I asked the Imām of Usūl & ‘Aqīdah, Shaykh al-‘Allāmah Hassān Husayn as-Sōmālī (حفظه الله) the following questions:
Firstly, I wish that one day I may study under the shaykh, and only Allāh knows how much I love him for the sake of Allāh, and how much I persistently look into his books on a daily basis. As for the books the shaykh mentioned to me, I am currently translating them into English.
As for what relates to the shaykh’s answer, I have accepted his advice, and I have even read his books upon my shaykh and those present in our classes, and we have benefited alot, except that there are a few questions from what I’ve read throughout all his works.
1 — I didn’t ask about when it’s permissible for a layman to make takfīr, but I rather asked when it’s obligatory upon him to make takfīr, so that we know when he would be considered blameworthy for abandoning takfīr, and for that reason, I gave the example of claiming the Qur’ān is created (writing the following):
“The noble shaykh mentioned that the issue of claiming the Qur’ān is created is from kufr ta’wīl which leads towards denying the verses of Allāh, may He be blessed and exalted. And this means that an individual may be excused due to ta’wīl, which is the apparent explanations of the Imāms and the official position in the madhab of Ahmad in considering the blind-followers as fussāq as al-Majd cited.
Therefore, it’s not obligatory for a layman to make takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, since he has ta’wīl to begin with and it’s impermissible to make takfīr upon him.
And the issue that I have is that the Imāms have agreed upon making takfīr upon whoever does NOT make takfīr upon those who claim the Qur’ān is created — as it’s mentioned in Risālat ar-Rāziyayn since they met the scholars of the regions — despite it being from kufr ta’wīl which doesn’t make an individual a kāfir except after the establishment of the hujjah upon him, so how can it be said that whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon him becomes a kāfir?
What appears to me, is that it’s obligatory to make takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created if the hujjah is established upon him, since in such a situation he would be rejecting the text, and Imām al-Barbahārī (Died 311H) says in Sharh as-Sunnah;
“We don’t take out anyone of ahlul-qibla from Islām until he opposes an Āyah from the book of Allāh (عز وجل) or opposes something from the reports of Rasūlullāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم), or prays to other than Allāh, or sacrifices to other than Allāh, so if he does anything from that, it becomes OBLIGATORY upon you to take him out of Islām.”
And the relevant point from the citation is that whoever meets the description of what he mentioned from opposing the texts, “it becomes obligatory” to make takfīr upon him, and perhaps the rule of whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon the kāfir in this situation (of claiming the Qur’ān is created) is held upon whoever meets the description of opposing the text with the removal of ta’wīl.
While Imām an-Nawawī views claiming the Qur’ān being created is minor kufr, so is it possible to say that he fell into kufr generally — not individually — since he didn’t view this statement as kufr based upon the aforementioned rule (3rd nullifier).”
2 — O Shaykh, you have precisely determined the issue of making takfīr upon the apparent lāzim in “Al-Fatāwā ash-Shar’iyyah ‘an al-As’ilat al-Djibūtiyyah” with a precious explanation, and that it’s the madhab of the majority of muhaddithīn and fuqahā’ from the salaf, and there’s no confusion surrounding this point.
However I want more examples to clarify the false implications of kufr which are open to possibilities (such as he may commit kufr in the future), which isn’t permissible to be made takfīr upon, as you mentioned in the issue of receiving a citizenship which doesn’t involve abiding by any kufr (i.e. it’s only kufr if a citizenship process requires you to abide by kufr or speak kufr).
As some people said this action (of acquiring a citizenship) leads them towards agreeing upon their constitution and other lawāzim which is open to possibilities, and you clarified that this is Bātil, since the majority of the muwahhidīn who acquired it explicitly profess in disbelieving in the constituion and their man-made laws.
In addition to this, is the person who makes ta’wīl in the names and attributes of Allāh included within takfīr upon a clear or unclear lāzim, since the A’immat ad-Da’wah an-Najdiyyah call Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalānī, “The Hāfidh of his time”, while praising an-Nawawī, and calling some who have been affected by the ash’arī creed with the title, “Shaykh al-Islām”, so what do we ay regardng this.
And what is the ruling on the one who makes takfīr upon the unclear matters? Such as the one who makes takfīr upon everyone who falls into kufr ta’wīl ever since the time of the salaf until now without elaboration.
3 — I want a clarification for what Shaykh al-Islām mentioned concerning the two narrations he cited from Imām Ahmad on the kufr of whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon the Jahmiyyah, where Ibn Taymiyyah declared the most correct narration is not making takfīr.
Did he intend the pure original jahmiyyah, or ahlul-bida’ (among the mu’tazilah etc) who follow some of the usūl of the original jahmiyyah. Furthermore, how can he mention a difference of opinion on the issue, while the rule is agreed upon (i.e. 3rd nullifier) concerning the one who doesn’t make takfīr upon the jahmiyyah.
On the authority of Abī Sulaymān Dāwūd Ibn al-Husayn al-Bayhaqī, he said it has reached me that Al-Hulwānī al-Hassan Ibn ‘Alī said, “I don’t make takfīr upon the one who abstains from having an opinion concerning the Qur’ān (being created or uncreated)”, so they abandoned his knowledge.
Abū Sulaymān said, I asked Salamah Ibn Shabīb about the knowledge of al-Hulwānī, so he replied; “It’s thrown in the garbage”, and Salamah (Ibn Shabīb) further stated; “Whoever doesn’t testify the kufr of the kāfir, then he is a kāfir.”
The relevant point from this narration is the commentary by Imām ath-Thahabī and his rebuke against Salamah Ibn Shabīb by saying, “This is ghuluw and kharijism from salamah”.
— Refer to “Tah’thīb at-Tah’thīb” (2/303)
The apparent speech of Ath-Thahabī in respect to Salamah Ibn Shabīb is based upon those who go into exaggeration in making takfīr bil-Lāzim, and our beloved Shaykh (i.e. Hassān Husayn) clarified that there are many scholars who intended the unclear lāzim by their statement “the lāzim of a madhab is not a madhab” (unlike the clear lāzim), and this is the apparent view of Shaykh al-Islām (Ibn Taymiyyah).
Imām ath-Thahabī (رحمه الله) also said (in rejecting takfīr upon unclear implications), “There’s no doubt that some scholars of nathr (i.e. scholars of kalām — theology) exaggerated in negation, rejection, distortion and trying to eliminate any deficiency (from Allāh) according to their claim which made them fall into bid’ah or describing the creator with non-existent attributes.
Just like there is a group among the scholars of athar (i.e. muhaddithīn) who went into exaggeration in affirmation, whilst accepting the weak and munkar hadīths under the pretext of adopting the sunnah and following the prophet, so an uproar occurred, and hatred took place, with each side declaring the other innovators, and each side declaring the other to be kuffār (i.e. one group calling others jahmiyyah mushrikīn & other group labelling others with anthropomorphism).
And we seek refuge in Allāh from desires and arguing about the Dīn, and from making takfīr upon a muwahhid muslim due to the lāzim (implication) of his statement, while he runs away from such an implication, and he eliminates attributes of dificiency from the Lord and glorifies Him.”
Even though some scholars mentioned that his speech has some harshness against ahlul-athar (i.e. some muhaddithīn such as accusing salamah ibn shabīb with kharijism and ghuluw).
4 — There are many people who say, everyone must obey the land of their land — while it’s ruled by man-made law — Does the Shaykh view this statement as kufr in and of itself or from the implications of kufr.
The ‘Allāmah, Shaykh Hassān Husayn as-Sōmālī (حفظه الله) responded to my questions by saying:
All praise belongs to Allāh who by His favour goodness and righteous deeds are completed, and may the peace and blessings be sent upon the honest prophet, and upon his noble blessed household and companions, to proceed:
Your writing has reached me, and we thank you for getting in touch with us, and having husn ath-than, hoping that you can pass on my salāms and greetings to the noble mashāyikh, whilst asking the most High and all-powerful to preserve you and unite us together in the abode of His mercy, indeed He is the helper and all-Capable in doing that.
I apologize for the delay in replying due to what’s well-known from being pre-occupied (with delivering lessons) and work (writing books and worldly life).
1 – It’s obligatory upon the layman to make takfīr if he knows about the kufr and there’s no misconception which prevents him from making takfīr.
Similarly, if the Qādhī (judge) would abstain from making a judgement with the presence of reliable just witnesses without any misconception, and it has been said that the Qādhī (judge) becomes a kāfir in such a situation (and in clear matters, there is no difference between a judge or layman, both have equal knowledge and are obliged to make a judgement).
Ibn Burhān (Died 518H) mentioned in his book “Al-Awsat”:
“And the judgement of the high assumption of a mujtahid which is based upon indicative factors is considered known and explicit to him by Ijmā’, just like if a hākim (judge) has the evidences displayed to him, his high assumption would be that they are trustworthy (witnesses), and therefore the obligation falls upon him to make a judgement by Ijmā’ according to that assumption, that if he says it’s permissible to not make a judgement by it, he would become a kāfir, due to abandoning what’s explicitly clear-cut (by withholding the apparent judgement of Allāh).”
Refer to “An-Nafā’is Fī sharh al-Mah’sūl” (1/153) by Al-Qarāfī (Died 684H)
Moreover, kufr is a hukm takleefī (the ruling for the people) in the sense of forbiddance and obligation of the one who deserves it to be called a kāfir. And takfīr is a hukm wad’ī (the ruling established by Allāh) in the sense of connecting the asbāb (causes of takfīr), since the legislator (Allāh) has set down causes and factors for the rulings to be applied, and made a connection for it.
