دار التوحيد Dâr'ul Tawhîd

Author Topic: A DEBATE REGARDING SILSILAH TAKFIR  (Read 1005 times)

Uswat'ul Hasana

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 102
A DEBATE REGARDING SILSILAH TAKFIR
« on: 21.09.2017, 12:23:53 PM »
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

We are going to share with you the debate that we had –or at the least tried- with someone regarding the principle
“Whoever Does not make Takfir of a Kafir Becomes Kafir Himself” which is known as “Silsilah (Chain) Takfir” by many people. This person then raised his objections concerning our views regarding the matter. We tried to respond to his objections and you will find the documentation of the debate in detail later on Inshallah.

Before quoting the debate, we would like to mention that unfortunately the debate that which took place between this person and us did not occur according to the manner of debating in Islam. The reason for it and the one who is responsible for it was our opponent. Even though we warned him many times repeatedly, he was unable to perform the Islamic manner of debate. This most likely occurred due to his worries that in the case of his following the guideline and performing the manners of debating in Islam, his Baatil (falsehood) would evidently manifest.

What we mean with the Usoul (methodology) is referring the matter of disagreement (as it is in every case) to the Shari’ah; in the light of the Manhaj of the Salaf to the arbitration of the Kitaab (Book; Qur’n) and the Sunnah. We tried to post in the forum the summarized explanation regarding the Usoul that which to be followed while debating in most of the matters that are debated over today.

Whoever directs objections to our Aqidah (creed) should read the Risalah (article) regarding the matter and then respond it with the same manner with evidences. Only, this attempt is considered as a beneficial debate. Otherwise, without explaining the evidences that we mentioned in the article, without declaring what is found objectionable in the article in the terms of Usoul would not bring any benefit.

Whereas our opponent tried to prove his claim –from beginning to the end- while not explaining the matter from the Usoul point of view and by quoting some Mutashabih statements from the scholars. He did not verify the statements he had quoted from the scholars in terms of the way of Ilm, and brought forth some statements believing they are in his favour, without trying to find out what the scholar meant in reality in the mentioned quote in question, and reacted with a manner to have psychological advantage upon his opponent.

Indeed this methodology is well known and we recognized it in the beginning since many people we used to debate with, attempted to use the same methodology while debating with us regarding the matters of “Silsilah Takfir”, “Takfir” as well as other matters. The tribune might acclaim this method, it might deceive the masses who do not take the matters to the Asl (fundamental) principles of Shari’ah and followed the names instead of Shari’ah. However, Ilm wise, it has no value.

In order to have a value in Ilm our opponents should evidently declare what it is that they defend, they should manifest their Usoul and then explain what their Usoul is based upon with the Shar’i evidences in the light of Fahm (comprehension) of the Salaf. There is no place in Shari’ah for a debate in which the opponent brings forth some statements of the scholars –without explaining the matter in terms of Usoul- stating “what do you say regarding this or that statement?”

Matters of Asl’ud Din in which there is no place for Taqlid (blind following) and Ijtihaad, no statement of a scholar can be brought forth as Dalil (evidence). Statements of scholars can only be brought forth after mentioning the Shar’i evidences in order to show the relation between the evidences and the statements of scholars, to ease the matter for the lay people and point out how the matter is considered as evidence in specific matters. However, the Ijmaa of the scholars is exempted from this general ruling since Ijmaa of the scholars is among the Shar’i evidences; the Ijmaa of the scholars is a Shar’i evidence per se. A statement of a scholar cannot be accounted as a Shar’i evidence unless it is supported by Nass and Ijmaa.

This is the Usoul that the Shari’ah held us responsible in terms of debating matters of Aqidah. Since we are at the topic let us add that this will be our Usoul for debating regarding the matters of Asl’ud Din moreover this is the Usoul that we will ask our opponents to follow when they intend to debate with us. Those who have different perspectives will not receive a positive response for their wish to debate with us.

Unfortunately, we were unable to bring our opponent to this Usoul. In the end, witnessed our opponent’s withdrawal by stating due to personal reasons he will continue to debate on a later date. In order to let others benefit and take a lesson for their share, we found it suits to post the text of debate in the forum. We advise attention is paid to our opponents statements and especially his statements regarding Ibrahim (alayhi salam) in order to experience where –speech in order to debate without knowing the Asl of Imaan; speech regarding the matters of Din without having proper knowledge- will take an individual and how it may even place one in a position that he begins to slander Allah Ta’ala and His Prophets. Beware of falling into the same hole.

We are going to share this debate, which has many lessons for those who take heed and ask Allah Ta’ala to benefit those who would read the document of the debate.
Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

وكل قول ينفرد به المتأخر عن المتقدمين، ولم يسبقه إليه أحد منهم، فإنه يكون خطأ كما قال الإمام أحمد بن حنبل‏‏

"All statements that had been said by the Mutaakhirrin (latter ones) differing from the Mutaqaddimin (predecessors) and that had not been previously mentioned by any other, is a mistake. As Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah) said:

‏إياك أن تتكلم في مسألة ليس لك فيها إمام‏

"Refrain from speaking about a matter without an Imam!.." (Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majma’ul Fatawa, 21/291)

Uswat'ul Hasana

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 102
Re: A DEBATE REGARDING SILSILAH TAKFIR
« Reply #1 on: 21.09.2017, 12:55:30 PM »
The following is the first e-mail our opponent sent us:

as-Salamu alaykum,

I am writing you from abroad. As I saw you offer a turkish site but I have to use a translator to understand so I am writing to you in English. My name is xxx, I am kurdish.

I have question: You wrote that the chain takfeer is well known and obligatory. To underline this you quoted the Ulama of Nadjd; but how can I understand the following:

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab wrote in ad-Durar as-Sanīya 13/49:

And if you know that now, this people are from the Tawaghit. People from al-Harg and other are believing in them, everyone knows them. They offer the people and advise them to take them as intercessors; they are murtaddun (apostates). Who ever defends them [...] and claims that these deeds do not bring them out of the Islam, is at least a fasiq (-> not Mushrik?)"

Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf mentions in ad-Durar as-Sanīya 13/440:

These festivals are the same as the (polytheistic) festivals in the Jahiliya. Who ever thinks that they are permissible is one of the most disbelieving creatures [...]. Who ever doubts AFTER THE HUGGA of they kufr gets (also) a disbeliver.

Why is Hugga necessary to say that the the doubter is a kafir if this topic belpngs to asl ad-deen.

Isḥāq b. ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān wrote

In realitiy they are making the Takfir on the mushrik in a general way but they are refraining from it (the Takfir) if they are alone. They bid´a and confusion have found acceptance from our brothers.

How can he call these people "brothers" if they refrained from the Takfeer?

Muhammad ibn abd-al Wahhab wrote in Mufīd al-Mustafīd (p. 23)

As a result of ignorance [...] some Muslims who love the truth got in doubt this topic (to declare the mushrik as a mushrik)

I think it´s your turn. What are you saying to these quotations?

EDIT:

The claim that not making takfeer is a prove that a person does not cut the relationship from the mushrikeen is not proven. You know that Ibrahim cut of the relationship from his father at his dead when got to know that his father was the enemy of Allah [1]. But does this mean that he saw his father as a Muslim before? I would not say that. So there is no connection between the topics as you claimed in your text.


[¹] see Ibn Garir and his interpretation


as-Salamu alaykum


[Our opponent referred to the following verses:

“It is not fitting, for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray for forgiveness for Pagans, even though they be of kin, after it is clear to them that they are companions of the Fire. And Ibrahim prayed for his father's forgiveness only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became clear to him that he was an enemy to Allah, he dissociated himself from him: for Ibrahim was most tender-hearted, forbearing.” (at-Tawbah 9/113-114)

The following statement of the verse our opponent took as evidence for his claim:

“But when it became clear to him that he was an enemy to Allah, he dissociated himself from him.”]

The following is our response to him:

Bismillah,

We require from you as
we require from everyone who contact us via e-mail to introduce themselves by mentioning how did s/he come across our website/forum? Where s/he lives? What is her/his Aqidah (creed)? Does s/he know us in person? Does s/he belongs to any Jama’ah, if yes then which Jama’ah? Has s/he ever contacted us before via e-mail, if yes then what was her/his e-mail account that s/he contacted us before with and what was the question? Does s/he consider us as Muslim? What are the matters that s/he believes in different than us? What is the level of Ilm that s/he has? Is s/he is fluent in Arabic? What is the reason for her/him to contact us? What is the reason s/he directed us the question?

We might respond to your questions and explain the problems you see in the quotes from the Ulamaa that which you quoted in order to support your claim, if there is need for it. Before that we would like you to answer the following questions so that we attain full knowledge of your Usoul (methodology),

How could a person who accounted a Kafir as a Muslim can be considered as one who performed Baraa (being distant) from him?

The one who accounted Abu Jahl as Muslim, can he still be accounted as Muslim?

If such a person existed during the era of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), would he be accounted as one who enters Islam and would he be accounted as Muslim?

Would a person who considered a Kafir as Muslim, be considered as one who knows both the Kufr and the Islam?

Would such a person who does not know the entity of Kufr be accounted as one who performed Baraa from the Kufr?

As for the Silsilah Takfir, what is the Usoul for implementing it?

What is incorrect in our Usoul regarding the Silsilah Takfir?

When a person who does not declare Takfir upon a Kafir would he/would he not become Kafir?

Lastly, what is the Dalil (evidence) in Din; Nass (textual proof) and Ijmaa (consensus) or statements of the Ulamaa?

Do you think that we leave aside our Usoul, which is built upon answers of the questions that we directed to you above, in order to account the Abu Jahl of our era as Muslim and brothers in Islam?

Also, do you know what was referred in the statements that you quoted; do these quotations of yours indicate a person being Muslim who accounted Jahl (ignorance) as an excuse as it is the case today or do they indicate those who account the well known worshipers of the idols as Muslim due to them uttering the Kalimah, to be Muslim?

Can a matter that which falls under Asl’ud Din be determined with a statement of an Alim in which he deals with a Muayyan (specific) matter in one of his books?

