TAKFÎR: IS IT FROM ASL’UD DÎN IN THE ERA OF FATRAH?

[Izhâr'ud Dîn]

TAKFÎR
IS IT FROM ASL’UD DÎN IN THE ERA OF FATRAH?

Prepared by: Abdulhakim Hanif

Allâh Subhânahu wa Taâlâ stated,

﴿وَإِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ مِنْ ظُهُورِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ وَأَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَى أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ قَالُوا بَلَى شَهِدْنَا أَنْ تَقُولُوا يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ إِنَّا كُنَّا عَنْ هَذَا غَافِلِينَ. أَوْ تَقُولُوا إِنَّمَا أَشْرَكَ آبَاؤُنَا مِنْ قَبْلُ وَكُنَّا ذُرِّيَّةً مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ أَفَتُهْلِكُنَا بِمَا فَعَلَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ.﴾

“And (remember) when your Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants and made them testify of themselves (saying to them), “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes! We have testified.” Lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Verily, we have been unaware of this.” Or (lest) you say, “It was only that our fathers associated (others in worship) with Allâh before, and we were but descendants after them. Then would You destroy us for what those who follow falsehood have done?”
(al-A’râf 7/172-173)

In your article regarding Silsilah Takfeer, someone asks:

If Takfeer is from the Asl’ud Deen, then someone who lives in the era of Fatrah has to know this. But it is impossible for this person to know about these issues before the proof of risaalah comes. Allah Subhanahu wa Taala speaks about the covenant in the verses Araf: 172 – 173, but we did not find Takfeer in any Tafseer.

If a person from the era of Fatrah does not commit Shirk, sees Shirk as something wrong, and accuses the one who commits Shirk with deviancy, is that not enough?

We only see evidences in this regard.

To those who indicate Zayd bin Amr bin Nufayl or Amr bin Abasah as evidence we say:  this means Zayd bin Amr bin Nufayl knew about the nation of Ibraheem, thus he said to the people of Quraysh, “I am the only one from the Millah of Ibraheem.”

What are the most evident indications to perceive that Takfeer is from Aslud Deen? The foundations of the Deen should never change.

[Izhâr'ud Dîn]

TAKFÎR
IS IT FROM ASL’UD DÎN IN THE ERA OF FATRAH?

بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
الحَمْدُ للهِ وَحْدَهُ ، وَالصَّلاة وَالسَّلامُ على مَنْ لا نبيَّ بَعْدَهُ ، وَبَعْدُ

The issue you raise regarding whether the declaration of Takfîr on the Mushrikûn (pl. Mushrik; polytheists) is from Asl’ud Dîn or whether it is an issue that can only be known through the Hujjah of Risâlah (proof of the message) is an issue which is often discussed by some contemporary Bâtil (false) Du’ât (pl. Dâ’î; callers).

Unfortunately, since most people do not have the habit of Tafakkur, or in other words, since they don’t reflect over the issues, they are quickly convinced by the fancy words uttered by these Bâtil Du’ât. Whereas, even with a small amount of knowledge and a mere five-minute reflection on the discussion, its falsehood can be understood.

Now you ask, “What are the most evident indications to perceive Takfeer is from Aslud Deen?” We have provided the clearest proofs for this in our article about the issue termed “Silsilah Takfîr”. After providing the relevant evidence and narrations, we said:

As it is understood from the statements of the Ulamâ who explained based upon the Adillah (pl. of Dalîl; evidences) from the Kitâb, the Sunnah, and the Ijmâ, there are three Ilal (pl. of Illah; reasons) the principle “Whoever does not declare Takfîr of a Kâfir or a Mushrik is Kâfir himself!..” is based upon:

1-   Denying the Nass: In the Kitâb and the Sunnah, who the Kâfir and the Mushrik is was openly described. Therefore, whoever does not give the Hukm of Kâfir to those who carry these descriptions, then this person has denied Allâhu Taâlâ and His Rasûl Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam, and with this, he became Kâfir as well.

2-   Taking the Kuffâr as Awliyâ: The individual who does not declare Takfîr of the Kuffâr and considers them as Muslim made apparent that he is brothers with them in Dîn and that he has not cut the Walâyah relationship with them. The individual who continues to take the Mushrikîn as Awliyâ and as brothers has not actualized the necessities of the Radd (rejection and denial) part of the Kalimat’ut Tawhîd (the Word of Monotheism), La Ilaha Illallâh (there is no deity -worthy of worship- except Allâh).

