The state of the Muslim who have fallen into Shirk:
The one who contemplates over the state of those from the sects who are connected to the graves in
opposition to Allah, and the one who ponders over the state of the scholars who allow such shirk
practices finds that they believe in the depths of their hearts that none should be worshiped except
Allah, and that it is prohibited to direct any form of worship to other than Allah. Also, one will
discover that they are not ignorant of the matter that worshiping other than Allah is major shirk
which nullifies ones faith. Rather the core of the confusion is deficiency in knowledge of their religion,
by their ignorance in some of what comes under the definition of worship and what comes within the
boundaries of shirk. Hence, the core of their confusion is not based upon the root affirmation of
Tawheed nor the root of their freeing themselves from shirk and its people, rather it is based upon a
completely different matter: what truly comes under worship and tawheed, which must be specific to
Allah and the reality of what comes under shirk.
Shaikh ibn al-Uthaymin was asked: If ignorance concerning in a matter lead to expelling from the
religion and disbelief if done with knowledge, for example, a lay person has lived among people who
call upon the dead, and no one has explained to him that this is Shirk, rather he practices Islam (his
religion), claiming to be a Muslim, then can he his calling upon other than Allah have an excuse?
The answer: Yes, he can be excused, because he has lived in the state and none has explained to him
that this is from shirk, he believes that this action is from the means and not an objective, meaning
that he believes that this dead person is a means to Allah, who brings him closer to Allah, then we say:
this person is not a disbeliever, because he attributes himself to Islam. (Explanation of the
Mandhumah of usool p.74 and Sharh al-Usool min ilm al-Usool p.224)
Hence, this research is to discuss concerning one who professes that Allah is his Lord, Muhammad as
his Messenger, believing that it is not allowed to direct any form of worship to other than Allah,
professing that any form of worship directed to other than Allah is considered to be major shirk which
expells one from Islam. However, with all of that he is ignorant that seeking aid (al-Istaghatha) form
other than Allah, for example, comes under the boundaries of shirk, and slaughtering, vowing,
directed to other than Allah is major shirk.
There are two major strands concerning such a person:
1. The ruling of Islam remains for him, he is not expelled from the religion until he learns the ruling of
what he has falling into. However, if he is ignorant of the ruling concerning his action, then the
description of Islam is not removed from him and he is dealt with as a Muslim in this world.
2. The ruling of Islam is lifted from him and he is dealt with as a disbeliever in the world. This strand
contains two groups of stances: A) the one who is certain that disbelief has been established
concerning him or that of major shirk, B) Those who have not labeled him with disbelief in the world
but have labeled him with Shirk. As with regards to his ruling in the hereafter is that of the people of
the Fatrah.
Stance of Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728H):
Ibn Tayimiyyah said: “This and I always, the one who sits with me knows this about me: that I am from
the most severe of the people who warns against attributing a specific individual to disbelief, fisq, or
sin, except if it is known that the scriptural evidence has been established against him which if one
opposes becomes a disbeliever or a fasiq or a sinner, and I affirm that Allah has forgiven for this
nation their mistakes, that is general concerning their mistakes in scriptural statement (aqa’id) and
matters of practice…..” (al-fatawaa 3/229)
Also he said: “Likewise, the statements which the one who states them comes under disbelief, the
scriptural message through which one knows the truth and which necessitate this (disbelief) may not
have reached such a person, they may be known to him but they are not established concerning him
or he may not have been able to understand them, and perhaps a doubt has occurred to him by
which Allah will excuse him. So whoever is a diligent believer searching for the truth however, makes
a mistake, then Allah will forgive him his mistake, whoever, he may be, whether in theoretical matters,
or practical ones.” and he mentioned that: “this is what the companions of the prophet (SAW) were
upon and the majority of the Imams.” (al-fatawaa 23/346)
Ibn Taymiyyah said concerning the stance of the Imams with regards to the Jahmiyyah and their
opinions: “Indeed, the unrestricted takfir is like the unrestricted threat which does not necessitate the
takfir of the specific individual until the scriptural evidence has been established which the one who
denies is made takfir of.”(Al-Istiqamah 1/264, Minhaj as-Sunnah 5/240)
“If this is known, then the takfir of a specific individual from these ignorant ones and their likes whereas one is declared as a disbeliever - it is not allowed to proceed upon it except after someone
has established the scriptural evidence by which it is clear that they have opposed the messengers
even though there is no doubt concerning the statements disbelief. This opinion is concerning all
specific individuals, even though some innovations are more severe than other, some innovators have
more faith in them than others, so it is not allowed for anyone of the Muslims to expel anyone from
