make takfir of them. He accuses them of fisq? How can this be?

Also Ibn Abdulwahhab receives letters from his students regarding these kharj taghut. They were in doubt of making takfir of them. They did not understand Ibn Tayamiyyas words.

This is found in ar Rasailush Shakhsiyyah.

How should these be understood?

These doubts are brought by those who consider the taghut to be excused.

Quote from: Question, 02.05.2021

how can we respond when Qitaliyun bring forth this quote from shaykh ibn abdul wahab?

فهؤلاء الطواغيت.. كلهم كفار مرتدون عن الإسلام ، ومن جادل عنهم أو أنكر على من كفرهم أو زعم أن فعلهم هذا لو كان باطلاً فلا يخرجهم إلى الكفر فأقل أحوال هذا المجادل أنه فاسق لا يقبل خطه ولا شهادته ولا يصلى خلفه بل لا يصح دين الإسلام إلا بالبراءة من هؤلاء وتكفيرهم كما قال تعالى: {فمن يكفر بالطاغوت ويؤمن بالله فقد استمسك بالعروة الوثقى}

Doesnt he say the excuser is only at least a fasiq and not a Kafir right away?

I know it says -bal- there but as you know Iḍrāb al-Ibtālī is also in the Quran so the shaykh cant be saying the excuser is not a fasiq Right?

Would really appreciate a detailed Response if you have enough time in shaa Allah barakAllahu feek
Shaykh'ul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh stated,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

"The lim (scholar) recognizes the Jhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jhil. The Jhil does not recognize the lim since he has never been an lim." (Shaykh'ul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majm'ul Fatw, 13/235)

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 458
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid

Bismillhir Rahmnir Rahm.

The Response:

First of all, the evidence in the issues of Uslud Dn is the Kitb (Book of Allh), the Sunnah, and the Ijm (consensus) of the Salaf, as was stated by Shaykh Ishq Rahmatullhi Alayh in his book, Muayyan Takfr. A scholar cannot be the evidence. The Shaykh mentioned this as evidence from the perspective of Usl to those who claim ignorance is an excuse regarding Aslud Dn by bringing some words of Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb Rahmatullhi Alayh regarding The Qubbah of Kawwz. The same principle also applies here. Those who allege declaring Takfr upon the Tght and the Mushrikn (pl. Mushrik; polytheists) is not from Aslud Dn and that ignorance, forceful interpretation, etc. may be valid in this regard must first bring clear evidences from the Kitb, the Sunnah, and the Ijm and refute the evidences denoting that they are from Aslud Dn. Without doing this, debating by bringing some obscure words of scholars only proves that the debaters have gone astray from the Manhaj (methodology). In other words, is there an explanation for those who object the principle whoever does not declare Takfr upon a Kfir is a Kfir by specifically quoting from the scholars of Najd while leaving behind dozens of issues that should be explained from the perspective of Usl? We do not see any other explanation to this other than saying, Look, even the scholars of Najd whom you follow have not taken this rule absolutely, so you too should give up this call. Such a call would only be responded by someone who has subjected to names and crowds, not the Sharah, and they would say, If, even the scholars whom we follow did not act like this, we will also abandon it. and they would throw whatever they learned from these scholars about the meaning of Tawhd behind their backs. They would leave the Muhkam (clear-cut) and follow the Mutashbih (allegorical), thereby going astray. On the other hand, those who recognise Tawhd and follow the Muhkam Nass (textual proofs) do not change their beliefs based on doubts. Moreover, as can be seen below, even if these statements are subjected to a realistic examination and presented to the Muhkam statements of the scholars, it will be seen that these statements do not carry the meanings which are in accordance with their desires.

With regards to the details of these accounts, the statement of Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb Rahmatullhi Alayh about the Tght in the area named Kharj is as follows,

إذا عرفتم ذلك، فهؤلاء الطواغيت الذين يعتقد الناس فيهم، من أهل الخرج وغيرهم، مشهورون عندلخاص والعام بذلك، وأنهم يترشحون له، ويأمرون به الناس، كلهم كفار مرتدون عن الإسلام؛ ومن جادل عنهم، أو أنكر على من كفرهم، أو زعم أن فعلهم هذا، لو كان باطلا فلا يخرجهم إلى الكفر، فأقل أحوال هذا المجادل، أنه فاسق لا يقبل خطه ولا شهادته، ولا يصلى خلفه. بل لا يصح دين الإسلام، إلا بالبراءة من هؤلاء وتكفيرهم، كما قال تعالى: {فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِنْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَى}

(After some clarification about Tawhd) If you have learned these, (also know that) in the eyes of people with its laymen and elite, the Tght that the people of Kharj and other regions believe in are famous for this (that is, they are believed in). They nominate this (this creed of Kufr) and command it to the people. All of these are Kuffr who have become apostates from Islm.

