No excuse in Tawhid & Major Shirk!

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/58/11/bb/5811bbd118f7adf53584a511e93cf164.jpg

Shaykh al-‘Allāmah Hassān Hussayn Abū Salmān as-Sōmālī (حفظه الله) was asked:
Q1. You mentioned in some of your tapes and articles that there’s no excuse in matters of Tawhīd and major Shirk except by Ikrāh, so I wanted to ask is this agreed upon among the Imāms or is it a differed upon matter?

And what is your opinion concerning Ibn al-‘Arabī’s statement wherein he said, “With regard to the ignorant and those who make mistakes among this ummah, even if they do acts that constitute disbelief and shirk, the kind of deeds that result in the doer being deemed a mushrik or a disbeliever, they are to be excused for their ignorance and mistakes until proof is established against them, of the type of proof that whoever rejects it becomes a disbeliever and it is clearly explained to the degree that a man of his calibre would not be confused after such an explanation.” [End Quote. This was narrated from him by al-Qāsimī in “Mahāsin at-Ta’wīl” (3/161)].

ANS. Shaykh al-‘Allāmah Hassān Hussayn Abū Salmān as-Sōmālī (حفظه الله) answered by saying:
The response to this is from two angles:

The first angle — Affirming the Ijmā’ that there’s no excuse of ignorance or misinterpretation in major shirk, so I say and success comes from Allāh:

The accepted mawāni’ (preventatives of takfīr) include that which is agreed upon in matters of takfīr, such as the absence of intellect, Ikrāh, and the absence of intention.

And it includes what’s differed upon, such as ignorance, misinterpretation, not reaching maturity, with expanded details on each of these points (i.e. where these things are considered preventatives).

I’m not aware of any acceptable difference of opinion concerning the Kufr of whoever worships other than Allāh, from a person who has intellect and willingly does it.

A group of scholars have cited an Ijmā’ upon this, such as Abī Zayd ad-Dabbūsī, Abī Ja’far as-Samnānī, al-Ghazālī, al-Qurtubī, an-Nawawī, al-Qarrāfī, al-Mūzi’ī, Ibn Taymiyyah, Abī ‘Abdillāh as-Sanūsī, Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhāb, Ibn Gharīb, Ibn Fawdī, Hamad Ibn Nāsir, Sana’Allāh al-Halabī, ‘Abdul-Latīf Ibn ‘Abdir-Rahmān and others.

1 — The ‘Allāmah Abū Zayd ad-Dabbūsī (Died 420H) mentioned concerning no excuse of ignorance in major shirk and what’s similar to it regarding the one who the Risālah (message) hasn’t reached:
❝How can anyone deny this? Whilst Allāh the most High speaks about the disbelievers, “And if you asked them who created them, they would surely say, Allāh!” [43:87]
Likewise, we don’t see anyone among the kuffār except that he speaks about the Creator, but rather their Kufr was with regards to describing Allāh with unacceptable things, such as children, an associate, His hands being chained and what’s similar to that which Allāh the Exalted and Majestic has mentioned about them.
And giving any type of excuse is disconnected from anyone of this type without any difference of opinion, or if the Kufr was concerning their denial of resurrection to be judged.❞ [1]

Ponder over the negation of any difference of opinion that there’s no excuse of ignorance in major shirk before the Risālah (message).

So if this was the case, then what about giving excuse of ignorance in major shirk after the Risālah (message), with the Muhammadī establishment of Hujjah upon the servants?

And he (i.e. Abū Zayd ad-Dabbūsī) mentioned about the ruling of the child, the Jāhil and no excuse of ignorance:
❝Don’t you see that just like the acts of worship have been dropped off due to the excuse of being a child, it has also been dropped off due to the excuse of ignorance concerning whoever becomes a revert in dār al-harb while he’s unaware that it’s from the acts of worship.
But if he believed there was another deity, or anything that involves Kufr in describing His lord with what’s not acceptable in His rights, then he is NOT excused in this.❞ [2]

He differentiated between being ignorant of the clear obligations and between major shirk, and he mentioned that ignorance in dār al-harb [3] is a preventative of takfīr in the clear matters, unlike the case with major shirk, and he mentioned it in a firmly established fashion according to the scholars (in a way that shows it’s agreed upon).