Islam, even if he makes a mistake and is wrong until the evidence is established and the guidance is
clarified. Hence, the one whose faith is established with certainty, it is not removed by doubt, rather it
is not removed except after establishing the evidence and removal of the doubt.”(al-fatawaa 10/500)
He also states whilst commenting upon the statement of Ibn Qudamah: “Whoever denies its
obligation I.e. the prayer, due to ignorance he is taught that, however if he denies it due to arrogance
he disbelieves.” He said: “this is a uniform principle concerning all of the five pillars of Islam, in the
outward actions which are agreed upon, if the denier of this is excused, for example, if he is new to
Islam or he grew up in a far away land which is considered to be a place of prevalence of ignorance of
that, is not declared a disbeliever until the scriptural evidence is established that this is the religion of
Islam, because the rulings of disbelief and censure are not established until evidence is enacted,
especially concerning that which is not known purely through the intellect.” (Sharh Umdatul-Fiqh,
Kitab as-salaah, p.51)
He was asked once: what do the master Imams of the religion say concerning a people who revere the
scholars by them seeking aid from them in times of hardship, begging them, visiting their graves,
kissing them, seeking barakah from there tombs, lighting candles throughout the night, taking for this
special occasions, making pilgrimage to them from afar, calling it the night of life, making like a
celebration for them, vowing for them oaths, and praying at their graves?
So are these actions allowed, or prohibited or disliked? Is it allowed for the scholars to affirm the
upon them, or must they warn them from it or stop them from it………….
Ibn Taymiyyah answered with a long answer: “All praise is due to Allah the Lord of the worlds,
whoever seeks aid from the dead or someone absent person where he supplicates to him in matters
of hardship and difficulties, requesting from them the fulfillment of needs, so he says: ‘O my master
Shaikh so and so, I am in your trust and your nearness, or he says at the time that an enemy attacks:
O master so and so! He inspires and seeks aid through him, or he says this at the time of his illness
and poverty, and other than that of his needs, He is a misguided ignorant Mushrik sinner against Allah
by the consensus of the Muslims, because they are agreed that the dead person is not called upon,
nor is anything is requested from him, whether he was a prophet, or shaikh, or other than them.”
Then he explains the shirk of the Mushrik Arabs which they used to do at the graves, and that it was
by their seeking their aid and making them intermediaries between them and Allah, after mentioning
that he says: “This is only shirk that the one upon whom the evidence is established against and does
not desist, it is obligatory to fight them like the fighting of those similar to them form among the
Mushrikin, they are not to be buried among the Muslims, not prayed upon them. However, if they are
ignorant to who the knowledge has not reached, not knowing the the reality of shirk upon which the
Prophet fought the Mushrikin over, then he is not declared a disbeliever, especially since the spread
of this shirk among many who attribute themselves to Islam, whoever believes this to be a means of
nearness and obedience then he is misguided according to the agreement of the Muslims, but after
the establishment of the evidence he is a disbeliever.” (Jami Masail ibn Taymiyyah Compiled by Aziz
Shams 3/145-151)
In his refutation of al-Bakri in the matter of al-Istigatha: “Then after knowing what the Messenger
came with we know by necessity that he (SAW) didn’t legislate for his nation that they call upon
anyone from among the dead, not a prophet, nor a righteous person, nor other than them, neither by
the term istighatha nor other than it, nor by the term istia’dha, nor other than that, likewise he didn’t
legislate for his nation to prostrate to the dead or other than them, and the like. Rather we know that
he prohibited all of these matters, and that it is from shirk which Allah has prohibited and His
Messenger. However, due to the prevalence of ignorance, scarcity of knowledge of the narrations of
the Messenger among the later generations it is not possible to make takfir of them because of it until
it explained what the Messenger came with which opposes that, because of this, this matter has
never been explained to anyone who has the core of Islam except he discerns and says that this is the
root of Islam.” (Al-Istighatha fi rad ‘ala al-Bakri p.731)
Ibn Tayimiyyah says: “the Istighatha which means to ask the Messenger (SAW) for something which is
befitting his station, no Muslim argues concerning this, however argues concerning this meaning then
he is either a disbeliever if he denies that which one disbelieves due to, or is mistakenly misguided. As
for that which the Messenger negated then it is compulsory to negate. Whoever, affirms for other
than Allah that which is solely for Allah then he too is a disbeliever, if the proof is established against
him which the denier of is expelled from the religion.” (al-Fatawaa 1/108-112)
Ibn Tayimiyyah says:”However, with this it many of their statements may be hidden from many
people of faith, until they think that the truth is with them due to what they supply of doubts, even
with this they are believers truly believing in Allah and His messenger outwardly and inwardly, rather
confusion has covered them and are uncertain like the confusion of other than them of the