What are we going to do with the statements of the scholars regarding declaring Takfir upon the one who refrains from declaring Takfir of a Kafir that which the Ulamaa mentioned in their books (such as
Nawaqidh’ul Islaam of Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhab ) as well?

As for what you stated regarding Ibrahim (alayhi salam); Are you aware what you claim regarding Ibrahim (alayhi salam)?

Did Ibrahim (alayhi salam) not cut the relations off with his father before his father died, please do answer in the light of your claim?

Did Ibrahim (alayhi salam) take his father namely Azar (Hasha i.e. Allah forbid) as his Wali (friend, protector etc.)?

What type of Baraa he cut off from his father that which was referred in the Ayah was it the Asl (base) of Baraa or was it a Kamil Baraa which is consisted of Ibrahim (alayhi salam) asking Istighfar (seeking forgiveness) for his father?

If Ibrahim (alayhi salam) performed Baraa from his father after the death of his father then tell us why did Ibrahim (alayhi salam) perform Baraa from his people while they were still alive (refer back to the Ayah al-Mumathina 60/4)?

Don’t you have any shame due to distorting the Nass in order to do Jadal (debate) regarding Silsilah Takfir?

PS. There are similar quotes from the Ulamaa that which we clarified the doubts regarding those who mentioned as evidences for their claims.

In the mean time you should read and try to comprehend our Usoul concerning the matter of Silsilah Takfir. The link for the article is as follows
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" Wassalaam!
Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

وكل قول ينفرد به المتأخر عن المتقدمين، ولم يسبقه إليه أحد منهم، فإنه يكون خطأ كما قال الإمام أحمد بن حنبل‏‏

"All statements that had been said by the Mutaakhirrin (latter ones) differing from the Mutaqaddimin (predecessors) and that had not been previously mentioned by any other, is a mistake. As Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah) said:

‏إياك أن تتكلم في مسألة ليس لك فيها إمام‏

"Refrain from speaking about a matter without an Imam!.." (Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majma’ul Fatawa, 21/291)

Uswat'ul Hasana

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 102
Re: A DEBATE REGARDING SILSILAH TAKFIR
« Reply #2 on: 21.09.2017, 01:09:43 PM »
The following is the response of our opponent

First of all: I greeted you with the salam. At least you should write wa alayk, shouldn´t you? Ok, let´s see.

On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 01:01:30 +0300, english@darultawhid.com wrote:
Bismillah,

We require from you as
we require from everyone who contact us via e-mail to introduce themselves by mentioning how did s/he come across our website/forum?

Search machine

Where s/he lives?

Near xxx.

What is her/his Aqidah (creed)?

I will shorten this question and answer it with: la ilaha illAllah.

Does s/he belongs to any Jama’ah, if yes then which Jama’ah?

No

Has/he ever contacted us before via e-mail, if yes then what was her/his e-mail account that s/he contacted us before with and what was the question? Does s/he consider us as Muslim?

Now first time. Yes, I consider.

I directed to you to discuss the matter I spoke about before.  We might respond to your questions and explain the problems you see in the quotes from the Ulamaa that which you quoted in order to support your claim, if there is  need for it. Before that we would like you to answer the following questions so that we attain full knowledge of your Usoul (methodology),

How could a person who accounted a Kafir as a Muslim can be considered as one who performed Baraa (being distant) from him?


Tell me, before I answer this, what is the minimum level of Baraa?
 
The one who accounted Abu Jahl as Muslim, can he still be accounted as Muslim?

No

If such a person existed during the era of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), would he be accounted as one who enters Islam and would he be accounted as Muslim?

Tell me, if someone insulted the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and a second person did not make Takfeer on him, is he considered as a disbeliver. I will answer your question soon in shaa Allah.

Would a person who considered a Kafir as Muslim, be considered as one who knows both the Kufr and the Islam?

Specify your question

Would such a person who does not know the entity of Kufr be accounted as one who performed Baraa from the Kufr?

Specify your question. You know that Kufr can be excused if we talk generally.

As for the Silsilah Takfir, what is the Usoul for implementing it?

Deniying the Qur´an or the prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wassalam), someone who does not Takfeer has denied.

When a person who does not declare Takfir upon a Kafir would he/would he not become Kafir?

In general: yes

Lastly, what is the Dalil (evidence) in Din; Nass (textual proof) and Ijmaa (consensus) or statements of the Ulamaa?

Nass and consensus, not the single statement of a alim.

Do you think that we leave aside our Usoul which is built upon answers of the questions that we directed to you above, in order to account the Abu Jahl of our era as Muslim and brothers in Islam?

Also, do you know what was referred in the statements that you quoted; do these quotations of yours indicate a person being Muslim who
accounted Jahl (ignorance) as an excuse as it is the case today or do they indicate those who account the well known worshipers of the idols as Muslim due to them uttering the Kalimah, to be Muslim?

Can a matter that which falls under Asl’ud Din be determined with a statement of an Alim in which he deals with a Muayyan (specific) matter in one of his books?


Tell me first, is the Takfeer a matter of the asl ad-din?

What are we going to do with the statements of the scholars regarding declaring Takfir upon the one who refrains from declaring Takfir of a Kafir that which the Ulamaa mentioned in their books (such as
Nawaqidh’ul Islaam of Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhab ) as well?

The ulama of Najdj did not make Takfeer on everyone who did not take the Takfeer. I sent you some quotations before.

Don’t you have any shame due to distorting the Nass in order to do Jadal (debate) regarding Silsilah Takfir?

Don´t you have any shame to give fataawa on your site without being nearly a alim?

The other questions we will discuss in shaa Allah.
http://darultawhid.com/en/forum/index.php?topic=5266.0

Wassalaam!


The following is our response to the opponent:

Bismillah,

We urge you to make Tawbah (repentance) from your Baatil (falsehood) statements such as mentioning that Ibrahim (alayhi salam) had not distanced from his father until his father died since it is such a thoughtless cruel statement.

If you are ready to discuss the matters you should answer questions that are directed to you and also you should stop jumping from one topic to another. We must agree regarding the Usoul (methodology) of the matter beforehand taking the quotations, once we agree upon the Usoul we would take the quotations in hand in order to get rid of the obscurity and doubts related with them Inshallah.

The response to your question regarding Takfir being Asl’ud Din: Yes, Takfir is a matter of Asl’ud Din meaning one who does not declare Takfir upon the Mushrikin can not be accounted as one who enters the Din. Actually you confessed this by stating that the individual who does not declare Takfir upon Abu Jahl can not be accounted as one who enters the Din. Ponder upon the fact that a man -who lived during the era of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam)- who fulfilled every aspect, pillar and condition of Islam except accounting Abu Jahl and his Mushrik brothers as Kuffar; he would be considered as a Mushrik from the beginning to the end without Hujjah being established upon him. If you do not confirm this, then there is no need to discuss  the matters. You stated that you will continue to respond to our questions. Would you respond to this matter different than how we explained it?

Your answer regarding the Usoul of Silsilah Takfir being denying the Nass is generally correct. However if what you mean by this is that ‘the one who does not know the Nass regarding the declaration of the Takfir of the Kuffar does not become Kafir until he knows the Nass regarding the declaration of the Takfir of the Kuffar’ then this is Baatil. It is because the only Illah (reason) for the principle “whoever does not declare Takfir upon the Kuffar becomes Kafir himself” is not denying the Nass. The person who considers the Mushrikin as Muslimin –even if he does not know the Nass regarding the matter of Takfir- is a person who can not distinguish between the Iman and the Kufr. This is what we meant when we asked you, can a person who does not know Kufr be a Muslim? We do not ask regarding the person who does not know making Halaal (permissible) of that which is Haraam (impermissible) such as Khamr (alcoholic beverages) being Kufr. What we ask you is the following: Can a person who does not know the Asl of Kufr and the Asl of Iman, who can not comprehend the difference between these two, be a Muslim? Once you answer this question, we will continue from this point Inshallah.

As for the one who insults Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), Sahnun (rahimahullah) among the Ashaab of Imam Malik (rahimahullah) stated the following:


أجمع العلماء أَنَّ شاتمَ النبيِّ - صلى الله عليه وسلم - المتنقِّصَ له كافرٌ، والوعيدُ جارٍ عليه بعذاب الله له، وحكمه عند الأمَّة: القتل، ومن شكَّ في كفرِه وعذابِه كفَر

“The Ulamaa did Ijmaa (consensus) upon that one who censures the Nabi (sallallahu alyhi wa sallam) by insulting him, is Kafir and that the threat in regards to punishment of Allah is valid upon him. His Hukm (ruling) in the presence of the Ummah (nation of Islam) is death. Whoever doubts regarding his Kufr and his punishment, has (also) done Kufr.” (Qadhi Iyadh, ash-Shifa, 2/312)

Finally we do not issue any Fatawa that which is not sourced from the Ulamaa. If there is anything that you can point out, please do and prove it from our forum. The mere transmission of the Dhaahir (outwardly open) matters of the Din is not issuing Fatawa.

Wassalaam!
Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

وكل قول ينفرد به المتأخر عن المتقدمين، ولم يسبقه إليه أحد منهم، فإنه يكون خطأ كما قال الإمام أحمد بن حنبل‏‏

"All statements that had been said by the Mutaakhirrin (latter ones) differing from the Mutaqaddimin (predecessors) and that had not been previously mentioned by any other, is a mistake. As Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah) said:

‏إياك أن تتكلم في مسألة ليس لك فيها إمام‏

"Refrain from speaking about a matter without an Imam!.." (Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majma’ul Fatawa, 21/291)

Uswat'ul Hasana

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 102
Re: A DEBATE REGARDING SILSILAH TAKFIR
« Reply #3 on: 21.09.2017, 02:06:35 PM »
And his response:

Thank you for your answer. Let´s analyse it.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:29:15 +0300, english@darultawhid.com wrote:
Bismillah,

We urge you to make Tawbah (repentance) from your Baatil (falsehood) statements such as mentioning that Ibrahim (alayhi salam) had not distanced from his father until his father died since it is such a thoughtless cruel statement.