Whoever argues for them, rebukes those who declare Takfr upon them, or alleges that this act of theirs does not take them to Kufr even if it is Btil (false); at the least the condition of these defenders is that they are Fsiq (corrupt), whose writings and testimony are not accepted and Salh (prayer) is not prayed behind them. On the contrary, the religion of Islm will not be valid unless with complete distancing from these people and declaring Takfr upon them. As Allhu Tal said,

So whoever disbelieves in the Tght and believes in Allh has grasped the Urwatul Wuthq (firmest handhold). (al-Baqarah 2/256)[1]

Now, if we look at the first part of the quote, it is understood from the words of the Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb Rahmatullhi Alayh that people who do not declare Takfr upon the Tght can sometimes be regarded as Fsiq.

If this is correct, then the Shaykh Rahmatullhi Alayh allegedly does not consider declaring Takfr upon the Mushrikn to be from Aslud Dn, also he allegedly does not recognize those who do not declare Takfr upon the Mushrikn as people who nullify Aslud Dn. This is exactly what the opponents are trying to prove. Whereas, this is in contrast with what the Shaykh mentioned right after this. This is because right after this, he says that Islm is invalid without declaring Takfr upon the Tght, or if the pronoun turns to them, he says that Islm is invalid without declaring Takfr upon the Fsiq who do not declare Takfr upon the Tght. If he is mentioning this, then it is what some people name the third person in Silsilah! He also highlights the fact that this is linked to rejecting the Tght, which is the Nafy (negative) part of Kalimatut Tawhd consisting of La Ilaha. Now, according to these people, is the Shaykh making statements which contradict each other in the same paragraph? Such that he states declaring Takfr upon the Mushrikn and the Tght is from Aslud Dn, then he states some people who do not declare Takfr upon the Tght are sinful Muslims who have actualized Aslud Dn?

If we accept that the Shaykh is actually talking about two identical issues, that is, him mentioning people who know the Shirk of the Tght and Mushrikn but refrain from declaring Takfr upon them, then we would have admitted that the Shaykh contradicts his own creed. Otherwise, we will have to admit that he is talking about another issue and details in the part wherein he mentions the Fsiq. This is because the Shaykh has reiterated in many places -not just here- that Takfr is from Aslud Dn.

For example, he says in the treatise named The Essence of the Religion of Islm[2],

أَصْلُ دِينِ الْإِسْلاَمِ، وَقَاعِدَتُهُ: أَمْرَانِ؛

اَلْأَوَّلُ: اَلْأَمْرُ بِعِبَادَةِ اللّٰهِ وَحْدَهُ لاَ شَرِيكَ لَهُ؛ وَالتَّحْرِيضُ عَلَى ذٰلِكَ، وَالْمُوَالاَةُ فِيهِ، وَتَكْفِيرُ مَنْ تَرَكَهُ.

اَلثَّانِي: اَلْإِنْذَارُ عَنِ الشِّرْكِ فيِ عِبَادَةِ اللّٰهِ، وَالتَّغْلِيظُ فِي ذٰلِكَ ، وَالْمُعَادَاةُ فِيهِ، وَتَكْفِيرُ مَنْ فَعَلَهُ.

وَالْمُخَالِفُونَ فِي ذٰلِكَ أَنوَاعٌ:

1- فَأَشَدُّهُمْ مُخَالَفَةً؛ مَنْ خَالَفَ فِي الْجَمِيعِ،

2- وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ عَبَدَ اللّٰهَ وَحْدَهُ، وَلَمْ يُنْكِرِ الشِّرْكَ، وَلَمْ يُعَادِ أَهْلَهُ،

3- وَمِنْهُمْ: مَنْ عَادَاهُمْ، وَلَمْ يُكَفِّرْهُمْ،

4- وَمِنْهُمْ: مَنْ لَمْ يُحِبَّ التَّوْحِيدَ، وَلَمْ يُبْغِضْهُ،

5- وَمِنْهُمْ: مَنْ كَفَّرَهُمْ، وَزَعَمَ أَنَّهُ مَسَبَّةٌ لِلصَّالِحِينَ،

6- وَمِنْهُمْ: مَنْ لَمْ يُبْغِضِ الشِّرْكَ، وَلَمْ يُحِبَّهُ،

7- وَمِنْهُمْ: مَنْ لَمْ يَعْرِفِ الشِّرْكَ، وَلَمْ يُنْكِرْهُ،

8- وَمِنْهُمْ: مَنْ لَمْ يَعْرِفِ التَّوْحِيدَ، وَلَمْ يُنْكِرْهُ،

9- وَمِنْهُمْ: - وَهُوَ أَشَدُّ الْأَنْوَاعِ خَطَرًا - مَنْ عَمِلَ بِالتَّوْحِيدِ، لٰكِنْ لَمْ يَعْرِفْ قَدْرَهُ، وَلَمْ يُبْغِضْ مَنْ تَرَكَهُ، وَلَمْ يُكَفِّرْهُمْ،

10- وَمِنْهُمْ: مَنْ تَرَكَ الشِّرْكَ، وَكَرِهَهُ، وَلَمْ يَعْرِفْ قَدْرَهُ، وَلَمْ يُعَادِ أَهْلَهُ، وَلَمْ يُكَفِّرْهُمْ؛ وَهٰؤُلاَءِ: قَدْ خَالَفُوا مَا جَاءَتْ بِهِ الْأَنْبِيَاءُ، مِنْ دِينِ اللّٰهِ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى

Aslu Dnil Islm (The essence of the Religion of Islm) and its Qidah (principles) consist of two directives:

1. The command of worshipping Allh Tal alone without associating partners, encouraging this, basing the Muwalt (collaboration) on it, and declaring Takfr upon the one who forsakes it.

