QUESTIONS REGARDING SILSILAH TAKFÎR

[Izhâr'ud Dîn]

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ

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

Click on the link for the response.

[Izhâr'ud Dîn]

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ

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 Ta’wil 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

Click on the link for the response.

[Izhâr'ud Dîn]

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ

BISMILLAH,
I read your article regarding the Hukm of the one who does not declare Takfir upon a Kafir, within my strength. To begin with you brought Dalil from Abu Hanifa and other scholars. With the statement of Abu Hanifa: The one, who does not declare Takfir upon a Kafir, becomes Kafir himself. I understand that he is speaking about two persons only meaning
1- The person who worships the idols
2- The Hukm of the second person who does not declare Takfir upon him, he is Kafir himself.
Declaring Takfir upon the Mushrikin and the Kuffar is something that is necessary for having Tawhid. For this ruling –to me- there is no need to quote from Abu Hanifa. The question is:
Is there any Dalil or application of the scholars for the third person who says the second person is Kafir or not Kafir? I mean as the fourth person, how and with which Dalil can we determine the Hukm of the third person?
p.s., I am asking because, they confused us in this matter.

Click on the link for the response.

[Izhâr'ud Dîn]

بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

Muhammad bin Abdilwahhab makes takfir of the kharj taghut mentioned in Durar’us 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 Tayamiyya’s words.

This is found in ar Rasail’ush Shakhsiyyah.

How should these be understood?

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

Salam,

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

Click on the link for the response.