And it’s as if He said, if you see this specific cause upon this specific individual, then what you must know is that he’s a mushrik or kāfir, this is what’s considered wad’ī (the ruling established by Allāh whenever the cause is present).
And it’s as if He said, it’s obligatory upon you O my servants to judge the kufr of such and such, this is what’s considered takleefī. [1]
2 – Making takfeer upon those who say the Qur’ān is created is making takfīr upon the lāzim (implications) of a statement, since we don’t find in the Qur’ān, nor in the sunnah, nor in the Ijmā’ of the ummah anything that points towards it being explicit kufr in and of itself.
And the one who is excused in this issue is the one who doesn’t picture the lāzim (implications) of his statement, and he disbelieves whether he adopts it (i.e. the implication of his statement) after picturing it, or doesn’t adopt it (i.e. rejects the implication).
And the layman who doesn’t picture the lāzim (implication) could become a fāsiq due to his ta’assub (fanaticism) towards the people of falsehood, and not analyzing and verifying the affairs of his Dīn, whilst hearing about the da’wah which opposes what his Imam that he blind follows calls towards.
The main point in the topic is the differentiating between explicit kufr (in and of itself), and what necessitates kufr, and we have previously clarified what explicit kufr is, and it’s what has been confirmed via proof that it’s considered kufr in and of itself, such as abandoning salāh, since the actual abandoning is considered kufr according to the well-known text. Also, mocking Allāh, His Messenger and Verses.
“And if you ask them, they will surely say, "We were only conversing and playing." Say, "Is it Allāh and His verses and His Messenger that you were mocking?” [9:65]
As for what leads to kufr, then it differs to explicit kufr in the sense that no proof has come to show that it’s considered kufr in and of itself, however it necessitates according to the implications of the mind what is considered kufr in and of itself, such as claiming that the Qur’ān is created, as indeed it implies that the creator is created!
If the individual rejects this implication due to a misconception he claims to have, then it’s considered making takfīr upon ma’āl (a statement that leads to kufr) which is differed upon.
However, if he acknowledges the implication, and he doesn’t retract his statement, rather he persists upon his statement (of the Qur’an being created), then the issue has changed from being kufr via an implication to explicit kufr (due to clearly picturing and acknowledging the implication), and we have mentioned in “Al-Djibūtiyyah” many examples concerning this, so return back to it.
As for the Ijmā’ which the Imāms of hadīth have mentioned, such as the two Rāzī’s, then at most it’s considered the Ijmā’ of a group among the muslims, not an Ijma’ which could be used as proof to make takfīr upon whoever claims the Qur’ān is created, since the people of innovation who claim this (i.e. the Qur’ān being created) are from that same era, and their kufr cannot be affirmed due to the Ijmā’ of the people of their era, rather it has to be via a text or Ijmā’ which has been firmly established before their era.
Ibn at-Tilmisānī al-Fihrī mentioned in “Sharh al-Ma’ālim Fī Usūl al-Fiqh” (2/105):
“The deviant mujtahid who is made takfīr upon due to his bid’ah isn’t taken into account for Ijmā’ (the consensus of the scholars), and his kufr is not to be established via the Ijmā’ of the people during his time, because they are not considered the complete ummah if he isn’t made takfīr upon (i.e. the deviant mujtahid), thus he wouldn’t be made takfīr upon (for merely opposing the Ijmā’!) until they are considered the complete ummah, otherwise it would go around in circles (he can claim Ijmā’ of his sect from the ummah and make takfīr upon us for opposing them), however he would become a kāfir via an Ijmā’ that is established before them, or otherwise he would only become a kāfir via a clear-cut evidence, whilst putting Ijmā’ aside.”
He also mentioned in “Sharh Ma’ālim Usūl al-Fiqh” (page 572):
“It’s not sufficient to make takfīr due to the Ijmā’ of the scholars in his time, since he (i.e. the innovator) is from their time, and the Ijmā’ is not firmly established due to him opposing them. However yes, takfīr upon him would be confirmed due to the Ijmā’ of the scholars before his time, or due to an explicit text.”
Abū al-‘Abbās al-Qarāfī mentioned in “Sharh at-Tanqīh” (page 311):
“The scholars disputed making takfīr upon the people of innovation, due to observing what necessitates from their beliefs of explicit kufr. So whoever took that into consideration and made the lāzim of a madhab (implications of a statement and belief) as a madhab (a position), then he would make takfīr upon them, and whoever didn’t consider the lāzim of a madhab as a madhab, then he didn’t make takfīr upon them.
And due to this Rule (of the implications of a statement being considered a statement) found among Mālik, ash-Shāfi’ī, Abū Hanīfah, al-Ash’arī and al-Bāqillānī, there are two opinions on making takfīr upon them.
And since we clarified that they’re kuffār, it’s necessary to affirm that according to a proof other than our own Ijmā’, since our Ijmā’ (of our time) isn’t considered a proof in making takfīr upon them, unless if we were considered the whole ummah, and we wouldn’t be considered the whole ummah unless other than us is considered a kāfir.
Therefore, our Ijmā’ would only be considered a hujjah if they are kuffār (and not from the ummah), and they would be considered kuffār according to our Ijmā’, which means that both sides would make takfīr upon each other (due to both sides claiming to be the whole ummah), which would result in a circulation (of takfīr).”
Ar-Rāzī mentioned in “al-Mah’sūl” (2/942), “They differed in whether the Ijmā’ is established with the opposition of those who are mistaken from ahlul-qiblah in the matters of Usūl, so if we didn’t makw takfīr upon them, we took into account their statement, since they are from the believers, and among the ummah the statement of those besides them is considered a statement of “some” believers, therefore it wouldn’t be a hujjah.
And if we made takfīr upon them, the Ijmā’ is established without them, however it’s not permissible to hold onto our own Ijmā’ in making takfīr upon them in these matters, since it’s only established they are excluded from the Ijmā’ after the confirmation of them falling into kufr in these matters, so if we affirm their kufr regarding such matters by our own Ijmā’ alone (a group of believers are making takfīr upon other believers for opposing them), which necessitates circulation (of them making takfīr back upon us).”
And the explainer of his book al-Qarāfī mentioned in “an-Nafā’is” (6/2844):
“The summary; Is that making takfīr upon them via our own Ijmā’ is a branch issue of our Ijmā’ being considered a hujjah, and it would only be a hujjah if those who oppose us are considered kuffār to begin with, wherein we remain as being the whole ummah, and thus necessitates circulation.”
Refer to “At-Tah’sīl min al-Mah’sūl” (2/75) and “Al-Hāsilmkin al-Mah’sūl” (2/521)
The main point is that it’s necessary to observe and analyse this problem concerning the Ijmā’ when we say, “That the Imāms agreed upon making takfīr upon whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon the claimer of the Qur’ān being created”, since if there was an issue concerning the establishment of the Ijmā’ in making takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, then imagine the case in making takfīr upon the one who doesn’t make takfīr upon him (such an Ijmā’ would be more deserving of being Bātil).
Furthermore, making takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created depends upon picturing the lāzīm and what the statement leads too (of clear kufr), and there’s no difference concerning that between a layman and scholar, for indeed if both of them picture the reality of his statement and what it necessitates, he disbelieves if he doesn’t retract it. And for that reason, the salaf differentiated between the one who pictures the reality of the matter and other than him.
Don’t you see that the statement of the two Rāzī’s (i.e. Abū Hātim & Abū Zur’ah), may Allāh have mercy upon them;
“Whoever claims that the Qur'ān is created is a kāfir in the sight of Allāh almighty, a disbelief which takes one outside the fold of Islām, and whoever doubts in his Kufr from those who understand, then he's a Kāfir. And whoever doubts concerning the speech of Allāh (عز وجل), so he hesistates out of doubt pertaining to it, wherein he says, I don’t know if it’s created or uncreated, then he is a jahmī, and whoever halts from having an opinion about the Qur’ān out of ignorance, then he is to be taught, he is declared an innovator, but isn’t declared a kāfir.”
And the statement of Imām Ahmad, may Allāh have mercy upon him;
“Whoever among them comprehends speech (i.e. understands what he’s saying), then he is a jahmī.”
“But as for the one who doesn’t comprehend it, then he is to be enlightened, and if he understands and pictures the speech, then he is like them (i.e. the jahmiyyah), and the Qur’ān is the uncreated speech of Allāh in whatever way it’s mentioned.”
And his statement, “The one who debates and is known for speech (calling towards the Qur’ān being created), then he is a jahmī. As for the one who isn’t known for speech (calling towards it), he is to be avoided until he recants his statement. And concerning the one who doesn’t have knowledge about what he’s saying, he is to be asked about it in order to learn.”
Likewise with the statement of Imām Ahmad Ibn Munī’, “Whoever claims it is created, then he is a jahmī. Whoever hesitates concerning it, if he was among those who don’t comprehend what he’s saying, such as the merchants, women, children, then he is to be remained silent about and taught. However if he wqs from those who comprehend, then place him in the valley of the jahmiyyah, and whoever says my recitation with the Qur’ān is created, then he is a jahmī.”