2 — Abū Ja’far as-Simnānī (Died 444H) cited the Ijmā’ on not differentiating between the one who ascribes to Islām and the original Kāfir, he said:
❝As for the kāfir, there’s no dispute that he’s going to abide eternally in the hellfire, and that is because whoever believes in a path which renders the one who believes in it with Kufr, or performs an action where the evidence has shown that this action doesn’t occur except from a kāfir, such as killing the Prophets and worshipping the fire, we would judge him with Kufr and him being deserving of abiding eternally in the fire.
And this topic is also agreed upon, no one disagreed with this, and we did not find anything to oppose this to make it disputable.❞ [4]

3 — Imām al-Ghazālī (Died 505H) said, ❝Worshipping the creation is Kufr, and worshipping idols was considered Kufr because it’s a created thing, and it was created because it’s a Jism (i.e. an entity), so whoever worships an entity is a kāfir according to the Ijmā’ of the Imāms among the salaf and khalaf. [5]

Irregardless of whether this entity was heavy like solid firm mountains, or gentle like wind and water, or dark like the Earth [6], or bright like the sun [7], moon [8] and planets [9], or transparent which doesn’t have colour like the breeze, or something huge, such as the ‘Arsh, Kursī and Sky, or something small like an atom and dust particles, or an inanimate object like a rock, or a creature [10] like a human-being.❞ [11]

4 — Imām Abū al-‘Abbās al-Qurtubī (Died 656H) said about the one who died upon Tawhīd and the one who died upon committing shirk with Allāh:
❝What’s well-known in the Sharī’ah and agreed upon by Ahlus-Sunnah, is that whoever dies upon that, then it’s necessary that he enters Jannah, even if different forms of punishment and trials were applied upon him before that (due to his bid’ah and sins).
And that whoever dies upon shirk, he does not enter Jannah, and he doesn’t attain from Allāh the most High any mercy, and he will abide eternally in the hellfire forever, without any disconnection of punishment nor any break of harsh damnation eternally.
And this is known by necessity in the Dīn and agreed upon by the Muslims.❞ [12].

5 — Imām an-Nawawī (Died 676H) said, ❝As for his judgement, may the peace and blessings be upon him, upon whoever dies as a mushrik entering hellfire, and whoever dies other than a mushrik entering paradise, then the muslims have agreed upon that.
As for the mushrik entering the hellfire, then it’s upon its general meaning, so he would enter it and abide eternally within it.
There’s no difference between the Kitābī, whether a jew or christian and between an idol worshipper and the rest of the kuffār. There’s also no difference according to the people of Haqq between a stubborn kāfir (who opposes the truth) and other than him, nor between whoever opposes the millah of Islām, and between whoever ascribes to it, then is judged upon with kufr due to denying what would make him a kāfir by denying it, and other than that.❞ [13].

Imām al-Qarāfī (Died 684H) said, ❝There’s a consensus from the ummah that the contemporaries to Rasūlullāh were morally obligated with Īmān in the previous legislations. Likewise, an Ijmā’ has been firmly established that the kuffār among them are in hellfire, and if it wasn’t for them being morally obligated, they wouldn’t be punished for Kufr, so all of those inhabitants during that time were morally obligated to follow the Sharī’ah of those (Prophets) who came before them.❞

He also said, ❝The people of Jāhiliyyah didn’t have a time of fatrah, due to the Ijmā’ of the ummah that whoever doesn’t become muslim amongst them and dies before the announcement of Prophethood, then he’s in the hellfire. Whereas, it cannot be certified that ahlul-fatrah (who haven’t heard of a messenger) will be in the hellfire, due to Allāh’s statement, “We were not punishers until we send a messenger” [17:15].❞