2. Warning against Shirk in Ibadh (worship) to Allh, being harsh regarding it, basing enmity upon it, and declaring Takfr upon the one who acts upon it.

Those in opposition to this are of numerous varieties:

1- The worst variety among them -with regards to being in opposition- is the one who opposes all of it.

2- Among the people are those who worship Allh alone, however, neither rejects Shirk nor shows enmity towards its people.

3- Among them are those who show enmity towards the Mushrikn however does not declare Takfr upon them.

4- Among them are those who neither love Tawhd nor hate it.

5- Among them are those who declare Takfr upon the People of Tawhd and claimed that Tawhd is cursing the Slihn (pl. Slih; righteous ones).

6- Among them are those who neither hate Shirk nor love it.

7- Among them are those who neither recognize Shirk nor reject it.

8- Among them are those who neither recognize Tawhd nor reject it.

9- Among them -and it is the most treacherous type- are those who act upon Tawhd, however does not recognize (comprehend) its value and neither shows hatred to those who forsake Tawhd nor declares Takfr upon them.

10- Among them are those who forsake Shirk and dislike it, however, neither recognizes (comprehends) the value (true nature) of Shirk nor shows enmity towards its people and does not declare Takfr upon them.

These have opposed what the Anbiy (pl. Nab; the prophets) came with from the Dn (religion) of Allh Subhnah wa Tal.

As seen, he regarded declaring Takfr upon the Mushrikn to be from Aslud Dn and has stated that those who doubt in this regards has opposed Tawhd, the call of all messengers.

In the commentary of this pamphlet authored by his grandson Abdur Rahmn bin Hasan Rahmatullhi Alayh it is also stated that declaring Takfr upon the Mushrikn is included in La Ilaha Illallh itself.

Again, Shaykh Muhammad Rahmatullhi Alayh says the following in his pamphlet named The Nullifiers of Islm[3],

مَنْ لَمْ يُكَفِّرِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ، أَوْ شَكَّ فِي كُفْرِهِمْ، أَوْ صَحَّحَ مَذْهَبَهُمْ، كَفَرَ.

Whoever does not declare Takfr upon the Mushrikn (indict polytheists to be disbelievers), or has doubts about their Kufr, or considers their Madhhab (beliefs) to be correct has committed Kufr [by Ijm].

In short, if the Shaykh said that a person who does not declare Takfr upon the Mushrikn can remain a Muslim in some cases, this contradicts his other statements. Since contradictory speech on creed-based issues is the last possibility that can be taken into consideration regarding a scholar, what might the Shaykh Rahmatullhi Alayh intend in his statement about the people of Kharj?

The possibility that seems to be the strongest in our eyes is that the Shaykh Rahmatullhi Alayh was referring to some people who allege that the Mushrikn do not commit ash-Shirkul Akbar (major polytheism) by either rejecting the fact that they commit Shirk or by making forceful interpretations in this regard. Such people exist today as they did exist in the era of the Shaykh and after him.

Hence, Shaykh Ab Butayn Rahmatullhi Alayh who is of the latter-era scholars of the Najd, authored the book al-Intisr in refutation to such people who defend the Mushrikn in various manners and try to prove that they were not Kuffr. Alongside answering their claims such as ignorance being an excuse in Shirk and their open Kufr, he also responds to their claims such as the grave-worshippers not actually asking the dead for help, which are comprised completely of blasphemy and making eversion of the truth.[4]

Likewise, Shaykhul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahmatullhi Alayh said about the leader of those who adhere to the Wahdatul Wujd (Unity of Existence) and the head of the Tght of his time Ibnu Arab and his followers,

وَمَنْ لَمْ يُكَفِّرْهُمْ فَهُوَ أَكْفَرُ مِنْ الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى
Those who do not declare Takfr upon them are more Kfir than the Jews and Christians.[5]