— Refer to “As-Sunnah” (1/165-179) by ‘Abdullāh Ibn Ahmad, “Al-Ibānah al-Kubrā” (#97 & #98) by Ibn Battah, and “al-Hujjah Fī Bayān al-Mahajjah” (1/424)
The speech of the salaf in making takfīr in this issue revolves around picturing the reality of the statement. So whoever doesn’t picture the lāzim (implications of it), such as those who don’t understand the meaning of the word linguistically, then the sabab of kufr (cause of disbelief) isn’t established within him, and it’s not possible to make takfīr upon him due to the negation of the manāt (cause of making takfīr upon him).
As for the one who pictures that claiming the Qur’ān is created necessitates claiming Allāh is created and other things among the kufr implications, and that the attribute of “Speech of Allāh” is sub-joined with the one described with this attribute “Allāh”, then he has come with a statement of kufr while he understands its meaning, so he would be a kāfir.
And for that reason, the salaf said, “from among those who understand”, “from those who comprehend speech”, and “If he comprehends and pictures the speech.”
3 — Holding the kufr in claiming the Qur’ān is created upon minor (kufr) is a Bātil statement, in which the famous statements of the salaf reject it, and there’s no need to get into details surrounding this point.
However, there’s a group of scholars, such as as-Sijzī, Qawwām as-Sunnah, al-Bayhaqī, Ibn Qudāmah and Ibn Taymiyyah who mentioned the difference of opinion in what it’s held upon, and that the opinion of the vast majority is that it’s held upon major kufr.
Refer to “Risālat as-Sijzī ilā ahli zabīd” (page 153), “al-Hujjah fī bayān al-Mahajjah” (2/552), “Hikāyat al-Munātharah fil-Qur’ān” (page 20), and “Majmū’ al-Fatāwā” (12/486).
And if this was the case, then it cannot be said that an-Nawawī and those who agreed with him (who said it’s minor kufr) fell into kufr generally or individually, the same way it cannot be said that whoever held the kufr of abandoning Salāh upon minor kufr has fell into kufr generally or individually.
However, if an-Nawawī said that the Qur’ān is created, then now it’s possible to say he has fallen into kufr, due to the clear differentiation between theory based knowledge and between implementing actions put in practice in the likes of these matters.
And just to draw the difference between theory and practise, is that whoever said abandoning salāh is not kufr, due to holding the reported hadīths concerning it upon minor kufr, due to doubts or indicative factors that appeared to him, then he doesn’t become a kāfir, just as the Imāms aren’t made takfīr upon for adopting the opinion of not making takfīr upon abandoning salāh.
However this person who adopts the opinion of not making takfīr theoritically speaking and acording to principles, if he abandons salāh via actions, then in this situation he is made takfīr upon for abandoning salāh, since the shar’ī evidence has established that abandoning salāh is kufr, and this person abandons salāh, therefore he is a kāfir.
And the belief of the individual who abandons salāh that no takfīr is made upon abandoning salāh doesn’t effect our ruling, since we deal with him in accordance to our beliefs concerning him, and it is his kufr for abandoning salāh, as the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said:
“Except if you view clear kufr which you have evidence from Allāh for.”
So the prophet made the observation for the observer, and clarified that kufr is established without taking into account the belief of the one being made takfīr upon, otherwise the observer wouldn’t require returning back to proof, and we have observed him abandon salāh, and abandoning it is considered kufr on its own, not by its implication.
And we do not make takfīr upon him for opposing us concerning the explanation of the evidences, misinterpreting it, and holding it upon other than what it’s supposed to be held, since ta’wīl is only considered kufr in matters that are known in the Dīn by necessity or clear-cut.
4 – What shaykh al-Islām mentioned from Imām Ahmad concerning the two narrations pertainingnto making takfīr upon whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon the jahmiyyah, what’s apparent is that he’s referring to the mu’tazilah, and they are the 2nd sect of the jahmiyyah.
Al-Qādhī Abū Ya’lah also mentioned the two narrations in his book “Ar-Riwāyatayn wal-Waj’hayn” (page 108), where he wrote:
“Issue: The madhab doesn’t disagree in making takfīr upon the mu’tazilah based upon the statements they make, such as claiming the Qur’ān is created, negating seeing Allāh (in the Ākhirah), the creation create their own actions (instead of Allāh), etc. Since the evidences have pointed towards that which is not the place to show it here.
Therefore, whoever refrains from making takfīr upon them, does this refrainer become a kāfir or not? Al-Marrūthī, Ya’qūb and Abū Tālib cited that he doesn’t become a kāfir. He mentioned in the narration of Abū Tālib, whoever says the Qur’ān is created, then he’s a kāfir. And whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon the one who says the Qur’ān is created, then I do not make takfīr upon him.
Likewise, al-Marrūthī cited from a group of people in Tartūs who make takfīr upon whoever doesn’t make takfīr, so he said; I haven’t heard of this at all. And this is in a fashion of emphasising having knowledge about anything concerning making takfīr upon them.
So it’s as if his madhab is that they are kuffār, i.e. the Jahmiyyah, but whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon them is not a kāfir. So what’s apparent from this is that he didn’t make takfīr upon them. Also with the case of Abū Tālib’s citation, it has been said to him, the people on the frontline make takfīr upon whoever doesn’t make takfīr...” [End Quote]
The text over here is missing and the answer isn’t completely found in the print, the scholarly reviser said; “Around half the page has been obliterated from this page, and I haven’t stumbled across anything from these texts, except for what shaykh al-Islām has pointed towards pertaining to the dispute on the issue.”
What’s shown from this, and Allāh know best, is that negating kufr from whoever refrains from making takfīr upon the claimers that the Qur’ān is created is one of the old statements of the Imām (i.e. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal) which he retracted, and the proof for that is his statement, “I haven’t heard of this at all” (i.e. takfīr upon whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon them).
How can’t it be, when it has become widespread that the Imāms before him made takfīr upon this refrainer? Yes, infact Imām Ahmad himself has various stages concerning this issue, it was mentioned by al-Khallāl in his book.
In the beginning of the marter, the Imām used to dislike speaking about the matter surrounding the Qur’ān and concerning it being created or uncreated, and that it’s necessary to remain quiet about it, which caused some companions of hadīth to be unaware of his position.
Imām Abū Bakr al-Khallāl narrated in his book (narration #1797) through his chain from Hanbal; I said to Abū ‘Abdillāh, very Ya’qūb Ibn Shaybah and Zakariyyah ash-Shirkī Ibn ‘Ammār only narrated from you this stance, which is to remain silent.
So Abū ‘Abdillāh said, we used to give the order of remaining silent and abandon delving into disputes surrounding the Qur’ān, but when we were called towards a particular matter, it was necessary to repel that and clarify the issue with what’s required..” (until the end of his words).
Then he moved onto saying that the Qur’ān is the speech of Allāh and isn’t created, and in this period of time, he didn’t make takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, then he mentioned that it became clear to him making takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, and perhaps the refraining of making takfīr upon these people was in this 3rd stage, due to the fact that Ya’qūb Ibn Bukhtān is from the narrators of this period of time.
As al-Khallāl narrated in “as-Sunnah” (narration #1868) that Ya’qūb Ibn Bukhtān asked Abā ‘Abdillāh about the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, so Ahmad replied: I was reluctant to say he’s a kāfir, until I pondered and analysed, so I saw the statement of Allāh (عز وجل): “Then whoever argues with you about it after this knowledge (i.e. Qur’ān) has come to you.”
Al-Khallāl also narrated (#1869) on the authority of Ibn ad-Dawraqī from Abī ‘Abdillāh that he said, we were reluctant to speak about this matter, then their reality became clear to us, due to the statement of Allāh in His book, “Then whoever argues with you about it.” [3:61]
And he narrated (#1847) on the authority of Hanbal, I heard Abā ‘Abdillāh say, Allāh (عز وجل) said in His book, “And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allāh” [9:6], so Jibrīl heard it from Allāh, and the prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) heard it from Jibrīl, and the companions of the prophet heard it from the prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and the Qur’ān is the speech of Allāh which is uncreated, we do not doubt nor hesitate regarding this. Moreover, the names and attributes of Allāh in the Qur’ān is from the knowledge of Allāh, and His attributes are from Him. Therefore, whoever claims that the Qur’ān is created, then he is a kāfir, as the Qur’ān is the uncreated speech of Allāh, it came from Him and it will return to Him, and we were reluctant to speak about this matter, until these people innovated what they have innovated, and mentioned what they mentioned, they called the people towards what they called them towards, so their reality became clear to us, which is didbelief in the sight of Allāh the supreme.”
Ibn Abī Ya’lah mentioned in “Tabaqāt al-Hanābilah” (2/553): I read in the book of Abū Bakr al-Khallāl that he said, I was informed by ‘Alī Ibn al-Hussayn Ibn Hārūn, who said Muhammad Ibn Abī Hārūn al-Warrāq narrated to me, who said I heard Ya’qūb Ibn Ibrāhīm ad-Dawraqī say, I asked Ahmad Ibn Hanbal about the one who says the Qur’ān is created, so he replied;
I didn’t use to make takfīr upon them until I read verses from the Qur’ān, “If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge (i.e. Qur’ān).” [2:120], and His statement, “after this knowledge (i.e. Qur’ān) has come to you.” [3:61] and His statement, “He has sent it down with His knowledge.” [4:166], so the Qur’ān is from the knowledge of Allāh, and whoever claims the knowledge of Allāh is created (meaning Allāh was ignorant before creating his knowledge), then he is a kāfir, and whoever says that he doesn’t know whether the knowledge of Allāh is created or uncreated, then he is also a kāfir and much worse than the one who says the Qur’ān is created.
