دار التوحيد Dr'ul Tawhd

Author Topic: THE SAHBAHS IKHTILF WITH REGARDS TO FIGHTING THE ONES WHOM WITHHELD ZAKH  (Read 311 times)

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid

Quote from:  Question on 15.08.2016, 02:32
Salamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu.

I have a very urgent question:

Did Abu Bakr fight those who did withheld the zakat as apostates or did he kill them as Muwahhid? Did Abu Bakr captivate, the wives and children of those who were killed because of withholding the zakat, as prisoners? And did he take their possessions as Booty? Could you please send the answers and evidences very urgently? The reason being, I had previously read, in more than one place, that they were Murtad. However, the Dai Scholars here in Macedonia and Kosovo say that Abu Bakr fought and killed them while they were Muwahhid. They say that he neither took their possessions as booty, nor did he take their wives and children as prisoners. They also say that he did not use the phrase bear witness that your deceased is in the fire. They claim that the ahadith denote this and bring as evidence the hadith wherein Umar went against Abu Bakr. Meaning, they say that this hadith denotes those who did not give zakat were Muwahhid! What is your knowledge with regards to this issue? Is there any ikhtilaf amongst the scholars regarding this? Meaning, are there scholars who say they are Murtad and others who say they are Muwahhid? Please send a very, very urgent answer in sha Allah.

Quote from: Question on 15.08.2016, 02:32
They say, Umar r.a. did not want to fight the Murtad and went against Abu Bakr, and ask then why didnt Abu Bakr make takfir of Umar?

Quote from: Question on 15.08.2016, 02:32
They are very confused and greatly confuse the Ummah. These false Albanian scholars whom are callers of Jahannam have announced an article which they prepared regarding Dhatul-Anwat. The issue they have at hand is The Sahabah (who are far from it) committed major shirk when they made the request regarding Dhatul-Anwat. However, the prophet s.a.w.s. did not make takfir of them because they were new converts and ignorant.

When I was explaining that they were wrong in this issue, they took in hand the issue of zakat and the argument that took place between Umar and Abu Bakr. They also said, Abu Bakr fought against the Baghi-Bedouin tribes who denied the Zakat, however, he did not make takfir of them nor did he say that they were Murtad because they denied Zakat by means of Tawil. Even-so, they did not become Murtad.

I said to them, No, the issue is not like you said, Abu Bakr called them Murtad and fought them. This is because there were also those who did not deny the Zakat from amongst them, however, they withheld the Zakat because of stinginess. But Abu Bakr gave all of them the same ruling (Murtad) and fought them since they collaborated and altogether fought against the Khalifah. Abu Bakr and the Sahabah passed the same verdict (Murtad) with regards to all of them and fought against them without asking.

They then said, If they were Murtad, then why did Umar not want to fight them and went against Abu Bakr? Abu Bakr did not make Takfir of them. These prove that ignorance or Tawil are excuses with regards to major shirk or denying a fardh and that the person who falls under these categories will not be made takfir of.

I do not know if I was able to explain myself? They want to bring the issue in such a state that, if one is ignorant or has a Tawil, he will not be made takfir of whether it is a matter of major shirk, kufr, or denial of Zakat.

In sha Allah I was able to explain myself. I have very restricted information regarding this issue in the Albanian, Bosnian, and Macedonian languages. However, there is more information in the Turkish language. Since I do not rely upon anyone other than you and because you have more knowledge and information, I am asking you. May Allah increase your knowledge. Salamu Alaykum.
Shaykh'ul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh stated,

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

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

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid

بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
How Should We Understand the Sahbahs Ikhtilf with Regards to Fighting the Ones Whom Withheld the Zakh?

We have three issues at hand:

1. Did Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh fight those whom withheld the Zakh (obligatory charity) while giving them the ruling of Murtad (apostates) or Muslims who are Bagh (rebellious)?

2. If he fought them giving them the ruling of Bagh, why did he not declare Takfr upon them while they withheld the Zakh or even while they denied the obligation of giving Zakh? Does this mean ignorance and Tawl (forceful interpretations) are excuses with regards to Kufr (disbelief)?

3. While the Sahbah (companions of the prophet Muhammad) had Ikhtilf (disagreements) with regards to declaring Takfr of these people, then why did they not declare Takfr upon each other? Wasnt it necessary for Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh to declare Takfr upon the Sahbah who opposed him or to invite them to repent because of the principle, Whoever does not Declare Takfr of a Kfir Becomes Kfir Himself? Since this is not conceivable regarding the Sahbah, does this incident eliminate the principle Whoever does not Declare Takfr of a Kfir Becomes Kfir Himself?
Shaykh'ul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh stated,

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

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

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid

Were Those Whom Withheld the Zakh During the Time of Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh Murtad or Muslim?

If we are to take in consideration the first issue which is the ruling of these people, the debate of Ab Bakr and Umar Radiyallhu Anhum regarding those who withheld the Zakh is narrated in Sahh Muslim as follows:

حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا لَيْثُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ عُقَيْلٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُتْبَةَ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، قَالَ لَمَّا تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَاسْتُخْلِفَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ بَعْدَهُ وَكَفَرَ مَنْ كَفَرَ مِنَ الْعَرَبِ قَالَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ كَيْفَ تُقَاتِلُ النَّاسَ وَقَدْ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ فَمَنْ قَالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ فَقَدْ عَصَمَ مِنِّي مَالَهُ وَنَفْسَهُ إِلاَّ بِحَقِّهِ وَحِسَابُهُ عَلَى اللَّهِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَاللَّهِ لأُقَاتِلَنَّ مَنْ فَرَّقَ بَيْنَ الصَّلاَةِ وَالزَّكَاةِ فَإِنَّ الزَّكَاةَ حَقُّ الْمَالِ وَاللَّهِ لَوْ مَنَعُونِي عِقَالاً كَانُوا يُؤَدُّونَهُ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم لَقَاتَلْتُهُمْ عَلَى مَنْعِهِ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ فَوَاللَّهِ مَا هُوَ إِلاَّ أَنْ رَأَيْتُ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ قَدْ شَرَحَ صَدْرَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ لِلْقِتَالِ فَعَرَفْتُ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ ‏.‏
() Ab Hurayrah Radiyallhu Anh said,

When Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam died and Ab Bakr was appointed as his successor (Caliph), and those who became Kfir (disbelievers) became Kfir from amongst the Arabs, Umar Ibnul Khattb said to Ab Bakr,

How could you fight against people, while Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam had said, I have been commanded to fight the people until they say La Ilaha Illallh (There is no -true- deity -worthy of worship- except Allh). So whoever says La Ilaha Illallh has protected his property and life from me. Except for the rights of Allh. And his reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allh?

Thereupon, Ab Bakr said, By Allh, I will definitely fight against the one who differentiates between the Salh (prayer) and Zakh! For verily, the Zakh is the right of the wealth. By Allh! If they were to deprive me of a rope which they used to give Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam, I will surely fight against the depriver!

So Umar Ibnul Khattb said, By Allh, the issue was not anything except that I saw that Allh Azza wa Jall had opened the heart of Ab Bakr for fighting and I knew that it was right.
[1]

According to the explanation of al-Qdh Iydh and others, the Murtaddn (pl. Murtad; apostates) from amongst the Arabs after the death of Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam and during the caliphate of Ab Bakr Radiyallh Anh were a few types. While a group returned to worshiping idols, a group were following false prophets such as Musaylamah and Aswad al-Ans. After mentioning this classification of the scholars regarding the Murtaddn, Ibnu Hajar Rahimahullh clarifies the third category as follows,


وَصِنْفٌ ثَالِثٌ اسْتَمَرُّوا عَلَى الْإِسْلَامِ لَكِنَّهُمْ جَحَدُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَتَأَوَّلُوا بِأَنَّهَا خَاصَّةٌ بِزَمَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَهُمُ الَّذِينَ نَاظَرَ عُمَرُ أَبَا بَكْرٍ فِي قِتَالِهِمْ
And the third type: They remained upon Islm. However, they denied Zakh and made Tawl that it was only due in the time of the Nab Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam. These are the people whom Umar Radiyallhu Anh debated Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh with regards to fighting them.[2]

As seen, while the Sahbah had Ijm (consensus) pertaining to fighting those who denied Aslud Dn (the bases of the religion of Islm), they had Ikhtilf with regards to declaring Takfr upon those who withheld the Zakh while accepting the other rulings of Islm. According to what an-Nawaw Rahimahullh narrated, after having mentioned this category al-Khattb Rahimahullh, whom explained Sunan Ab Dwd, said,


وَالصِّنْفُ الْآخَرُ هُمُ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا بَيْنَ الصَّلَاةِ وَالزَّكَاةِ فَأَقَرُّوا بِالصَّلَاةِ وَأَنْكَرُوا فَرْضَ الزَّكَاةِ وَوُجُوبَ أَدَائِهَا إِلَى الْإِمَامِ وَهَؤُلَاءِ عَلَى الْحَقِيقَةِ أَهْلُ بَغْيٍ وَإِنَّمَا لَمْ يُدْعَوْا بِهَذَا الِاسْمِ فِي ذلك الزَّمَانِ خُصُوصًا لِدُخُولِهِمْ فِي غِمَارِ أَهْلِ الرِّدَّةِ فَأُضِيفَ الِاسْمُ فِي الْجُمْلَةِ إِلَى الرِّدَّةِ إِذْ كَانَتْ أَعْظَمَ الْأَمْرَيْنِ وَأَهَمَّهُمَا وَأُرِّخَ قِتَالُ أَهْلِ الْبَغْيِ فِي زَمَنِ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ إِذْ كَانُوا مُنْفَرِدِينَ فِي زَمَانِهِ لَمْ يَخْتَلِطُوا بِأَهْلِ الشِّرْكِ
The last type were those who differentiated between Salh and Zakh. They accepted Salh but rejected Zakh being Fardh (obligatory) and giving it to the Imm being Wjib (obligatory). In reality, these people were Ahlul Baghy (rebellious people). The only reason they were not called by this name -specifically in that time- was due to them joining the crowds of the Ahlur Riddah (people of apostasy). This is why their name was ascribed to Riddah (apostasy) altogether, since it was the greater and more important issue of the two. Fighting the Ahlul Baghy was written in history during the time of Al bin Ab Tlib Radiyallhu Anh when they were alone and did not mix with the Ahlush Shirk (people of Shirk; polytheists).[3]

As is clearly seen, a group of the latter scholars evaluated those who withheld the Zakh during the period of Ab Bakr (Radiyallhu Anh) as Ahlul Baghy whom were Muslim and did not consider them Murtad. Whereas, other scholars considered them to be Murtaddn. Inshllh, as its explanation will come shortly, this is the correct opinion, and Allh knows best.

It is constant that Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh addressed the Ahlur Riddah (people of apostasy), by saying, Your dead are in Jahannam (hell) and our dead are in Jannah (paradise).[4]

Although in these narrations it is not clear that those who withheld the Zakh are included in this discourse, many of the scholars stated that those who withheld the Zakh are included.