3-   Not being able to distinguish between Îmân and Kufr, equating Îmân and Kufr: The individual who accounts the Kuffâr and Mushrikîn as Muslim clarifies -with this act of his- that he does not know the difference of Îmân and Kufr, Tawhîd and Shirk. Due to not knowing Îmân and Tawhîd, such person cannot be in the rank of the Muslimîn, meaning, he is a Kâfir akin to those Kuffâr he does not declare Takfîr of.

The proofs that the last two articles are based upon especially show that the Takfîr of the Kuffâr is a matter of Asl’ud Dîn and it is not related to Hujjah of the Risâlah. Therefore, the claim that the one who does not have knowledge of the related Nass and Hujjah is excused is incorrect. This is because the one who does not declare Takfîr upon the Kuffâr has not fulfilled the Asl of Îmân. The person who does not have Îmân in Allâh is Kâfir before and after the Risâlah. The state of the third or the fifth person of the Silsilah is also like this.

Now, the Ilal (pl. Illah; reasons) mentioned here reveal that whether the Hujjah reached or not, declaring Takfîr of the Mushrikûn is from the Asl (foundation) of Îmân and one will never be Mu’min without it. The one who does not declare Takfîr upon the Kuffâr (pl. Kâfir; disbelievers) and takes them as Awliyâ (pl. Walî; allies) and brothers in Dîn has thus revealed that he cannot distinguish between Îmân and Kufr, and hence has not believed.

This issue has nothing to do with the reaching of Hujjah and so on, since such person is someone who does not believe in Allâh. If he had believed in the first place, he would not consider the enemies of Allâh as brothers and would not characterise those who do not believe in Him and those who were His enemies as His friends and devotees.

These are the proofs for what you have asked with regards to Takfîr being from Asl’ud Dîn, meaning, Takfîr being from amongst the issues which are acknowledged without the need for Hujjah of Risâlah, and it being a condition even in the era of Fatrah.

If you or another person claim that these proofs are not indications then you have to disprove these evidences in order to hunt for more apparent ones.

Regarding the other issues you mention, initially we need to clarify that the problem those who mention these issues have is that they talk about the issue without fully recognising the reality of it. In other words, what does “Takfîr is from Asl’ud Dîn” mean?

The scholars have examined the classifications such as Kâfir (disbeliever), Mushrik (polytheist), Munâfiq (hypocrite), Fâsiq (corrupt), Mubtadi (innovator), Mu’min (believer), Muslim and the worldly and hereafter rulings pertaining to these classifications under the heading “Asmâ wa Ahkâm (names and rulings)”.

Undeniably, the Shâri (legislator i.e., Allâh) Himself is the one who determines these names, as well as the Dunyawî (worldly) and Ukhrawî (hereafter related) punishments and rewards to be given to their owners, and nobody has the authority to speak with Mujarrad (abstract) Ijtihâd (making a legal decision in Islâmic Sharî’ah -law- by personal effort and independent interpretation of the legal sources) and Ra’y (intellect and reason) except with a statement from the Shâri.

Consequently, these issues are determined in general by the Sharî’ah, the mind is not included in this. In other words, although there are principles in language that are leaned upon, naming as Kâfir and Mushrik is generally determined by the Shâri and given as a name to a certain group. Their rulings in this world, such as fighting against them, taking their wealth as booty, not eating their slaughter, not taking nor giving inheritance; and again their ruling in the hereafter such as eternally abiding in Jahannam, being deprived of intercession and forgiveness, have been declared with the Hujjah of Risâlah. Today, when we think of declaring Takfîr upon someone, we think of a Takfîr that is shaped with all of these requirements, so when some people hear that “Takfîr is from Asl’ud Dîn, there is no need for Hujjah, this issue is known by nature”; they are surprised and cannot give it a meaning. Whereas, if they had pondered upon it a little, they would not have fallen into this paradox.

While scholars remarked declaring Takfîr upon the Mushrikûn to be comprised in Asl’ud Dîn (the bases of the religion of Islâm) saying it is the common invitation of the prophets, as specified in the relevant article by Hamad bin Atîq and others, they do not suggest the rulings of Takfîr are included in La Ilaha Illallâh as it is currently fixed in the Sharî’ah.

For we know that even though Ibrâhîm Alayh’is Salâm declared his acquittal from the polytheists, he wished forgiveness for his father and hoped that he would be forgiven. Rasûlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam and his companions were also in this situation. Besides, details related to the polytheists such as Jihâd, marriage, inheritance, etc. were revealed much later in the Madanî period. Even classifications such as Mushrik, Kâfir, and Mu’min are like this. After all, these are Arabic names. Similar names exist among the Ahl’ul Kitâb (People of the Book), which are also Hebrew and Syriac names sourced in the Tawrâh (Torah/Old Testament) and the Injîl (Bible/New Testament), originating from the Hujjah of Risâlah. In some Ahâdîth (pl. Hadîth), 124 thousand prophets are mentioned and it is stated in the Qur’ân that every prophet was sent in the tongue of his people. We do not know what these prophets -whom were sent to various nations- named those who do not believe in Allâh and associate partners with Him, and what rulings they declared pertaining to them.