He also said, ❝There’s no difference of opinion in making takfīr upon whoever negates Allāh’s lordship or Allāh’s oneness (i.e. ascribes a partner to Him), or worships someone besides Allāh, or he’s a Dahrī (who say that nothing can make us die except for time — such as communists), or Mānawī (who follow a false prophet before Islām known as mānī, and they believe in the God of light and evil like the Majūs), or Hulūlī (believes Allāh and the creation are 1 and the same), or Tanāsukhī (who believe in reincarnation after death), or from the Rawāfidh, or he believes that Allāh is not Hayy (living) or Qadīm (eternal with no beginning — the correct term to use is “Al-Awwal” as the hadīth says), or a creator or that another deity created the world, or that He was put into existence by something, or claims he sat with Allāh the most High, or was uplifted to Him and spoke with Him.
Or if he said the world is Qadīm (eternal without beginning — which necessitates Allāh didn’t create the world) or says the world will forever remain (i.e. never end — like the atheists claim), or doubts in that, or said that ‘Alī is a prophet, or declares it lawful for the prophets to lie, and claims that they addressed the creation with promises (of paradise) and punishments (of hellfire) due to a maslaha (i.e. personal benefit & worldly gain — so people follow the prophets!).❞ [14]

7 — Shaykh al-Islām said, ❝Verily, the Muslims unanimously agree upon what they’ve known by necessity from the Dīn of Islām, that a servant doesn’t isn’t permitted to worship, nor supplicate, nor seek help during difficult moments, nor rely upon anyone except Allāh.

And that whoever worships a close angel, or sent Prophet, or makes du’ā to him, or seeks help during difficult moments from him, then he’s a mushrik.
So it’s not permissible for anyone among the Muslims to say; Yā Jibrā’īl, Yā Mīkā’īl, Yā Ibrāhīm, Yā Mūsā, Yā Rasūlullāh, forgive me, have mercy upon me, provide me with sustenance, support me, help me out of this difficulty, or save me from my enemy and what’s similar to that. Rather all of this is from the exclusive characteristics of Allāh’s divinity.❞ [15]

He also said, ❝Whoever makes the angels and Prophets intermediaries, calling upon them, putting his trust in them, asking them to bring benefits and ward off harm – such as asking them for forgiveness of sins, guidance, relief of distress and meeting of needs, then he is a kāfir according to the Ijmā’ of the muslims.” [16]

8 — The ‘Allāmah al-Mūzi’ī (Died 825H) said, ❝It’s well-known that Allāh, may He Be Glorified, has morally obligated his people Quraysh to believe and follow the Millah of Ibrāhīm, and for that reason, the Ummah has unanimously agreed upon punishing whoever dies amongst them as a kāfir before the advent of Prophethood.❞ [17]

9 — Imām Ibn al-Wazīr al-Yamāmī (Died 840H) said, ❝There’s no doubt that whoever doubts in the Kufr of an idol worshipper, it becomes obligatory to make takfīr upon him. And whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon him (i.e. the idol worshipper), he is considered a kāfir and there’s no reasoning for that except that his Kufr is known in the Dīn by necessity.❞ [18]

And there’s no matter known in the religion by necessity, except that it’s agreed upon (i.e. has an established Ijmā’).

10 — Imām Burhān ad-Dīn al-Biqā’ī (Died 885H) said, ❝Certainly, not a single prophet came except with takfīr upon the mushrikīn, as the Prophet (saws) alluded towards in his statement, “The prophets are paternal brothers; their mothers are different, but their religion is one.” [Agreed Upon]
What’s intended by this and Allāh knows best, is that even though their Sharī’ah differs in Furū’ (i.e. secondary legal rulings of Fiqh, halāl & harām, etc), they are agreed upon in the Asl (their core principles — of ‘Aqīdah), which is Tawhīd.❞ [19].