You know the ayah:

"And the request of forgiveness of Abraham for his father was only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became apparent to Abraham that his father was an enemy to Allah, he disassociated himself from him. Indeed was Abraham compassionate and patient."

Ibn Ġarīr said to this:

"And the most correct statement is that [...] Ibrahim disassociated from his father when it got clear to him that his father was Allahs enemy. This happened when he got the knowledge that his father was an enemy of Allah (and) a polytheist; (he got) the knowledge when his father died on shirk."


If you are ready to discuss the matters you should answer questions that are directed to you and also you should stop jumping from one topic to another. We must agree regarding the Usoul (methodology) of the matter beforehand taking the quotations, once we agree upon the Usoul we would take the quotations in hand in order to get rid of the obscurity and doubts related with them Inshallah.

We will return to this topic later in shaa Allah.

The response to your question regarding Takfir being Asl’ud Din: Yes, Takfir is a matter of Asl’ud Din meaning one who does not declare Takfir upon the Mushrikin can not be accounted as one who enters the Din. Actually you confessed this by stating that the individual who does not declare Takfir upon Abu Jahl can not be accounted as one who enters the Din. Ponder upon the fact that a man -who lived during the era of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam)- who fulfilled every aspect, pillar and condition of Islam except accounting Abu Jahl and his Mushrik brothers as Kuffar; he would be considered as a Mushrik from the beginning to the end without Hujjah being established upon him. If you do not confirm this, then there is no need to discuss  the matters. You stated that you will continue to respond to our questions. Would you respond to this matter different than how we explained it?

This is a fatwa given by your based on your analogy.

Your answer regarding the Usoul of Silsilah Takfir being denying the Nass is generally correct. However if what you mean by this is that ‘the one who does not know the Nass regarding the declaration of the Takfir of the Kuffar does not become Kafir until he knows the Nass regarding the declaration of the Takfir of the Kuffar’ then this is Baatil.

No, this is not what I mean. Look bewlow.

It is because the only Illah (reason) for the principle “whoever does not declare Takfir upon the Kuffar becomes Kafir
himself” is not denying the Nass. The person who considers the Mushrikin as Muslimin –even if he does not know the Nass regarding the matter of Takfir- is a person who can not distinguish between the Iman and the Kufr. This is what we meant when we asked you, can a person who does not know Kufr be a Muslim?


This is a very important point. The words "kufr" or "Takfeer" are defined by the islamic law and cannot be known in fully means without getting the message. This is not the same as the asl ad-din which must be known without any knowledge. Look below.

As for the one who insults Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), Sahnun (rahimahullah) among the Ashaab of Imam Malik (rahimahullah) stated the following: [...]

“The Ulamaa did Ijmaa (consensus) upon that one who censures the Nabi (sallallahu alyhi wa sallam) by insulting him, is Kafir and that the threat in regards to punishment of Allah is valid upon him. His Hukm (ruling) in the presence of the Ummah (nation of Islam) is death. Whoever doubts regarding his Kufr and his punishment, has (also) done Kufr.” (Qadhi Iyadh, ash-Shifa, 2/312)


This is absolutely correct. But this is a general statement. The word "kufr" cannot be known in fully means without getting the message (hugga). Of course this can leads to apostasy but it ´´can´´ and does not have to. Let us analyse this topic with the following example:

Abū Yaʿlā Muḥammad b.al-Ḥusain b. al-Farrā' thought that insulting the prophet, sallAllahu alaayhi wassalam, is a major mistake which would
only cause apostasy if the insulter would hold the insult as permissble. Ibn Taymiyyah said (a ṣ - Ṣ ārim al-Maslūl. 1/515):

"It is essential to know that (the mistake of Abu Ya´la) is a big mistake. May Allah have mercy with Abu Ya´la [...]."

Apparently Ibn Taymiyyah did not Takfeer on Abu Ya´la even his statement was pure kufr. Since the birth of Abu Ya´la 1000 years has
been passed and I never came across with a alim who make Takfeer on him because of this mistake. Maybe you know his books. They are popular.


Finally we do not issue any Fatawa that which is not sourced from the Ulamaa. If there is anything that you can point out, please do and prove it from our forum. The mere transmission of the Dhaahir (outwardly open) matters of the Din is not issuing Fatawa.

As you see there can be excuses;

Wassalaam!

As-salamu alaykum!

Our response:

Bismillah,

We would like to warn you in regards to this discussion. We will not continue to discuss matters with you anymore if you continue responding to our questions with pretext answers and getting rid of them quite easily, since such debate is useless and not beneficial.

You claim that the issue of declaring Takfir upon one is related with the Risalah. We explained this matter in the forum under the heading Silsilah Takfir and also elucidated it by giving Abu Jahl as an example. While not taking your time with them you claim that we issue a Fatwa according to our own logic! Since you claim, it is upon you to prove it. So you must point out our mistakes refering to the matter with evidences since by merely stating that we issue a Fatwa according to our logic does not solve the problem.

Also you must prove with evidences, how you could consider declaring Takfir upon one to not be a matter of Asl’ud Din. Mentioning a Muayyan (specific) example regarding the matter, meaning the quotation from Abu Ya’la does not prove anything. As for the quotation from Abu Ya’la:
Claim that There is Difference in Opinion Regarding the Takfir of the One who Insults Allah and His Prophet

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) quoted views of Abu Ya’la regading the person who insults and slanders Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) from his book “al-Mu’tamad”. We searched for the above mentioned book however we are unable to locate it since it is lost, meaning the book “al’Mutamad’ul Kabir” of Abu Ya’la is neither found as in an inscribed form nor in published form in our age anymore. There is a book of his published as “al-Mu’tamad” which does not contain the above mentioned quotation in it as far as we know. Again we are unable to locate Abu Ya’la’s views concerning the ruling of the one who insults Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) in his published books even though we searched for it. For this reson the sole source for Abu Ya’la’s views concerning the ruling of one who insults Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is the book “as-Sarim’ul Maslul” of Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah). Therefore we will take the information given by Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) in his book “as-Sarim’ul Maslul” regarding Abu Ya’la’s views concerning the ruling of the one who insults Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) in hand and try to explain the matter as much as we can Inshallah. Tawfiq (success) is from Allah Ta’ala.

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) right after quoting the above mentioned quotation stated:


ويجب أن يعلم أن القول بأن كفر الساب في نفس الأمر إنما هو لاستحلاله السب. زلة منكرة وهفوة عظيمة ويرحم الله القاضي أبا يعلي قد ذكر في غير موضع ما. يناقض ما قاله هنا

“It is necessary to know that, the statement Kufr of the one whose Sabb (insult) leans upon his Istihlaal (make it Haalal i.e., permissible) inthe matter itself is a Zallah (slip)  Munkar (evil) and a great mistake. May Allah have mercy upon Qadhi Aba Ya’la, in other places stated the opposite that which he stated here.” (Ibnu Taymiyyah, as-Sarim’ul Maslul, 515)

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) continued up until he said the following regarding the same matter:


فمن قال بلسانه كلمة الكفر من غير حاجة عامدا لها عالما بأنها كلمة كفر. فإنه يكفر بذلك ظاهرا وباطنا ولا يجوز أن يقال: إنه في الباطن يجوز أن يكون. مؤمنا ومن قال ذلك فقد مرق من الإسلام

“So whoever states -with his tongue- the statement of Kufr wihout a need (such as Ikrah); states the statement of Kufr intentionally and knowingly then he becomes Kafir with it both Dhaahir (outwardly) and Baatin (inwardly). It is not permissible to say: “It is permissible for he to be a Mu’min (believer) in Baatin.” Whoever says it, slips off from the Islam.” (Ibnu Taymiyyah, as-Sarim’ul Maslul, 437)

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) also said:


وأيضا، فهؤلاء القائلون بقول جهم والصالحي، قد صرحوا بأن سب الله ورسوله، والتكلم بالتثليث، وكل كلمة من كلام الكفر، ليس هو كفرًا في الباطن، ولكنه دليل في الظاهر على الكفر، ويجوز مع هذا أن يكون هذا الساب الشاتم في الباطن عارفًا بالله، موحدًا له، مؤمنا به، فإذا أقيمت عليهم حجة بنص أو إجماع أن هذا كافر باطنًا وظاهرًا، قالوا‏:‏ هذا يقتضي أن ذلك مستلزم للتكذيب الباطن، وأن الإيمان يستلزم عدم ذلك، فيقال لهم‏:‏ معنا أمران معلومان‏.

أحدهما‏:‏ معلوم بالاضطرار من الدين‏

والثاني‏:‏ معلوم بالاضطرار من أنفسنا عند التأمل‏

أما الأول‏:‏ فإنا نعلم أن من سب الله ورسوله طوعًا بغير كره، بل من تكلم بكلمات الكفر طائعًا غير مكره، ومن استهزأ بالله وآياته ورسوله، فهو كافر باطنًا وظاهرًا، وأن من قال‏:‏ إن مثل هذا قد يكون في الباطن مؤمنًا بالله وإنما هو كافر في الظاهر، فإنه قال قولاً معلوم الفساد بالضرورة من الدين‏.‏ وقد ذكر الله كلمات الكفار في القرآن، وحكم بكفرهم واستحقاقهم الوعيد بها، ولو كانت أقوالهم الكفرية بمنزلة شهادة الشهود عليهم، أو بمنزلة الإقرار الذي يغلط فيه المقر، لم يجعلهم الله من أهل الوعيد بالشهادة التي قد تكون صدقًا، وقد تكون كذبًا، بل كان ينبغي ألا يعذبهم إلا بشرط صدق الشهادة، وهذا كقوله تعالى‏‏

{‏لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلاَثَةٍ‏}‏ ‏[‏المائدة‏:‏73‏]

‏{‏لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ‏}‏ [‏المائدة‏:‏72‏]‏ وأمثال ذلك


“Also those who imitate the words of the Jahm and Salihi say: Surely cursing Allah Ta’ala and His Rasul (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), expressing the trinity and uttering all the Kufr type words among the Kufr statements are not (in reality) Kufr in Baatin. However it is an evidence in the Dhaahir upon its Kufr. It is permissible along with this that the individual, who insults and speaks ill; in the Baatin be an Aarif (knower) of Allah, a Muwahhid for Him and a Mu’min in Him. When Hujjah (proof) with Nass (textual proof) or Ijmaa (consensus) are established upon these individuals that he is Kafir in Baatin and in Dhaahir, they said: This would lead to it necessiating Takzib (denial) in the Baatin, and the Imaan (faith) necessitates lack of Takzib.”

