Regarding the Tāifah Mumtani’ah...

A question posed to Shaykh Nāsir Al Fahd (fakk Allāhu asrah)

What is the reply to the one who says that there are two views regarding the tāifah mumtani’ah (resisting group)? As well what is the reply to one who denies the Ijmā’ that Shaykhul Islām (ibnu Taymiyyah) mentioned and he says, “I looked at the (claimed) ijmā’ and I could not find it?” And how can there be an Ijmā’ of Sahābah then the Fuqahā come after them disagreeing with this ijmā’ that is stated on their kufr?

Answer: The speech regarding the tāifah mumtani’ah is broken down into two parts:

A. Collecting the speech surrounding it

B. The reason for their kufr.

The first part: The tāifah mumtani’ah that is resisting the clear apparent laws of the Sharī’ah has two rulings with regards to it.

A. Fighting it. Regarding this, all the Fuqahā in all the mathā’ib agree.

B. Their kufr. Regarding this, the Fuqahā have two notable opinions. From the understanding of the Sahābah is that they all agreed on their kufr. But their ijmā’ is not from their speech. Rather, it is from investigating and looking at their actions. That is also how all the Fuqahā agree that the Sahābah had an Ijmā’ on fighting them. They (the Fuqahā) however, disagree on how to label them.

Do we fight them as ahlu riddah or do we fight them as bāghī (rebels)? This is not what is mentioned in the speech of Shaykhul Islām in some places and that is surrounding the reason on fighting them. Is it because they are murtaddeen? This position (on them being murtadeen) is what is apparent from Al Bukhārī when he named the chapter regarding the Hadīth on Abū Hurayrah with regards to those who fought refusing to pay the Zakāh. The Chapter on killing those who refuse to accept the obligatory acts and those associated with riddah. So they were labelled as murtaddeen for not accepting and complying with the obligation of Zakāh.

When we speak on this issue then we must know that  Shaykhul Islām did not mention an Ijmā’ regarding their kufr. Rather, he mentions an Ijmā’ with regards to fighting them. The texts mentioning the Sahābah, all agreeing that they are ahlu riddah comes by way of deduction and not by an explicit statement from the Sahābah.

The saying that there is an Ijmā’ of Sahābah is from their explicit actions, and it is their fighting. There is no disagreement amongst the Fuqahā with that. But with regards to the reason for fighting them then this is not as explicit. This is the difference regarding it and it is not said that one who disagrees with their kufr that he has violated the Ijmā’ and so then he has disbelieved because this is an Ijmā’ Qatī’. (Ijmā’ Qatī’ is like the five salāh in which if one was to deny this then he becomes a kāfir). This is however a matter of investigating and deducting from their actions. So it is Thanni (Thanni Ijmā’ is where the texts aren’t as explicit and only known through thorough research).

The second part: It is with regards to takfīr on the tāifah mumtani’ah.

Know, that the heart needs qawl (statements) and ‘amal (actions). The qawl of the heart is tasdīq (acknowledgment/affirmation) and the ‘amal of the heart is istislām and inqiyād (submission and compliance). What goes against the qawl of the heart is takthīb (belying) and what goes against its ‘amal is resistance. The one who has one or both of those disbelieves and leaves the Millah.

If a man has tasdīq but he arrogantly and stubbornly resists accepting something from the Sharī’ah that is apparent and established he disbelieves. This is like one who leaves salāh out of laziness (not rejecting it), is called to perform it and he refuses to do so with the sword. Ibnu Taymiyyah and Ibnul Qayyim both said this one is a kāfir by ijmā’.

So one can either bely or either he can arrogantly refuse (or both). It would never be acceptable for one to differ over that issue. Ibnu Taymiyyah stated that if one was to say, “if you killed someone like him then that is killing a Muslim,” has fallen into the doubts of the murjiah. And also like them from the people of desires.

It could be that one resists in accepting and complying to what is harām, although he has tasdīq in the prohibition. This is frequently found in those who are now called intellectuals. We will find alot of them arrogantly resisting accepting some of those obligatory acts like Jihād, commanding good and other than them. Also with some of the acts that are harām like music, unveiling oneself, and others similar to it. This is a disobedient arrogant kāfir except in the case where the arrogant resisting is hidden and one is not able to know fully (if this applies). Then the foundational principle is disobedience and not kufr.

The evidence, however, may show and indicate the existence of this resistance. Then if the ruling regarding them appears, is evident, and it is established, then know that whoever agrees or joins that group gets the same rulings. He would then be connected onto their arrogant resisting to accept and comply to the Sharī’ah and in their cause and reason for kufr.

Then when it is established that they are resisting accepting and complying to anything from the Sharī’ah there is no distinction between the individual and the group (they get the same ruling). Unless the individual has no way of knowing and the matter is hidden then his asl is still Islām. (Like an individual who is in a group that calls for Sharī’ah but he doesn’t know the leaders fell into kufr). Unlike the group that openly agrees on detering obligatory duties, as an example, and the evidence for their arrogant resistance is available. Allāhu ‘alam.