Now, the point to get a grip on is that regardless of whatever name is given to the Mushrik within a tribe, or in a language, and whatever ruling is mentioned pertaining to them, the facts that those who associate partners with Allâh are not on the right path, that they are deviated, that they are enemies of Allâh, that they do not share the same religion and belief as those who believe in Allâh, that they are not allies nor brothers in a religious sense, are in the end common and natural issues which were conveyed in all Sharî’ah’s and it is what is intended when Takfîr is mentioned to be from Asl’ud Dîn.

Whether or not a person has reached Hujjah and whether he calls what he does to be Takfîr or something else, when he believes in Allâh, that Îmân (belief) he has will inspire him, and if the person is a Mu’min (believer), he will act upon it, however, if he is a Kâfir, he will not.

In fact, when it is thought of carefully, the opposite is also valid. Someone who does not believe in Allâh considers the Mu’minûn (pl. Mu’min) deviated, does not consider himself as a follower of the same religion and beliefs, and as a result, he will display Bughd (hatred) towards the Mu’minûn etc…

We even witness this from the Mushrikûn around us, since it is by nature that the one who ascribes himself to a faith manifests Bughd, considers them to be deviated, and severs friendship and brotherhood in terms of faith with those who are not from his faith. This has nothing to do with Hujjah and the like. Hujjah will only elucidate its details; meaning the method it is applied. In this sense, Takfîr is also from Asl’ud Dîn, and al-Walâ wa’l Barâ (friendship and enmity) is from Asl’ud Dîn.

Thereafter, on a global scale the statements of some Bâtil Du’ât as to Takfîr being an Usûlî (methodological) and Fiqhî (jurisprudence related) matter, it not being from Asl’ud Dîn and it being known with Hujjah of Risâlah, and even some presenting al-Walâ wa’l Barâ to be a matter known with Hujjah –if they intend the foundations of friendship and enmity which we have described- has no bases. Likewise, the demagogies of some pertaining to unnecessary questions such as “Did Rasûlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam declare Takfîr upon the Mushrikûn before Risâlah (prophethood)?” are all invalid.

Undoubtedly Rasûlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam and the other Hunafâ (pl. Hanîf; one who does not ascribe partners to Allâh), such as Zayd bin Amr bin Nufayl and his likes, hated Shirk and those who acted upon Shirk and the Hunafâ knew that the Ahl’ush Shirk (People of Shirk) were not advancing in the path of Allâh and that they were deviated. Did they name their people with names such as Kâfir, Mushrik, or the like, or not? It is possible that they did, based on some knowledge and linguistic terms from previous books, and if they did not do so, it does not harm one after fulfilling the essence of the matter. However, if it is intended that Zayd bin Amr and the likes are required to follow some Hujjah left behind by the prophets of old to even be able to manifest Bughd towards the Mushrikûn, then this is Bâtil. Friendship and enmity is a reality in the heart of man, it is from amongst the actions of the heart; these are not things which may be learned, however they are shaped in the heart according to the Îmân and Kufr found in one’s heart.

Just as those who make such claims do not know the religion of Islâm and Tawhîd, they do not recognise people nor do they know human psychology. Perhaps they bring forth such theories without pondering upon them in order to declare some Jamâ’ât (pl. Jamâ’ah; communities) of today Muslim –whom are clearly Kuffâr- or even their own past, or perhaps they may have fabricated such theories while knowing that they are Bâtil. However, regardless of the situation, it is constant that that these are Bâtil both mentally and according to the Sharî’ah.

Similarly, the following words of Abû Muhammad al-Maqdisî (Issâm Muhammad Tâhir al-Barqâwî) which constitutes the main source of Bâtil on these issues either consists of forged words or Haq (true) statements which Bâtil (falsehood) is intended with,

ومن الأخطاء الشائعة في التكفير إطلاق قاعدة ( من لم يكفر الكافر فهو كافر ) دون تفصيل .

وسوء استعمال هذه القاعدة عمّ بلاؤه وطمّ بين كثير من الشباب ، حتى جعلها بعض غلاة المكفرة أصل الدين وشرط صحة الإسلام ، يدور معها الإسلام عندهم وجودا وعدما ، وعقدوا عليها الولاء والبراء ؛ فمن أطلقها وأعملها فهو المسلم الموحد الذي يتولّونه ،ومن خالفهم في بعض جزئياتها عادوه وبرئوا منه وكفّروه ؛ حتى بلغ بهم الأمر أن كفر بعضهم بعضا .. لأنه لا يخلو أن يخالف بعضهم في تكفير بعض الناس ، فيكفر بعضهم بعضا بسبب هذا الخلاف .