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) continued until he said to them:

“Surely we know that whoever insults Allah Ta’ala and His Rasul (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) voluntarliy without coercion, rather
whoever speaks with Kufr words without submitting to a Mukrah (one who coerces), whoever mocks Allah Ta’ala, His Ta’ala’s Ayaat (pl. Ayah; Qur’anic verses) and His Rasul (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) then this individual is Kafir in Baatin and in Dhaahir. Whoever states that an individual as such can sometimes be Mu’min in Allah in the Baatin and he is Kafir in the Dhaahir, then surely this individual stated a statement that is necessarily known in Din as Fasaad (corruption). Allah Ta’ala had mentioned the statements of the Kuffar (pl. Kafir; disbelievers) in the Qur’an and had given the Hukm (ruling) of their Kufr and their deserving the Wa’id (threat) with these statements. Even if their Kufr statements were on the same level of the mistake of those who is mistaken in their Shahaadah (testimony) while they were witnessing upon them or on the same level of the mistake of those who are mistaken in their Iqraar (uttering) while they uttered; Allah would not have made them Ahl (people) of Wa’id with a probable Shahaadah of either truthful (correct) or lie (false). On the contrary He Ta’ala would have required punishing them with the condition that this Shahaadah is truthful. This is like the statement of Allah Ta’ala:


لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلاَثَةٍ
“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity.” (al-Ma'idah 5/73);

‏لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ
“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is Isa the son of Maryam.” (al-Ma'idah 5/17; al-Ma'idah 5/72)

and other similar Ayaat.” (Majmu’ul Fatawa, 7/557-558)

As it is seen in these statements he (rahimahullah) considered this view that which attributed to Abu Ya’la, meaning the claim that the person who insults the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa salaam) and states any other Kufr statement can be Kafir in Dhaahir and a Mu’min in Baatin i.e. in the presence of Allah; as a Kufr I’tiqaad (creed) which opposes the Asl (fundamental) of Islam that are known by Dhahurah (necessity) that which takes one out of the fold of Islam.

However the statements of Abu Ya’la regarding the matter are in contradiction with one another and his views that oppose the above mentioned quotation can be found in his other books. At the end, the matter is regarding the declaration of the Takfir of Abu Ya’la who is a Muslim in Asl (origin) who already died and there is no way and opportunity to find out the reality of his opinion from his own stataments. In such condition without knowing exactly what he said, what he meant and what he claimed, Takfir can not be declared and performed upon a Muslim in Asl.

In short, Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) not declaring Takfir upon Abu Ya’la does not indicate that Ibnu Taymiyyah did not consider the
statement itself as a Kufr and that Ibnu Taymiyyah did not declare Takfir upon a person who had Kufr I’tiqaad. It is because Takfir having principles, conditions and barriers is something other than ruling a statement being a Kufr statement. There could be many possibilities such as he might have repented from it.

The fact that being Abu Ya’la had not been declared Takfir upon does not indicate that the statement itself is not a Kufr statement. Unlike some whose claim, being Abu Ya’la had not been declared Takfir upon, does not indicate that there is Ikhtilaaf (disagreement) in the most open matters of Din, Jahl (ignorance) and Ta’wil () being an Udhr (excuse) ) in the most open matters of Din.

Especially with such a Muayyan matter that may carry many possibilities, their attempt to declare Takfir upon Ibnu Taymiyyah due to him not declaring Takfir upon a Kafir is an example of pure Jahl for those who do not even comprehend the reality of the matter. In sum, not declaring Takfir upon a Muayyan person due to his statement does not indicate not giving the Hukm of Kufr to his statement. One who comprehends the reality of this matter would easily comprehend many other incidents by using the same methodology. Wallahu A’lam!

Sahnun (rahimahullah) among the Ashaab of Imam Malik (rahimahullah) stated the following regarding the one who insults Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam):


أجمع العلماء أَنَّ شاتمَ النبيِّ - صلى الله عليه وسلم - المتنقِّصَ له كافرٌ، والوعيدُ جارٍ عليه بعذاب الله له، وحكمه عند الأمَّة: القتل، ومن شكَّ في كفرِه وعذابِه كفَر

“The Ulamaa made Ijmaa (consensus) upon the one who censures the Nabi (sallallahu alyhi wa sallam) by insulting him is Kafir and that the threat in regards to punishment of Allah is valid upon him. His Hukm (ruling) in the presence of the Ummah (nation of Islam) is death. Whoever doubts regarding his Kufr and his punishment is (also) Kafir.” (Qadhi Iyadh, ash-Shifa, 2/312)

So what befits the people is to follow the Asl and not follow the Mutashabih (allegorical, unclear) statements and not attempt to Takhsis (restrict) the clear Nass with the statements of people. However unfortunately, people who have no fear of Allah, in order to legalize their performance and deeds so that they have an easy life that which does not contain Takfir, enmity; waterdown even the most clear matters.

Their supposed aim is stating that even there is Ikhtilaaf concerning the matter of insulting Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) then
there are more probes for Ikhtilaaf to exist in other matters. Do they claim –such by merely taking a statement of Abu Ya’la who is taken account in his grave- that they can invalidate all the Nass which indicate respect to the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is a condition of Iman being valid. What kind of understanding is it? What a sick understanding is it? As Imam Maalik (rahimahullah) said: Once the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is insulted, what would be left for the Ummah (nation of Islam)? We ask Allah Ta’ala to guide them to the truth, if this is not the case then we ask Allah Ta’ala to take them in account in the way they deserve, which would more likely happen.

After all these explanations we can get back to our topic. So if you consider one statement of a single scholar to be sufficient in order to solve every problem then how could you explain many statements of Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhab (rahimahullah) and other scholars that which clearly state the declaration of Takfir of the Mushrikin is among Asl’ud Din and the call of all the Prophets? How could you gather these statements with the above mentioned quotation of Abu Ya’la?


[Such as the statement of Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhab (rahimahullah), in
Asl’ud Din al-Islam :

أصْلُ دِينِ الْإِسْلَامِ، وَقاعِدَتُهُ: أمْرانِ؛ اَلْأوَّلُ: اَلْأمْرُ بِعِبادِةِ اللهِ وَحْدَهُ لا شَرِيكَ لَهُ؛ وَالتَّحْرِيضُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ، وَالْمُوَالَاةُ فِيهِ، وَتَكْفِيرُ مَنْ تَرَكَهُ الثَّانِي: اَلْإنْذارُ عَنْ الشِّرْكِ في عِبادِةِ اللهِ، وَالتَّغْلِيظُ في ذَلِكَ، وَالْمُعَادَاةُ فِيهِ، وَتَكْفِيرُ مَنْ فَعَلَهُ

“Asl'ud Din (The essence of Religion) al-Islam andُ its Qaidah (principles) consist of two directives:

The first:

The order of worshiping Allah alone Who has no partners), the encouragement (call) to this, the collaboration based on it and making Takfir on he who leaves it.

The second:
 
The warning against ash-Shirk in the worshiping to Allah, being harsh in it, basing enmity on it and making Takfir on he who commits it.” (ad-Durar'us Saniyya, 2/22)

Regarding the matter Shaykh Hamad ibn Atiq an-Najdi (rahimahullah) said the following:


فأصل دين جميع الرسل، هو القيام بالتوحيد، ومحبته ومحبة أهله، وموالاتهم، وإنكار الشرك، وتكفير أهله، وبغضهم، وإظهار عداوتهم، كما قال تعالى

"Asl'ud Din of all the prophets is; performing Tawhid, having love towards it and its people, Muwalat (friendship) towards them, rejecting the Shirk, declaring Takfir of the Ahl (People of) Shirk, having Bughz (hatred) and open enmity towards them. As it is in the following statement of Allah Ta’ala:

قَدْ كَانَتْ لَكُمْ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ فِي إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ إِذْ قَالُوا لِقَوْمِهِمْ إِنَّا بُرَآءُ مِنْكُمْ وَمِمَّا تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ كَفَرْنَا بِكُمْ وَبَدَا بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمُ الْعَدَاوَةُ وَالْبَغْضَاءُ أَبَداً حَتَّى تُؤْمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَحْدَهُ
"There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Ibrahim and those with him, when they said to their people: We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever, unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone." (al-Mumtahina 60/4)

End of quotation from Hamad bin Atiq. (ad-Durar as-Saniyya, Babu Jihaad, 8/418)]

Moreover when we say that declaring Takfir upon the Mushrikin is among the matters of Asl’ud Din, we do not say that knowing the word K-F-R or words that are derived from it such as Kaffara-Yukaffiru-Takfir is from matters of Asl’ud Din.

What we say regarding this matter is the same -since you do not consider Jahl as an Udhr in Tawhid- as your response to your opponents who say that Tawhid and Shirk are Shari usage of the terms and their content can only be known by the Shari’ah.

Once a person knows Kufr and Shirk and then rejects them, he will distance from the people of Kufr and Shirk by the Fitrah (nature); he will know that the people of Kufr and Shirk are not upon the right way and that they are not upon the Din of Allah Ta’ala. This is what we mean when we say Takfir and we do not mean all the rulings regarding Takfir and the punishments related it to be known.