innovators. Then those are not disbelievers with certainty, they may be Fasiq or sinners, and some
may be mistaken but forgiven by Allah, they may have faith, Taqwa with them which make them from
the guardians of Allah in proportion to their faith and Taqwa.” (Al-Istighatha fi rad ‘ala al-Bakri p. 367368, (al-Fatawaa 1/364)
How is the proof established against an individual:
The attribute of ignorance of the Islamic ruling is not lifted except after the establishment of the proof
against them, however this Islamic evidence is not established except after the fulfillment of two
necessary conditions: one is condition which must exist and the other condition is one that must be
absent. 1) Understanding the speech, 2) Removal of the doubts. We must explain these two
conditions, and clarify the situation concerning them because they are the most important matters
which have effect on the matter of excuse of ignorance in the matters of major shirk.
1) The First Condition:
What is meant by ‘Understanding the evidence’ here: comprehending the meaning of the Islamic
speech and knowing what it indicates or shows concerning the ruling, envisaging its intent in the
correct manner. So, the Islamic evidence is not established upon the individual until this degree is
fulfilled concerning understanding. This ruling encompasses the ruling of Worship and laws, whether
they be from the fundamentals or branches of the religion. Hence, for whoever this degree is not
fulfilled he is not considered to have knowledge of the ruling, thus he is not considered responsible
concerning it, because being able to fulfill the law is not possible except by knowing the intent of the
Islamic speech. This knowledge is not fulfilled in this individual yet. Due to this some of the Scholars of
Usool have spoken concerning the condition of knowledge as being understanding, indicating that the
knowledge of the evidence doesn’t occur except via understanding it. (refer to al-bahr al-Muheet of
az-Zarkashi, 1/350)
The effective cause for the establishment of the evidence against an individual is dependent upon the
fulfillment of understanding the speech concerning it. So whenever this is fulfilled concerning the
individual by whatever way it occurs then the Islamic evidence has been established concerning him
with the addition of the second condition. However, as long as this degree is not fulfilled, then the
Islamic evidence has not been established against such a person, even if the Islamic text has reached
him and he affirms it.
What is known is the fulfillment of understanding the speech differs based upon the state/situation of
the people. Some people, by just receiving the speech they understand its meaning and know its
intent, hence the evidence is established against them by the text merely reaching them. Others are
not like that, they require various explanations until they gain the intent of the text. So the evidence
isn’t established until they arrive at understanding the meaning required.
This fulfillment is what we must check when applying the rulings. What is not required is that the
individual knows that this (the evidence) is the truth, as some have claimed. (refer to Misbah adhDhalam, AbdulLatif bin AbdurRahman aal-Shaikh, p.122)
Ibn Taymiyyah states: “Likewise, the statements which the one who states them comes under
disbelief, the scriptural message through which one knows the truth and which necessitate this
(disbelief) may not have reached such a person, they may be known to him but they are not
established concerning him or he may not have been able to understand them, and perhaps a doubt
has occurred to him by which Allah will excuse him. So whoever is a diligent believer searching for the
truth however, makes a mistake, then Allah will forgive him his mistake, whoever he may be, whether
in theoretical matters, or practical ones.” and he mentioned that: “this is what the companions of the
prophet (SAW) were upon and the majority of the Imams.” (al-fatawaa 23/346)
Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned that those who oppose the people of the truth from among the people of
disbelief and denial are of types, then he mentioned those who were unable to arrive at the truth due
to not being able to comprehend what the texts indicated, he then affirms that this type are excused
due to their ignorance. (Refer to an-Nooniyah, expanation of al-Haraas 2/265) This is the point in anNooniyah that Ibn al-Bulaihid (was one of the notable scholars of his time in Najd, he was a judge in
al-Qassim refer to Ulama an-Najd Khilal tamaniyah al-Qurun, ibn al-Bassam 4/138) used as his proof in
that the evidence is not established against one except through understanding. Rashid Rida
mentioned that the major scholars of Najd disputed in the ‘gathering of King Abdul-Aziz al-Saud in
Makkah al-Mukaramah, the proof with in favour of ibn al-Bulaihid in that the evidence is not
established against one except through understanding not just by receiving the text, by mentioning
the text of the scholar ibn al-qayyim, so they became convinced by it’. (Majmu ar-Rasail an-Najdiyah,
Hashiyah p.515)
The position of the scholars of Najd concerning this condition: p.151
In conclusion, we arrive at that in the research there is a difference between the root of stipulating
understanding for the establishment of the evidence and between the research of the standard by
which understanding is fulfilled, hence there is an agreement in the stipulation of understanding for
the establishment of evidence but there is a difference in the manner in which that is fulfilled.