And at the final stage, Abū ‘Abdillāh (i.e. Imām Ahmad) mentioned as Shāhīn as-Sumayda’ narrated from him; “Whoever say the Qur’ān is created, then he is a kāfir, and whoever doubts in his kufr, then he is a kāfir.”
5 – The refraining of al-Hulwānī al-Hassan Ibn ‘Alī from making takfīr upon the wāqif pertaining to the Qur’ān (i.e. the one who says it’s the speech of Allāh, but doesn’t say it is created or uncreated) and his statement, “I don’t make takfīr upon the one who makes waqf concerning the Qur’ān”, and the statement of Abī Salamah Ibn Shabīb, “Whoever doesn’t testify the kufr of a kāfir is a kāfir”, along with Ath-Thahabī’s comment upon his statement, “This is ghuluw and kharijism by Salamah” isn’t that significant, since everyone has his own viewpoint.
Since making takfīr upon the wāqif is unlike making takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, and there’s no doubt that refraining from making takfeer upon the waqif is a lighter matter according to the scholars than not making takfīr upon the one who claims it’s created.
And this waqf could be a a waqf of ignorance (of the meaning and reality), so the individual is to be taught and isn’t labelled an innovator, and it could be a waqf of doubt and confusion, so he is called an innovator, but isn’t made takfīr upon according to the scholars, and it could be a waqf of caution and piety, and it could be a waqf of deception and concealing one’s beliefs, so the individual would be tagged along with the valley of the jahmiyyah.
And if the matter was like I described, then there’s no doubt that the unrestricted claim of Ibn Shabīb contains exaggeration from two angles:
1- His takfīr upon al-Hulwānī due to his refraining from making takfīr upon the wāqif of the Qur’ān alone.
2- Unrestrictedly applying takfīr upon the wāqif without elaboration, which is in opposition to the Manhaj of the Imāms of hadīth as aforementioned in the speech of Imām Ahmad, the two Rāzī’s and Ibn Munī’.
In any case, al-Hulwānī is an Imām from the Imāms of hadīth, and from the shuyūkh of bukhārī and muslim, he would say the Qur’ān is the speech of Allāh that’s uncreared, except that he would abstain from making takfīr upon the wāqif pertaining the Qur’ān alone.
And making waqf pertaining to the Qur’ān was the opinion of a group of Muhaddithīn, such as Ya’qūb Ibn Shaybah as-Sadūsī, the author of “al-Musnad al-Mu’allal”, and Abī al-Hassan al-Jawharī ‘Alī Ibn al-Ja’d who used to say;
“The Qur’ān is the speech of Allāh, and whoever said it’s created, I wouldn’t be harsh against him.”
Among them was also Ishāq Ibn Abī Isrā’īl, who Imām Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said about, “He’s an unfortunate wāqifī, except that he is intelligent and a scholar of hadīth.”
Among them was Mus’ab Ibn ‘Abdillāh Ibn Mus’ab az-Zubayrī al-Madanī who would make waqf pertaining to the Qur’ān, and he would belittle those who don’t make waqf.
These scholars and others weren’t made takfīr upon by the scholars of hadīth. Rather, the most that has been narrated regarding them is tabdī’ (being declared innovators).
6 — Abiding by the modern day man-made laws in following what they make halāl and harām is from explicit kufr according to us, not from the implications of kufr, with the condition that one has knowledge of the reality.
And whoever orders the people to abide by it, then according to us he is commanding kufr and associating partners with Allāh, and he is a kāfir if he knows the reality of the land (being ruled by man-made laws), since abiding by kufr is kufr on its own, just like being pleased with kufr is kufr on its own.
7 — As for the one who completely misinterprets the names and attributes of Allāh all-together, then he is from the ghulāt al-Bātiniyyah and Jahmiyyah, and he is a kāfir due to denying the Qur’ān, Sunnah and Ijmā’ of the salaf of the ummah.
And if his kufr was said to be from the aspect of being a Lāzim (implication of kufr), then there’s no doubt it’s from the clear implications, infact from the darūrī (implications of kufr known by necessity in the Dīn).
And there’s no difference between the implications of kufr and adopting the implication (of agreeing to what’s considered kufr in and of itself) when it’s related to Qat’iyyāt and Darūriyyāt (i.e. clear-cut matters & what’s required to be known in the Dīn for the validity of Īmān).
Likewise, whoever distorts a name from the names of Allāh from its actual meaning, or an attribute from his attributes which is confirmed via the clear-cut textual evidences and mutawātir reports, then he is a kāfir as well, due to denying the clear-cut report of the legislator in the topic.
As for making ta’wīl upon some reports related to the Sifāt (attributes of Allāh) which hasn’t reached this level of explicitness, then the individual who does so is a mistaken innovator whose opposing the sunnah, and making takfīr upon him is only permitted after the establishment of the hujjah and clarifying the matter to him, since the implication of kufr could become unclear, so it would be from the unclear implications (of kufr) which isn’t permissible to make takfīr upon, unless the individual is aware of it or abides by the implication (of kufr).
Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr (رحمه الله) said, “Ahlus-Sunnah unanimously agree upon affirming all the attributes of Allāh that are narrated in the Qur’ān and Sunnah, whilst having Īmān in it, and holding the attributes upon the literal meaning, not a metaphorical meaning, except that they do not explain how any of His attributes function (since we don’t know how Allāh himself functions), and they do not restrict any specific attributes of His (such as His infinite mercy and how many things entail from this attribute). As for ahlul-bida’, along with all the jahmiyyah and mu’tazilah, including the khawārij, then all of them reject His attributes, and they do not hold anything from it upon the literal meaning.”
— Refer to “At-Tamhīd” (7/145).
8 — Describing the opponent of the sunnah in a specific topic with what he deserves of knowledge, understanding and ‘Ibādah, such as the titles of al-Hāfidh, ash-Shaykh, al-Imām, al-‘Ābid, then there’s nothing wrong with this by default if people aren’t drawn towards him due to it (i.e. without praising him to cause fitnah for the people to learn from this innovator, etc...).
Since this is from the aspect of speaking with justice and avoiding being unfair in giving others their rightful status, while placing the people at their respected levels of knowledge and understanding.
Infact, this is even permissible to be done for the kāfir aslī (original disbeliever), as ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Ās (رضي الله عنه) said about the christians of Rome;
“It is a fact for they have four qualities. They have the patience to undergo a trial and immediately restore themselves to sanity after trouble and attack again after flight. They (have the quality) of being good to the destitute and the orphans, to the weak and, fifthly, the good quality in them is that they put resistance against the oppression of kings”.
And in another narration, “They have the power of tolerance amongst people at the time of turmoil and restore themselves to sanity after trouble, and are good amongst people so far as the destitute and the weak are concerned.”
— Refer to “Sahīh Muslim” (2898) and Ahmad (18022)
Moreover, the praising of the Salaf towards some innovators with what they have of goodness is well-known, when there’s no fitnah involved (of drawing the people towards him).
Imām Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr said, “Talq Ibn Habīb is Thiqah according to them with what he narrates, except that he is one of the heads of the murji’ah, and despite that, he was a noble ‘Ābid (worshipper), and Mālik would praise him for his ‘Ibādah (acts of worship), while he wouldn’t be pleased with his creed.”
— Refer to “Al-Istith’kār” (1/68) and “al-Masālik Fī Sharh Muwatta’ Mālik” (1/416)
We won’t get into further details than this, and the speech of the A’immat ad-Da’wah an-Najdiyyah isn’t outside of this Asl (principle), Inshā’Allāh.
9 — Concernng making takfīr upon everyone who falls into kufr ta’wīl or making takfīr upon unclear matters unrestrictedly, we do not know of anyone to attribute this too, nor is it tied to the knowledge-based methodology, nor does it correspond with the sīrah of the salaf (in how they applied takfīr), nor does it agree with the usūl of asmā’ and ahkām (the principles of applying islamic labels and rulings upon the people).
Infact, it is closer to the manhaj of the wicked harūriyyah than the madhāhib of the scholars within the ummah and fuqahā’ of the millah. And that is because the one making takfīr in kufr ta’wīl unrestrictedly doesn’t view a kufr in the sight of Allāh which he has evidence for, but rather he viewed an implication (of kufr) while it’s not kufr in and of itself.
So if he makes takfīr by this (implication), it’s like he is making takfīr upon people whilst kufr is negated from them, and this is impermissible according to the agreement of the muslims. And by doing this, the one making takfīr would be more deserving of being made takfīr upon than the one he is making takfīr upon, and it contains serious danger which isn’t hidden from anyone.
As for the rest of your questions, I will send their answers in the closest most suitable time by the permission of Allāh.
FOOTNOTE:
[1] To provide an additional example;
A hukm wad’ī is what Allāh has established where we have no choice, such as when the sun sets, this means that it’s time to pray maghrib.
A hukm takleefī is when there is a command given by Allāh to the individual, such as when the sun sets, this means it’s obligatory upon us to pray maghrib.
Now, if the sun sets, does it automatically mean everyone is praying? No, but rather it means that it’s time for maghrib where everyone should pray, otherwise they will be falling into fisq at the very least.
Just like if someone has fell into a cause of kufr, the hukm wad’ī is that when he falls into this cause of kufr, he automatically becomes a kāfir.
But does this mean, everyone is making takfīr upon him? No, even though the hukm takleefī is that it’s obligatory to apply takfīr upon him, otherwise we will be sinful for abandoning the hukm of Allāh, which could lead us to fisq and kufr.