ونحن نسأل هؤلاء هنا سؤالا مفاده : إذا كان إطلاق هذه القاعدة على طريقتكم دون تفصيل شرطا لصحة الإسلام ؛ أفيولد الإنسان يعرفه أم يجب عليه تعلمه ؟

فإن قالوا : يولد يعرفه .

فقد عارضوا قوله تعالى : (( والله أخرجكم من بطون أمهاتكم لا تعلمون شيئا )) .

وإن قالوا : يجب تعلمه .

قلنا : متى يجب عليه ذلك ؛ أقبل البلوغ أم بعده ؟ ولا بد من أحد الجوابين .

فإن قالوا : قبله .

خالفوا صريح حديث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( رفع القلم عن ثلاث .. منهم ؛ الصغير حتى يحتلم ) .

وإن قالوا : بعد البلوغ .

قلنا لهم : ضعوا لنا حدا ؛ أيجب عليه مباشرة بعد البلوغ ، أم على التراخي ؟

فإن قالوا : على التراخي .

تناقضوا وأجازوا بقاء الغلام بعد احتلامه على الكفر مدة لا يعرفون حدها ، فلو مات مات على الكفر عندهم .

فإن قالوا : مباشرة .

قلنا : فإنها من المسائل التي تحتاج إلى نظر وبحث وتعلم ودراسة خصوصا في ظل شبهات وتلبيسات مشايخ السوء ، وهذا بحد ذاته يحتاج برهة من الوقت ولو سويعات ؛هذا على أقل تقدير إذ أنتم لم تنتحلوه إلا بعد مدة من الدهر وطويل من البحث ، ولا يجادل في هذا إلا جاهل معاند ، فيلزمهم التسليم به .

وإذا جوّزتم الكفر ولو للحظات لأجل تعلم ذلك ، ولا بد لكم من هذا بعد أن جعلتموه شرطا للإسلام ؛ فقد جوّزتم الكفر بالله تعالى ؛ وقرّرتم أنه لا يصح إسلام أحد بعد بلوغه حتى يكفر بالله ، وصرتم كفارا بذلك ، وإلا فخلوا عنكم المغالاة بهذه القاعدة ، وتعالوا إلى تفصيل أهل العلم فيها .

أما نحن فنقول : أننا ولله الحمد لا نحتكم في ديننا إلا إلى الشرع ، والتكفير كما تقدم حكم شرعي لا يصح إلا بالأدلة الشرعية القطعية الدلالة .

وكما يقول أبو محمد ابن حزم ؛ أن من ظن أنه قد وقع من الدين على ما لم يقع عليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فهو كاذب بل كافر بلا خلاف .

ومن المحال الممتنع عند أهل الإسلام أن يكون قد غفل عليه الصلاة والسلام أن يبين للناس شيئا من أصل دينهم أو مما لا يصح لأحد الإسلام إلا به ، ثم يتفق على إغفال ذلك أو يتعمد عدم ذكره جميع أصحابه من بعده ؛ حتى يتنبه إليه ويدلنا عليه هؤلاء الأشقياء!!!

ولذلك فإننا نقول أن كل شرط ليس في كتاب الله أو سنة نبيه عليه الصلاة والسلام فهو باطل ، وكل قاعدة أو أصل أو قول لم يستند إلى دليل من الشرع فهو رد على صاحبه ..

ولذلك لزم النظر في أصل هذه القاعدة ، وعلى أي دليل من الشرع تستند حتى نضبطها ونعرف حدودها ..

“From amongst the wide-spread mistakes regarding Takfîr is generalizing the principle “Whoever does not Declare Takfîr of a Kâfir Becomes Kâfir Himself” without elaborating.

The abuse of this rule has been a catastrophe which has prevailed and overflowed amongst many from the young people.

So much so that some extreme Takfîrî’s have made this rule Asl’ud Dîn and the validating condition of Islâm. According to them, Islâm revolves pertaining to it being present or absent with it. They also fastened al-Walâ wa’l Barâ to this. Therefore, whoever pronounces it and acts in accordance with it then he is a Muwahhid Muslim (monotheistic believer) whom they befriend, and whoever opposes them in some of its aspects then they display enmity towards him, free themselves from him, and declare Takfîr upon him. The situation became such that some of them declared Takfîr upon others. The reason being that it is inevitable that some of them will disagree with regards to declaring Takfîr upon some people, so because of this disagreement, some of them declare Takfîr on others.