11 — Abū ‘Abdillāh as-Sanūsī (Died 895H) mentioned about the shirk of the majūs, christians, the early period of Jāhiliyyah and the later period of Jāhiliyyah (i.e. mushrikīn in our times):
❝The ruling upon the first 4 types [20] is Kufr by Ijmā’, and the Sharī’ah did not consider ta’wīl (misinterpretation) and taqlīd (blind-following) an excuse for an individual in matters of explicit Kufr, due to him being able to know the mistake of it by the smallest of observations.
But they (i.e. the scholars) rather differed regarding whoever said a statement which implies belittling (Allāh and the Dīn) or necessitates Kufr (disbelief) with a hidden implication which the speaker (of such a thing) doesn’t perceive of.❞ [21]

12 — The ‘Allāmah, ‘Uthmān Ibn Fawdī (Died 1232H) said, ❝An Ijmā’ has been firmly established on making takfīr upon whoever mixes the actions of Islām with actions of Kufr, even if he would ascribe to the Dīn of Islām according to his claim.❞ [22]

So this is the speech of the scholars pertaining to the Ijmā’ on the kufr of idol worshippers, with evidences from the book of Allāh, sunnah of His Messenger (saws) and valid Qiyās which we aren’t able to mention at this point of time.

The second angle — Analysing what you have cited from Abī Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabī through the intermediary of the author of “Al-Mahāsin”, Jamāl ad-Dīn al-Qāsimī (later-day scholar who died 100 years ago in 1332H)

What I say, is that the citation being used as evidence or question isn’t from the words of the Qādhī Ibn al-‘Arabī, because the statement:
“With regard to the ignorant and those who make mistakes among this ummah, even if they do acts that constitute disbelief and shirk” and onwards is from the words of al-Qāsimī, the author of “al-Mahāsin”.

The proof for this is that he mentioned at the end of Tafsīr Āyah 48 of Sūrat an-Nisā’, “And he who commits shirk with Allah has certainly fabricated a tremendous sin.” [4:48] what follows;
“Notice: Whenever it mentions in a hadīth, whoever does such and such has committed shirk or disbelieved, what’s not intended is Kufr which takes one outside of the Millah, and Shirk which takes one outside of Islām where rulings of apostasy are applied upon him, we seek refuge in Allāh the most High.”

There’s no doubt that this is from the speech of Al-Qāsimī, then he stated directly afterwards;
“Al-Bukhārī said, ‘Chapter: Kufr al-‘Ashīr (i.e. To be ungrateful to one's husband) and Kufr dūna Kufr.’ The Qādhī Abū Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabī mentioned in his “Sharh”, ‘He intends to show that the same way acts of obedience are called Īmān, likewise there are sins which are called Kufr, however when it is labelled with Kufr, what’s not intended is Kufr that takes one outside the Millah’.”

So he (i.e. al-Qāsimī) quoted from al-Bukhārī this chapter heading, then mentioned the commentary of Ibn al-‘Arabī upon the chapter heading. However, where does the words of Al-Qādhī Ibn al-‘Arabī stop?

I say, the words of Ibn al-‘Arabī stopped at his statement, “what’s not intended is Kufr that takes one outside the Millah”.

As for what comes afterwards, “With regard to the ignorant and those who make mistakes among this ummah, even if they do acts that constitute disbelief and shirk”, this is from the words of Al-Qāsimī, since he quoted from Ibn al-‘Arabī through the intermediary of “Fath al-Bārī” by Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalānī.

And this is the text of what’s mentioned in “Fath al-Bārī” (1/83), Hadīth #29, chapter-heading of Bukhārī #21, “Chapter: Kufr al-‘Ashīr (i.e. To be ungrateful to one's husband) and Kufr dūna Kufr. Then al-Hāfidh Ibn Hajr said:
“Bukhārī’s statement, “Chapter: Chapter: Kufr al-‘Ashīr (i.e. To be ungrateful to one's husband) and Kufr dūna Kufr.”. The Qādhī Abū Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabī mentioned in his “Sharh”:
❝He intends to show that the same way acts of obedience are called Īmān, likewise there are sins which are called Kufr, however when it is labelled with Kufr, what’s not intended is Kufr that takes one outside the Millah.