Elsewhere he says,

وَيَجِبُ عُقُوبَةُ كُلِّ مَنْ انْتَسَبَ إلَيْهِمْ أَوْ ذَبَّ عَنْهُمْ أَوْ أَثْنَى عَلَيْهِمْ أَوْ عَظَّمَ كُتُبَهُمْ أَوْ عُرِفَ بِمُسَاعَدَتِهِمْ وَمُعَاوَنَتِهِمْ أَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَلَامَ فِيهِمْ أَوْ أَخَذَ يَعْتَذِرُ لَهُمْ بِأَنَّ هَذَا الْكَلَامَ لَا يَدْرِي مَا هُوَ أَوْ مَنْ قَالَ إنَّهُ صَنَّفَ هَذَا الْكِتَابَ وَأَمْثَالَ هَذِهِ الْمَعَاذِيرِ الَّتِي لَا يَقُولُهَا إلَّا جَاهِلٌ أَوْ مُنَافِقٌ؛ بَلْ تَجِبُ عُقُوبَةُ كُلِّ مَنْ عَرَفَ حَالَهُمْ وَلَمْ يُعَاوِنْ عَلَى الْقِيَامِ عَلَيْهِمْ
Anyone who adheres himself to them, defends them, praises and extolls them, gives value to their books, is renowned to help and support them, dislikes speaking about them or tries to excuse them with the pretext that he does not know the nature of their words, whether he has actually written this book or not, and similar excuses that could only be put forward by an ignorant or hypocrite, should be punished. Likewise, everyone who knows their situation but does not help to stand against them should be punished.[6]

In the continuation, he says,

وَمَنْ كَانَ مُحْسِنًا لِلظَّنِّ بِهِمْ - وَادَّعَى أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَعْرِفْ حَالَهُمْ - عَرَفَ حَالَهُمْ فَإِنْ لَمْ يُبَايِنْهُمْ وَيُظْهِرْ لَهُمْ الْإِنْكَارَ وَإِلَّا أُلْحِقَ بِهِمْ وَجُعِلَ مِنْهُمْ.
Those who indulge in good thinking about such people and allege that they do not know of their situation should now know about their circumstance, even if he does not oppose them and openly denounce them. Otherwise, he will be accounted from them and will be considered from them.[7]

He also said,

وَمَنْ شَكَّ فِي كُفْرِ هَؤُلَاءِ بَعْدَ مَعْرِفَةِ قَوْلِهِمْ وَمَعْرِفَةِ دِينِ الْإِسْلَامِ فَهُوَ كَافِرٌ كَمَنْ يَشُكُّ فِي كُفْرِ الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ.
Those who doubt these people being Kfir after learning about their views and after learning the religion of Islm, are Kfir, just like those who doubt the Kufr of the Jews, Christians, and Mushrikn.[8]

All of these statements are available in the 2nd volume of Majmul Fatw.

As seen, the Shaykh Rahmatullhi Alayh has distinguished between those who defend the supporters of Wahdatul Wujd by knowing and accepting what they defend and those who exonerate from them the ideologies of Kufr and claim that others have shoved them in their books or continue to defend Ibnu Arab and his group by delving in good thinking, as was common in the latter era and in our era. While declaring Takfr upon those who do this intentionally, he did not declare Takfr upon those who did this while finding a Shar cover for themselves and stated that they should be punished. This is because the first category avoided declaring Takfr upon these people by labelling Kufr as mn, whereas the second category accept Kufr to be Kufr, however they exonerate Ibnu Arab and his likes from carrying this Kufr. Anyhow, the Shaykh did not consider those who defend Ibnu Arab and his followers to be righteous Muslims, no matter what their forceful interpretation is. This is because anyone who is not an ignoramus or an unruly hypocrite would be able to determine the views of Ibnu Arab and the other defenders of Wahdatul Wujd and would be able to understand that these people are unruly Kuffr. If a person does not understand this and does not admit it, then he has fallen into this situation only because of his laxness and laziness in investigating the truth. This is the state of the advocators of the grave-worshippers. If this person is alleging that these people are not seeking help from the dead and that they only fell into the Bidah type of Tawassul which is Shirkul Asghar (minor Shirk), then the lightest state of such person is that he is a lying Fsiq, since he denies the wide-spread reality regarding the grave-worshippers. The testimony of such person will not be accepted, nor will Salh be prayed behind him since he is a Fsiq (corrupt person). As the Shaykh indicates, those who know the Shirk of these people and persists to not declare Takfr upon them has not actualized Aslud Dn, since he has named apparent Kufr as Islm. This is what we understand from this statement of the Shaykh. Those who allege, that the Shaykh meant something other than this and that the Shaykh considered the one who does not declare Takfr upon the people of Shirk after having acknowledged and confessed the Shirk which they perform as Fsiq, are required to bring forth an evidence. If we were to assume that the explanation we brought forth is void, in the end, this statement is a probable statement and it cannot be an evidence for them nor us. In any case, what they have to do is to be silent about this issue since there cannot be evidence in cases where there is probability.

In another cited statement addressing some of his brethren the Shaykh says the following[9],

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

إلى الإخوان، سلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته.

وبعد: ما ذكرتم من قول الشيخ: كل من جحد كذا وكذا، وقامت عليه الحجة، وأنكم شاكون في هؤلاء الطواغيت وأتباعهم، هل قامت عليهم الحجة؟ فهذا من العجب، كيف تشكون في هذا وقد أوضحته لكم مرارا؟! فإن الذي لم تقم عليه الحجة، هو الذي حديث عهد بالإسلام، والذي نشأ ببادية بعيدة، أو يكون ذلك في مسألة خفية، مثل الصرف والعطف، فلا يكفر حتى يعرف.