The one who ponders over the statements of the scholars and their application concerning the one
who falls into doubts, that they stipulate that for the evidence to be established by way of ruling (not
literally) it is regulated by not being negligent. Hence if the ignorance is a result of his own negligence
in learning the religion then he is not excused. Such ignorance is not considered to prevent the
individuals punishment or accountability. However, after agreeing on this point they differed
concerning how this negligence is fulfilled.
There are two opinions:
1. The regulation for negligence is the possibility of learning and knowing. So whoever is capable of
knowing and is able to reach the truth without a great deal of difficulty and then doesn’t do so is
considered to be negligent. This is the opinion of the four Imams. However, this negligence differs
from place to place and from time to time, because the paths which lead to possibility of knowledge
differ based upon the circumstances. What there is no doubt that the possibility of knowledge in our
times is easier than previous times. If we accept this position then in our times the door to excuse of
ignorance has been shut due to the ease of being able to acquire knowledge.
2. The regulation for negligence is the possibility of learning and knowing but the effective cause is
that no negligence has actually occurred from him in learning. Hence, we take into account whether
negligence has actualized from the individual in learning the knowledge of his religion. Not every
person for whom it is possible to learn, such a person may not be negligent even though they don’t
learn what they need to know of their religion. Its possible that he is ignorant of the fact that he has
fallen into opposition, so he doesn’t try to learn the correct knowledge not out of negligence rather
because he is unaware of his opposition to the religion, perhaps because his scholar or Imam has
given him that ruling or perhaps his study of the texts has lead him to this conclusion. Ibn al-Laham of
the hanabilah states: “if we state: he is excused, its place is only if he isn’t negligent or falls short in
learning the ruling, however if he is negligent and falls short then he is not excused in certainty.” (alQawaid, 1/199)
Points of Ijma:
Principle: For the establishment of the evidence what is required is upon the individual is knowledge
and general understanding not specific understanding.
General understanding: ability to understand if a person wanted, ie. The root of understanding in
opposition to the insane person.
Specific understanding: complete understanding which leads acceptance, submission and acting upon
it.
The second condition:
the elimination of the doubt: what is meant by this is that no doubt occurs to the individual which
makes him unable to comprehend the correct intent of the text, which becomes a barrier between
him and understanding the text as Allah intended it. Or it causes him to not stick to the literal
meaning of the text which is known from it directly and forces him to interpret it because of what he
sees in it of error which must be denied. Even though Allah has explained the truth in His book
completely and clearly, however many of the Muslims, rather even the Scholars haven’t been able to
reach that truth which Allah intended by the text due to the occurrence of many doubts which
prevented them from reaching the truth, they swayed them into opposing the correct path and lead
them into following opposing opinions to that which the Islamic texts showed. For this reason Iman
Ahmad said: “the reason most people error is from the direction of interpretation and analogy.” (AlFataawa, 7/118)
Ibn Taymiyyah says during his comment on the hadith of the man who denied Allah’s power: “the one
who interprets (due to doubts) who tries his utmost and is keen on following the Messenger (SAW) is
more deserving of being pardon than someone like this.”(Al-Fataawa,3/231)
Ibn Taymiyyah says: “the one who interprets (due to doubts) whose intent was to follow the
Messenger (SAW) is not made takfir of, nor is tafsiq made of him if he tries his best but makes a
mistake, this is known by the people concerning practical matters. However, concerning matters of
belief, then many people make takfir of the mistaken one in them. This view is not known from any of
the companions of the prophet (SAW) and their successors nor any of the Imams of the Muslims.