You did not respond to our questions that we directed to you regarding Ibrahim (alayhi salam). Did Ibrahim (alayhi salam) distance from his father before Azar died? Did Ibrahim (alayhi salam) continue his Wala with his father? For what reason did Ibrahim (alayhi salam) continue his Wala with his father even though he distanced himself from the Mushrikin? If you do not answer these questions then do not bother to write anything to us, in order not to waste our precious time. As for what you quoted from Ibnu Jarir at-Tabari (rahimahullah), he mentioned it while listing the different views concerning the Ayah.

There are two different views narrated from the Mufassirin concerning the statement "Ibrahim dissociated himself from him" in the Ayah. The first view is that Ibrahim (alayhi salam) abandoned to seek forgiveness for his father when he realized that his father Azar died as a Mushrik.

The second view is that this incident will take place on Yawm’ul Qiyamah (the Doomsday) and that when Azar comes across Ibrahim (alayhi salam), Azar would turn into a hyena. Imam Tabari preferred the first view and in order to declare his preference, he stated the above mentioned quotation. Meaning Ibrahim (alayhi salam) distancing from his father is his abandoning to seek Istighfaar (forgiveness) for him. Therefore Ibrahim (alayhi salam) being distant from his father does not mean that Ibrahim (alayhi salam) continued his Walayah (friendship) in the I’tiqaadi point of view with his father and that Ibrahim (alayhi salam) had not cut his relationship with his father until Azar died. We are going to quote statements of the Mufassirin that which indicate this meaning from the related part of Tafsir of Tabari. If you know Arabic you might check them out:


أﻫﻞ اﻟﺘﺄوﻳﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺄوﻳﻞ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ." ﻗﺎل ﺑﻌﻀﻬﻢ: ﻣﻌﻨﺎه: ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ ﺑﻤﻮﺗﻪ ﻣﺸﺮكﺎﺑﺎﻟﻠﻪ، ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ، وﺗﺮك اﻻﺳﺘﻐﻔﺎر ﻟﻪ. ذﻛﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎل ذﻟﻚ:

17343- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺑﺸﺎر ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺳﻔﻴﺎن، ﻋﻦ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ، ﻋﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺒﻴﺮ، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎس، ﻗﺎل: ﻣﺎ زال إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﻔﺮ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻣﺎت " =  ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪوﱞ ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ."

17344- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ اﺑﻦ وﻛﻴﻊ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ أﺑﻲ، ﻋﻦ ﺳﻔﻴﺎن، ﻋﻦ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ، ﻋﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺒﻴﺮ، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎس، ﻗﺎل: ﻣﺎ زال إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﻔﺮ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻣﺎت =  ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ

17345- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ اﻟﺤﺎرث ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺳﻔﻴﺎن، ﻋﻦ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﺑﻦ أﺑﻲ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ، ﻋﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺒﻴﺮ، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎس، ﻗﺎل: ﻟﻢ ﻳﺰل إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﻔﺮ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻣﺎت، ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت ﻟﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﻔﺮ ﻟﻪ

17346- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ اﻟﻤﺜﻨﻰ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﺒﺪ ﷲ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ ﻣﻌﺎوﻳﺔ، ﻋﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎس: "وﻣﺎ ﻛﺎن اﺳﺘﻐﻔﺎر إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ إﻻ  ﻣﻮﻋﺪة وﻋﺪﻫﺎ إﻳﺎه ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"، ﻳﻌﻨﻲ: اﺳﺘﻐﻔﺮ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎن ﺣﻴﺎ، ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت أﻣﺴﻚ ﻋﻦ اﻻﺳﺘﻐﻔﺎر ﻟﻪ

17347- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ ﻣﻄﺮ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ اﻟﻀﺒﻲ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ أﺑﻮ ﻋﺎﺻﻢ وأﺑﻮ ﻗﺘﻴﺒﺔ ﻣﺴﻠﻢ ﺑﻦ ﻗﺘﻴﺒﺔ، ﻗﺎﻻ ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺷﻌﺒﺔ، ﻋﻦ اﻟﺤﻜﻢ، ﻋﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻫﺪ، ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"، ﻗﺎل: ﻟﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت

17348- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ اﻟﻤﺜﻨﻰ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﻌﻔﺮ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺷﻌﺒﺔ، ﻋﻦ اﻟﺤﻜﻢ، ﻋﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻫﺪ، ﻣﺜﻠﻪ

17349- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮو ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ أﺑﻮ ﻋﺎﺻﻢ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻴﺴﻰ، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ أﺑﻲ ﻧﺠﻴﺢ، ﻋﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻫﺪ: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ "، ﻗﺎل: ﻣﻮﺗﻪ وﻫﻮ ﻛﺎﻓﺮ

17350- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ اﺑﻦ وﻛﻴﻊ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ أﺑﻲ، ﻋﻦ ﺷﻌﺒﺔ. ﻋﻦ اﻟﺤﻜﻢ، ﻋﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻫﺪ، ﻣﺜﻠﻪ. ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ اﺑﻦ أﺑﻲ ﻏﻨﻴﺔ، ﻋﻦ أﺑﻴﻪ، ﻋﻦ ...... اﻟﺤﻜﻢ: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"، ﻗﺎل: ﺣﻴﻦ ﻣﺎت وﻟﻢ ﻳﺆﻣﻦ

17352- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ اﻟﻤﺜﻨﻰ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ أﺑﻮ ﺣﺬﻳﻔﺔ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺷﺒﻞ، ﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﺮو ﺑﻦ دﻳﻨﺎر: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"، ﻣﻮﺗﻪ وﻫﻮ ﻛﺎﻓﺮ

17353- ..... ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻤﺮو ﺑﻦ ﻋﻮن ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻫﺸﻴﻢ، ﻋﻦ ﺟﻮﻳﺒﺮ، ﻋﻦ اﻟﻀﺤﺎك ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"، ﻗﺎل: ﻟﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت

17354- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺑﺸﺮ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ، ﻋﻦ ﻗﺘﺎدة: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"، ﻟﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺮﻛﻪ = "ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"

17355- ﺣﺪﺛﺖ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺑﻦ اﻟﻔﺮج ﻗﺎل، ﺳﻤﻌﺖ أﺑﺎ ﻣﻌﺎذ ﻳﻘﻮل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎن ﻗﺎل، ﺳﻤﻌﺖ اﻟﻀﺤﺎك ﻳﻘﻮل ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ: "وﻣﺎ ﻛﺎن اﺳﺘﻐﻔﺎر إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ"، ﻛﺎن إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﺻﻠﻮات ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻳﺮﺟﻮ أن ﻳﺆﻣﻦ أﺑﻮه ﻣﺎ دام ﺣﻴﺎ، ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺮﻛﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ

17356- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ اﻟﻘﺎﺳﻢ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ اﻟﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ ﺣﺠﺎج، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ ﺟﺮﻳﺞ، ﻋﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻫﺪ: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"، ﻗﺎل : ﻣﻮﺗﻪ وﻫﻮ ﻛﺎﻓر

17357- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ أﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ إﺳﺤﺎق ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ أﺑﻮ أﺣﻤﺪ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺳﻔﻴﺎن، ﻋﻦ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﺑﻦ أﺑﻲ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ، ﻋﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺒﻴﺮ، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎس ﻗﺎل: ﻣﺎ زال إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﻔﺮ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻣﺎت، ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪﻮ ﻟﻠﻪ، ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﻔﺮ ﻟﻪ

17358- ...... ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ أﺑﻮ أﺣﻤﺪ ﻗﺎل، أﺑﻮ إﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻞ، ﻋﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺑﺬﻳﻤﺔ، ﻋﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺒﻴﺮ، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎس: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ"، ﻗﺎل: ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت. "فَلَمَّا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ أَنَّهُ عَدُوٌّ لِلّهِ تَبَرَّأَ مِنْهُ" [اﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ: 114] فأمسكوا عن الإستغفار لهم


This last quotation is from the Tafsir of Imam Mujaahid. Again he explained the statement “Ibrahim (alayhi salam) distanced from his father” as his abandoning seeking Istighfaar for his father.

Therefore it is binding upon you to manifest your Tawbah from claiming that Ibrahim (alayhi salam) had not cut off his Wala from his Mushrik father. You must never speak regarding Allah Ta’ala, His Din, His Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) without having proper knowledge concerning the matter in order that you do not increase your punishment in the presence of Allah Ta’ala. Wassalaam!
Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

وكل قول ينفرد به المتأخر عن المتقدمين، ولم يسبقه إليه أحد منهم، فإنه يكون خطأ كما قال الإمام أحمد بن حنبل‏‏

"All statements that had been said by the Mutaakhirrin (latter ones) differing from the Mutaqaddimin (predecessors) and that had not been previously mentioned by any other, is a mistake. As Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah) said:

‏إياك أن تتكلم في مسألة ليس لك فيها إمام‏

"Refrain from speaking about a matter without an Imam!.." (Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majma’ul Fatawa, 21/291)

Uswat'ul Hasana

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 102
Re: A DEBATE REGARDING SILSILAH TAKFIR
« Reply #4 on: 21.09.2017, 02:34:41 PM »
Response of the opponent:

We can stop communicating if you wish. I will briefly point some essencial things out in shaa Allah.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 01:31:19 +0300, <attawhidenglish@mail.md> wrote:
Bismillah,

We would like to warn you in regards to this discussion. We will not continue to discuss matters with you anymore if you continue responding to our questions with pretext answers and getting rid of them quite easily, since such debate is useless and not beneficial.


I will add more this time in shaa Allah. If this is still not enough for you say it.

You claim that the issue of declaring Takfir upon one is related with the Risalah. We explained this matter in the forum under the heading Silsilah Takfir and also elucidated it by giving Abu Jahl as an example. While not taking your time with them you claim that we issue a Fatwa according to our own logic! Since you claim, it is upon you to prove it.

Ok, let´s start here. Let´s see if the takfeer per se is strongly connected to the asl ad-din.

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab said (Mufīd al-Mustafīd S. 23):

"As a result of [...] ignorance and of the (huge) number of ignorants who talk about this topic (making Takfeer) some Muslims who love the truth got in doubt."