Firstly, I wish that one day I may study under the shaykh, and only Allāh knows how much I love him for the sake of Allāh, and how much I persistently look into his books on a daily basis. As for the books the shaykh mentioned to me, I am currently translating them into English.
As for what relates to the shaykh’s answer, I have accepted his advice, and I have even read his books upon my shaykh and those present in our classes, and we have benefited alot, except that there are a few questions from what I’ve read throughout all his works.
1 — I didn’t ask about when it’s permissible for a layman to make takfīr, but I rather asked when it’s obligatory upon him to make takfīr, so that we know when he would be considered blameworthy for abandoning takfīr, and for that reason, I gave the example of claiming the Qur’ān is created (writing the following):
“The noble shaykh mentioned that the issue of claiming the Qur’ān is created is from kufr ta’wīl which leads towards denying the verses of Allāh, may He be blessed and exalted. And this means that an individual may be excused due to ta’wīl, which is the apparent explanations of the Imāms and the official position in the madhab of Ahmad in considering the blind-followers as fussāq as al-Majd cited.
Therefore, it’s not obligatory for a layman to make takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, since he has ta’wīl to begin with and it’s impermissible to make takfīr upon him.
And the issue that I have is that the Imāms have agreed upon making takfīr upon whoever does NOT make takfīr upon those who claim the Qur’ān is created — as it’s mentioned in Risālat ar-Rāziyayn since they met the scholars of the regions — despite it being from kufr ta’wīl which doesn’t make an individual a kāfir except after the establishment of the hujjah upon him, so how can it be said that whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon him becomes a kāfir?
What appears to me, is that it’s obligatory to make takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created if the hujjah is established upon him, since in such a situation he would be rejecting the text, and Imām al-Barbahārī (Died 311H) says in Sharh as-Sunnah;
“We don’t take out anyone of ahlul-qibla from Islām until he opposes an Āyah from the book of Allāh (عز وجل) or opposes something from the reports of Rasūlullāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم), or prays to other than Allāh, or sacrifices to other than Allāh, so if he does anything from that, it becomes OBLIGATORY upon you to take him out of Islām.”
And the relevant point from the citation is that whoever meets the description of what he mentioned from opposing the texts, “it becomes obligatory” to make takfīr upon him, and perhaps the rule of whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon the kāfir in this situation (of claiming the Qur’ān is created) is held upon whoever meets the description of opposing the text with the removal of ta’wīl.
While Imām an-Nawawī views claiming the Qur’ān being created is minor kufr, so is it possible to say that he fell into kufr generally — not individually — since he didn’t view this statement as kufr based upon the aforementioned rule (3rd nullifier).”
2 — O Shaykh, you have precisely determined the issue of making takfīr upon the apparent lāzim in “Al-Fatāwā ash-Shar’iyyah ‘an al-As’ilat al-Djibūtiyyah” with a precious explanation, and that it’s the madhab of the majority of muhaddithīn and fuqahā’ from the salaf, and there’s no confusion surrounding this point.
However I want more examples to clarify the false implications of kufr which are open to possibilities (such as he may commit kufr in the future), which isn’t permissible to be made takfīr upon, as you mentioned in the issue of receiving a citizenship which doesn’t involve abiding by any kufr (i.e. it’s only kufr if a citizenship process requires you to abide by kufr or speak kufr).
As some people said this action (of acquiring a citizenship) leads them towards agreeing upon their constitution and other lawāzim which is open to possibilities, and you clarified that this is Bātil, since the majority of the muwahhidīn who acquired it explicitly profess in disbelieving in the constituion and their man-made laws.
In addition to this, is the person who makes ta’wīl in the names and attributes of Allāh included within takfīr upon a clear or unclear lāzim, since the A’immat ad-Da’wah an-Najdiyyah call Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalānī, “The Hāfidh of his time”, while praising an-Nawawī, and calling some who have been affected by the ash’arī creed with the title, “Shaykh al-Islām”, so what do we ay regardng this.
And what is the ruling on the one who makes takfīr upon the unclear matters? Such as the one who makes takfīr upon everyone who falls into kufr ta’wīl ever since the time of the salaf until now without elaboration.
3 — I want a clarification for what Shaykh al-Islām mentioned concerning the two narrations he cited from Imām Ahmad on the kufr of whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon the Jahmiyyah, where Ibn Taymiyyah declared the most correct narration is not making takfīr.
Did he intend the pure original jahmiyyah, or ahlul-bida’ (among the mu’tazilah etc) who follow some of the usūl of the original jahmiyyah. Furthermore, how can he mention a difference of opinion on the issue, while the rule is agreed upon (i.e. 3rd nullifier) concerning the one who doesn’t make takfīr upon the jahmiyyah.
On the authority of Abī Sulaymān Dāwūd Ibn al-Husayn al-Bayhaqī, he said it has reached me that Al-Hulwānī al-Hassan Ibn ‘Alī said, “I don’t make takfīr upon the one who abstains from having an opinion concerning the Qur’ān (being created or uncreated)”, so they abandoned his knowledge.
Abū Sulaymān said, I asked Salamah Ibn Shabīb about the knowledge of al-Hulwānī, so he replied; “It’s thrown in the garbage”, and Salamah (Ibn Shabīb) further stated; “Whoever doesn’t testify the kufr of the kāfir, then he is a kāfir.”
The relevant point from this narration is the commentary by Imām ath-Thahabī and his rebuke against Salamah Ibn Shabīb by saying, “This is ghuluw and kharijism from salamah”.
— Refer to “Tah’thīb at-Tah’thīb” (2/303)
The apparent speech of Ath-Thahabī in respect to Salamah Ibn Shabīb is based upon those who go into exaggeration in making takfīr bil-Lāzim, and our beloved Shaykh (i.e. Hassān Husayn) clarified that there are many scholars who intended the unclear lāzim by their statement “the lāzim of a madhab is not a madhab” (unlike the clear lāzim), and this is the apparent view of Shaykh al-Islām (Ibn Taymiyyah).
Imām ath-Thahabī (رحمه الله) also said (in rejecting takfīr upon unclear implications), “There’s no doubt that some scholars of nathr (i.e. scholars of kalām — theology) exaggerated in negation, rejection, distortion and trying to eliminate any deficiency (from Allāh) according to their claim which made them fall into bid’ah or describing the creator with non-existent attributes.
Just like there is a group among the scholars of athar (i.e. muhaddithīn) who went into exaggeration in affirmation, whilst accepting the weak and munkar hadīths under the pretext of adopting the sunnah and following the prophet, so an uproar occurred, and hatred took place, with each side declaring the other innovators, and each side declaring the other to be kuffār (i.e. one group calling others jahmiyyah mushrikīn & other group labelling others with anthropomorphism).
And we seek refuge in Allāh from desires and arguing about the Dīn, and from making takfīr upon a muwahhid muslim due to the lāzim (implication) of his statement, while he runs away from such an implication, and he eliminates attributes of dificiency from the Lord and glorifies Him.”
Even though some scholars mentioned that his speech has some harshness against ahlul-athar (i.e. some muhaddithīn such as accusing salamah ibn shabīb with kharijism and ghuluw).
4 — There are many people who say, everyone must obey the land of their land — while it’s ruled by man-made law — Does the Shaykh view this statement as kufr in and of itself or from the implications of kufr.
The ‘Allāmah, Shaykh Hassān Husayn as-Sōmālī (حفظه الله) responded to my questions by saying:
All praise belongs to Allāh who by His favour goodness and righteous deeds are completed, and may the peace and blessings be sent upon the honest prophet, and upon his noble blessed household and companions, to proceed:
Your writing has reached me, and we thank you for getting in touch with us, and having husn ath-than, hoping that you can pass on my salāms and greetings to the noble mashāyikh, whilst asking the most High and all-powerful to preserve you and unite us together in the abode of His mercy, indeed He is the helper and all-Capable in doing that.
I apologize for the delay in replying due to what’s well-known from being pre-occupied (with delivering lessons) and work (writing books and worldly life).
1 – It’s obligatory upon the layman to make takfīr if he knows about the kufr and there’s no misconception which prevents him from making takfīr.
Similarly, if the Qādhī (judge) would abstain from making a judgement with the presence of reliable just witnesses without any misconception, and it has been said that the Qādhī (judge) becomes a kāfir in such a situation (and in clear matters, there is no difference between a judge or layman, both have equal knowledge and are obliged to make a judgement).
Ibn Burhān (Died 518H) mentioned in his book “Al-Awsat”:
“And the judgement of the high assumption of a mujtahid which is based upon indicative factors is considered known and explicit to him by Ijmā’, just like if a hākim (judge) has the evidences displayed to him, his high assumption would be that they are trustworthy (witnesses), and therefore the obligation falls upon him to make a judgement by Ijmā’ according to that assumption, that if he says it’s permissible to not make a judgement by it, he would become a kāfir, due to abandoning what’s explicitly clear-cut (by withholding the apparent judgement of Allāh).”
Refer to “An-Nafā’is Fī sharh al-Mah’sūl” (1/153) by Al-Qarāfī (Died 684H)
Moreover, kufr is a hukm takleefī (the ruling for the people) in the sense of forbiddance and obligation of the one who deserves it to be called a kāfir. And takfīr is a hukm wad’ī (the ruling established by Allāh) in the sense of connecting the asbāb (causes of takfīr), since the legislator (Allāh) has set down causes and factors for the rulings to be applied, and made a connection for it.