Rather this is from the foundational principles of the people of innovation who have innovated new
matters and then have made takfir of those who oppose them, like the Khawarij, the Mu’tazila, and
Jahmiyyah. Also this view was adopted by many of those who follow the Imams such as some of the
followers of Imam Malik, Imam ash-Shafi’ee, and Imam Ahmad and other than them.” (Minhaj asSunnah 5/239) He also states: “Likewise, the statements which the one who states them comes under
disbelief, the scriptural message through which one knows the truth and which necessitate this
(disbelief) may not have reached such a person, they may be known to him but they are not
established concerning him or he may not have been able to understand them, and perhaps a doubt
has occurred to him by which Allah will excuse him. So whoever is a diligent believer searching for the
truth however, makes a mistake, then Allah will forgive him his mistake, whoever he may be, whether
in theoretical matters, or practical ones.” and he mentioned that: “this is what the companions of the
prophet (SAW) were upon and the majority of the Imams.” (al-fatawaa 23/346)
Shaikh Abdur Rahman Ibn as-Si’di states: “Indeed, those who have fallen into interpretations from
among the people of the Qiblah, who have been misguided and fell into error in understanding that
which came in the Book and the sunnah, whilst having faith in the Messenger (SAW), conviction in his
truthfulness in all that which he said, believing whatever he said is the truth, and held firmly to it,
however, they were mistaken in some of the theoretical matters or practical matters, then the book
and sunnah have shown that such people are not expelled from the religion, nor is the rulings of the
disbelievers applied to them, the companions, the successors and the Imams of the salaf have agreed
upon this.” (Al-Irshad ila marifah al-Ahkam, p.207)
In conclusion, even though the occurrence of a doubt prevents the application of the rulings of
disbelief , and that its removal is a condition for the establishment of the evidence against an
individual, however it is not an absolute such that all doubts fall within this scope. Rather it is
regulated by various conditions. All of these conditions can be summarized into one condition. That is
that the situation of the one with doubts doesn’t indicate that he desires to oppose and not up hold
the core of the religion or shows the individuals laziness in sticking to them, or disregarding
understanding them, or complacency in defining what they indicate. This is the reason which lead the
scholars to not excuse the extreme batiniyyah of the Ismailiyyah, Nusairiyyah and Duruz based upon
their doubts, because their reality is that they don’t worship Allah nor do they stick to the core
teaching and rulings of the religion. As for those to whom a doubt occurred from among the Muslim
scholars, for example, the doubt caused them to believe that it is acceptable to make istighatha to
other than Allah and doesn't fall under shirk, such as Imam as-Subki, al-Bakri and others. Their
situation is totally different than the first group. One finds these Muslim scholars who were mistaken
strictly adhering to the core tenets of the religion and submitted to its teachings. They are tirelessly
striving to take from that which the Messenger came with. Hence, even with their great mistakes and
being far from the truth, they affirm the core of adhering to the religion. In addition they are spend
their time and effort in studying the religion and teaching it to others.
Ibn al-Qayyim comments whilst mentioning the categories of the innovators ignorance: “First: the
ignorant one who blindly follows who has no understanding and is unable to comprehend, then this
type is not expelled from the religion nor declared fasiq nor his testimony is rejected, if he is unable to
learn the guidance, the ruling of them is the ruling of the oppressed men, women and children who
are unable to ploy or be guided to the path, so perhaps they will be pardoned and Allah is oft
forgiving merciful. Second: the one who is able to ask, seek the guidance and know the truth.
However, he leaves that because of being busy with seeking the world, its stations, its pleasures, its
provisions and other than that. This one is negligent deserving of the punishment, sinful by leaving
that which is compulsory upon him of Allah’s Taqwa according to his ability. The ruling of this one is
that of those who leave some of the obligatory matters.” (Tariq al-Hukmiyyah, p.174)
The second opinion is the most correct opinion.
The methodology upon which not excusing the one who falls into the error of shirk:
There are five foundational reasons which have lead the mistake in the issue of excuse of ignorance:
1. Belief that there is a minimum level for the description of someone as a Muslim: Islam is only
ascribed to an individual if he fulfills its compound reality. The compound reality of Islam is
worshiping Allah alone and leaving every type of major shirk, because it is impossible to combine
between worship of Allah alone and major shirk, due to the fact that they are the two opposites,
hence the existence of one necessitates the elimination of the other.