Here, we ask these people a beneficial question, “Without details, if pronouncing this rule is the condition of the validity of Islâm, according to you, then is man born knowing this or is it obligatory for him to attain it?”

If they say, “He knows it by birth.”

Then they have contradicted the statement of Allâhu Taâlâ,

“And Allâh has brought you out from the wombs of your mothers while you know nothing.” (an-Nahl 16/78)

And if they say, “It is obligatory to attain it?”

We would say, “When is it obligatory to attain this; before reaching puberty or after it?” and it is inevitable to give one of two answers.

So if they say, “Before puberty.”

They have opposed the clear Hadîth of the Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam,

“The pen was removed from three…” From amongst them is the child until he reaches puberty.”

And if they say, “After reaching puberty.”

We would tell them, “Draw a line for us; is it obligatory to attain this right after reaching puberty or slowly?”

So if they say, “Slowly.”

Then they have conflicted with themselves and have allowed the young boy after he reaches puberty to stay upon Kufr for a period they do not know its end. So if he were to die, then he has died upon Kufr in their presence.”

If they say, “Right after reaching puberty.”

We would have said, “Without a doubt it is from amongst the issues which require looking and researching and learning and studying, especially in the shadow of doubts and tricks of evil Mashâyikh (pl. Shaykh; religious scholars). In view of the fact that you did not adopt this view except after a period of time and long researching, this itself needs a period of time, even if it is for a few hours -at the least.” Nobody can argue about this except for a stubborn ignorant. Therefore, they have to accept this…

When you allow Kufr even for a certain period of time to learn this, and it is inevitable for you after you have made it a condition of Islâm, then you have allowed disbelieving in Allâhu Taâlâ. You have also decided that the Islâm of anyone who reaches puberty is not valid until he disbelieves in Allâh, and you yourselves have become Kuffâr because of this. If not, then give up the exaggeration of this principle and come to the elaborations of Ahl’ul Ilm (the people of knowledge).

As for us, all praise is due to Allâh, we say that we do not give a ruling in our Dîn (religion) except that we appeal it to the Sharî’ah. As was mentioned above, Takfîr is a Sharî’ah related ruling which is not valid except with definite indicative evidences from the Sharî’ah.

As Abû Muhammad Ibnu Hazm has said that “Whoever claims that he has come to know about something from the Dîn which Rasûlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam did not come to know about, then he is a liar, rather a Kâfir without any Ikhtilâf (disagreement).

According to Ahl’ul Islâm (the people of Islâm, i.e., Muslims), it is an impossible state for the Nabî Alayh’is Salâtu wa’s Salâm to disregard clarifying something to the people regarding their Asl’ud Dîn or something which the Islâm of anyone is not valid except with, again all of his Ashâb (companions) agreeing upon disregarding this or deliberately not mentioning this after him until these wretched people became aware of this and guide us to this!!!

This is why we say that every condition which is not found in Kitâbullâh (the Book of Allâh) or the Sunnah of His Nabî Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam is Bâtil. Any rule, fundamental, or statement which is not based on the Sharî’ah is rejected from its possessor.

Therefore, it is necessary to look at the foundation of this principle and to look at which evidence of the Sharî’ah it is based upon, so that we may use it accurately and know its limits…” (The 30 Pamphlets Regarding Warning from Excessiveness in Takfîr, the eleventh chapter named “Generalizing the Principle ‘Whoever does not Declare Takfîr of a Kâfir Becomes Kâfir Himself’ Without Elaborating”)

Thus, he only focused on the mere utterance of the principle: “Whoever does not Declare Takfîr on a Kâfir is a Kâfir Himself” and attempted to beat around the bush claiming that this principle is not from Asl’ud Dîn due to the fact that nobody can learn this phrase without knowledge –and not based in the truth contained in it!

Although he does not explicitly state it either, by trying to dilute the issue with demagogies -like whether this principle is known by birth or not-, he tries to raise suspicions that this principle may not be from Asl’ud Dîn in the minds of his opponents.

Nonetheless, what he says can be said about all types of Shirk and Kufr, meanwhile reaching the ideology, or the Kufr that ignorance is an excuse with regards to Asl’ud Dîn!

But when focused on the truth not the wordings of this principle and other issues related to Asl’ud Dîn, it becomes apparent that this is an issue present in the Fitrah (human nature), and that all those who have Îmân in their hearts will fulfill these. It is true that Takfîr is a ruling pertaining to the Sharî’ah, however, what is intended here is regarding the details of the Asmâ wa Ahkâm -as was mentioned above.