For example, while mentioning the evidences of the Hanbilah (Hanbal scholars) declaring Takfr upon those who withheld the Zakh, Ibnu Qudmah Rahimahullh stated in his work titled al-Mughn that Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh addressed those who withheld the Zakh with such a discourse and that none of the Sahbah (companions) opposed his word.[5] He also mentioned the same point in al-Kf[6] and the authors of the books of Hanbal Fiqh (jurisprudence) named as ash-Sharhul Kabr[7] and al-Mubdi[8] also made mention of the same thing.

It was also reported in these and other sources from Imm Ahmad that those who fought against the ruler in order to withhold the Zakh would be Kfir, and the evidence which this is based upon is the same narration.

Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb Rahimahullh also stated that this address was directed towards those who withheld the Zakh.[9] Likewise, Imm al-jurr Rahimahullh mentioned the following in his work titled al-Arban,


وَقَالَ ابْنُ مَسْعُودٍ: إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ قَرَنَ الزَّكَاةَ مَعَ الصَّلَاةِ، فَمَنْ لَمْ يُزَكِّ مَالَهُ فَلَا صَلَاةَ لَهُ ، وَلَمَّا قُبِضَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ارْتَدَّ أَهْلُ الْيَمَامَةِ عَنْ أَدَاءِ الزَّكَاةِ وَقَالُوا: نُصَلِّي وَنَصُومُ وَلَا نُزَكِّي أَمْوَالَنَا، فَقَاتَلَهُمْ أَبُو بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مَعَ جَمِيعِ الصَّحَابَةِ حَتَّى قَتَلَهُمْ وَسَبَاهُمْ وَقَالَ: تَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ قَتْلَاكُمْ فِي النَّارِ وَقَتْلَانَا فِي الْجَنَّةِ؟ كُلُّ ذَلِكَ لِأَنَّ الْإِسْلَامَ خَمْسٌ لَا يُقْبَلُ بَعْضُهُ دُونَ بَعْضٍ، فَاعْلَمْ ذَلِكَ إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ

Ibnu Masd Radiyallhu Anh said, Verily, Allh Azza wa Jalla paired Zakh with Salh. So there is no Salh for the ones who withhold the Zakh of their property.

When the Nab Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam passed away, the people of Yammah became apostates due to withholding the Zakh and they said, We will pray and fast, however, we will not give the Zakh of our property. Thereupon, Ab Bakr as-Siddq Radiyallhu Anh fought against them with all of the Sahbah until he killed them and took them as prisoners. Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh said, Do you witness that your dead are in Jahannam and that our dead are in Jannah?

All of this is because Islm is of five (conditions); some of them are not accepted without the rest. So know this Inshllh!
[10]

While proving that actions are included in mn (faith), Ab Ubayd Qsim bin Sallm Rahimahullh said in his book Kitbul mn,


وَالْمُصَدِّقُ لِهَذَا جِهَادُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقِ -رَحْمَةُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ- بِالْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ عَلَى مَنْعِ الْعَرَبِ الزَّكَاةَ، كَجِهَادِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَهْلَ الشِّرْكِ سَوَاءً، لَا فَرْقَ بَيْنَهَا فِي سَفْكِ الدِّمَاءِ, وَسَبْيِ الذُّرِّيَّةِ, وَاغْتِنَامِ الْمَالِ، فَإِنَّمَا كَانُوا مَانِعِينَ لَهَا غَيْرَ جَاحِدِينَ بِهَا.
What confirms what we say is Ab Bakr as-Siddq Rahmatullhi Alayh waging Jihd against those who withheld the Zakh with the Muhjirn (immigrants) and Ansr (helpers). Their Jihd was identical to the Jihd of Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam against the Ahlush Shirk (people of Shirk; polytheists). There is no difference between the two in terms of shedding blood, taking their offspring captives and taking the goods as booty. Hence, they were only withholding the Zakh; not denying it.[11]

According to what Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb Rahimahullh narrated from Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh in his book Mufdul Mustafd, Ibnu Taymiyyah said in this regard,


والصحابة لم يقولوا: هل أنت مقر بوجوبها أو جاحد لها؟ هذا لم يعهد عن الخلفاء والصحابة. بل قال الصديق لعمر رضي الله عنهما: "والله لو منعوني عقالا أو عناقا كانوا يؤدونها إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لقاتلتهم على منعه" فجعل المبيح للقتال مجرد المنع، لا جحد الوجوب. وقد روى أن طوائف منهم كانوا يقرون بالوجوب، لكن بخلوا بها، ومع هذا فسيرة الخلفاء فيهم جميعهم سيرة واحدة، وهي مقاتلتهم، وسبي ذراريهم، وغنيمة أموالهم، والشهادة على قتلاهم بالنار، وسموهم جميعهم أهل الردة. وكان من أعظم فضائل الصديق رضي الله عنه عندهم أن ثبته الله على قتالهم، ولم يتوقف كما يتوقف غيره، فناظرهم حتى رجعوا إلى قوله. وأما قتال المقرين بنبوة مسيلمة، فهؤلاء لم يقع بينهم نزاع في قتالهم.
The Sahbah did not say, Do you affirm Zakh being Wjib or do you deny it? This is not known from the Khulaf (righteous caliphs) nor the Sahbah Radiyallhu Anhum. Rather, (Ab Bakr) as-Siddq said the following to Umar Radiyallhu Anhum,

By Allh! If they were to deprive me of a rope or a she-kid which they used to give Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam, I will surely fight against the depriver!

So Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh made fighting Mubh (permissible) only due to them depriving the Zakh, not because of them denying it being Wjib. It was narrated that some of them would affirm Zakh being Wjib, however, they were stingy about it.