The problem with this principle is not differentiating between the reality of Islam in and of itself and
between the effective cause which the Shariah has taken into account concerning the ruling of the
Islam of an individual and giving him its rulings in the world. When the scholars describe the reality of
Islam and expound for us what is meant and intended, they desire to elaborate a major maxim: the
reality of Tawheed is made up of singling out Allah for worship and being free of all types of shirk and
Taghut and they don’t intend to inform us what are its regulations and conditions for the remaining of
it ascription concerning the individual or not.
Built upon this principle, those who hold it have fallen into many errors:
A) When they accepted that a person Islam is not established purely through his affirmation, rather
they must research and look into the evidence of contingency without which one can’t come to the
acknowledgement of Allah according to their claim, to the point that some of them declaring Kufr
concerning those who don’t know the evidence of contingency.
B) The group of hesitation and clarification: who held that a Muslims Islam is not established through
affirmation, rather it must be confirmed by a minimum level of fulfilling the obligations and leaving
the major sins.
C) The consequence of not excusing the ignorant is that ones Islam is not established until the person
has knowledge concerning what falls under the scope of major Shirk and leaving all of its detailed
actions. This means that the one who testifies to the shahadah but doesn’t know that a particular
actions such as: al-Istighatha of other than Allah is major shirk, then his Islam is not established by
that testification and he remains upon the original disbelief (Kaafir Asli) Ibn al-Mudhir states: “All who
we have witnessed (of the scholars of Islam) agree that if a Kaafir says: ‘La ilaha il lallah wa ana
Muhamadan Abduhu wa raasuluhu’ (None has the right to be worshiped except Allah and
Muhammad is His slave and Messenger) even if he doesn’t say anything in addition to that, then he is
a Muslim.” (al-Awsat, p.154, also refer to al-Ishraf 2/260) Hence, the condition of knowledge of the
shahadah is fulfilled by accepting in general terms, meaning its based upon affirming singling out Allah
for servitude, rejecting shirk and the Taghut, and not knowledge of the specifics of all that which falls
under this scope of servitude.
2. Equating the original disbeliever and the Muslim who has fallen into shirk: This principle is built
upon the acceptance that there are effective similarities between the state of the original disbeliever
and the state of the Muslim who has fallen into shirk. The effect of this principle is shown in the types
of evidences used to support affirming no excuse, meaning they used the evidences pertaining to the
original disbelievers applying them to a different state, using the principle of the generality of the
wording and overlapping of the descriptions. All of the evidences that they based their view upon
were revealed concerning the original disbelievers from whom no affirmation emanated of Islam and
the Muslim. However, there are clear differences between the two. There has been no testimony by
the original disbeliever of Islam as his religion or Muhammad as a messenger, nor has he announced
acceptance, in general, of the obligation of singling out Allah for Worship, nor the affirmation of the
absolute certainty of the truthfulness of what has come from the prophet (SAW), nor complete
submission to his law nor adhering to it by fulfilling his commands and refraining from his prohibitions.
The evidences of the text, the consensus of the scholars and the rational intellect based upon the
indications of the text clearly show the disbelief of the one who is like this (the original disbeliever),
meaning he is not given the rulings of Islam, whether he be knowledgeable or ignorant, whether he
be from the people of the book or from any other religion.
Ibn Taymiyyah states whilst mentioning the difference of opinion concerning the takfir of the
innovators from among the Jahmiyyah, whose views necessitate the rejection of the creator: “the
reason for this dispute between the scholars is due to the opposing evidences, those which indicate
the attribution of their disbelief, and those individuals who held those views have of faith that which
prevents them from being disbelievers. Hence, there are two opposing evidences. The reality of which
is that the generality of the words that they derived from the texts of the scholars was like what the
predecessors derived from the generality of text of the law giver, so they said: whoever says such and
such then he is a disbeliever, but they believed that this statement encompassed every individual who
said this statement and didn’t ponder over the fact that takfir has conditions and preventative
measure which may cause it not to be ascribed to an individual, because the general takfir doesn’t
necessitate the specific takfir except by the elimination of the obstacles and existence of the
conditions.” (al-Fatawaa 12/487)
3. Relying upon the principle: the ruling is based upon the apparent and Allah takes care of the
intentions: Many have espoused that judgement on the servants is based upon that which outwardly
emanates from them, so from whomever Faith emanates then his is judged as Muslim and from
whomever disbelief emanates is judged as a disbeliever. Hasan and Abdullah the two sons of Shaikh
Muhammad ibn AbdulWahaab (RAH) have said: Whoever dies before this call (Dawah of Ibn
AbdulWahaab) reaches them, then the judgement upon him is that if he committed shirk and that
was his way of life (deen/religion) and he died upon that then that is what outwardly emanated from
him that he died upon disbelief, no one is to supplicate for him, nor pray upon him, nor give charity
on his behalf. “ (Ad-Durrah as-Saniyyah 5/154)
Hence, if the judgement upon the individual is based upon what outwardly emanates from him then
this emphasis that intending disbelief is not a condition for declaring takfir on the individual. Meaning
that intending disbelief is not a condition for applying the ascription of disbelief on the individual.