He (i.e. Ibn al-‘Arabī) also said, The Kufr of being ungrateful to one’s husband was specified among the different types of sins due to an incredibly precise reason, which is the Prophet’s (saws) saying, “If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone other than Allah, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands.”

He compared the rights of a husband which the wife needs to fulfil with the rights of Allāh, so if a woman falls into Kufr concerning the rights of her husband, and his rights which she must fulfil have reached this extent (of being compared to the rights of Allāh), this would be a proof concerning her negligence regarding the rights of Allāh, so for this reason “Kufr” was applied upon her, however it’s a Kufr which doesn’t take her outside the Millah. What may also be taken from his (i.e. al-Bukhārī’s) chapter-heading is the convenience of this chapter heading with matters related to Īmān.❞ [End Quote from “Fath al-Bārī”].

Don’t you see that the chapter-heading of Al-Bukhārī is concerning minor Kufr, and likewise with the words of Ibn al-‘Arabī which is clarifying the aspect of Kufr being applied upon some sins, even though they aren’t considered major Kufr?

And that Al-Qāsimī erred wherein he mixed up his words with the words of Ibn al-‘Arabī, and his error is from two aspects:

1 — First error; His statement, “Notice: Whenever it mentions in a hadīth, whoever does such and such has committed shirk or disbelieved, what’s not intended is Kufr which takes one outside of the Millah, and Shirk which takes one outside of Islām where rulings of apostasy are applied upon him, we seek refuge in Allāh the most High.”

As this opposes the Usūl (principles) of knowledge, that whenever a hadīth or Āyah mentions, “whoever does this has fell into kufr or shirk”, that it’s held upon major kufr, except with a diverting factor which obligates holding it upon the minor of the two (i.e. minor shirk and minor kufr).

So the general basic principle regarding Kufr being mentioned on its own without diverting factors and indicators, is that it’s referring to major kufr.

The ‘Allāmah, Imām Ahmad Ibn Ibrāhīm ath-Thaqafī (Died 708H) said:
❝Whenever Kufr is mentioned free from diverting factors and indicators, it only refers to Kufr in regards to the Dīn.
Moreover, it could refer to Kufr in ungratefulness (to Allāh and His favours) and it would require an indicative factor (to divert it to this type of minor kufr), and an example of that is, “And [then] you did your deed which you did, and you were of the kāfirīn (ungrateful).” [26:19].❞ [23]

The ‘Allāmah, ‘Alā’ ad-Dīn Ibn al-‘Attār (Died 724H) said:
❝Certainly, whenever Kufr is left unrestricted, it’s not referring to anything except the Kufr which negates Islām.
However, it could refer to Kufr which negates its perfection (i.e. negates part of Īmān), with the intention of notifying how great of an evil it is considered according to the Sharī’ah and customs, not for taking him out of Islām.❞ [24]

The ‘Allāmah, Ibn Taymiyyah (Died 728) said, ❝It’s not permissible for the Kufr that’s left unrestricted to refer to anything except the Kufr which is contrary to Īmān, because this is the shar’ī definition.❞

And he also says, ❝Kufr that’s left unrestricted is the greatest Kufr which takes one outside the Millah, so this is what the citation would be directed towards.❞ [25]

Abū Hayyān al-Andalusī (Died 745H) mentioned in refuting whoever held Kufr upon the minor (kufr) concerning Allāh’s statement:
“Whoever doesn’t rule by what Allāh has revealed, they are the kāfirūn.” [5:44]
❝It’s declared weak (to hold it as minor kufr), since whenever Kufr is left unrestricted, it refers to disbelief in the Dīn.❞ [26]

The ‘Allāmah, Mahmūd Ibn Ahmad al-‘Aynī (Died 855H) said:
❝Verily, the usual occurrence by the Legislator (Allāh) necessitates that the phrase of shirk when it’s left unrestricted is held upon what contradicts Tawhīd, especially in the beginning stages of Prophethood and the large amount of idol worshippers.❞ [27]