Along with this, the conduct of the Khulaf regarding all of them was one code of conduct, which is fighting them, taking their offspring as captives, taking their wealth as booty, and bearing witness that their dead are in the fire. The Khulaf named all of them Ahlur Riddah.

Allh making (Ab Bakr) as-Siddq Radiyallhu Anh firm upon fighting them and not refrain from fighting them as others refrained is from amongst the greatest virtues of as-Siddq Radiyallhu Anh. So he Radiyallhu Anh debated them until they returned to his opinion.

As for fighting those who affirmed the Nubuwwah (Prophethood) of Musaylimah, no dispute occurred among the Sahbah regarding fighting these people.
[12]

These are the views of the scholars whom stated those who withheld the Zakh during the period of Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh were Murtaddn. Our subject is not whether or not withholding the Zakh is Kufr. However, the preferred view regarding those who withheld the Zakh from Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh is that they are Murtad, whether or not they did so because of denying the Zakh or because they withheld it without denying it. This is also supported with the Hadth qualifying these people as Kfir and Murtad, Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh testifying them to be in Jahannam and him making them testify to this, and Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh treating them the way Kuffr (pl. Kfir) are to be treated by enslaving their families, taking their wealth as booty, and the like.

As far as we know, just as there is no narration which opposes this, none of these traits are not to be manifested towards Ahlul Baghy from amongst the Muslimn (pl. Muslim). These traits are only to be manifested towards Kuffr and the Murtaddn. It is also seen that the Tawl (forceful interpretations) made to the related Ahdth (pl. Hadth) and to the term of Ahlur Riddah mentioned in the Hadth do not comply with the apparent text of the Hadth. Wallhu Alam (and Allh knows best)!
 1. Muslim, Hadth no. 20.
 
 2. Ibnu Hajar al-Asqaln, Fathul Br, 12/276.
 
 3. An-Nawaw, Sharhu Sahh Muslim, 1/202-203.
 
 4. This narration was mentioned by Ab Ubayd in al-Amwl, no: 510 and Sad bin Mansr in his Sunan, no: 2934. Ibnu Kathr narrated this through Sufyn ath-Thawr (Ibnu Kathr, al-Bidyah wan Nihyah, Dru Hijr, 9/455).
 
 5. Ibnu Qudmah, al-Mughn, Maktabatul Qhirah, 2/429.
 
 6. Ibnu Qudmah, al-Kf, 1/379.
 
 7. Abdur Rahmn al-Maqdis, ash-Sharhul Kabr, 2/671.
 
 8. Burhnud Dn Ibnu Muflih, al-Mubdi, 2/391.
 
 9. Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb, ar-Rasilush Shakhsiyyah, p. 234.
 
 10. Al-jurr, al-Arban, p. 83.
 
 11. Ab Ubayd, Kitbul mn, Maktabatul Marif, p. 17.
 
 12. Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb, Mufdul Mustafd f Kufri Trikit Tawhd, p. 300-301.
Shaykh'ul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh stated,

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

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

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid

Does the Situation of Those Whom Withheld the Zakh during the Period of Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh Indicate that Ignorance and Tawl are Excuses Concerning Kufr?

So far, we tried to analyze the ruling of the people who withheld the Zakh during the era of Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh. As seen, these people apostate by withholding the Zakh and this is the correct opinion. However, the scholars disagreed in the details of the issue regarding whether these people became Kfir since they withheld the Zakh, denied the Zakh, or because they waged war intending to withhold the Zakh. Some scholars have argued that these people held the status of Ahlul Baghy who made Tawl, thereby excusing them for their ignorance.

At this point, the second issue comes up: why werent these people declared Takfr of whilst they denied a clear Fardh like Zakh?

In continuation of his abovementioned speech, Khattb, who is of the opinion that this tribe is not declared Takfr of, explains how these people were not declared Takfr of although they denied the obligation of Zakh by saying,