وأما أصول الدين التي أوضحها الله وأحكمها في كتابه، فإن حجة الله هو القرآن، فمن بلغه القرآن فقد بلغته الحجة؛ ولكن أصل الإشكال، أنكم لم تفرقوا بين قيام الحجة، وبين فهم الحجة، فإن أكثر الكفار والمنافقين من المسلمين، لم يفهموا حجة الله مع قيامها عليهم، كما قال تعالى: {أَمْ تَحْسَبُ أَنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ أَوْ يَعْقِلُونَ إِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا كَالْأَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ سَبِيلاً}.

وقيام الحجة نوع، وبلوغها نوع، وقد قامت عليهم، وفهمهم إياها نوع آخر
Bismillhir Rahmnir Rahm.

To the Ikhwn (Brothers):

Salmun Alaykum wa Rahmatullhi wa Baraktuhu.

To proceed:

What you mentioned of the Shaykhs (Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullhs) statement,

Everyone who rejects such and such, while the Hujjah has been established upon him.

You are doubtful regarding those Tawght (pl., Tght) and their followers, has the Hujjah (proof) been established upon them? This is strange indeed! How can you doubt about this when I have repeatedly clarified it for you?! For indeed, the one whom the Hujjah has not been established upon is the one who is new to Islm, and the one who was raised in a distant wilderness; or this is the case when the matter is Khaf (obscure), like Sarf and Atf. So he does not disbelieve until it is made known to him.

As for the Uslud Dn (the foundations of the religion) that Allh has clarified and solidified its Ahkm (pl., Hukm; rulings) in His Kitb (Book i.e., Qurn), then indeed the Hujjah of Allh is the Qurn. So whomever the Qurn has reached, then the Hujjah has reached him. But the source of dispute is that you have not differentiated between Iqmatul Hujjah (the establishing of the Hujjah) and Fahmul Hujjah (comprehending the Hujjah). For indeed, most of the Kuffr (pl., Kfir; disbelievers) and Munfiqn (pl., Munfiq; hypocrites) from amongst the Muslimn (pl., Muslim) did not comprehend the Hujjah of Allh though it has been established upon them, as Allhu Tal said,

أَمْ تَحْسَبُ أَنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ أَوْ يَعْقِلُونَ إِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا كَالْأَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ سَبِيلاً
Or do you think that most of them listen or understand? They are but like cattle. Rather, they are even farther astray from the (right) way. (al-Furqn 25/44)

The establishment of the Hujjah is something, and it reaching (the people) is something (else), while it has been established upon them. And their comprehending it is something else.

This is one of the distortions which is done by cropping the beginning and end of the Shaykhs statement. Since even though the Shaykh addresses them as brothers and gives them the Salm, he said in the continuation of his statements after elucidating the matter,

إذا علمتم ذلك، فإن هذا الذي أنتم فيه كفر: الناس يعبدون الطواغيت، ويعادون دين الإسلام، فيزعمون أنه ليس ردة ،لعلهم ما فهموا الحجة، كل هذا بين .
When you comprehend this, (know that) verily the state in which you are in is Kufr. People are worshipping the Tawght (pl. of Tght), showing enmity towards the religion of Islm, and then they deem that this is not Riddah (apostasy) as they might have not understood the Hujjah! All of this is clear.

As seen, the Shaykh describes them with Kufr for the sole sake that they halt from declaring Takfr upon the Mushrikn with the justification that they have not comprehended the Hujjah. As for the reason behind the fact that he did not treat the people who he wrote the letter to as Kfir, there may have numerous reasons. Firstly, does the recipient of this letter advocate this Kufr view, or did some members of their tribe utter these, or did these people previously advocate this view but later on repent from this? Et cetera, there could be many other reasons. To wrap up the issue, the controversy found in this letter is about one specific issue and it is not a knowledgeable approach to conclude on a general issue pertaining to Aqdah via a specific issue as such. This is because there may be many different aspects in a specific issue. Whoever wants to learn the view of a scholar pertaining to a subject should not look at a Fatw that he issued regarding a specific issue, but should appeal for the statements in which he clearly illuminates his view pertaining to the issue. When this is the Usl in an ordinary Fiqh-related issue, this principle is more deserving of being abided by in delicate topics such as Takfr.

The views of the scholars of the Najd Dawah is apparent in places wherein they elaborate on the Usl pertaining to those who refrain from declaring Takfr upon the Mushrikn. It is also renowned that they account Takfr to be from the unavoidable principles for one to enter the fold of the religion of Islm.

Ignoring the statements found in fundamental books and pamphlets while seeking aid from the letters and personal correspondence of a scholar can only be the mortar of those who are unable to explain the issues from the aspect of knowledge. We want to conclude this pamphlet with a statement from the treatise on Muayyan Takfr by Shaykh Ishq Rahmatullhi Alayh,

وَذٰلِكَ وَاللهُ أَعْلَمُ بِسَبَبِ تَرْكِ كُتُبِ الْأُصُولِ وَعَدَمِ الاِعْتِنَاءِ بِهَا وَعَدَمِ الْخَوْفِ مِنَ الزَّيْغِ.