It is the most fundamental of fundamentals of the Islâmic nation to distance themselves from all religions and their followers except for the Aqîdah of Tawhîd. It is impossible for a person who does not actualize this to be Muslim. This is not a Mujarrad Fiqhî or Shar’î (Sharî’ah related) ruling, rather, it is the bases of Aqîdah itself.

Otherwise, the scholars would not say that the one who does not declare Takfîr upon a Kâfir is a Kâfir and they would not have included this issue in their Aqîdah books. They would have only said that this is the work of the Qâdhî (judge) and Muftî (scholar who gives Fatâwâ; religious verdicts).

Attention should be paid to how these people ignore the I’tiqâdî dimension of the issue and try to deceive the general masses by turning their attention towards the Fiqhî dimension of the issue. Hereby, we wanted to draw attention to al-Maqdîsî and his known work which are the main source of these deviations.

As for the verse of Mîthâq (the Covenant); Our Rabb (Lord) Ta’âlâ asking His slaves, “Am I not your Lord?” and His slaves affirming; this is an affirmation which includes all the issues of Tawhîd.

When a person knows nothing is worthy of being worshipped other than Allâh, he will also know by way of Fitrah that deities other than Him are Bâtil, that those who worship them are not on the right path, and that they are enemies of Allâh.

Since the word is not found in this Âyah, claiming that “Takfîr” is not from Asl’ud Dîn is from amongst the most Bâtil methods of Istidlâl (deriving evidence from a text). From this point of view, almost nothing of Asl’ud Dîn remains, including Tawhîd itself. The reason being, the Âyah (verse) only mentioned that people affirmed the Rubûbiyyah (Divine Lordship) of Allâh.

In the apparent part of the verse, there is no mention of Tawhîd of Allâh in His Ulûhiyyah (Divine nature, to single-out Allâh alone for worship) and His Rubûbiyyah, except for Allâh being the Rabb (Lord) -which is accepted by the adherents of nearly all religions.

This is why some people have claimed that knowing Allâh is al-Khâliq (the Creator) is by means of the Fitrah, and apart from this, knowing Tawhîd’ul Ulûhiyyah (Oneness of the Divine nature, to single-out Allâh alone for worship), and the falsehood of Shirk, etc. are issues only known by means of Hujjah.

These types of perceptions arise from not being able to comprehend the issue for, in the continuation of the Âyah, it is said,
   

أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ قَالُوا بَلَى شَهِدْنَا أَنْ تَقُولُوا يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ إِنَّا كُنَّا عَنْ هَذَا غَافِلِينَ. أَوْ تَقُولُوا إِنَّمَا أَشْرَكَ آبَاؤُنَا مِنْ قَبْلُ وَكُنَّا ذُرِّيَّةً مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ أَفَتُهْلِكُنَا بِمَا فَعَلَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ

“Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes! We have testified.” Lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Verily, we have been unaware of this.” Or (lest) you say, “It was only that our fathers associated (others in worship) with Allâh before, and we were but descendants after them. Then would You destroy us for what those who follow falsehood have done?” (al-A’râf 7/172-173)

As is seen, although the Mîthâq seems to be solely related to affirming the Rubûbiyyah of Allâhu Taâlâ, this Hujjah of Mîthâq which has settled in the human cancels Shirk in all its varieties.

This is because by this means, the Hujjah of the Mushrikûn who imitate their ancestors with regards to Shirk is nullified and these people are blamed for not returning to their Fitrah.

There is no bases for the interpretation some make that the details of Ibâdah is dependent on Hujjah, since it is already implicit in the Fitrah that all types of Kufr and Shirk which eliminate Asl’ud Dîn is Bâtil.

Since it is Kufr to take the Kuffâr as Awliyâ and to equalize Kufr and Islâm by considering them Muslim, then this means that these acts are contradictory to Îmân. If these were not contradicting the fundamentals of Îmân they would not have been Kufr. These would never manifest from someone who believes in Allâh and if they do, then this means there is no Îmân in this person’s heart.

In short, since all of these are parts which involve each other and cannot be separated, people have given their covenant for each issue mentioned in the following phrase of Shaykh Muhammad bin Abd’ul Wahhâb Rahmatullâhi Alayh,

“Aslu Dîn’il Islâm (The essence of the Religion of Islâm) and its Qâ’idah (principles)” consist of two directives:

1. The command of worshipping Allâh Taâlâ alone without associating partners, encouraging this, basing the Muwalât (collaboration) on it, and declaring Takfîr upon him who forsakes it.

2. Warning against Shirk in Ibadâh (worship) to Allâh, being harsh regarding it, basing enmity upon it, and declaring Takfîr upon him who acts upon it.