And it’s as if He said, if you see this specific cause upon this specific individual, then what you must know is that he’s a mushrik or kāfir, this is what’s considered wad’ī (the ruling established by Allāh whenever the cause is present).
And it’s as if He said, it’s obligatory upon you O my servants to judge the kufr of such and such, this is what’s considered takleefī. [1]
2 – Making takfeer upon those who say the Qur’ān is created is making takfīr upon the lāzim (implications) of a statement, since we don’t find in the Qur’ān, nor in the sunnah, nor in the Ijmā’ of the ummah anything that points towards it being explicit kufr in and of itself.
And the one who is excused in this issue is the one who doesn’t picture the lāzim (implications) of his statement, and he disbelieves whether he adopts it (i.e. the implication of his statement) after picturing it, or doesn’t adopt it (i.e. rejects the implication).
And the layman who doesn’t picture the lāzim (implication) could become a fāsiq due to his ta’assub (fanaticism) towards the people of falsehood, and not analyzing and verifying the affairs of his Dīn, whilst hearing about the da’wah which opposes what his Imam that he blind follows calls towards.
The main point in the topic is the differentiating between explicit kufr (in and of itself), and what necessitates kufr, and we have previously clarified what explicit kufr is, and it’s what has been confirmed via proof that it’s considered kufr in and of itself, such as abandoning salāh, since the actual abandoning is considered kufr according to the well-known text. Also, mocking Allāh, His Messenger and Verses.
“And if you ask them, they will surely say, "We were only conversing and playing." Say, "Is it Allāh and His verses and His Messenger that you were mocking?” [9:65]
As for what leads to kufr, then it differs to explicit kufr in the sense that no proof has come to show that it’s considered kufr in and of itself, however it necessitates according to the implications of the mind what is considered kufr in and of itself, such as claiming that the Qur’ān is created, as indeed it implies that the creator is created!
If the individual rejects this implication due to a misconception he claims to have, then it’s considered making takfīr upon ma’āl (a statement that leads to kufr) which is differed upon.
However, if he acknowledges the implication, and he doesn’t retract his statement, rather he persists upon his statement (of the Qur’an being created), then the issue has changed from being kufr via an implication to explicit kufr (due to clearly picturing and acknowledging the implication), and we have mentioned in “Al-Djibūtiyyah” many examples concerning this, so return back to it.
As for the Ijmā’ which the Imāms of hadīth have mentioned, such as the two Rāzī’s, then at most it’s considered the Ijmā’ of a group among the muslims, not an Ijma’ which could be used as proof to make takfīr upon whoever claims the Qur’ān is created, since the people of innovation who claim this (i.e. the Qur’ān being created) are from that same era, and their kufr cannot be affirmed due to the Ijmā’ of the people of their era, rather it has to be via a text or Ijmā’ which has been firmly established before their era.
Ibn at-Tilmisānī al-Fihrī mentioned in “Sharh al-Ma’ālim Fī Usūl al-Fiqh” (2/105):
“The deviant mujtahid who is made takfīr upon due to his bid’ah isn’t taken into account for Ijmā’ (the consensus of the scholars), and his kufr is not to be established via the Ijmā’ of the people during his time, because they are not considered the complete ummah if he isn’t made takfīr upon (i.e. the deviant mujtahid), thus he wouldn’t be made takfīr upon (for merely opposing the Ijmā’!) until they are considered the complete ummah, otherwise it would go around in circles (he can claim Ijmā’ of his sect from the ummah and make takfīr upon us for opposing them), however he would become a kāfir via an Ijmā’ that is established before them, or otherwise he would only become a kāfir via a clear-cut evidence, whilst putting Ijmā’ aside.”
He also mentioned in “Sharh Ma’ālim Usūl al-Fiqh” (page 572):
“It’s not sufficient to make takfīr due to the Ijmā’ of the scholars in his time, since he (i.e. the innovator) is from their time, and the Ijmā’ is not firmly established due to him opposing them. However yes, takfīr upon him would be confirmed due to the Ijmā’ of the scholars before his time, or due to an explicit text.”
Abū al-‘Abbās al-Qarāfī mentioned in “Sharh at-Tanqīh” (page 311):
“The scholars disputed making takfīr upon the people of innovation, due to observing what necessitates from their beliefs of explicit kufr. So whoever took that into consideration and made the lāzim of a madhab (implications of a statement and belief) as a madhab (a position), then he would make takfīr upon them, and whoever didn’t consider the lāzim of a madhab as a madhab, then he didn’t make takfīr upon them.
And due to this Rule (of the implications of a statement being considered a statement) found among Mālik, ash-Shāfi’ī, Abū Hanīfah, al-Ash’arī and al-Bāqillānī, there are two opinions on making takfīr upon them.
And since we clarified that they’re kuffār, it’s necessary to affirm that according to a proof other than our own Ijmā’, since our Ijmā’ (of our time) isn’t considered a proof in making takfīr upon them, unless if we were considered the whole ummah, and we wouldn’t be considered the whole ummah unless other than us is considered a kāfir.
Therefore, our Ijmā’ would only be considered a hujjah if they are kuffār (and not from the ummah), and they would be considered kuffār according to our Ijmā’, which means that both sides would make takfīr upon each other (due to both sides claiming to be the whole ummah), which would result in a circulation (of takfīr).”
Ar-Rāzī mentioned in “al-Mah’sūl” (2/942), “They differed in whether the Ijmā’ is established with the opposition of those who are mistaken from ahlul-qiblah in the matters of Usūl, so if we didn’t makw takfīr upon them, we took into account their statement, since they are from the believers, and among the ummah the statement of those besides them is considered a statement of “some” believers, therefore it wouldn’t be a hujjah.
And if we made takfīr upon them, the Ijmā’ is established without them, however it’s not permissible to hold onto our own Ijmā’ in making takfīr upon them in these matters, since it’s only established they are excluded from the Ijmā’ after the confirmation of them falling into kufr in these matters, so if we affirm their kufr regarding such matters by our own Ijmā’ alone (a group of believers are making takfīr upon other believers for opposing them), which necessitates circulation (of them making takfīr back upon us).”
And the explainer of his book al-Qarāfī mentioned in “an-Nafā’is” (6/2844):
“The summary; Is that making takfīr upon them via our own Ijmā’ is a branch issue of our Ijmā’ being considered a hujjah, and it would only be a hujjah if those who oppose us are considered kuffār to begin with, wherein we remain as being the whole ummah, and thus necessitates circulation.”
Refer to “At-Tah’sīl min al-Mah’sūl” (2/75) and “Al-Hāsilmkin al-Mah’sūl” (2/521)
The main point is that it’s necessary to observe and analyse this problem concerning the Ijmā’ when we say, “That the Imāms agreed upon making takfīr upon whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon the claimer of the Qur’ān being created”, since if there was an issue concerning the establishment of the Ijmā’ in making takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, then imagine the case in making takfīr upon the one who doesn’t make takfīr upon him (such an Ijmā’ would be more deserving of being Bātil).
Furthermore, making takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created depends upon picturing the lāzīm and what the statement leads too (of clear kufr), and there’s no difference concerning that between a layman and scholar, for indeed if both of them picture the reality of his statement and what it necessitates, he disbelieves if he doesn’t retract it. And for that reason, the salaf differentiated between the one who pictures the reality of the matter and other than him.
Don’t you see that the statement of the two Rāzī’s (i.e. Abū Hātim & Abū Zur’ah), may Allāh have mercy upon them;
“Whoever claims that the Qur'ān is created is a kāfir in the sight of Allāh almighty, a disbelief which takes one outside the fold of Islām, and whoever doubts in his Kufr from those who understand, then he's a Kāfir. And whoever doubts concerning the speech of Allāh (عز وجل), so he hesistates out of doubt pertaining to it, wherein he says, I don’t know if it’s created or uncreated, then he is a jahmī, and whoever halts from having an opinion about the Qur’ān out of ignorance, then he is to be taught, he is declared an innovator, but isn’t declared a kāfir.”
And the statement of Imām Ahmad, may Allāh have mercy upon him;
“Whoever among them comprehends speech (i.e. understands what he’s saying), then he is a jahmī.”
“But as for the one who doesn’t comprehend it, then he is to be enlightened, and if he understands and pictures the speech, then he is like them (i.e. the jahmiyyah), and the Qur’ān is the uncreated speech of Allāh in whatever way it’s mentioned.”
And his statement, “The one who debates and is known for speech (calling towards the Qur’ān being created), then he is a jahmī. As for the one who isn’t known for speech (calling towards it), he is to be avoided until he recants his statement. And concerning the one who doesn’t have knowledge about what he’s saying, he is to be asked about it in order to learn.”
Likewise with the statement of Imām Ahmad Ibn Munī’, “Whoever claims it is created, then he is a jahmī. Whoever hesitates concerning it, if he was among those who don’t comprehend what he’s saying, such as the merchants, women, children, then he is to be remained silent about and taught. However if he wqs from those who comprehend, then place him in the valley of the jahmiyyah, and whoever says my recitation with the Qur’ān is created, then he is a jahmī.”
— Refer to “As-Sunnah” (1/165-179) by ‘Abdullāh Ibn Ahmad, “Al-Ibānah al-Kubrā” (#97 & #98) by Ibn Battah, and “al-Hujjah Fī Bayān al-Mahajjah” (1/424)
The speech of the salaf in making takfīr in this issue revolves around picturing the reality of the statement. So whoever doesn’t picture the lāzim (implications of it), such as those who don’t understand the meaning of the word linguistically, then the sabab of kufr (cause of disbelief) isn’t established within him, and it’s not possible to make takfīr upon him due to the negation of the manāt (cause of making takfīr upon him).