رَغِبُوا عَنْ رَسَائِلِ الشَّيْخِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْوَهَّابِ - قَدَّسَ اللهُ رُوحَهُ - وَرَسَائِلِ بَنِيهِ فَإِنَّهَا كَفِيلَةٌ بِتَبْيِينِ جَمِيعِ هٰذِهِ الشُّبَهِ جِدًّا كَمَا سَيَمُرُّ
Allh knows best, their downfall is due to abandoning the books of Usl, lack of interest regarding them and lack of Khawf (fear) from falling into Zaygh (divergence). They turned away from the pamphlets of Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb -may Allh purify his soul- and the pamphlets of his sons. As it will come later, indeed those pamphlets are sufficient to clarify these doubts.[10]

Wallhu Alam! khiru Dawn Anil Hamdulillhi Rabbil lamn.
 1. Ad-Durarus Saniyyah, 10/52-53.
 2. Ad-Durarus Saniyyah, 2/22.
 3. Muallaftush Shaykh, 1/385-387; ad-Durarus Saniyyah, 2/361 and 10/91-93; also partially in 10/84-86; ar-Rasilush Shakhsiyyah, p. 212.
 4. See Ab Butayn, al-Intisr, Tahqq: al-Wald bin Abdir Rahmn l Firyn, p. 59 ff.
 5. Majmul Fatw, 2/129.
 6. Majmul Fatw, 2/132.
 7. Majmul Fatw, 2/132-133.
 8. Majmul Fatw, 2/368.
 9. Ad-Durarus Saniyyah fil Ajwibatin Najdiyyah, 10/93-94.
 10. Ishq bin Abdir Rahmn lush Shaykh, Hukmu Takfril Muayyan, p. 169-170. This book is found in the collection named Aqdatul Muwahhidn, published by Drut Tarafayn in the year 1419H.
Shaykh'ul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh stated,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

"The lim (scholar) recognizes the Jhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jhil. The Jhil does not recognize the lim since he has never been an lim." (Shaykh'ul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majm'ul Fatw, 13/235)

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 458
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid

Bismillhir Rahmnir Rahm.

Based on a statement of Shaykh Sulaymn bin Abdillh Rahmatullhi Alayh, some people allege that declaring Takfr upon the Mushrikn is not from Aslud Dn and that the Hujjah (proof) must be established with this regards. Now, Shaykh Sulaymn Rahmatullhi Alayh answers a question directed to him in this regard as follows,

وأما قول السائل: فإن كان ما يقدر من نفسه أن يتلفظ بكفرهم وسبهم، ما حكمه؟
فالجواب: لا يخلو ذلك عن أن يكون شاكاً في كفرهم أو جاهلاً به، أو يقر بأنهم كفرة هم وأشباههم، ولكن لا يقدر على مواجهتهم وتكفيرهم، أو يقول: غيرهم كفار، لا أقول إنهم كفار; فإن كان شاكاً في كفرهم أو جاهلاً بكفرهم، بينت له الأدلة من كتاب الله، وسنة رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم على كفرهم، فإن شك بعد ذلك أو تردد، فإنه كافر بإجماع العلماء: على أن من شك في كفر الكافر، فهو كافر.
وإن كان يقرّ بكفرهم، ولا يقدر على مواجهتهم بتكفيرهم، فهو مداهن لهم، ويدخل في قوله تعالى: {وَدُّوا لَوْ تُدْهِنُ فَيُدْهِنُونَ} [سورة القلم آية: 9] ، وله حكم أمثاله من أهل الذنوب. وإن كان يقول: أقول غيرهم كفار، ولا أقول هم كفار، فهذا حكم منه بإسلامهم، إذ لا واسطة بين الكفر والإسلام، فإن لم يكونوا كفاراً فهم مسلمون; وحينئذ فمن سمى الكفر إسلاماً، أو سمى الكفار مسلمين، فهو كافر، فيكون هذا كافراً.
As for the statement of the questioner: What is the Hukm (ruling) if he does not find the power/ability in himself to state their Kufr and revile them?

The response: This does not occur unless he is doubtful of their Kufr or ignorant of their Kufr or he affirms them and their likes being Kfir however he is unable to face them and (declare) Takfr upon them or he says, Other than them are Kuffr; I do not say that they are Kuffr. If he is doubtful regarding their Kufr or ignorant of their Kufr, then their Kufr will be explained to him with evidences from Kitbullh (Book of Allh) and Sunnah of His Rasl Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam. If he doubts after this or hesitates, then he is a Kfir by the Ijm (consensus) of the Ulam. This is on the bases: whoever doubts the Kufr of a Kfir is Kfir himself.