‏فَإِنْ قِيلَ كَيْفَ تَأَوَّلْتَ أَمْرَ الطَّائِفَةِ الَّتِي مَنَعَتِ الزَّكَاةَ عَلَى الْوَجْهِ الَّذِي ذَهَبْتَ إِلَيْهِ وَجَعَلْتَهُمْ أَهْلَ بَغْيٍ وَهَلْ إِذَا أَنْكَرَتْ طَائِفَةٌ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فِي زَمَانِنَا فَرْضَ الزَّكَاةِ وَامْتَنَعُوا مِنْ أَدَائِهَا يَكُونُ حُكْمُهُمْ حُكْمَ أَهْلِ الْبَغْيِ قُلْنَا لَا فَإِنَّ مَنْ أَنْكَرَ فَرْضَ الزَّكَاةِ فِي هَذِهِ الْأَزْمَانِ كَانَ كَافِرًا بِإِجْمَاعِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَالْفَرْقُ بَيْنَ هَؤُلَاءِ وَأُولَئِكَ أَنَّهُمْ إِنَّمَا عُذِرُوا لِأَسْبَابٍ وَأُمُورٍ لَا يَحْدُثُ مِثْلُهَا فِي هَذَا الزَّمَانِ مِنْهَا قُرْبُ الْعَهْدِ بِزَمَانِ الشَّرِيعَةِ الَّذِي كَانَ يَقَعُ فِيهِ تَبْدِيلُ الْأَحْكَامِ بِالنَّسْخِ وَمِنْهَا أَنَّ الْقَوْمَ كَانُوا جُهَّالًا بِأُمُورِ الدِّينِ وَكَانَ عَهْدُهُمْ بِالْإِسْلَامِ قَرِيبًا فَدَخَلَتْهُمُ الشُّبْهَةُ فَعُذِرُوا فَأَمَّا الْيَوْمَ وَقَدْ شَاعَ دِينُ الْإِسْلَامِ وَاسْتَفَاضَ فِي الْمُسْلِمِينَ عِلْمُ وُجُوبِ الزَّكَاةِ حَتَّى عَرَفَهَا الْخَاصُّ وَالْعَامُّ وَاشْتَرَكَ فِيهِ الْعَالِمُ وَالْجَاهِلُ فَلَا يُعْذَرُ أَحَدٌ بِتَأْوِيلٍ يَتَأَوَّلُهُ فِي إِنْكَارِهَا وَكَذَلِكَ الْأَمْرُ فِي كُلِّ مَنْ أَنْكَرَ شَيْئًا مِمَّا أَجْمَعَتِ الْأُمَّةُ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ أُمُورِ الدِّينِ إِذَا كَانَ عِلْمُهُ مُنْتَشِرًا كَالصَّلَوَاتِ الْخَمْسِ وَصَوْمِ شَهْرِ رمضان والاغتسال من الجنابة وتحريم الزنى وَالْخَمْرِ وَنِكَاحِ ذَوَاتِ الْمَحَارِمِ وَنَحْوِهَا مِنَ الْأَحْكَامِ إِلَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ رَجُلًا حَدِيثَ عَهْدٍ بِالْإِسْلَامِ وَلَا يَعْرِفُ حُدُودَهُ فَإِنَّهُ إِذَا أَنْكَرَ شَيْئًا مِنْهَا جَهْلًا بِهِ لَمْ يَكْفُرْ وَكَانَ سَبِيلُهُ سَبِيلَ أُولَئِكَ الْقَوْمِ فِي بَقَاءِ اسْمِ الدِّينِ عَلَيْهِ
If it is said, How can you interpret the issue of the people who withheld the Zakh in the manner that you view it and assume them to be Ahlul Baghy? If a group of the Muslimn deny the obligation of Zakh in our era and withhold giving it, then does their ruling become the ruling of Ahlul Baghy?

We say, No, for verily, whoever denies the obligation of Zakh in this era is a Kfir by the Ijm of the Muslimn. The difference between them and these is merely that they were excused for some reasons which do not occur in this era. From amongst them is them being close to the time of the Sharah wherein changes of the rulings through abrogation occurred. From amongst them is also that the people were ignorant about the matters of the Dn (religion), and they had recently entered the fold of Islm. Thereby, a doubt entered their minds. This is the reason they were excused. As for today while the religion of Islm has spread, and the knowledge of Zakh being obligatory has spread amongst the Muslimn so much so that both the learned and the general masses know it, and both the scholar and ignorant person are participants with its regards, nobody is excused with a Tawl which he brings in act to reject the Zakh. This is the case with everyone who rejects a thing from the religious affairs which have Ijm (consensus) by the Ummah. For instance when knowledge regarding the religious affairs such as the five Salh, fasting in the Month of Ramadhn, taking Ghusl (Major Ablution) from Janbah (impurity), the unlawfulness of Zin (fornication/adultery), Khamr (alcoholic beverages), marrying close relatives and the like is widespread. Except for a man who has just entered Islm and does not know its boundaries, for when he denies something from this out of ignorance, he is not declared Takfr upon. The path of this person would be the path of those people, and the name of Islm would remain upon him.
[1]

As seen, if the above-mentioned people are not declared Takfr upon, this is because knowledge with regards to the issue they doubted did not reach them. This is because they claimed that Zakh is only to be given to the Nab Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam and that Zakh is not to be given to the rulers after his demise. In this regard, they held onto the verse Take, from their wealth a charity by which you purify them and cause them increase, and invoke (Allhs blessings) upon them. Indeed, your invocations are reassurance for them. (at-Tawbah 9/103), saying: We would only give Zakh to the one whose invocation is a source of peace for us, we wont give it to anyone else!

By taking into consideration the fact that these people may not have known the details of the matter due to reasons such as being Bedouins who were new converts, being distant to Hijz, the center of religion and knowledge, thereby being distant from the sources of knowledge, at this juncture, scholars such as al-Khattb refrained from declaring Takfr upon these people because of their ignorance pertaining to Zakh. Even so, they bluntly stated that in our era, after knowledge pertaining to Zakh and the like has become widespread, excuses as to ignorance regarding these issues are not to be accepted. Therefore, even if we were to hold the view of these scholars as a basis, it would be necessary for us to not recognize ignorance as an excuse in our day and era regarding the open, essential rulings and obligatory actions of Islm. Moreover, the issue discussed here is a matter pertaining to rulings such as Zakh. While a persons ignorance regarding believing in Allh and His unification is never to be recognized as an excuse in Islm, his ignorance regarding obligatory matters may be recognized as an excuse when he is unable to reach knowledge. In his work named Tadhmu Qadris Salh, Muhammad bin Nasr al-Marwaz Rahimahullh narrated from a group of Ahlul Hadth that they said,