As for the one who pictures that claiming the Qur’ān is created necessitates claiming Allāh is created and other things among the kufr implications, and that the attribute of “Speech of Allāh” is sub-joined with the one described with this attribute “Allāh”, then he has come with a statement of kufr while he understands its meaning, so he would be a kāfir.
And for that reason, the salaf said, “from among those who understand”, “from those who comprehend speech”, and “If he comprehends and pictures the speech.”
3 — Holding the kufr in claiming the Qur’ān is created upon minor (kufr) is a Bātil statement, in which the famous statements of the salaf reject it, and there’s no need to get into details surrounding this point.
However, there’s a group of scholars, such as as-Sijzī, Qawwām as-Sunnah, al-Bayhaqī, Ibn Qudāmah and Ibn Taymiyyah who mentioned the difference of opinion in what it’s held upon, and that the opinion of the vast majority is that it’s held upon major kufr.
Refer to “Risālat as-Sijzī ilā ahli zabīd” (page 153), “al-Hujjah fī bayān al-Mahajjah” (2/552), “Hikāyat al-Munātharah fil-Qur’ān” (page 20), and “Majmū’ al-Fatāwā” (12/486).
And if this was the case, then it cannot be said that an-Nawawī and those who agreed with him (who said it’s minor kufr) fell into kufr generally or individually, the same way it cannot be said that whoever held the kufr of abandoning Salāh upon minor kufr has fell into kufr generally or individually.
However, if an-Nawawī said that the Qur’ān is created, then now it’s possible to say he has fallen into kufr, due to the clear differentiation between theory based knowledge and between implementing actions put in practice in the likes of these matters.
And just to draw the difference between theory and practise, is that whoever said abandoning salāh is not kufr, due to holding the reported hadīths concerning it upon minor kufr, due to doubts or indicative factors that appeared to him, then he doesn’t become a kāfir, just as the Imāms aren’t made takfīr upon for adopting the opinion of not making takfīr upon abandoning salāh.
However this person who adopts the opinion of not making takfīr theoritically speaking and acording to principles, if he abandons salāh via actions, then in this situation he is made takfīr upon for abandoning salāh, since the shar’ī evidence has established that abandoning salāh is kufr, and this person abandons salāh, therefore he is a kāfir.
And the belief of the individual who abandons salāh that no takfīr is made upon abandoning salāh doesn’t effect our ruling, since we deal with him in accordance to our beliefs concerning him, and it is his kufr for abandoning salāh, as the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said:
“Except if you view clear kufr which you have evidence from Allāh for.”
So the prophet made the observation for the observer, and clarified that kufr is established without taking into account the belief of the one being made takfīr upon, otherwise the observer wouldn’t require returning back to proof, and we have observed him abandon salāh, and abandoning it is considered kufr on its own, not by its implication.
And we do not make takfīr upon him for opposing us concerning the explanation of the evidences, misinterpreting it, and holding it upon other than what it’s supposed to be held, since ta’wīl is only considered kufr in matters that are known in the Dīn by necessity or clear-cut.
4 – What shaykh al-Islām mentioned from Imām Ahmad concerning the two narrations pertainingnto making takfīr upon whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon the jahmiyyah, what’s apparent is that he’s referring to the mu’tazilah, and they are the 2nd sect of the jahmiyyah.
Al-Qādhī Abū Ya’lah also mentioned the two narrations in his book “Ar-Riwāyatayn wal-Waj’hayn” (page 108), where he wrote:
“Issue: The madhab doesn’t disagree in making takfīr upon the mu’tazilah based upon the statements they make, such as claiming the Qur’ān is created, negating seeing Allāh (in the Ākhirah), the creation create their own actions (instead of Allāh), etc. Since the evidences have pointed towards that which is not the place to show it here.
Therefore, whoever refrains from making takfīr upon them, does this refrainer become a kāfir or not? Al-Marrūthī, Ya’qūb and Abū Tālib cited that he doesn’t become a kāfir. He mentioned in the narration of Abū Tālib, whoever says the Qur’ān is created, then he’s a kāfir. And whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon the one who says the Qur’ān is created, then I do not make takfīr upon him.
Likewise, al-Marrūthī cited from a group of people in Tartūs who make takfīr upon whoever doesn’t make takfīr, so he said; I haven’t heard of this at all. And this is in a fashion of emphasising having knowledge about anything concerning making takfīr upon them.
So it’s as if his madhab is that they are kuffār, i.e. the Jahmiyyah, but whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon them is not a kāfir. So what’s apparent from this is that he didn’t make takfīr upon them. Also with the case of Abū Tālib’s citation, it has been said to him, the people on the frontline make takfīr upon whoever doesn’t make takfīr...” [End Quote]
The text over here is missing and the answer isn’t completely found in the print, the scholarly reviser said; “Around half the page has been obliterated from this page, and I haven’t stumbled across anything from these texts, except for what shaykh al-Islām has pointed towards pertaining to the dispute on the issue.”
What’s shown from this, and Allāh know best, is that negating kufr from whoever refrains from making takfīr upon the claimers that the Qur’ān is created is one of the old statements of the Imām (i.e. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal) which he retracted, and the proof for that is his statement, “I haven’t heard of this at all” (i.e. takfīr upon whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon them).
How can’t it be, when it has become widespread that the Imāms before him made takfīr upon this refrainer? Yes, infact Imām Ahmad himself has various stages concerning this issue, it was mentioned by al-Khallāl in his book.
In the beginning of the marter, the Imām used to dislike speaking about the matter surrounding the Qur’ān and concerning it being created or uncreated, and that it’s necessary to remain quiet about it, which caused some companions of hadīth to be unaware of his position.
Imām Abū Bakr al-Khallāl narrated in his book (narration #1797) through his chain from Hanbal; I said to Abū ‘Abdillāh, very Ya’qūb Ibn Shaybah and Zakariyyah ash-Shirkī Ibn ‘Ammār only narrated from you this stance, which is to remain silent.
So Abū ‘Abdillāh said, we used to give the order of remaining silent and abandon delving into disputes surrounding the Qur’ān, but when we were called towards a particular matter, it was necessary to repel that and clarify the issue with what’s required..” (until the end of his words).
Then he moved onto saying that the Qur’ān is the speech of Allāh and isn’t created, and in this period of time, he didn’t make takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, then he mentioned that it became clear to him making takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, and perhaps the refraining of making takfīr upon these people was in this 3rd stage, due to the fact that Ya’qūb Ibn Bukhtān is from the narrators of this period of time.
As al-Khallāl narrated in “as-Sunnah” (narration #1868) that Ya’qūb Ibn Bukhtān asked Abā ‘Abdillāh about the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, so Ahmad replied: I was reluctant to say he’s a kāfir, until I pondered and analysed, so I saw the statement of Allāh (عز وجل): “Then whoever argues with you about it after this knowledge (i.e. Qur’ān) has come to you.”
Al-Khallāl also narrated (#1869) on the authority of Ibn ad-Dawraqī from Abī ‘Abdillāh that he said, we were reluctant to speak about this matter, then their reality became clear to us, due to the statement of Allāh in His book, “Then whoever argues with you about it.” [3:61]
And he narrated (#1847) on the authority of Hanbal, I heard Abā ‘Abdillāh say, Allāh (عز وجل) said in His book, “And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allāh” [9:6], so Jibrīl heard it from Allāh, and the prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) heard it from Jibrīl, and the companions of the prophet heard it from the prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and the Qur’ān is the speech of Allāh which is uncreated, we do not doubt nor hesitate regarding this. Moreover, the names and attributes of Allāh in the Qur’ān is from the knowledge of Allāh, and His attributes are from Him. Therefore, whoever claims that the Qur’ān is created, then he is a kāfir, as the Qur’ān is the uncreated speech of Allāh, it came from Him and it will return to Him, and we were reluctant to speak about this matter, until these people innovated what they have innovated, and mentioned what they mentioned, they called the people towards what they called them towards, so their reality became clear to us, which is didbelief in the sight of Allāh the supreme.”
Ibn Abī Ya’lah mentioned in “Tabaqāt al-Hanābilah” (2/553): I read in the book of Abū Bakr al-Khallāl that he said, I was informed by ‘Alī Ibn al-Hussayn Ibn Hārūn, who said Muhammad Ibn Abī Hārūn al-Warrāq narrated to me, who said I heard Ya’qūb Ibn Ibrāhīm ad-Dawraqī say, I asked Ahmad Ibn Hanbal about the one who says the Qur’ān is created, so he replied;
I didn’t use to make takfīr upon them until I read verses from the Qur’ān, “If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge (i.e. Qur’ān).” [2:120], and His statement, “after this knowledge (i.e. Qur’ān) has come to you.” [3:61] and His statement, “He has sent it down with His knowledge.” [4:166], so the Qur’ān is from the knowledge of Allāh, and whoever claims the knowledge of Allāh is created (meaning Allāh was ignorant before creating his knowledge), then he is a kāfir, and whoever says that he doesn’t know whether the knowledge of Allāh is created or uncreated, then he is also a kāfir and much worse than the one who says the Qur’ān is created.