If he affirms their Kufr, but is not able to face them with (declaring) Takfr, then he shows Mudhanah (adulation; flattery, hypocrisy, deceit, compromising ones principles i.e., to give up the Dn in order to obtain what is worldly) to them and is included in the statement of Allhu Tal,

وَدُّوا لَوْ تُدْهِنُ فَيُدْهِنُونَ
They wish that you should compromise (in religion out of courtesy) with them, so they (too) would compromise with you. (al-Qalam 68/9)

His Hukm is the same as his likes among the people of sinners, even if he says, I say other than them are Kuffr and I do not say that they are Kuffr. This is his Hukm regarding their Islm, since there is no medium between Kufr and Islm. If it happens that they are not Kuffr, then they are Muslimn. At that time, whoever named Kufr as Islm or named the Kuffr as Muslimn, then he himself is Kfir; this person becomes a Kfir.[1]

With the permission of Allh, this is the more accurate translation of this statement which we have mentioned before. We say with the permission and help of Allh:

What can be said about these words of the Shaykh is the same as what has been said about the other statements of the scholars mentioned above. As we stated about the previous statements, the evidence in the religion is the Nass and Ijm; not the statements of scholars. We have proved with clear evidence that declaring Takfr upon the Mushrikn is from Aslud Dn.

As we have explained on various occasions before, declaring Takfr upon the Mushrikn is included in the Nafy (negative) part of La Ilaha Illallh, contained in La Ilaha. A person who rejects the deities also rejects those who worship those deities, namely the Mushrikn. The person who correctly rejects the Mushrikn has declared Takfr upon them. The opposite is inconceivable, as someone who does not declare Takfr upon them has made them his brothers in religion and his allies. The claim of someone who befriends the Mushrikn to reject their deities is invalid. This is because if he had properly rejected their deities, then he would have had to reject those who worship them. The fact that he does not manifest enmity towards those who worship those deities demonstrates that he does not manifest enmity towards to their deities. Thus, it becomes evident that a person who does not declare Takfr upon the Mushrikn has not fulfilled the element of Nafy.

The state of those who criticize the Mushrikn but do not declare Takfr upon them and continue to regard them as Muslims, wont bypass the situation of the disagreement between people who adhere to different sects in the same religion and continue to call each other Muslim despite criticizing one another. After all this, anyone who says that Takfr is bound by the establishment of the Hujjah, has opposed the word La Ilaha Illallh and the Nass which interprets the word. In fact, understanding the words of Shaykh Sulaymn or another scholar in this manner is contrary to the explicit expressions of the Imms of the Najd call which consider Takfr to be from Aslud Dn.

Apart from the evidence in the Kitb (Book of Allh) and the Sunnah, how can it be that the grandfather of Sulaymn bin Abdillh himself, Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb, has clear statements in his pamphlet named The Essence of the Religion of Islm stating that those who do not declare Takfr upon the Mushrikn cannot enter Islm while Shaykh Sulaymn or someone else opposes the circle of knowledge he adheres to and forms a separate opinion in such a clear issue? Moreover, how can this be while he himself said in the continuation of his statement that those who label the Kuffr as Muslims fall into Kufr by giving the name of Islm to Kufr?

In addition, where in this statement is it mentioned that it is a condition to establish the Hujjah to those who do not declare Takfr upon the Kuffr? It should be known that establishing Hujjah or educating, declaring, etc. before declaring Takfr are Shar terminologies which are related with the rulings of Takfr. Scholars are not random speaking people like us; they deliberately choose their sentences. If the scholar wanted to explain that declaring Takfr upon the Mushrikn is an issue connected to Hujjah, he would have explained this in clearer terms. However, he does not make mention of establishing the Hujjah; he merely says, their Kufr will be explained to him with evidences If he doubts after this or hesitates, then he is a Kfir by the Ijm (consensus) of the Ulam. Now, if I understand this statement as follows, A person who does not declare Takfr upon the Kuffr despite such evidence is a Kfir, that is to say, A person who still doubts the unity of Allh even though its evidences are explained to him is certainly a Kfir. Here, the intention is not to mean that a person cannot be a Kfir before the evidence is established to him, the person still insists on his opinion, although the issue is very clear, etc., so this may well be possible to describe the gravity of the situation.

For, the supposed ruling that a person who does not declare Takfr upon the Mushrikn would not be declared Takfr of until Hujjah is established is not derived from the Mantq of the word, that is, it is not derived from what has been stated; it is derived from its Mafhm, in other words, the meaning understood from the word. Whereas, the Mafhm is not an evidence especially in places where there are clues/evidences which prevent it from being understood in this way. There are many examples regarding this in the Qurn and the Sunnah. For example, it is stated in the 117th verse of Sratul Muminn,

And whoever invokes another god with Allh, while he has no proof for it, his reckoning is only with his Lord. Surely, the Kfirn will not achieve success.

Now, from the Mafhm of this verse, it can be understood that someone who supplicates to deities other than Allh is not a Kfir if he has an evidence to do so. However, this is impossible due to other relevant evidences. This is because there is no evidence that deities other than Allh may be acquired and even if a person brings forth some invalid evidences, such person cannot avoid being a Kfir because of other evidences indicating that all of the Mushrikn are Kuffr. The details of this issue is found in the books of Uslul Fiqh. Although issues such as whether the Mafhm is considered evidence or when it will be evidence are related to the religious Nass, these rules can ultimately be applied to the words of scholars or any other person.