Distancing from Shirk and the Mushrikûn and declaring Takfîr upon them is from Asl’ud Dîn. The one who says “my Rabb is Allâh” has fulfilled these with his words, and if he utters this with his tongue but does not fulfill it with his deeds, then this means he has betrayed his Mîthâq.

We hope the meaning behind “Takfîr is from Asl’ud Dîn” is understood. Meanwhile, we would like to repeatedly recommend considering a bit of contemplation before speaking about such matters.

Otherwise, if one tries to search for Nass (textual evidence) which is in accordance with his issue word-for-word verbatim, such as searching for Nass with the wording “Takfîr-is-from-Asl'ud-Dîn-even-in-the-era-of-Fatrah”, he will not be able to find it. As a matter of fact, with this method, no evidence will be found for any issue of the Dîn.

Therefore, it is necessary to ponder over the Ilal (pl. Illah; reasons) on which the rulings are based and regarding the meaning of the ruling. In example, what Takfîr is from Asl’ud Dîn means, and after pondering upon and determining its meaning, what aspects of the Dîn may be spoiled without it. Inshâllâh, the truth will be reached if issues are thought through with this method.

Wallâh’u A’lam, Wa’l Hamdulillâhi Rabb’il Âlamîn!..

(Allâh knows best and all praise is due to Allâh, the Lord of the worlds!..)

[Izhâr'ud Dîn]

Conclusion

Recently, the debate and controversy around the issue of whether or not Takfîr is from Asl’ud Dîn has increased. As far as we are concerned, the parties whom discuss this issue take the issue in hand at face value and revolve around the issue without delving in the basic principles mentioned above.

The debates have arrived to the level of whether or not Ibrâhîm Alayh’is Salâm intended “we declare Takfîr upon you” or “we have rejected you” in his statement “كَفَرْنَا بِكُمْ Kafarnâ Bikum” mentioned in Sûrat’ul Mumtahinah, verse 4. Whereas, such discussions have no direct contribution to the issue.

Whether Ibrâhîm Alayh’is Salâm and those with him said “we declare Takfîr upon you” or “we have rejected you”, it really does not matter since the meaning of both are the same. The reason being, a Muslim is not rejected in such a way.

Such an address is only directed to a Kâfir (disbeliever), a person whom Takfîr is declared upon. A person whom Takfîr is not declared upon is not addressed as the following:

إِنَّا بُرَآءُ مِنْكُمْ وَمِمَّا تَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ كَفَرْنَا بِكُمْ وَبَدَا بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمُ الْعَدَاوَةُ وَالْبَغْضَاءُ أَبَدًا حَتَّى تُؤْمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَحْدَهُ

“Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allâh, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever, until you believe in Allâh Alone.” (al-Mumtahinah 60/4)

Although the issue is so apparent, both parties keep bringing linguistic and knowledgeable (!) explanations as evidences against each other. In the Arabic language, the word “كَفَرْنَا  Kafarnâ” means “we have rejected you”. As for the phrase “we declare Takfîr upon you”, it is expressed as “كَفَّرْنَا Kaffarnâ”, an expression which is not used in the Qur’ân. Nonetheless, there is no need for this phrase to be used in the Qur’ân in order for Takfîr to be considered from Asl’ud Dîn. The reason is that Radd and Inkâr (rejection and denial) encompass Takfîr.

As was mentioned previously, what we intend with Takfîr is rejecting an Aqîdah (a creed), attributing it with deviation and perversion from the path of Allâh, and manifesting enmity towards the possessors of this Bâtil ideology, rather than what the name Takfîr and what rulings this name involves.

In this sense, no Muslim, nor Jew or Christian furthermore no one in their right mind would render Takfîr to not be from Asl’ud Dîn, nor would he render the person who does not establish Takfîr to remain a believer.

However, even though this is the case, some irreligious, moreover, some crazy lunatics have emerged who are able to claim that considering the Mushrikûn and idolaters of today as Kuffâr is not from the essentials of the Dîn! These people are Kuffâr, just like those who claim that followers of all faiths are friends and brothers like the adherers of interfaith of religions (unity of religions); the followers of Wahdat’i Wujûd (unity of existence) whom claim that in reality, followers of all faiths worship the same deity; those prattlers whom defend the view of the Musawwibah, claiming followers of all faiths and schools whom work hard trying to attain the truth are “Musîb”, in other terms, have attained the truth; and those who do not declare Takfîr upon such people are Kuffâr. Nobody from amongst the Muslims or even the Ahl’ul Kitâb (people of the book) would doubt regarding the Kufr of such people.