Doubting about the asl ad-din would destroy them, wouldn´t it? The alim called them "Muslims".

Sulaimān b. ʿAbdillāh was asked about a person who did not make Takfeer upon the Mushrik who regarded himself as a Muslim [ad-Durar as-Sanīya 10/169] He said:

"If he doubts about their Kufr, or he is ignorant about that, then it will be shown the proofs to him, if he continues to doubt, then he is a [kafir]..."

Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb said [ad-Durar as-Sanīya 13/49]:

"...and if you know that, these are the tawaghit [...]. They are commonly known. Who ever protects them and critizice those who do not make Takfeer on them (the tawaghit), at least he is a fasiq."

Isḥāq b. ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān said:

"In reality they make Takfeer generally but if they are alone they restrain (from the Takfeer). Their bid´a has found acceptance from our brothers."


So you must point out our mistakes refering to the matter with evidences since by merely stating that we issue a Fatwa according to our logic does not solve the problem.

Exactly. I try to quote the ulema.

Also you must prove with evidences, how you could consider declaring Takfir upon one to not be a matter of Asl’ud Din. Mentioning a Muayyan (specific) example regarding the matter, meaning the quotation from Abu Ya’la does not prove anything.

The Takfeer is without doubt important. In ad-Durar as-Sanīya 2/203 the grandson of Muhammad Ibn abd al-Wahhab stated (explaining the words of his grandfather) that these things (making Takfeer and so on) belong to the matters which complete the Tawheed, but they are not part of the essencial asl ad-din per se.

as for the quotation from Abu Ya’la;

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) quoted views of Abu Ya’la regading the person who insults and slanders Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) from his book “al-Mu’tamad”. We searched for the above mentioned book however we are unable to locate it since it is lost, meaning the book “al’Mutamad’ul Kabir” of Abu Ya’la is neither found as in an inscribed form nor in published form in our age anymore. There is a book of his published as “al-Mu’tamad” which does not contain the above mentioned quotation in it as far as we know. Again we are unable to locate Abu Ya’la’s views concerning the ruling of the one who insults Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) in his published books even though we searched for it. For this reson the sole source for Abu Ya’la’s views concerning the ruling of one who insults Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is the book “as-Sarim’ul Maslul” of Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah). Therefore we will take the information given by Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) in his book “as-Sarim’ul Maslul” regarding Abu Ya’la’s views concerning the ruling of the one who insults Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) in hand and try to explain the matter as much as we can Inshallah. Tawfiq (success) is from Allah Ta’ala.

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) right after quoting the above mentioned quotation stated:


ويجب أن يعلم أن القول بأن كفر الساب في نفس الأمر إنما هو لاستحلاله السب. زلة منكرة وهفوة عظيمة ويرحم الله القاضي أبا يعلي قد ذكر في غير موضع ما. يناقض ما قاله هنا

“It is necessary to know that, the statement Kufr of the one whose Sabb (insult) leans upon his Istihlaal (make it Haalal i.e., permissible) inthe matter itself is a Zallah (slip)  Munkar (evil) and a great mistake. May Allah have mercy upon Qadhi Aba Ya’la, in other places stated the opposite that which he stated here.” (Ibnu Taymiyyah, as-Sarim’ul Maslul, 515)

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) continued up until he said the following regarding the same matter:


فمن قال بلسانه كلمة الكفر من غير حاجة عامدا لها عالما بأنها كلمة كفر. فإنه يكفر بذلك ظاهرا وباطنا ولا يجوز أن يقال: إنه في الباطن يجوز أن يكون. مؤمنا ومن قال ذلك فقد مرق من الإسلام

“So whoever states -with his tongue- the statement of Kufr wihout a need (such as Ikrah); states the statement of Kufr intentionally and knowingly then he becomes Kafir with it both Dhaahir (outwardly) and Baatin (inwardly). It is not permissible to say: “It is permissible for he to be a Mu’min (believer) in Baatin.” Whoever says it, slips off from the Islam.” (Ibnu Taymiyyah, as-Sarim’ul Maslul, 437)

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) also said:


وأيضا، فهؤلاء القائلون بقول جهم والصالحي، قد صرحوا بأن سب الله ورسوله، والتكلم بالتثليث، وكل كلمة من كلام الكفر، ليس هو كفرًا في الباطن، ولكنه دليل في الظاهر على الكفر، ويجوز مع هذا أن يكون هذا الساب الشاتم في الباطن عارفًا بالله، موحدًا له، مؤمنا به، فإذا أقيمت عليهم حجة بنص أو إجماع أن هذا كافر باطنًا وظاهرًا، قالوا‏:‏ هذا يقتضي أن ذلك مستلزم للتكذيب الباطن، وأن الإيمان يستلزم عدم ذلك، فيقال لهم‏:‏ معنا أمران معلومان‏.

أحدهما‏:‏ معلوم بالاضطرار من الدين‏

والثاني‏:‏ معلوم بالاضطرار من أنفسنا عند التأمل‏

أما الأول‏:‏ فإنا نعلم أن من سب الله ورسوله طوعًا بغير كره، بل من تكلم بكلمات الكفر طائعًا غير مكره، ومن استهزأ بالله وآياته ورسوله، فهو كافر باطنًا وظاهرًا، وأن من قال‏:‏ إن مثل هذا قد يكون في الباطن مؤمنًا بالله وإنما هو كافر في الظاهر، فإنه قال قولاً معلوم الفساد بالضرورة من الدين‏.‏ وقد ذكر الله كلمات الكفار في القرآن، وحكم بكفرهم واستحقاقهم الوعيد بها، ولو كانت أقوالهم الكفرية بمنزلة شهادة الشهود عليهم، أو بمنزلة الإقرار الذي يغلط فيه المقر، لم يجعلهم الله من أهل الوعيد بالشهادة التي قد تكون صدقًا، وقد تكون كذبًا، بل كان ينبغي ألا يعذبهم إلا بشرط صدق الشهادة، وهذا كقوله تعالى‏‏

{‏لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلاَثَةٍ‏}‏ ‏[‏المائدة‏:‏73‏]

‏{‏لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ‏}‏ [‏المائدة‏:‏72‏]‏ وأمثال ذلك


“Also those who imitate the words of the Jahm and Salihi say: Surely cursing Allah Ta’ala and His Rasul (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), expressing the trinity and uttering all the Kufr type words among the Kufr statements are not (in reality) Kufr in Baatin. However it is an evidence in the Dhaahir upon its Kufr. It is permissible along with this that the individual, who insults and speaks ill; in the Baatin be an Aarif (knower) of Allah, a Muwahhid for Him and a Mu’min in Him. When Hujjah (proof) with Nass (textual proof) or Ijmaa (consensus) are established upon these individuals that he is Kafir in Baatin and in Dhaahir, they said: This would lead to it necessiating Takzib (denial) in the Baatin, and the Imaan (faith) necessitates lack of Takzib.”

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) continued until he said to them:

“Surely we know that whoever insults Allah Ta’ala and His Rasul (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) voluntarliy without coercion, rather
whoever speaks with Kufr words without submitting to a Mukrah (one who coerces), whoever mocks Allah Ta’ala, His Ta’ala’s Ayaat (pl. Ayah; Qur’anic verses) and His Rasul (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) then this individual is Kafir in Baatin and in Dhaahir. Whoever states that an individual as such can sometimes be Mu’min in Allah in the Baatin and he is Kafir in the Dhaahir, then surely this individual stated a statement that is necessarily known in Din as Fasaad (corruption). Allah Ta’ala had mentioned the statements of the Kuffar (pl. Kafir; disbelievers) in the Qur’an and had given the Hukm (ruling) of their Kufr and their deserving the Wa’id (threat) with these statements. Even if their Kufr statements were on the same level of the mistake of those who is mistaken in their Shahaadah (testimony) while they were witnessing upon them or on the same level of the mistake of those who are mistaken in their Iqraar (uttering) while they uttered; Allah would not have made them Ahl (people) of Wa’id with a probable Shahaadah of either truthful (correct) or lie (false). On the contrary He Ta’ala would have required punishing them with the condition that this Shahaadah is truthful. This is like the statement of Allah Ta’ala:


لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلاَثَةٍ
“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity.” (al-Ma'idah 5/73);

‏لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ
“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is Isa the son of Maryam.” (al-Ma'idah 5/17; al-Ma'idah 5/72)

and other similar Ayaat.” (Majmu’ul Fatawa, 7/557-558)

As it is seen in these statements he (rahimahullah) considered this view that which attributed to Abu Ya’la, meaning the claim that the person who insults the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa salaam) and states any other Kufr statement can be Kafir in Dhaahir and a Mu’min in Baatin i.e. in the presence of Allah; as a Kufr I’tiqaad (creed) which opposes the Asl (fundamental) of Islam that are known by Dhahurah (necessity) that which takes one out of the fold of Islam.


Yes, exactly. Did you get the point? Saying that a person who make Kufr can be a Muslim in Batin and a kafir in Dhahir is the same as vice versa. But Abu Ya´la neither made the Takfeer in Dhahir nor in Batin (according to his text mentioned above).

However the statements of Abu Ya’la regarding the matter are in contradiction with one another and his views that oppose the above mentioned quotation can be found in his other books. At the end, the matter is regarding the declaration of the Takfir of Abu Ya’la who is a Muslim in Asl (origin) who already died and there is no way and opportunity to find out the reality of his opinion from his own stataments. In such condition without knowing exactly what he said, what he meant and what he claimed, Takfir can not be declared and performed upon a Muslim in Asl.

This is your interpretation of the masalah.

In short, Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) not declaring Takfir upon Abu Ya’la does not indicate that Ibnu Taymiyyah did not consider the statement itself as a Kufr and that Ibnu Taymiyyah did not declare Takfir upon a person who had Kufr I’tiqaad. It is because Takfir having principles, conditions and barriers is something other than ruling a statement being a Kufr statement. There could be many possibilities such as he might have repented from it.

Yes, but it is also not stated that he would not restrain (from the Takfeer) if nothing else reached him.