Thus, even though it is possible to interpret the statement of Shaykh Sulaymn according to its Mafhm as a person who does not declare Takfr upon the Mushrikn will not become Kfir without explaining it, it is not correct to understand this statement as such because of other statements, in other words other clues/evidences, stated by Shaykh Sulaymn and the circle of knowledge he adheres to.

Besides, what is the actual thing those who doubt the Kufr of the Mushrikn have doubts regarding? That is to say, are these doubters regarding the Kufr of the Mushrikn skeptical of Kufr actually being Kufr or are they skeptical of whether or not Kufr actualized in these people? As we have stated above, this is because some people in the era of the scholars of the Najd especially plead for some tomb-worshippers and took the path of making forceful interpretations of their Kufr while alleging that they did not ask the people in the graves for help in actuality but only did Tawassul. Or, there may be obliqueness in the action itself as in the matter of asking for Shafah (intercession). In other words, do those who seek Shafah from the people in the grave do it in a way that is Bidah with some forceful-interpretations or do they do it in a way that is Shirk by recognising the authority of Shafah to belong to them or by attributing some divine attributes to them etc.

It must be noted that the era in which the scholars of the Najd lived in was not like the era we live in. This is because in our era, Kufr has become widespread; man-made laws and secularism, isolating the religion from life, has spread everywhere and there is no obscurity among people that would allow for any misunderstanding in this regard. As for the era of those scholars, there were no man-made laws, or even if they existed, they were recently becoming widespread and Shirk was mostly practiced in the form of worshiping the graves and the dead. This was generally performed by taking shelter behind concepts such as Tawassul, Shafah, etc. In addition to the open types of Shirk performed at the graves, many had obscurity regarding their reality.

So, is the thing which should be explained to those who are skeptical regarding the Kufr of the Mushrikn -mentioned in the statement of the Shaykh- the nature of the actions of these men or is it that these actions are Shirk per se?

If it is assumed that the Shaykh mentioned establishing the Hujjah before declaring Takfr, then this first possibility may be the case. In other words, the nature of the acts of Kufr practiced by the Mushrikn will be explained to those who doubt the Kufr of the Mushrikn. Of course, this declaration will be based on the Kitb and the Sunnah, that is, the difference between the actions of the Mushrikn and true concepts such as Tawassul and Shafah will be revealed.

If it is the second possibility, an issue arises here: if a person knows what those who seek help from the dead do inside out but does not call them Mushrikn then this person is someone who does not know what Shirk is and cannot distinguish between Shirk and Tawhd. If this person labels their actions Shirk but does not call them Kuffr because of their ignorance etc., his situation is even worse as he calls someone whom he knows to worship idols a Muslim! So how can such a person be Muslim?

It is known that a person must reject Shirk in order to become a Muslim, and someone who does not know Shirk, who is unaware that Shirk is in opposition with mn (faith), who is unaware that Shirk cannot co-exist with mn, and therefore calls the people of Shirk Muslim is someone who does not know Islm and mn. If it is pondered upon thoroughly, the path of those who regard ignorance to be an excuse in ash-Shirkul Akbar (Major Polytheism) is the same as those who regard ignorance to be an excuse in declaring Takfr upon the Mushrikn. This is because in either case, those who do not know Shirk and Tawhd and the difference between the two are considered Muslims.

As a matter of fact, today, most of those who raise these doubts trying to dilute the principle of whoever does not declare Takfr upon a Kfir is a Kfir are people who, formerly, used to recognise ignorance to be an excuse in Shirk and would not declare Takfr upon the Mushrikn. As knowledge spread, they began to admit that the people of Shirk should be declared Takfr upon, but, in order to save their past, this time they started to make excuses for those who do not declare Takfr upon the Mushrikn, which is another dimension of the issue.

In short, the words of Shaykh Sulaymn is a probable statement, just like the other statements brought on this issue by skeptics; however, something that is probable cannot be brought as evidence. Wallhu Alam.
 1. Ad-Durarus Saniyyah, 8/160-161.
Shaykh'ul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh stated,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

"The lim (scholar) recognizes the Jhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jhil. The Jhil does not recognize the lim since he has never been an lim." (Shaykh'ul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majm'ul Fatw, 13/235)


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
Last post 07.12.2017, 03:25:40 PM
by Ummah
0 Replies
Last post 12.07.2015, 04:57:52 AM
by Ummah
4 Replies
Last post 18.05.2017, 09:17:20 AM
by Julaybib
2 Replies
Last post 02.02.2020, 01:26:48 AM
by Izhr'ud Dn
8 Replies
Last post 09.11.2015, 01:00:52 AM
by Fahm'us Salaf
3 Replies
Last post 10.09.2017, 12:45:38 PM
by Ummah
7 Replies
Last post 05.08.2016, 04:08:14 AM
by Fahm'us Salaf
5 Replies
Last post 04.02.2021, 11:48:01 PM
by Izhr'ud Dn
0 Replies
Last post 15.10.2017, 08:52:26 PM
by Ummah
3 Replies
Last post 08.02.2021, 04:28:05 AM
by Izhr'ud Dn