وَلَمَّا كَانَ الْعِلْمُ بِاللَّهِ إِيمَانًا، وَالْجَهْلُ بِهِ كُفْرًا، وَكَانَ الْعَمَلُ بِالْفَرَائِضِ إِيمَانًا، وَالْجَهْلُ بِهَا قَبْلَ نُزُولِهَا لَيْسَ بِكُفْرٍ وَبَعْدَ نُزُولِهَا مَنْ لَمْ يَعْمَلْهَا لَيْسَ بِكُفْرٍ لِأَنَّ أَصْحَابَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَدْ أَقَرُّوا بِاللَّهِ فِي أَوَّلِ مَا بَعَثَ اللَّهُ رَسُولَهُ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِلَيْهِمْ، وَلَمْ يَعْمَلُوا الْفَرَائِضَ الَّتِي افْتُرِضَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَلَمْ يَكُنْ جَهْلُهُمْ ذَلِكَ كُفْرًا، ثُمَّ أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ هَذِهِ الْفَرَائِضَ فَكَانَ إقْرَارُهُمْ بِهَا وَالْقِيَامُ بِهَا إِيمَانًا، وَإِنَّمَا يَكْفُرُ مَنْ جَحَدَهَا لِتَكْذِيبِهِ خَبَرَ اللَّهِ، وَلَوْ لَمْ يَأْتِ خَبَرٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ مَا كَانَ بِجَهْلِهَا كَافِرًا، وَبَعْدَ مَجِئِ الْخَبَرِ مَنْ لَمْ يَسْمَعْ بِالْخَبَرِ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، لَمْ يَكُنْ بِجَهْلِهَا كَافِرًا، وَالْجَهْلُ بِاللَّهِ فِي كُلِّ حَالٍ كُفْرٌ قَبْلَ الْخَبَرِ وَبَعْدَ الْخَبَرِ‏
When knowledge concerning Allh is mn, ignorance regarding Him is Kufr, acting with the obligatory actions is mn, ignorance regarding it prior to it being revealed is not Kufr, and the one who does not act in accordance to it after it has been revealed is not Kufr -because the Sahbah had affirmed Allh when Allh first sent His Messenger Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam to them and they did not act with the Fardh matters which were made obligatory upon them after this, so their ignorance regarding this did not become Kufr. Then, Allh revealed these obligatory matters upon them. So their affirmation of it and their performance of these obligatory actions is mn. The only one who commits Kufr is the one who rejects it because he belies the news from Allh. If news from Allh had not come, he would not have been Kfir because of his ignorance. After this news came, the people who did not hear this news from amongst the Muslimn do not become Kfir because of their ignorance. In this context after the arrival of the news if there was some who did not hear of it from among the Muslim, this ignorance would not make one Kafir either. Ignorance pertaining to Allh is Kufr in every situation: both before the arrival of the news and after its arrival.[2]

Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh approvingly narrated these words reported by al-Marwaz from the scholars of Hadth.[3]

As seen, it is quite foolish to compare ignorance regarding the obligatory matters with ignorance regarding Allh. A person not knowing Tawhd and Shirk indicates that he does not know Allh, and a person is not considered to have believed in an entity he does not know! Since the Fardh issues are related to news, a person is only liable upon the arrival of the news. Since the news about Zakh might not have reached them, a group of the scholars did not declare Takfr upon these people. Based on this, claiming ignorance is also an excuse concerning issues that are not related to news, and even Tawhd that is the actual bases of mn and the other fundamental matters of the religion is a great example of perversion. If ignorance was an excuse for all kinds of Kufr and Shirk as these people claim, the ignorance of those who believed in Musaylamah and other false prophets would also have to be considered an excuse. This is because they also claimed they are Muslim, however, they argued that Musaylamah and his like were also prophets alongside Muhammad Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam. They also had some Tawl regarding the issue. However, no one from amongst the Sahbah hesitated regarding their Kufr. The statements of the scholars regarding this was mentioned above. Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhb Rahimahullh said in his work entitled Siyar,


The Arabs were divided regarding their Riddah (apostasy).

A group amongst them returned to worshiping idols and said, If Muhammad was a Nab, he would not have died!

A group said, We believe in Allh but we will not pray (Salh; daily prayers).

A group affirmed Islm and prayed, however, they withheld the Zakh.

Another group bore witness that there is no -true- deity -worthy of worship-except Allh and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allh. However, they believed in Musaylamah that the Nab Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam made him a partner with regards to Nubuwwah (prophethood). This was because Musaylamah brought about witnesses who attested to this with himself. Among the witnesses was a man called ar-Rajjl from his companions who was renowned for his knowledge and worship. Thus, they confirmed him due to what they knew from him regarding knowledge and worship. Some of those whom were steadfast among them said (the following verses) regarding him,


يا سعاد الفؤاد بنت أثال ... طال ليلي بفتنة الرَّجَّال
فتن القومَ بالشهادة ... والله عزيز ذو قوة ومحال

O Sud al-Fud, daughter of Athl,
My night lengthened due to Fitnah (trial) of ar-Rajjl!
He put his people into Fitnah with his witness,
And Allh is Azz (Mighty) and possessor of Quwwah (strength).

A tribe from the People of Yemen believed in al-Aswad al-Ans with regards to his claim of Nubuwwah.

A tribe believed in Tulayhah al-Asad.

Not a single Sahbah doubted regarding the Kufr and the obligation of waging war against those whom we have mentioned except for those who withheld the Zakh. When Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh determined to fight them, it was said to him, How could we fight them while Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam said,


أمرت أن أقاتل الناس حتى يقولوا لا إله إلا الله. فإذا قالوها عصموا مني دماءهم وأموالهم، إلا بحقها
I have been commanded that I should fight against people till they bear witness to La Ilaha Illallh (there is no -true- deity -worthy of worship- except Allh). When they say it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf. Except for the right of Islm (where it is justified by law).[4]

Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh said,

فإن الزكاة من حقها، والله لو منعوني عِقالًا كانوا يؤدونه إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لقاتلتهم على منعه
For verily, Zakh is from amongst the rights of Islm. By Allah, I would fight against them even if they withheld a rope (used for hobbling the feet of a camel) which they used to give to Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam because they withheld it.[5]
 4. Muslim, Hadth no: 21.
 