Al-Qādhī Shams ad-Dīn al-Harawī (Died 829H) said:
❝Whenever Kufr is left unrestricted in the language of the Sharī’ah, disbelief in Allāh is immediately understood, and this became due to its strong meaning and originality as if it’s the reality (of Kufr), and it’s referred to other than this via indicative factors.❞ [28]

Al-‘Allāmah as-San’ānī (Died 1182H) said about Kufr and Shirk, ❝The general default principle concerning them being mentioned unrestrictedly is the true reality of Kufr.❞ [29]

2 — Second error; That the words of Bukhārī and Ibn al-‘Arabī and other than them (such as Al-Hāfidh Ibn Hajr) is concerning minor Kufr, and that the Legislator (Allāh) may apply the word Kufr upon some sins whilst what’s intended is minor Kufr.

And the apparent speech of Al-Qāsimī is concerning major Kufr and major Shirk, so why would he cite as evidence irrelevant speech to his own words. Rather, he’s in a valley and the words of the ‘Ulamā’ are in another valley.

Even though some contemporary scholars held the speech of Al-Qāsimī upon minor Shirk, which was done by the author of “Al-Jawāb al-Mufīd” (page 370) and the author of “Al-Balāgh al-Mubīn” (3/198).

Since the beginning words of Al-Qāsimī is pertaining to holding Kufr and Shirk that’s mentioned in the hadīths upon minor (shirk and kufr), therefore it’s necessary to hold the end of his words upon minor (shirk and kufr) as well, this is what they said.

In any case, Al-Qāsimī is deeply zealous in defending the major people of innovation, that he even defended ‘Amr Ibn ‘Ubayd, Al-Jahm Ibn Safwān, an-Nusayr at-Tūsī, and Ibn ‘Arabī at-Tā’ī, that some people of our time have said about him, “Indeed he’s a wicked misguiding deviant!”.

But the purpose is to take precautions and warnings from his observations which relate to these matters, and we do not utter what others have uttered about Al-Qāsimī [30].

Likewise with Ibn al-‘Arabī — even if what has been quoted from him is authentic — he’s an Ash’arī who doesn’t agree with us in Īmān and Kufr, so there’s no consideration given to his words in matters pertaining to Asmā’ and Ahkām (labels & rulings, takfīr etc...), since the observation of his likes is stemmed out from his innovated principles.

— End of Fatwā.Footnotes by Sh. Hassān Husayn w/ Br. Abū Bakr at-Tarābulsī

1] Refer to “Taqwīm Usūl al-Fiqh” (3/528-532).

[2] Refer to “Taqwīm Usūl al-Fiqh wa Tah’dīd Adilat ash-Shar’ (3/528).

[3] Abū Bakr at-Tarābulsī writes, “The Imāms of the past would use dār al-harb as an example of giving excuses due to it being a place where knowledge isn’t able to be accessed, otherwise there’s no difference between dār al-kufr and dār al-Islām whenever knowledge is widespread on an issue.”

[4] Refer to “Al-Bayān ‘an Usūl al-Īmān” (page 494).

[5] ❝Beautiful Ijmā’ on the kufr of whoever directs an act of worship that’s solely exclusive to Allāh to any of His creation. Such as whoever gives the creation the authority to legislate besides Allāh, makes a sacrifice towards an idol (including graves) if he wishes to make a decision in life, and so forth.

[6] The Earth is considered dark due to it being a planet which requires light from the sun.

[7] The Sun is considered bright because it’s a type of Star, and stars in the galaxy produce their own light, unlike planets which require light from a Star.

[8] The Moon is actually considered dark like the Earth, since the moon doesn’t produce its own light, but it rather reflects sunlight as it’s well-known.
Allāh says, “It is He who made the sun a shining light and the moon a (reflected) light and determined for it phases - that you may know the number of years and account [of time]. Allah has not created this except in truth. He details the signs for a people who know.” [10:5]
The moon is a light, however does it produce light on its own or does it reflect sunlight? Obviously, it reflects sunlight (which is what you find in the english translation in the Qur’ān), however this wasn’t known during the time of Imām al-Ghazālī, as they thought the moon itself produces light.