The fact that being Abu Ya’la had not been declared Takfir upon does not indicate that the statement itself is not a Kufr statement. Unlike some whose claim, being Abu Ya’la had not been declared Takfir upon, does not indicate that there is Ikhtilaaf (disagreement) in the most open matters of Din, Jahl (ignorance) and Ta’wil () being an Udhr (excuse) ) in the most open matters of Din.

Get the point. It´s clear that the insult is Kufr which will lead to apostasy. We are not debating about this fact. We are also not debating about the fact that restraining from the Takfeer is not Kufr per se. It is. But the excuser himself can be excused.

Especially with such a Muayyan matter that may carry many possibilities, their attempt to declare Takfir upon Ibnu Taymiyyah due to him not declaring Takfir upon a Kafir is an example of pure Jahl for those who do not even comprehend the reality of the matter. In sum, not declaring Takfir upon a Muayyan person due to his statement does not indicate not giving the Hukm of Kufr to his statement. One who comprehends the reality of this matter would easily comprehend many other incidents by using the same methodology. Wallahu A’lam!

Aha.

Sahnun (rahimahullah) among the Ashaab of Imam Malik (rahimahullah) stated the following regarding the one who insults Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam):


أجمع العلماء أَنَّ شاتمَ النبيِّ - صلى الله عليه وسلم - المتنقِّصَ له كافرٌ، والوعيدُ جارٍ عليه بعذاب الله له، وحكمه عند الأمَّة: القتل، ومن شكَّ في كفرِه وعذابِه كفَر

“The Ulamaa made Ijmaa (consensus) upon the one who censures the Nabi (sallallahu alyhi wa sallam) by insulting him is Kafir and that the threat in regards to punishment of Allah is valid upon him. His Hukm (ruling) in the presence of the Ummah (nation of Islam) is death. Whoever doubts regarding his Kufr and his punishment is (also) Kafir.” (Qadhi Iyadh, ash-Shifa, 2/312)

So what befits the people is to follow the Asl and not follow the Mutashabih (allegorical, unclear) statements and not attempt to Takhsis (restrict) the clear Nass with the statements of people. However unfortunately, people who have no fear of Allah, in order to legalize their performance and deeds so that they have an easy life that which does not contain Takfir, enmity; waterdown even the most clear matters. Their supposed aim is stating that even there is Ikhtilaaf concerning the matter of insulting Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) then there are more probes for Ikhtilaaf to exist in other matters.

Do they claim –such by merely taking a statement of Abu Ya’la who is taken account in his grave- that they can invalidate all the Nass which indicate respect to the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is a condition of Iman being valid. What kind of understanding is it? What a sick understanding is it? As Imam Maalik (rahimahullah) said: Once the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is insulted, what would be left for the Ummah (nation of Islam)? We ask Allah Ta’ala to guide them to the truth, if this is not the case then we ask Allah Ta’ala to take them in account in the way they deserve, which would more likely happen.

After all these explanations we can get back to our topic. So if you consider one statement of a single scholar to be sufficient in order to solve every problem then how could you explain many statements of Muhammad bin Abd’il Wahhab (rahimahullah) and other scholars that which clearly state the declaration of Takfir of the Mushrikin is among Asl’ud Din and the call of all the Prophets? How could you gather these statements with the above mentioned quotation of Abu Ya’la?

Moreover when we say that declaring Takfir upon the Mushrikin is among the matters of Asl’ud Din, we do not say that knowing the word K-F-R or words that are derived from it such as Kaffara-Yukaffiru-Takfir is from matters of Asl’ud Din.

What we say regarding this matter is the same -since you do not consider Jahl as an Udhr in Tawhid- as your response to your opponents who say that Tawhid and Shirk are Shari usage of the terms and their content can only be known by the Shari’ah.

Once a person knows Kufr and Shirk and then rejects them, he will distance from the people of Kufr and Shirk by the Fitrah (nature); he will know that the people of Kufr and Shirk are not upon the right way and that they are not upon the Din of Allah Ta’ala. This is what we mean when we say Takfir and we do not mean all the rulings regarding Takfir and the punishments related it to be known.


Let´s point out the last.

Once a person knows Kufr and Shirk and then rejects them

This is asl ad-din: The rejection! This is the minimum of being one of the hunafa. You have to recognize that Shirk is wrong. Calling the polytheist a polytheist or a kafir or whatelse is the next step which can be only known through revelation.

You did not respond to our questions that we directed to you regarding Ibrahim (alayhi salam). Did Ibrahim (alayhi salam) distance from his father before Azar died? Did Ibrahim (alayhi salam) continue his Wala with his father? For what reason did Ibrahim (alayhi salam) continue his Wala with his father even though he distanced himself from the Mushrikin? If you do not answer these questions then do not bother to write anything to us, in order not to waste our precious time. As for what you quoted from Ibnu Jarir at-Tabari (rahimahullah), he mentioned it while listing the different views concerning the Ayah.

There are two different views narrated from the Mufassirin concerning the statement "Ibrahim dissociated himself from him" in the Ayah. The first view is that Ibrahim (alayhi salam) abandoned to seek forgiveness for his father when he realized that his father Azar died as a Mushrik.

The second view is that this incident will take place on Yawm’ul Qiyamah (the Doomsday) and that when Azar comes across Ibrahim (alayhi salam), Azar would turn into a hyena. Imam Tabari preferred the first view and in order to declare his preference, he stated the above mentioned quotation. Meaning Ibrahim (alayhi salam) distancing from his father is his abandoning to seek Istighfaar (forgiveness) for him. Therefore Ibrahim (alayhi salam) being distant from his father does not mean that Ibrahim (alayhi salam) continued his Walayah (friendship) in the I’tiqaadi point of view with his father and that Ibrahim (alayhi salam) had not cut his relationship with his father until Azar died. We are going to quote statements of the Mufassirin that which indicate this meaning from the related part of Tafsir of Tabari. If you know Arabic you might check them out:


أﻫﻞ اﻟﺘﺄوﻳﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺄوﻳﻞ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ." ﻗﺎل ﺑﻌﻀﻬﻢ: ﻣﻌﻨﺎه: ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ ﺑﻤﻮﺗﻪ ﻣﺸﺮكﺎﺑﺎﻟﻠﻪ، ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ، وﺗﺮك اﻻﺳﺘﻐﻔﺎر ﻟﻪ. ذﻛﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎل ذﻟﻚ:

17343- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺑﺸﺎر ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺳﻔﻴﺎن، ﻋﻦ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ، ﻋﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺒﻴﺮ، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎس، ﻗﺎل: ﻣﺎ زال إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﻔﺮ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻣﺎت " =  ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪوﱞ ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ."

17344- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ اﺑﻦ وﻛﻴﻊ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ أﺑﻲ، ﻋﻦ ﺳﻔﻴﺎن، ﻋﻦ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ، ﻋﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺒﻴﺮ، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎس، ﻗﺎل: ﻣﺎ زال إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﻔﺮ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻣﺎت =  ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ

17345- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ اﻟﺤﺎرث ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺳﻔﻴﺎن، ﻋﻦ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﺑﻦ أﺑﻲ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ، ﻋﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺒﻴﺮ، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎس، ﻗﺎل: ﻟﻢ ﻳﺰل إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﻔﺮ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻣﺎت، ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت ﻟﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﻔﺮ ﻟﻪ

17346- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ اﻟﻤﺜﻨﻰ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﺒﺪ ﷲ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ ﻣﻌﺎوﻳﺔ، ﻋﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎس: "وﻣﺎ ﻛﺎن اﺳﺘﻐﻔﺎر إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ إﻻ  ﻣﻮﻋﺪة وﻋﺪﻫﺎ إﻳﺎه ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"، ﻳﻌﻨﻲ: اﺳﺘﻐﻔﺮ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎن ﺣﻴﺎ، ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت أﻣﺴﻚ ﻋﻦ اﻻﺳﺘﻐﻔﺎر ﻟﻪ

17347- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ ﻣﻄﺮ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ اﻟﻀﺒﻲ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ أﺑﻮ ﻋﺎﺻﻢ وأﺑﻮ ﻗﺘﻴﺒﺔ ﻣﺴﻠﻢ ﺑﻦ ﻗﺘﻴﺒﺔ، ﻗﺎﻻ ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺷﻌﺒﺔ، ﻋﻦ اﻟﺤﻜﻢ، ﻋﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻫﺪ، ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"، ﻗﺎل: ﻟﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت

17348- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ اﻟﻤﺜﻨﻰ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﻌﻔﺮ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺷﻌﺒﺔ، ﻋﻦ اﻟﺤﻜﻢ، ﻋﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻫﺪ، ﻣﺜﻠﻪ

17349- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮو ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ أﺑﻮ ﻋﺎﺻﻢ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻴﺴﻰ، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ أﺑﻲ ﻧﺠﻴﺢ، ﻋﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻫﺪ: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ "، ﻗﺎل: ﻣﻮﺗﻪ وﻫﻮ ﻛﺎﻓﺮ

17350- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ اﺑﻦ وﻛﻴﻊ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ أﺑﻲ، ﻋﻦ ﺷﻌﺒﺔ. ﻋﻦ اﻟﺤﻜﻢ، ﻋﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻫﺪ، ﻣﺜﻠﻪ. ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ اﺑﻦ أﺑﻲ ﻏﻨﻴﺔ، ﻋﻦ أﺑﻴﻪ، ﻋﻦ ...... اﻟﺤﻜﻢ: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"، ﻗﺎل: ﺣﻴﻦ ﻣﺎت وﻟﻢ ﻳﺆﻣﻦ

17352- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ اﻟﻤﺜﻨﻰ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ أﺑﻮ ﺣﺬﻳﻔﺔ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺷﺒﻞ، ﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﺮو ﺑﻦ دﻳﻨﺎر: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"، ﻣﻮﺗﻪ وﻫﻮ ﻛﺎﻓﺮ