That which is meant by the outward emanation (adh-Dhahir) is what emanates from him f actions,
statements and affirmations, or what is established by proof or explanation. However, the Adh-dhahir
must be a clear cut dhahir, which is not opposed by any other outwardly emanating matter. Hence, if
there is an opposing outwardly emanating matter then the precedent is given to the stronger adhDhahir, that’s why some Hanafi scholars have said: “Building upon the apparent is compulsory as
longs as there is no opposition.” (Qawaid al-Fiqh p.65, Tarteeb al-Laali fi salk al-Amaali, Nadhir Zada, P.
863)
The one from whom major shirk outwardly emanates then he falls into one of three situations:
1. It occurs from a slave who doesn’t ascribe to Islam and doesn’t announce that he follow it as a way
of life. Hence we must judge him according to what is apparent from him of disbelief and shirk,
because there is nothing which opposes this.
2. It occcurs from a slave whose state is unknown whether he ascribes to Islam or not, then he must
be judged with what outwardly emanates from him of disbelief and shirk.
3. It occurs from one who ascribes to Islam, outwardly how his affirmation to Tawheed and adhering
to its general foundational tenets, and a general acceptance of the truthfulness of the Messenger
(SAW). In this situation, two apparent emanate from him which are contradictory: One apparent that
confirms his Islam, another which confirms disbelief. The intellect necessitates that there are only
three possibilities. Either we give precedence his ascription of Islam and so we judge him with Islam or
we give him precedence to his outward disbelief and so we judge him with disbelief, or we hesitate
concerning him neither judging him with Islam or disbelief. It is necessary to chose one of this three
position however, determining which to choose is not the job of the intellect rather it must be
determined by the texts.
The Islamic texts show clearly and strongly that we must give precedence to the state in which the
ascription of Islam is determined in opposition to other than it. This is the case because this is the way
of the Islamic texts in accepting the Islam of an individual. The text show that Islam of an individual is
established even with the smallest indication as is confirmed in the Hadiths of Usamah bin Zayd (RA)
and al-Miqdad bin al-Aswad (RA) because the Messenger of Allah (SAW) made clear that the
ascription of Islam is confirmed for the individual from the beginning even if the his apparent
indicates that he only testified to it to save himself from being killed. This shows that the individual if
two apparent (dhahirs) oppose each other then precedence is given to the one which confirms the
ascription of Islam in opposition to other than that. In addition, the narration of the father of the
Khawarij who said to the Messenger of Allah after he (SAW) had distributed some wealth that had
been sent to him: O Messenger of Allah, Fear Allah! The Prophet (SAW) said: Am I not the most
rightful of those on the Earth who should fear Allah?! Upon this Khaled, the sword of Allah said: O
Messenger of Allah, should I not strike his neck?! The Messenger replied: “No perhaps he prays”,
Khaled said: “Perhaps one who prays says something with his tongue which is not in his heart?!” The
Prophet (SAW) said: I have not been commanded to cut open the breasts of the people nor their
stomachs!” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim) This Hadith also shows that what is given precedence is the
apparent which confers Islam even if the apparent is suspect. Ibn Abdul-Bar states: “It is compulsory
when discerning that one does not declare with disbelief except that which everyone agrees to the
takfir of, or one upon which there is a confirmed proof that has no opposition.” (At-Tamheed, 17/22)
4. Differentiating between the clear matters and the difficult matters:
The meaning of this principle is that there are clear matters of the religion which are widespread
between the Muslims, none is excused concerning them whether due to ignorance or interpretation
in any time or place. So that which is described as clear and known in the religion by necessity then
there is no excuse in them if they are compromised.
5. Relying upon the necessities of the Qadariyah in building the ruling