Likewise, nobody who knows the religion and possesses a sound mind would say Takfîr is from Asl’ud Dîn and then imply all the names and rulings regarding Takfîr in the issue, such as calling them ‘Kâfir’ in Arabic, not eating what they slaughter, not inheriting nor giving them inheritance, and claiming that all of these are included in Asl’ud Dîn.

If those who say “Takfîr is from Asl’ud Dîn” do not intend this and those who say that “Takfîr is not from Asl’ud Dîn” do not intend the things we just mentioned above, then what is the meaning and benefit of this discussion? Or is it so that some are trying to defend Kufr ideologies which no follower of any religion would accept and then try to hide this?

As a final point, we have also witnessed this issue being discussed under the title “Is Takfîr from the Fitrah, or is it an Issue Known by Risâlah?” Such a discussion does not exist in the methodology of the Salaf nor found in the works of the Rabbânî scholars (learned men of religion who practice what they know and also preach to others). This is because the fact that a matter is known by Fitrah does not always necessitate ignorance regarding it to be Kufr. For example, it is possible to know the evil of Zinâ (adultery/fornication) and stealing through Fitrah, however, a person who has not received any evidence will not become a Kâfir because he does not know that these acts are Harâm or even evil.

Scholars have collected this issue in their books with the title “It is from Asl’ud Dîn of Islâm to declare Takfîr upon the Mushrikûn”, or sometimes “Whoever does not Declare Takfîr upon a Kâfir is a Kâfir himself”, however, they did not mention it with this title.

Therefore, we hold the opinion that discussions pertaining to Takfîr or other issues related to Tawhîd regarding whether these issues are known intellectually or by Hujjah, or whether Takfîr is known in the era of Fatrah or not are incorrect, such discussions resemble the debate methods of the Ahl’ul Bid’ah (people of innovation) from amongst the Mutakallimûn (philosophers), moreover that these are captions which camouflage the main issue.

At the present time, there aren’t any people whom Hujjah has not reached, so this discussion does not carry any meaning other than obscuring the main issue. The issue is not about determining what is known with the Aql (intellect) and what is known with Naql (narrations); it is concerning knowing what are Usûl’ul Îmân (Foundations of Belief), Usûl’ud Dîn (Foundations of the Religion), and Usûl’ut Tawhîd (Foundations of Tawhîd), which all denote the same meaning.

Al-Walâ wa’l Barâ and its requirement Takfîr, are included in Asl’ul Îmân. Îmân is also an issue known by the Fitrah. However, the main issue here is that the person who does not fulfill Usûl’ul Îmân will not be considered Muslim. Debating whether Takfîr is known by Fitrah or not only benefits when such an intent is revealed.

Can the person who does not declare Takfîr upon the Mushrikûn Kuffâr idolater in the sense that he sees them equal with the Muslimûn, does not consider them deviated, regards his difference with them a disagreement which has a range of diversity or at the most a minor, obscure difference between Ahl’ul Bid’ah and Ahl’us Sunnah, remain a Muslim as is or not?

If the issue is brought up in this method, it will be resolved in a very short period of time, or at least the deviation of the Ahl’ud Dalâlah (people of misguidance) will manifest in a short period of time. There is no use in introducing such a clear subject as a Kalâmî (philosophical) conflict while camouflaging such Bâtil.

What is to be done with someone who asks if Takfîr is from Asl’ud Dîn, whether it is an essential or Wâjib is to ask what he intends by this instead of wasting time with his phrase. When he clarifies his intention, he takes a ruling according to which of the options we explained above he is categorized in.

Declaring Takfîr upon the Mushrikûn, rejecting their beliefs, freeing oneself from them is from amongst the Usûl’ud Dîn which are known by the Fitrah and is from amongst the Wâjib issues of the Dîn necessarily known by the Dîn. This issue is not an obscure issue as some people have claimed. It also is not an issue with existing Ikhtilâf.

The purpose of making this a current issue is clear.

Some people invented these issues in order to not declare Takfîr upon certain individuals and groups, or to not declare Takfîr on their Bâtil past, and to expand their followers based on increasing the number of people they call Muslims. The issue has nothing to do with Fatrah nor Fitrah.

We do not think these people have any other goal than to spread the Kufr of those Kuffâr who ascribe partners to Allâh -which is something known by necessity in the Dîn that everyone knows or at least is able to know, Hujjah regarding it has reached everyone or at the least is able to reach everyone- as something obscure, and an issue open for Ijtihâd, so that they guarantee their Dunyâ.

We hope that this struggle will result in the victory of the truth if these deviated people are asked such clear questions.

Wallâh’u A’lam, Wa’l Hamdulillâhi Rabb’il Âlamîn!..