17353- ..... ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻤﺮو ﺑﻦ ﻋﻮن ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻫﺸﻴﻢ، ﻋﻦ ﺟﻮﻳﺒﺮ، ﻋﻦ اﻟﻀﺤﺎك ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"، ﻗﺎل: ﻟﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت

17354- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺑﺸﺮ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ، ﻋﻦ ﻗﺘﺎدة: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"، ﻟﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺮﻛﻪ = "ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"

17355- ﺣﺪﺛﺖ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺑﻦ اﻟﻔﺮج ﻗﺎل، ﺳﻤﻌﺖ أﺑﺎ ﻣﻌﺎذ ﻳﻘﻮل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎن ﻗﺎل، ﺳﻤﻌﺖ اﻟﻀﺤﺎك ﻳﻘﻮل ﻓﻲ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ: "وﻣﺎ ﻛﺎن اﺳﺘﻐﻔﺎر إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ"، ﻛﺎن إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﺻﻠﻮات ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻳﺮﺟﻮ أن ﻳﺆﻣﻦ أﺑﻮه ﻣﺎ دام ﺣﻴﺎ، ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺮﻛﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ

17356- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ اﻟﻘﺎﺳﻢ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ اﻟﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ ﺣﺠﺎج، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ ﺟﺮﻳﺞ، ﻋﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻫﺪ: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺮأ ﻣﻨﻪ"، ﻗﺎل : ﻣﻮﺗﻪ وﻫﻮ ﻛﺎﻓر

17357- ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ أﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ إﺳﺤﺎق ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ أﺑﻮ أﺣﻤﺪ ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺳﻔﻴﺎن، ﻋﻦ ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﺑﻦ أﺑﻲ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ، ﻋﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺒﻴﺮ، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎس ﻗﺎل: ﻣﺎ زال إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﻔﺮ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻣﺎت، ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪﻮ ﻟﻠﻪ، ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﻔﺮ ﻟﻪ

17358- ...... ﻗﺎل، ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ أﺑﻮ أﺣﻤﺪ ﻗﺎل، أﺑﻮ إﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻞ، ﻋﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺑﺬﻳﻤﺔ، ﻋﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺒﻴﺮ، ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎس: "ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻪ أﻧﻪ ﻋﺪو ﻟﻠﻪ"، ﻗﺎل: ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻣﺎت. "فَلَمَّا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ أَنَّهُ عَدُوٌّ لِلّهِ تَبَرَّأَ مِنْهُ" [اﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ: 114] فأمسكوا عن الإستغفار لهم


This last quotation is from the Tafsir of Imam Mujaahid. Again he explained the statement “Ibrahim (alayhi salam) distanced from his father” as his abandoning seeking Istighfaar for his father.

Therefore it is binding upon you to manifest your Tawbah from claiming that Ibrahim (alayhi salam) had not cut off his Wala from his Mushrik father. You must never speak regarding Allah Ta’ala, His Din, His Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) without having proper knowledge concerning the matter in order that you do not increase your punishment in the presence of Allah Ta’ala. Wassalaam!


Read again my last mails. I never stated that Ibrahim (alayhi Salam) did not distance from is father as it is necessary to fullfill the asl ad-din. My example should only show that the meaning of the word "bara´a" does not involve the Takfeer per se. Otherwise you have to connect the Takfeer to the full meaning of bara´a which cannot be as shown in the stated interpretation above.

Another e-mail that he sent right after the one above:

I did a mistake in my last mail. I wrote: Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb said [ad-Durar as-Sanīya 13/49]: "...and if you know that, these are the tawaghit [...]. They are commonly known. Who ever protects them and critizice those who do not make Takfeer on them (the tawaghit), at least he is a fasiq." I wanted to write: Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb said [ad-Durar as-Sanīya 13/49]: "...and if you know that, these are the tawaghit [...]. They are commonly known. Who ever protects them and critizice those who make Takfeer on them (upon the tawaghit), at least he is a fasiq."

Bismillah, The following is the last e-mail we sent him

We are sad to inform you that you do not follow the guideline of the manners of debating Islamically. If you are going to continue to write to us in this manner you should not bother yourself to write and do not waste our precious time. You keep repeating yourself without responding to the questions we directed to you. Still you –probably intentionally- do not come to the Asl of the matters. Once you speak about the Asl you most likely have to reject your own Da’wah.

You do not need to quote the same statements of the scholars repeatedly. If you want to debate the matter on the basis of statements
of the scholars -which is incorrect- you should start with explaining the quotes from scholars regarding Takfir being from Asl’ud Din so that there will be no contradiction between the statements of scholars and your Da’wah. Otherwise, there is no benefit in quoting the statements of this and that scholar. The reason being, it does not suit the manner of Ilm. That is staging as if there is contradiction between the statements of the scholars. If that ever happens to you then know that it is your shortcoming of comprehending the matter and not because of the contradiction in the statements per se. The Asl regarding the matter is debating matters in the guidance of Usoul with the Shar’i evidences.

As you would easily remember, we asked you the following question and you responded by saying:

Lastly, what is the Dalil (evidence) in Din; Nass (textual proof) and Ijmaa (consensus) or statements of the Ulamaa?

Nass and consensus, not the single statement of a alim.

We asked you about the evidences and you responded by quoting a statement from this and that scholar –regardless of who it is- whose statement is not a Hujjah (proof) in Shair’ah. We offer you to debate over the matter based on Usoul and the Nusus (pl. Nass; textual proofs) then we may focus on the statements of the scholars. Even though you yourself confess that, a statement of a scholar is not a Hujjah you respond to questions directed to you by quoting Mutashabih (allegorical) statements of the scholars and not bringing any evidence and not explaining the Usoul. So be loyal to what you state then bring evidences for what you believe and explain your Usoul, explain the differences between you and our Usoul with Shar’i evidences.

We manifested our belief regarding the matter in the thread
“The Issue of Silsilah Takfir” in the forum by following the hyperlink.

We do not like debating issues with the people. If you possess the Ilm in order to refute us, it is binding upon you to do so. If you do not
possess the Ilm in order to refute us then let us know, who is the source of your knowledge or even better option let him debate and refute us.

As for the statement of Abu Ya’la, you skipped it without letting us know your belief and thoughts. Do you really believe that this is the manner of debating? Is this how you respond and refute your opponent in a debate? Is this the way you consider responding to your opponent with Ilm?

You should explain to us how do you invalidate “the Ijmaa regarding insulting Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) being Kufr and the one who does not declare Takfir upon him being Kafir himself” by quoting a statement that which stated for Muayyan (specific) occurrence from a scholar whose statement is not a Hujjah in Shari’ah? How do you extract evidence from it?

Especially when Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) explicitly expressed that the one who utters a Kufr statement is Kafir in both the Dhaahir and the Baatin; how could he invalidate and not apply this general Hukm (ruling) for Abu Ya’la? Can you explain this matter to us?

As for what you wrote regarding Ibrahim (alayhi salam); it is a disaster. What do you say: Did not Ibrahim (alayhi salam) declare Takfir upon his father? Did he (alayhi salam) consider his father Azar as Muslim? We are asking because you stated the following in your last e-mail:


My example should only show that the meaning of the word "bara´a" does not involve the Takfeer per se.

If you do not make Tawbah from this and other views, we may take the
debate to the forum and post it.

So from now on, if you are going to write to us, do explain the Usoul
of the matter in this manner of debating.

If you accept, the fact that an individual who does not know Kufr cannot be accounted as Muslim then you must also accept the fact that an individual who does not know a Kafir as a Kafir cannot be accounted as Muslim. It is because an individual who knows Shirk is something bad however if he does not recognize it being Shirk then he does not know the Shirk. So both cases are the same. This is the point you need to explain to us. Your manner is no different than those who claim Jahl (ignorance) in Shirk Akbar (Major Shirk) is an Udhr (excuse).


[This is what we call every opponent to and this is not limited with this individual. Anyone who intends to debate with us regarding the matters of Takfir and other matters should debate us with a clear Usoul. There is no benefit for anyone whose intention and whose belief in terms of what he defends is unknown.]

At this point our opponent ended the debate, withdrew without answering these questions and stated the following:

As-salamu alaykum,

I suppose we should continue our debate later on. I have to withdraw at the moment (personal reasons). I thank you for your  answer. I know this is not the perfect end but I have to withdraw now. I understand that you want to get the exact answers before communicating. I will consider this next time.

Wassalam.


Those who want to draw a lesson from this, should do so! Akhiru da’wana an’il hamdu lillahi Rabb’il alamin...
Shaykh’ul Islam Ibnu Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

وكل قول ينفرد به المتأخر عن المتقدمين، ولم يسبقه إليه أحد منهم، فإنه يكون خطأ كما قال الإمام أحمد بن حنبل‏‏

"All statements that had been said by the Mutaakhirrin (latter ones) differing from the Mutaqaddimin (predecessors) and that had not been previously mentioned by any other, is a mistake. As Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah) said:

‏إياك أن تتكلم في مسألة ليس لك فيها إمام‏

"Refrain from speaking about a matter without an Imam!.." (Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majma’ul Fatawa, 21/291)

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
914 Views
Last post 06.06.2015, 12:03:08 AM
by Ummah
0 Replies
670 Views
Last post 28.09.2015, 02:16:49 AM
by Ummah
8 Replies
3030 Views
Last post 09.11.2015, 01:00:52 AM
by Fahm'us Salaf
1 Replies
1199 Views
Last post 30.10.2015, 08:54:27 PM
by Ummah
3 Replies
863 Views
Last post 11.08.2017, 02:40:20 AM
by Julaybib
0 Replies
626 Views
Last post 15.08.2017, 05:52:43 PM
by Julaybib
0 Replies
456 Views
Last post 15.10.2017, 08:52:26 PM
by Ummah
0 Replies
533 Views
Last post 12.11.2017, 06:26:04 PM
by Ummah
1 Replies
600 Views
Last post 01.04.2018, 04:07:31 PM
by Fahm'us Salaf
2 Replies
469 Views
Last post 20.05.2019, 04:56:47 AM
by Izhâr'ud Dîn