 5. Muslim, Ab Dwud, and at-Tirmidh related this Hadth with this wording. As-Suyt mentioned that it is Mutawtir (mass related Hadth).

The Shaykh Rahimahullh then started to give examples of communities who were declared Takfr upon -even though they said La Ilaha Illallh by tongues- and said,

The First Evidence: Tribe of Ban Hanfah, Ahlur Riddah (The People of Apostates)

The (tribe of) Ban Hanfah were the most famous of Ahlur Riddah and by the general people they were known as Ahlur Riddah. In the presence of the people, they were the worst of Ahlul Riddah and the wicked in Kufr. Even so, they testified to La Ilaha Illallh and that Muhammad is the Rasl (Messenger) of Allh. They would call the Adhn (call to prayer) and pray Salh (daily prayers). Along with this, most of them deemed that the Nab Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam commanded them with this (i.e. to submit to Musaylamatul Kadhhb) due to the witnesses who witnessed alongside ar-Rajjl.

And the person who knows this and has no doubt regarding it says, Whoever says La Ilaha Illallh then he is Muslim even if he does not have a single Shirah (identifying characteristic) of Islm with him! Rather, even if he abandons Islm and intentionally mocks it! So glory to be Allh the One Who turns hearts as He wishes. How did He bring together in the heart of the one who has intellect -even if he is the most ignorant of the people- that this person knows that even though their state was as we mentioned, Ban Hanfah committed Kufr and that the Bedouin is in a state of Islm even if they abandon Islm totally, reject it and mock it on purpose because they say La Ilaha Illallh? However, I bear witness that Allh has power over everything.

We ask Allh to fasten our hearts upon His Dn, not to diverge our hearts after He has guided us and to give mercy from Himself. Indeed, He is al-Wahhb (the One Who Bestows).

Thus, those who cannot distinguish, between Aslud Dn and its Fur (subsidiary) matters and claim that the ignorant person or the one who makes forceful interpretations is excused no matter what issue he deviates in, cannot withhold themselves from falling into such a paradox.

While these people claim those who withheld the Zakh are not Kfir because of their ignorance and try to apply this to the case of those who do not know the most important issue of Islm Tawhd, on the other hand, declare Takfr upon those who deny the reality that Muhammad Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam is Khtamun Nabiyyn, meaning that Nubuwwah came to an end with him -which is only recorded once in the Qurn in a verse in Sratul Ahzb- regardless of their ignorance and forceful interpretations! Today we witness these people who recognise ignorance to be an excuse declaring Muayyan (individual) Takfr of those people who are subjects to some false prophets regardless of being scholars or ignorant followers.

Then, these same people make up various excuses in order to not declare Takfr upon and pause regarding people who commit Shirk in issues more important and clearer than the issue of the final prophethood. Whereas, believing in the unity of Allh comes before believing in the prophets.

However, the people whom they declare Takfr upon like the followers of the false prophets Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (also known as Qadiyani), İskender Evrenesoğlu, etc. do not deny the prophethood of Muhammad Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam, they only claim that the people they are subjects of receive revelation from Allh alongside being subjected to the Sharah of Muhammad Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam. Should not those who rightly declare Takfr of such people apply the same Takfr upon those who commit a much bigger crime than this, namely Shirk? What is the measure of these people regarding the issue of Takfr, the majority? Do they comfortably declare Takfr of the followers of these false prophets because they are in a minority? If they too become the majority, such as the worshippers of graves, democrats, and other practisers of Shirk, maybe they will also refrain from declaring Takfr upon them! We seek refuge in Allh from the deviation of hearts
 1. An-Nawaw, Sharhu Muslim 1/205, recorded with abbreviation from al-Khattb, Malimus Sunan, 2/9.
 
 2. Al-Marwaz, Tadhmu Qadris Salh, 2/520.
 
 3. Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmul Fatw, 7/325-326.
Shaykh'ul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh stated,

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

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

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid

Is the Ikhtilf of the Sahbah Regarding the Status of Those Who Withheld the Zakh Proof That Ikhtilf is Permissible in All Matters Related to Takfr?

The third issue regarding the subject is the question why Umar Radiyallhu Anh and others did not fall into Kufr even though they doubted regarding the Kufr of those who withheld Zakh -and we exonerate them from falling into Kufr. Nowadays, this issue is one of the proofs used by communities who raise doubts about the principle Whoever does not Declare Takfr of a Kfir Becomes Kfir Himself. In order not do declare Takfr upon those who label people whom openly practice Shirk in our era as Muslim, these people of doubts bring such issues as evidence. They say, If those who do not declare Takfr upon the Kuffr were Kfir, all of the Sahbah who refrained from declaring Takfr upon those who withheld the Zakh would have instantaneously become Kfir. Actually, we somewhat gave an answer when we explained the issue of ignorance above. Even the following question is enough for them: Let alone doubting about those who withheld the Zakh, wouldnt those who God forbid- hesitate about the ones who defend Musaylamas prophethood enter Kufr according to you? If they also do not consider this Kufr, they would have openly revealed their Kufr; otherwise, if they continue to declare Takfr upon those who do not declare Takfr upon the false prophets and hesitate regarding those who practice Shirk, they would fall in the above-mentioned paradox. If they accept that the state of those who withheld the Zakh is different from those who are subject to false prophets, they will come to say what we have said. In other words, if Silsilah/Chain Takfr is applied for those who follow false prophets and if Silsilah/Chain Takfr is not applied for those who withheld the Zakh, then this means that there is a difference between the two. If they explain the difference that Nubuwwah coming to an end is an issue from amongst the clear, apparent matters of the religion and Aqdah (creed). As for the ruling of those who withhold the Zakh, it is an issue pertaining to the rulings and there may be different views regarding it, then this explanation is a valid explanation regarding all issues of the like. In the same matter, we say that the person who hesitates and refrains from declaring Takfr upon the person who performs Shirk and other actions that violate Aslud Dn has clearly given Kufr the name mn and has become a Kfir. As for issues that are below this such as those who withheld the Zakh during the era of Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh, there are many possibilities and obscure matters. First, these people whom there is Ikhtilf regarding were a community of people who fulfilled Aslud Dn. The Ikhtilf amongst the Sahbah originates from this genre. Actually, in the Hadth we narrated above, Umar Radiyallhu Anh suggested that they were Muslim and that it was unlawful to wage war against them because these people said, La Ilaha Illallh Muhammadun Raslullh, meaning they affirmed Tawhd and Rislah (messengership). When Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh brought evidence that, those who do not fulfill prayer and give the Zakh are to be fought against, Umar Radiyallhu Anh was convinced. Hence, it is reported in the narration of an-Nas as follows,

عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، قَالَ لَمَّا تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ارْتَدَّتِ الْعَرَبُ قَالَ عُمَرُ يَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ كَيْفَ تُقَاتِلُ الْعَرَبَ فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ إِنَّمَا قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلاَةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَاللَّهِ لَوْ مَنَعُونِي عَنَاقًا مِمَّا كَانُوا يُعْطُونَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم لَقَاتَلْتُهُمْ عَلَيْهِ ‏.‏ قَالَ عُمَرُ رضى الله عنه فَلَمَّا رَأَيْتُ رَأْىَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ قَدْ شُرِحَ عَلِمْتُ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ
Anas bin Mlik said, When Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam passed away, some of the Arabs apostatized. Umar said, O Ab Bakr, how can you fight the Arabs? Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh said, Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam said, I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify to La Ilaha Illallh (there is none -true- deity -worthy of worship- except Allh) and that I am Raslullh, establish the prayer and pay Zakh. By Allh, if they withhold a young she-goat from me that they used to give to Raslullh Sallallhu Alayhi wa Sallam I will fight them for withholding it. Umar Radiyallhu Anh said, When I saw the opinion of Ab Bakr explained, I knew that this was the truth.[1]

If this version of the Hadth is authentic, it is a clarification of how the doubt of Umar Radiyallhu Anh was removed. Ab Bakr Radiyallhu Anh proved by mentioning the remainder portion of the Hadth that those who do not pray Salh and withhold the Zakh will be fought against, even if they accept Tawhd. If the debate they held was concerning whether or not the person who withholds Zakh will become Kfir then Ab Bakr convinced him with this Hadth. Hence, there is a renowned Ikhtilf between the Salaf and the Khalaf regarding whether or not the person who abandons the four pillars other than the Kalima-i Shahdah -which are Salh, fasting, Hajj, and Zakh- is a Kfir. The Ikhtilf here may be like this. No Ikhtilf exists regarding the one who abandons the Kalima-i Shahdah. If there was Ikhtilf regarding all matters of mn and Kufr as these people think, then Ikhtilf regarding the one who abandons Tawhd would also be permissible. However, Ijm has occurred regarding it and Ikhtilf has only occurred regarding the Kufr of the one who abandons obligatory acts that are below this. There is nothing surprising about this. This is because Tawhd is from Aslud Dn and acts of worship such as Salh and Zakh are from its Fur. Even if they are now considered from Aslud Dn, this is only after the arrival of the news. Tawhd, on the other hand, continues to be from Aslud Dn whether or not Hujjah (proof) of the Rislah (message) has come.

In addition, evidences regarding those who abandon Tawhd being Kfir are clear-cut and evidences that declare the abandonment of Salh, Zakh and similar actions are based on presumption and Ijtihd (making a legal decision in Islmic Sharah -law- by personal effort and independent interpretation of the legal sources). This is why just as we declare Takfr upon those who perform Shirk, we declare Takfr upon those who do not declare Takfr upon such people. This is because such a person has clearly belied the Nass (textual proofs). However, even though we say that abandoning rulings such as Salh and Zakh are Kufr, we do not declare Takfr upon those who do not declare Takfr upon such people. This is due to the fact that they embrace some things which they consider to be evidences and provide explanations for the evidences we have brought, and as a matter of fact, the issue is of a genre of a probable, open to Ijtihd issue. In contrary to the other issue, the person who makes a mistake in such a matter is not a person who denies Allh and His Messenger. There is much more to say on this matter, but we are concluding the issue here by delegating its details to another wider treatise. Inshllh, this explanation will be enough for those who want to comprehend. Wallhu Alam!
 1. An-Nas, Hadth no: 3094.
Shaykh'ul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh stated,

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

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

Izhr'ud Dn

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
    • Darultawhid

Quote from: Questioner
Salamun Alaykum.

I have translated a few narrations from your article and sent them to these ignorant people. Its been 2-3 days and they have been quite and havent responded. They are dumbfounded. May Allah be pleased with you and may He In sha Allah prolong your life so that you may always be ready and standing upright in front of the deviators and preventing them from misleading, thereby aiding those who possess ikhlas from the Ummah In sha Allah.

As-Salamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu
Shaykh'ul Islm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullh stated,

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

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

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
350 Views
Last post 30.03.2019, 12:07:08 AM
by Izhr'ud Dn
0 Replies
228 Views
Last post 20.04.2020, 11:50:53 AM
by Izhr'ud Dn
0 Replies
225 Views
Last post 21.04.2020, 09:52:15 AM
by Izhr'ud Dn
0 Replies
240 Views
Last post 04.09.2020, 03:47:24 AM
by Izhr'ud Dn