And at the final stage, Abū ‘Abdillāh (i.e. Imām Ahmad) mentioned as Shāhīn as-Sumayda’ narrated from him; “Whoever say the Qur’ān is created, then he is a kāfir, and whoever doubts in his kufr, then he is a kāfir.”
5 – The refraining of al-Hulwānī al-Hassan Ibn ‘Alī from making takfīr upon the wāqif pertaining to the Qur’ān (i.e. the one who says it’s the speech of Allāh, but doesn’t say it is created or uncreated) and his statement, “I don’t make takfīr upon the one who makes waqf concerning the Qur’ān”, and the statement of Abī Salamah Ibn Shabīb, “Whoever doesn’t testify the kufr of a kāfir is a kāfir”, along with Ath-Thahabī’s comment upon his statement, “This is ghuluw and kharijism by Salamah” isn’t that significant, since everyone has his own viewpoint.
Since making takfīr upon the wāqif is unlike making takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, and there’s no doubt that refraining from making takfeer upon the waqif is a lighter matter according to the scholars than not making takfīr upon the one who claims it’s created.
And this waqf could be a a waqf of ignorance (of the meaning and reality), so the individual is to be taught and isn’t labelled an innovator, and it could be a waqf of doubt and confusion, so he is called an innovator, but isn’t made takfīr upon according to the scholars, and it could be a waqf of caution and piety, and it could be a waqf of deception and concealing one’s beliefs, so the individual would be tagged along with the valley of the jahmiyyah.
And if the matter was like I described, then there’s no doubt that the unrestricted claim of Ibn Shabīb contains exaggeration from two angles:
1- His takfīr upon al-Hulwānī due to his refraining from making takfīr upon the wāqif of the Qur’ān alone.
2- Unrestrictedly applying takfīr upon the wāqif without elaboration, which is in opposition to the Manhaj of the Imāms of hadīth as aforementioned in the speech of Imām Ahmad, the two Rāzī’s and Ibn Munī’.
In any case, al-Hulwānī is an Imām from the Imāms of hadīth, and from the shuyūkh of bukhārī and muslim, he would say the Qur’ān is the speech of Allāh that’s uncreared, except that he would abstain from making takfīr upon the wāqif pertaining the Qur’ān alone.
And making waqf pertaining to the Qur’ān was the opinion of a group of Muhaddithīn, such as Ya’qūb Ibn Shaybah as-Sadūsī, the author of “al-Musnad al-Mu’allal”, and Abī al-Hassan al-Jawharī ‘Alī Ibn al-Ja’d who used to say;
“The Qur’ān is the speech of Allāh, and whoever said it’s created, I wouldn’t be harsh against him.”
Among them was also Ishāq Ibn Abī Isrā’īl, who Imām Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said about, “He’s an unfortunate wāqifī, except that he is intelligent and a scholar of hadīth.”
Among them was Mus’ab Ibn ‘Abdillāh Ibn Mus’ab az-Zubayrī al-Madanī who would make waqf pertaining to the Qur’ān, and he would belittle those who don’t make waqf.
These scholars and others weren’t made takfīr upon by the scholars of hadīth. Rather, the most that has been narrated regarding them is tabdī’ (being declared innovators).
6 — Abiding by the modern day man-made laws in following what they make halāl and harām is from explicit kufr according to us, not from the implications of kufr, with the condition that one has knowledge of the reality.
And whoever orders the people to abide by it, then according to us he is commanding kufr and associating partners with Allāh, and he is a kāfir if he knows the reality of the land (being ruled by man-made laws), since abiding by kufr is kufr on its own, just like being pleased with kufr is kufr on its own.
7 — As for the one who completely misinterprets the names and attributes of Allāh all-together, then he is from the ghulāt al-Bātiniyyah and Jahmiyyah, and he is a kāfir due to denying the Qur’ān, Sunnah and Ijmā’ of the salaf of the ummah.
And if his kufr was said to be from the aspect of being a Lāzim (implication of kufr), then there’s no doubt it’s from the clear implications, infact from the darūrī (implications of kufr known by necessity in the Dīn).
And there’s no difference between the implications of kufr and adopting the implication (of agreeing to what’s considered kufr in and of itself) when it’s related to Qat’iyyāt and Darūriyyāt (i.e. clear-cut matters & what’s required to be known in the Dīn for the validity of Īmān).
Likewise, whoever distorts a name from the names of Allāh from its actual meaning, or an attribute from his attributes which is confirmed via the clear-cut textual evidences and mutawātir reports, then he is a kāfir as well, due to denying the clear-cut report of the legislator in the topic.
As for making ta’wīl upon some reports related to the Sifāt (attributes of Allāh) which hasn’t reached this level of explicitness, then the individual who does so is a mistaken innovator whose opposing the sunnah, and making takfīr upon him is only permitted after the establishment of the hujjah and clarifying the matter to him, since the implication of kufr could become unclear, so it would be from the unclear implications (of kufr) which isn’t permissible to make takfīr upon, unless the individual is aware of it or abides by the implication (of kufr).
Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr (رحمه الله) said, “Ahlus-Sunnah unanimously agree upon affirming all the attributes of Allāh that are narrated in the Qur’ān and Sunnah, whilst having Īmān in it, and holding the attributes upon the literal meaning, not a metaphorical meaning, except that they do not explain how any of His attributes function (since we don’t know how Allāh himself functions), and they do not restrict any specific attributes of His (such as His infinite mercy and how many things entail from this attribute). As for ahlul-bida’, along with all the jahmiyyah and mu’tazilah, including the khawārij, then all of them reject His attributes, and they do not hold anything from it upon the literal meaning.”
— Refer to “At-Tamhīd” (7/145).
8 — Describing the opponent of the sunnah in a specific topic with what he deserves of knowledge, understanding and ‘Ibādah, such as the titles of al-Hāfidh, ash-Shaykh, al-Imām, al-‘Ābid, then there’s nothing wrong with this by default if people aren’t drawn towards him due to it (i.e. without praising him to cause fitnah for the people to learn from this innovator, etc...).
Since this is from the aspect of speaking with justice and avoiding being unfair in giving others their rightful status, while placing the people at their respected levels of knowledge and understanding.
Infact, this is even permissible to be done for the kāfir aslī (original disbeliever), as ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Ās (رضي الله عنه) said about the christians of Rome;
“It is a fact for they have four qualities. They have the patience to undergo a trial and immediately restore themselves to sanity after trouble and attack again after flight. They (have the quality) of being good to the destitute and the orphans, to the weak and, fifthly, the good quality in them is that they put resistance against the oppression of kings”.
And in another narration, “They have the power of tolerance amongst people at the time of turmoil and restore themselves to sanity after trouble, and are good amongst people so far as the destitute and the weak are concerned.”
— Refer to “Sahīh Muslim” (2898) and Ahmad (18022)
Moreover, the praising of the Salaf towards some innovators with what they have of goodness is well-known, when there’s no fitnah involved (of drawing the people towards him).
Imām Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr said, “Talq Ibn Habīb is Thiqah according to them with what he narrates, except that he is one of the heads of the murji’ah, and despite that, he was a noble ‘Ābid (worshipper), and Mālik would praise him for his ‘Ibādah (acts of worship), while he wouldn’t be pleased with his creed.”
— Refer to “Al-Istith’kār” (1/68) and “al-Masālik Fī Sharh Muwatta’ Mālik” (1/416)
We won’t get into further details than this, and the speech of the A’immat ad-Da’wah an-Najdiyyah isn’t outside of this Asl (principle), Inshā’Allāh.
9 — Concernng making takfīr upon everyone who falls into kufr ta’wīl or making takfīr upon unclear matters unrestrictedly, we do not know of anyone to attribute this too, nor is it tied to the knowledge-based methodology, nor does it correspond with the sīrah of the salaf (in how they applied takfīr), nor does it agree with the usūl of asmā’ and ahkām (the principles of applying islamic labels and rulings upon the people).
Infact, it is closer to the manhaj of the wicked harūriyyah than the madhāhib of the scholars within the ummah and fuqahā’ of the millah. And that is because the one making takfīr in kufr ta’wīl unrestrictedly doesn’t view a kufr in the sight of Allāh which he has evidence for, but rather he viewed an implication (of kufr) while it’s not kufr in and of itself.
So if he makes takfīr by this (implication), it’s like he is making takfīr upon people whilst kufr is negated from them, and this is impermissible according to the agreement of the muslims. And by doing this, the one making takfīr would be more deserving of being made takfīr upon than the one he is making takfīr upon, and it contains serious danger which isn’t hidden from anyone.
As for the rest of your questions, I will send their answers in the closest most suitable time by the permission of Allāh.
[Related by Abū Bakr at-Tarābulsī]
[1] To provide an additional example;
A hukm wad’ī is what Allāh has established where we have no choice, such as when the sun sets, this means that it’s time to pray maghrib.
A hukm takleefī is when there is a command given by Allāh to the individual, such as when the sun sets, this means it’s obligatory upon us to pray maghrib.
Now, if the sun sets, does it automatically mean everyone is praying? No, but rather it means that it’s time for maghrib where everyone should pray, otherwise they will be falling into fisq at the very least.
Just like if someone has fell into a cause of kufr, the hukm wad’ī is that when he falls into this cause of kufr, he automatically becomes a kāfir.
But does this mean, everyone is making takfīr upon him? No, even though the hukm takleefī is that it’s obligatory to apply takfīr upon him, otherwise we will be sinful for abandoning the hukm of Allāh, which could lead us to fisq and kufr.
No comments:
Post a Comment