[9] The Planets are also considered dark, since they require light from a Star, but in the past, the arabs used to observe stars and planets thinking they all provided their own light, not knowing that the sun is what provides the planets with light.
Infact, what’s strange is that Imām al-Ghazālī considered the Earth to be dark, while he considered planets within the solar system as being “bright & shiny”, whereas the Earth is a type of “planet”, so why did he differentiate between the Earth and the rest of the planets?

[10] Imām al-Ghazālī called human-beings a “hayawān” (which commonly translates as animal), however I’ve translated it here as creature, since according to the Philosophers, they consider a human as a حيوان ناطق (which directly translates as “a speaking animal).
However what they meant by this is that a human is a حيوان ناطق in the sense of it coming from منطق (Mantiq — which could be translated as “logic & eloquence”, wherein a human knows how to make a proper definition of a concept, and how to construct a sound proof or argument, and detect flaws in a faulty argument, unlike other “animals”).
Hence, you have a science of Mantiq (i.e. علم المنطق), and a scholar of Mantiq is called Mintīq (منطيق), and the plural of that is Manātiqah (مناطقة).
So that’s what the Philosophers mean by it, even though what could be said is that a human is a mammal which speaks via his tongue, whereas other animals speak via their throats, so that’s another differentiation.
However the reason I didn’t translate حيوان as mammal is because this would exclude many animals such as birds and so forth, so the word “creature” is more accurate, and Allāh knows best.❞
— Your brother, Abū Bakr at-Tarābulsī.

[11] Refer to “Iljām al-‘Awām ‘an ‘Ilm al-Kalām” (page 29).

[12] Refer to “Al-Mafham Limā Ashkala min Talkhīs Kitāb Muslim” (1/290).

[13] Refer to “Sharh Muslim” (1/353).

[14] Refer to “Nafā’is al-Usūl” (6/2362-2363) and “Ath-Thakhīrah” (12/27-28).

[15] Refer to “Majmū’ al-Fatāwā” (3/272).

[16] Refer to “Al-Wāsitah bayn al-Haqq wal-Khalq” (Majmū’ al-Fatāwā 1/124).

[17] Refer to “Al-Isti’dād Li-Rutbat al-Ijtihād” (2/833).

[18] Refer to “Ar-Rawdh al-Bāsim” (2/509) and “Al-‘Awāsim wal-Qawāsim” (2/281-282).

[19] Refer to “Nathm ad-Durar Fī Tabāsub al-Āyāt was-Suwar” (2/522).

[20] Sh. Hassān Husayn (حفظه الله) says, “What he intends by the first 4 types are; “Kufr Istiqlāl”, and “Kufr Tab’īdh” (Believing in some and disbelieving in some matters), and “Kufr at-Taqrīb” (Approaching the idols), and “Kufr Taqlīd” (Blind-Following their ancestors on kufr).”

[21] Refer to “Sharh al-Muqaddimāt” (page 100) by as-Sanūsī.

[22] Refer to “Al-Jāmi’ al-Hāwī Li-Fatāwā ash-Shaykh ‘Uthmān Ibn Fawdī” (1/103-110).

[23] Refer to “At-Ta’wīl al-Qāti’ bi-Thuwī al-Ilhād wat-Ta’tīl” (1/400).

[24] Refer to “Al-‘Udda Fī Sharh al-‘Umdah” (2/709).

[25] Refer to “Sharh al-‘Umdah, the 2nd vol. from Kitāb as-Salāh” (page 80-83).

[26] Refer to “Tafsīr al-Bahr al-Muhīt” (4/270).

[27] Refer to “‘Umdat al-Qāri’” (1/239-240) and similarly in “Fath al-Bārī” (1/84).

[28] Refer to “Fadl al-Muna’im Fī Sharh Sahīh Muslim” (3/27-28).

[29] Refer to “Minhat al-Ghaffār Hāshiyat Daw’ an-Nahār” (7/343).

INSHA'ALLAH TO FURTHER READ SIMILAR ARTICLES, CLICK: