Estimated Reading Time: 53 minutes
Today, with the help of Allah, we will discuss a very specific topic in 'aqeedah: al-eemaan and its opposite, al-kufr, and how these concepts should be understood by Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. We are bringing up this topic because there are some individuals who either belong to Ahlus-Sunnah or consider themselves as such. They echo the sentiments of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah regarding eemaan and takfeer in principle. They adhere to the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, but when delving into the nuances or deeper aspects of the topic, their interpretations align more with those of other sects, specifically the Jahmiyyah and the Murji'ah, deviating from the views of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. This stance has become prevalent among many who identify as "Salafi," though not universally. They reiterate the views of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, such as "الإيمان قول وعمل" (faith is both speech and action). However, their explanations often diverge from Ahlus-Sunnah’s teachings and mirror those of the Jahmiyyah and Murji'ah. Unfortunately, this incorrect position is widespread, particularly in Jordan and Egypt. Insha'Allah, by the end of our discussion, we will mention some well-known individuals who hold these incorrect views. Before we delve into what Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah says about this topic, it is crucial to understand the importance of this discussion.
First and foremost, the topic of eemaan is a foundational aspect of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. Those who contradict or oppose this stance are categorized as belonging to sects outside of Ahlus-Sunnah. The understanding of eemaan is clearly outlined in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, as well as by the understanding of the righteous predecessors, to such an extent that there is a consensus among the Salaf regarding this matter. This underscores the importance of the topic. Consequently, countless ‘ulama’, including Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah (a major shaykh of imam ash-Shaafi'ee), imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, imam ibn al-Madini (a major shaykh of imam al-Bukhaari), and ibn Zayd al-Qaryawani (also known as the "little imam Maalik"), among others, have emphasized the belief of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. They have stated that those who do not adhere to these foundational beliefs are not considered part of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah; such individuals are deemed mubtadi' (innovators in 'aqeedah) and are no longer classified as Sunni. They all agreed that faith encompasses both speech and action and is integral to the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. They warned against the Murji'ah, a sect that diminished the role of eemaan by not considering actions, especially physical deeds, as part of faith. This sect did not view practices such as salah, fasting, zakah, hajj, enjoining good and forbidding evil, kindness towards one's parents and neighbors, jihaad, sadaqah, and similar deeds as components of eemaan, despite acknowledging them as part of Shari’ah, practicing them themselves, and encouraging others to do the same. Their failure to consider these actions as part of eemaan was the sole reason they were no longer regarded as part of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, as this stance contradicted the Qur'an, Sunnah, and the consensus of the Sahaabah. On the other end of the spectrum, the Khawaarij sect exaggerated the concept of eemaan, taking an extreme position in matters of takfeer and being excessive in this regard.
When examining the Salaf's perspective on which of the two sects—Khawaarij or Murji'ah—was considered the most dangerous, the answer is the Murji'ah. This view was shared by many from the Salaf, including Ibraheem an-Nakha'ee, who gained knowledge from the students of ibn Mas'ood and is counted among the Atbaa' at-Taabi'een; imam az-Zuhri, who is highly knowledgeable in the Sunnah and was a major shaykh of imam Maalik; and imam al-Awzaa'ee, a leading ‘aalim and faqeeh in ash-Shaam. These ‘ulama’ mentioned that the Murji'ah are more dangerous than the Khawaarij. The reason is that the Murji'ah's interpretation of Islam is overly “lite” and does not align with the comprehensive Islam brought by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). For further reading on this topic, one can refer to shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah's Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 7, pages 374-375.
The Salaf warned against the Mubtadi'ah (innovators) and specifically cautioned against the pitfalls into which the Mutakallimeen fell. They noted that while the Mutakallimeen might echo the Salaf's statements about eemaan, their interpretations diverged significantly from the Salaf's understanding. For instance, many Mutakallimeen claim that the Speech of Allah is uncreated, yet when interpreting this statement, they assert that Allah speaks without sound and that the Qur'an we hold is not the Speech of Allah but rather the speech of Jibreel or the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). This interpretation starkly contrasts with what Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah says about the Qur'an, despite appearing to make similar initial claims. Insha'Allah, we will delve into the topics of eemaan and takfeer later. Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah comments on the Ahlul-Bida'ah in Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 12, page 309, stating, “Because they do not circulate the narrations of the Salaf or the meanings of the Book and the Sunnah except with the distortions of some distorters.” He further elaborates in volume 7, page 364: “Many of the later generations do not distinguish between the doctrines of the Salaf and the statements of the Murji'ah and the Jahmiyyah; this is due to the mixing of one with the other in the discourse of many among them who, inwardly, hold the views of the Jahmiyyah and the Murji'ah regarding faith, while outwardly, they express great respect for the Salaf and the Ahlul-Hadith. Thus, they believe they are reconciling between them or merging their own words with those of the Salaf.” He echoes a similar sentiment in volume 7, page 402. This issue was already present during the time of imam Ahmad, as stated in Kitaab as-Sunnah by imam al-Khallaal, number 982:
Muhammad ibn ‘Ali narrated to us, saying: Abu Bakr al-Athram narrated to us, saying: I heard Abu ‘Abdullah, and it was said to him about Shabaabah, "What do you say about him?" He said, "Shabaabah used to advocate for Irjaa'." He said, "And it has been narrated from Shabaabah a statement more vile than these statements, something I have not heard anyone else say. He said that Shabaabah said: 'If one says, then he has acted.' He said, 'Faith is speech and action, as they say.' So, if he says, then he has acted with his limb, meaning his tongue. Thus, he has acted with his tongue when he spoke. Then Abu ‘Abdullah said, 'This is a vile statement, I have not heard anyone say it, nor has it reached me.'"
Now we will delve into our topic. According to Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, eemaan is comprised of speech and action, belief of the heart, speech of the tongue, and action of both the heart (such as love, hate, and hope) and the limbs. Thus, eemaan is built on four pillars: belief of the heart, action of the heart, speech of the tongue, and action of the limbs. When Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah asserts that eemaan includes the action of the limbs, it signifies that neglecting every single obligatory (waajib) deed categorizes one as a kaafir. This view contrasts with that of the Jahmiyyah and the Murji’ah, who do not regard the action of the limbs as part of eemaan, believing instead that someone who abandons all actions of the limbs is still a believer, not a kaafir.
Interestingly, in this specific regard, the Khawaarij's position mirrors that of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah in general terms, yet significant distinctions emerge upon closer inspection. It is crucial, therefore, to distinguish between the perspectives of the Khawaarij and Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah maintains that abandoning every single obligatory act results in becoming a kaafir. In contrast, the Khawaarij argue that forsaking just one obligatory act is enough to make someone a kaafir. This highlights a difference in focus: Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah considers the abandonment of all deeds collectively, whereas the Khawaarij emphasize the neglect of a single action of the limbs.
Attention should be paid to the unified stance within Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, regardless of whether it concerns individuals who declare takfeer upon someone forsaking salah, fasting, zakah, or hajj. In fact, during the era of the Taabi’een, some major ‘ulama’ held these views, as shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah also noted in his Majmoo’ al-Fatawa, volume 7, pages 302 and 610. This position, as mentioned, that Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah upholds, applies both to those who declare takfeer for abandoning one of the four [out of five] pillars of Islam and to those who do not declare takfeer for such abandonment. They unanimously agree that forsaking all deeds and obligations altogether categorizes one as a kaafir, may Allah protect us from such a fate.
We will now present evidence from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, starting with the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Ijmaa' (consensus), and then we will cite statements from the Salaf that support this view. Please note, this presentation is a condensed version of a more comprehensive summary. An in-depth exploration would require much more time. Therefore, with the help of Allah, I will strive to make this as concise as possible.
قُلْ أَطِيعُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَٱلرَّسُولَ ۖ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا۟ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلْكَـٰفِرِينَ
Say, "Obey Allāh and the Messenger. But if you turn away - then indeed, Allāh does not like the disbelievers." (Aali ‘Imraan 3:32)
First of all, "فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا۟" means as not following or practicing anything at all. The evidence for this can be found within the Qur'an itself, where Allah differentiates in two Ayat between "التولى" (turning away or abstaining from something) and "التكذيب" (denying or believing something to be a lie). This distinction highlights the difference between staying away from something and not practicing it at all, and not believing in something, considering it to be false. Allah says:
فَلَا صَدَّقَ وَلَا صَلَّىٰ وَلَـٰكِن كَذَّبَ وَتَوَلَّىٰ
“And he [i.e., the disbeliever] had not believed, nor had he prayed. But [instead], he denied and turned away.” (Al-Qiyaamah 75:31-32)
فَأَنذَرْتُكُمْ نَارًۭا تَلَظَّىٰ لَا يَصْلَىٰهَآ إِلَّا ٱلْأَشْقَى ٱلَّذِى كَذَّبَ وَتَوَلَّىٰ
“So I have warned you of a Fire which is blazing. None will [enter to] burn therein except the most wretched one, who had denied and turned away.” (Al-Layl 92:14-16)
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah states in Majmoo’ al-Fatawa, volume 7, page 142: “So it is understood that ‘turning away’ is not the same as denying, but rather it is turning away from obedience. Indeed, people are required to believe the Messenger in what he has informed and to obey him in what he has commanded.” Then further stated: “Thus, faith is negated from the one who turns away from action, even if they have uttered the statement (i.e. ash-Shahaadatayn).” And on the same page: “In the Qur'an and the Sunnah, there are many instances where faith is denied to those who do not perform the actions, just as faith is denied to the munaafiq.”
وَنُودُوٓا۟ أَن تِلْكُمُ ٱلْجَنَّةُ أُورِثْتُمُوهَا بِمَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ
… And they will be called, "This is Paradise, which you have been made to inherit for what you used to do." (Al-A’raaf 7:43)
وَتِلْكَ ٱلْجَنَّةُ ٱلَّتِىٓ أُورِثْتُمُوهَا بِمَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ
“This is the Paradise which you have been made to inherit because of your deeds which you used to do (in the life of the world).” (Az-Zukhruf 43:72)
That’s why imam Battah states in al-Ibaanah al-Kubra, a well-known source for the statements of the Salaf, volume 2, page 781: “My brothers, reflect upon this address, comprehend what your Lord has informed you, and recognize the reason for which Allah has prepared blessings and gardens. Do you find it to be anything other than faith and action?”
إِلَيْهِ يَصْعَدُ ٱلْكَلِمُ ٱلطَّيِّبُ وَٱلْعَمَلُ ٱلصَّـٰلِحُ يَرْفَعُهُۥ
“… To Him ascend (all) the goodly words, and the righteous deeds exalt it (i.e. the goodly words are not accepted by Allâh unless and until they are followed by good deeds)…” (Faatir 35:10)
Imam al-Aajurri discusses this in ash-Shari’ah, a prominent source among Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, volume 2, page 212: “So the Exalted has informed us that a good word is truly raised to Allah by action. If there is no action, the speech becomes void for the one who utters it, is rejected, and returned to him. And there is no speech more noble than Tawheed, nor is there any action among the righteous deeds more noble than performing the obligatory duties.”
These Ayat demonstrate that without actions, meaning the absence of any good deeds, one is considered a kaafir, will not be rewarded with Paradise, and their speech will not ascend. I will conclude with these Ayat as evidence.
Imam at-Tirmidhi, an-Nasaa’i and al-Haakim have narrated the following hadith, which at-Tirmidhi and al-Haakim have graded as saheeh:
A Jew said to his companion: "Let us go to this prophet." His companion said, "Do not say prophet, for if he hears you, it would be as if you see him with four eyes." So, they went to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and asked him about nine clear signs. He told them: "Do not associate anything with Allah, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except with just cause, do not take an innocent person to the authority to have him killed, do not practice magic, do not consume usury, do not accuse chaste women (of adultery), and do not flee on the day of the march (in battle). And specifically for you Jews, do not transgress on the Sabbath." They kissed his hands and feet. They said, "We testify that you are a prophet." He asked, "What prevents you from following me?" They replied, "David prayed to his Lord that there always be a prophet from his descendants, and we fear that if we follow you, the Jews will kill us…”
Imam ibnul-Qayyim stated in Miftaah Daar as-Sa’aadah: “These individuals acknowledged his prophethood and testified to it, yet they preferred disbelief and misguidance and did not become Muslims despite their testimony...” He further said: “Therefore, these Jews, who testified to his messengership, were not ruled to be Muslims by the mere confession and acknowledgement of the truth of his message, because merely acknowledging and informing about the validity of his message does not necessitate Islam, unless it is accompanied by obedience to him and following him...”
Imam ash-Shaafi’ee stated in al-Umm, and this statement was also cited in Sharh Usool al-’Itiqaad Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah by imam al-Laalikaa’ee, which is a well-known source among Ahlus-Sunnah for the statements of the Salaf; it was also cited in also cited in Majmoo’ al-Fatawa: “We argue that no salah is sufficient without intention, based on the hadith of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): ‘Indeed, actions are (judged) by intentions.’” Then he said: “And there was consensus among the Sahaabah and the Taabi’een after them, from those we have reached, that faith is speech, action, and intention. None of the three suffices without the others.”
Note that imam ash-Shaafi'ee made this statement even though he himself maintains the view that one cannot declare takfeer on someone who abandons salah. Despite this, he mentioned the consensus that abandoning all deeds renders them invalid, akin to abandoning all speech. It's important to understand that 'speech' here includes the testimony of faith.
Additionally, instances of consensus were mentioned by imam al-Aajurree in ash-Shari’ah, imam ibn Battah in al-Ibaanah al-Kubra and imam al-Muzani, as cited by ibnul-Qayyim in “اجتماع الجيوش الإسلامية”.
I will now mention statements from the Salaf that confirm the interdependence of speech and actions, emphasizing that neither can be valid without the other. Specifically, this means that abandoning all obligatory deeds entirely results in becoming a kaafir, just as abandoning all forms of speech does. This understanding is derived from the teachings of the Salaf.
It's reported by one of the Taabi'een, Maymoon ibn Mihraan, with his student Furaat ibn Salman recounting the statement. This statement can be found in the book Taareekh ar-Riqqah:
Furaat ibn Salman reported: We arrived with Maymoon ibn Mihraan at the monastery of al-Qaa'im, where he observed the monk and said to his companions, "Among you, has anyone reached the level of devotion that this monk has?" They replied, "No." He said, "Then what benefit does that bring him if he does not believe in Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)?" They said, "It benefits him nothing." He said, "Similarly, words without actions are of no benefit."
Imam az-Zuhri stated, as cited in Majmoo’ al-Fatawa: “We used to say that Islam is through acknowledgment and faith is through deeds. And faith is both speech and action, inseparable companions; neither benefits without the other. And there is no one whose speech and deeds are not weighed.”
Imam Abu Thawr, who also holds the view that one cannot declare takfeer on those who abandon salah, engaged in an argument with the Murji’ah. During this debate, he stated, as cited in Sharh Usool al-’Itiqaad Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah:
… If they say that he demanded from them both acknowledgment and action, it could be said: So, if he required both from them, why do you claim that one can be a believer with one and not the other, when he wanted both? Imagine if a man said: "I will do all that Allah has commanded but will not acknowledge Him." Can he be a believer? If they say no, it could be said to them: So, if he said: "I acknowledge all that Allah has commanded but do not act upon any of it," can he be a believer? If they say yes, it could be said to them: What is the difference when you claim that Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, wanted both? If it is acceptable to be a believer by adhering to one and neglecting the other, then it should be acceptable to be considered a believer with the other if one acts without acknowledgment. There is no difference between the two scenarios. If someone objects, saying: "If a man converts to Islam and acknowledges all that was brought by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is he a believer by this acknowledgment before the time for action arrives?" It would be said to him: We only ascribe the name (of a believer) to him based on his affirmation that he must act upon it when its time comes, and at this moment, the acknowledgment alone does not make him a believer in everything that constitutes belief. And if he says, "I acknowledge but do not act," we do not ascribe to him the name of faith. What we have explained here is sufficient, and we ask Allah for success.
Imam al-Aajurree stated in his book ash-Shari’ah: “Actions, may Allah have mercy on you, with the limbs are an affirmation of faith in the heart and tongue. So, whoever does not affirm their faith through their actions and limbs—such as purification, salah, zakah, fasting, hajj, jihaad, and the like—and is content with mere knowledge and speech, is not a believer. Knowledge and speech alone will not benefit him. Abandoning action is a denial of his faith, whereas acting as mentioned affirms his faith.”
Similarly, imam ibn Battah stated in al-Ibaanah al-Kubra: “Faith is speech and action, and whoever believes in speech but abandons action is considered a liar and outside the realm of faith. Indeed, Allah does not accept speech without action, nor does He accept action without speech.”
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah reported a statement in Majmoo’ al-Fatawa: Sahl ibn Abdullah at-Tustari was asked about faith, what is it? He said: "Speech, action, intention, and Sunnah. For if faith is speech without action, then it is kufr; and if it is speech and action without intention, then it is nifaaq; and if it is speech, action, and intention without following the Sunnah, then it is innovation."
Abu Taalib al-Makki stated, as cited in Majmoo’ al-Fatawa: “… Whoever outwardly performs the actions of Islam but does not hold the internal beliefs of faith in the unseen is a munaafiq, a nifaaq that removes him from the religion. And whoever believes in the unseen as informed by the messengers but does not act according to the rulings of faith and the laws of Islam is a kaafir, a kufr that invalidates any claim to Tawheed...”
As demonstrated by these varied statements from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, there is a consensus that performing deeds without speech is considered kufr across the Muslim community. Similarly, within Ahlus-Sunnah, merely verbal affirmation without accompanying actions, especially the failure to perform any obligatory deeds, is also regarded as kufr. This agreement extends even among scholars who do not view the abandonment of salah as kufr.
Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah, one of the major 'ulama' in Makkah, was a student under imam Maalik and was a shaykh for imam ash-Shaafi'ee. He was asked about al-Murji'ah and said, as reported in as-Sunnah by 'Abdullah ibn Ahmad:
They say: “Faith is speech,” and we say faith is speech and action. The Murji'ah obligate paradise for anyone who testifies that there is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah, insisting in their heart on abandoning the obligatory duties, and they equate abandoning the obligatory duties to a sin equivalent to committing the forbidden acts, but it's not the same because committing the forbidden acts without considering them permissible is a sin, and deliberately abandoning the obligatory duties without ignorance or excuse is disbelief. The explanation of this is in the matter of Adam (peace be upon him) Iblees, and the Jewish scholars. As for Adam, Allah the Almighty forbade him from eating from the tree and declared it prohibited for him. Yet, he ate from it intentionally, wishing to become an angel or to be among the immortals. Consequently, he was named disobedient without being labeled a disbeliever. As for Iblees (may Allah curse him) a single prostration was ordained for him, but he denied it deliberately, so he was named a kaafir. As for the Jewish scholars, they recognized the description of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and that he was a prophet and messenger as they recognize their own sons, and they acknowledged him with their tongue but did not follow his Shari’ah, so Allah, the Almighty, named them disbelievers. Thus, committing the forbidden acts is like the sin of Adam (peace be upon him) and other prophets, and denying the obligatory duties is disbelief like the disbelief of Iblees (may Allah curse him) and their abandoning it with knowledge without denial is disbelief like the disbelief of the Jewish scholars, and Allah knows best.
Imam Ishaaq ibn Raahuwayh, as reported in Fath al-Baari by ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, was the shaykh of imam al-Bukhaari and a close friend of imam Ahmad. Before we present imam Ishaaq's statement, let's provide some context. Al-Haafidh ibn Rajab explains the hadith, stating that Islam is built on five pillars:
If these are the pillars and foundations of the structure, then the rest of the qualities of Islam are like the rest of the building. If something from the rest of the qualities included in the obligatory definition of Islam is missing, the building is diminished but does not collapse due to its loss. However, if these five pillars are all removed, the structure collapses and does not remain after their removal. Similarly, if the greatest pillar, which is the shahaadah (testimony of faith), is removed, its removal occurs by doing something that contradicts it and cannot coexist with it. As for the removal of the remaining four pillars, scholars differ on whether the name (of being a Muslim) is removed by their removal or by the removal of one of them, or does it not remove at all? Or do they differentiate between salah and others, so it is removed by abandoning the salah but not by abandoning the others? Or is the removal of Islam specifically tied to the abandonment of salah and zakah only?
In this matter, there is a well-known disagreement, and all these opinions are narrated from imam Ahmad. Many scholars of the Ahlul-Hadith consider abandoning salah as disbelief. Ishaaq Ibn Raahuwayh reported a consensus among them to the extent that he considered the statement of those who say: "One does not become a kaafir by abandoning these pillars despite acknowledging them," as one of the Murji'ah's opinions. Similarly, Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah said: "The Murji'ah have named the abandonment of obligatory acts a sin, equating it to committing prohibitions, but they are not the same, because committing prohibitions deliberately without deeming them lawful is disobedience, and abandoning obligatory acts without ignorance or excuse is disbelief." This is illustrated in the cases of Adam, Iblees, and the Jewish scholars who acknowledged the prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) but did not follow his laws. It was narrated from ‘Ataa and Naafi’, the freed slave of ibn ‘Umar, that when asked about someone who says: "Salah is obligatory, but I do not pray," they both said: "He is a kaafir." Imam Ahmad said the same.
Harb narrated from Ishaaq, who said: "The Murji'ah have exaggerated to the point where among their statements is: 'If a group of people abandon the prescribed [salah] prayers, fasting in Ramadan, zakah, hajj, and most obligatory acts without denying them, we do not consider them disbelievers. Their matter is hoped to be left to Allah since they acknowledge [these obligations].' These are undoubtedly Murji'ah." This implies that abandoning these obligatory acts constitutes disbelief.
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said about imam Ishaaq ibn Raahuwayh that he has as much knowledge as imam ash-Shaafi’ee and imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
Imam Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Marwazi, who was a student of Ishaaq ibn Raahuwayh, stated in his book Exalting the Value of Salah. He lived during the time of imam al-Bukhaari and imam Muslim. He said:
Faith at its core is belief, and acknowledgment anticipates the realization of performance for what one has acknowledged and the verification of what one has believed. An example of this is like that of two men who owe a debt to another man. When the creditor asked one of them for his due, he said: "You have no right over me," denying and repudiating, thus leaving no position for him to verify what he said since he denied and repudiated. When the creditor asked the other for his due, he said: "Yes, you have such and such right over me." However, his acknowledgment does not fulfill his due until he pays it, and he is awaited to verify what he said only by fulfilling it, and his acknowledgment is validated by fulfillment. If he acknowledged but then did not pay his due, it would be as if he denied it in meaning, if they both equally fail to perform the payment. Thus, the verification of what he said is to fulfill his due to him. If he pays a part of it, he verifies a part of what he said and fulfills a part of what he acknowledged. As he pays each part, he further verifies what he acknowledged. It is always upon the believer to fulfill what he has acknowledged until death, hence we said “A believer if Allah wills,” and not said “A kaafir if Allah wills.”
Elsewhere in the book, he said: “Wherever there is submission to Allah, there is faith, and where there is refusal, arrogance, or abandonment of His command, there is disbelief. Abandonment, coupled with refusal, is disbelief, just as action with submission and will is faith.” (Source)
Imam ibn Taymiyyah said in Majmoo’ al-Fatawa:
It has become clear that the Deen necessarily involves both speech and action, and it is impossible for a man to be a believer in Allah and His Messenger with his heart or with his heart and tongue without performing any outward obligation, no salah, no zakah, no fasting, nor any other obligations. Not because Allah has mandated them, like fulfilling a trust, speaking the truth, or being just in his division and judgment without faith in Allah and His Messenger, does not remove him from disbelief. Indeed, the mushrikeen and the Ahlul-Kitaab recognize the obligation of these matters, so a man is not a believer in Allah and His Messenger while lacking any of the obligations specifically enjoined by Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Whoever says that the required faith is achieved without performing any of these obligations, whether he considers performing these obligations necessary for him or a part of him, engages in a mere verbal dispute and is clearly mistaken. This is the innovation of al-Irjaa', about which the Salaf and the imams have spoken harshly against its people and have made known their severe statements. Salah is the greatest, most comprehensive, first, and most noble of these.
Elsewhere in Majmoo’ al-Fatawa, he said:
Similarly, denying the Messenger in one's heart, harboring hatred and envy towards him, and being too proud to follow him are greater sins than outward acts devoid of this, such as murder, adultery, drinking, and theft. And what is considered disbelief in outward actions, like prostrating to idols, insulting the Messenger, and the like, is only because it implies internal disbelief. Otherwise, if it were assumed that someone prostrated in front of an idol without intending in his heart to prostrate to it, but intended to prostrate to Allah in his heart, that would not be considered disbelief. Such an act could be permissible if he were among mushrikeen and feared for his life, thus he might outwardly conform to their actions while intending in his heart to prostrate to Allah. It is mentioned that some Muslim scholars and scholars of the Ahlul-Kitaab did something similar with a group of mushrikeen until they invited them to Islam, and they converted at his hand without showing opposition at first.
Here are ‘principles’ people have disputed. Among them is whether the heart can hold belief or disbelief without ever expressing anything through the tongue or limbs, and only the opposite appears without fear. The Salaf, the imams, and the majority of people agree that the manifestation of that belief or disbelief must appear through the limbs. Whoever says he believes in the Messenger, loves him, and venerates him in his heart, but never speaks of Islam or performs any of its obligations without fear, is not a believer internally; he is, in fact, a kaafir.
Shaykhul-Islam also stated in Sharh al-’Umdah:
Also, what ibn Shaaqlaa used as evidence, mentioning imam Ahmad's statement: “that Iblees, by refusing to prostrate to Adam, was deemed a kaafir and cursed. So, what about someone who refuses to prostrate to Allah the Exalted? This is because if disbelief were merely the denial or the manifestation of denial, Iblees would not have been considered a kaafir, as this contradicts the text of the Qur’an.”
Additionally, the essence of the Deen is obedience and submission, which can only be achieved through action, not merely by speech. Therefore, anyone who does not perform an act of worship for Allah does not practice a Deen for Allah, and whoever does not have a Deen is a kaafir. As for the analogy of salah to other pillars, Abu Bakr stated as reported by Ahmad that one becomes an apostate by abandoning the five pillars.
Shaykhul-Islam also stated in as-Saarim al-Maslool, “So, whoever does not comply with His command is either a denier of it or refuses to submit to his Lord, and both are explicit disbelief.”
He also said in al-Eemaan al-Awsat: “Each of the two sects (i.e. al-Jahymiyyah and al-Murji’ah), after the Salaf, the Jamaa’ah and Ahlul-Hadith, contradicts themselves when they say: ‘Faith is speech and action,’ yet they also say: ‘It does not vanish with the absence of some actions.’” This is similar to some contemporary individuals who identify themselves as “Salafi” and are regarded as part of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. They assert “faith is speech and action” and claim that one is still considered a Muslim "despite having abandoned all deeds." And that is what they mean and say, "actions are a condition for perfection". In other words, action is a condition for the perfection of faith, and it is not a condition for faith to be valid.
I will now present statements from contemporary ‘ulama’. Shaykh Muhammad al-Ameen ash-Shanqeeti said in his book Adwaa’i al-Bayaan: “And we have repeatedly stated that the correct Shar’i definition of faith and the correct Shar’i definition of Islam is the submission of the heart through belief, the tongue through acknowledgment, and the limbs through action.”
Shaykh ‘Abdul-Azeez ibn Faysal ar-Raajihee says in al-Jazeerah newspaper:
I asked our shaykh, the imam ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him) in the year 1415 AH - and we were in one of his lessons (may Allah have mercy on him) about deeds: “Are they a condition for the validity of faith, or a condition for its perfection?”
He replied (may Allah have mercy on him): “From the deeds, there are those that are a condition for the validity of faith without which faith is not valid, such as salah; whoever abandons it has committed disbelief. And there are those which are a condition for the perfection of faith; faith is valid without them, though the one who abandons them is disobedient and sinful.”
I then asked him (may Allah have mercy on him): “As for those from the Salaf who did not declare one who abandons salah as a kaafir, do they consider the act a condition for perfection? Or a condition for validity?” He said: “No, rather, according to all, the act is a condition for validity, but they differed on what actions faith is valid with; a group said it is salah, and there is a consensus of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) on this, as reported by ‘Abdullah ibn Shaqeeq. Others said it is not only salah. However, the category of action is necessary for the validity of faith according to all the Salaf. Thus, faith to them is speech, action, and belief; it is not valid except with all of these combined.”
Al-Lajnah ad-Daa’imah were asked:
Some questioners ask about two books "The Warning from the Fitnah of Takfeer" and "A Crier's Call" by their author, ‘Ali Hasan al-Halabi, suggesting that they promote the doctrine of al-Irjaa’, which posits that actions are not a condition for the validity of faith. This attribution is made to the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. These two books are based on distorted quotations from shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, al-Haafidh ibn Katheer, and others, may Allah have mercy on them all. The advisors desire to clarify what is in these two books so that readers may distinguish the truth from falsehood... etc.
The response was that they warned against the falsehood it contained and forbade its publication, among other things. The signatories were: Bakr Abu Zayd, Saalih al-Fawzan, ‘Abdullah ibn Ghudayyaan, and ‘Abdul-’Azeez ibn ‘Abdullah Aal ash-Shaykh.
This viewpoint, asserting that actions are merely a condition of faith's perfection, suggests that one remains a Muslim even after abandoning all deeds, not becoming a kaafir. This stands in stark contrast to the teachings of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. Such a misleading perspective inevitably leads to significant ramifications and grave errors, of which I will discuss four.
First and foremost, adhering to this belief would negate the concept of "كفر الإعراض" (disbelief through indifference), which is one of the meanings shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab mentioned in the Nullifications of Islam under the tenth point: “Turning away from the Deen of Allah, not learning it nor acting upon it…” This stance is contrary to the position of the Murji’ah.Ibnul-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy upon him) stated in Miftaah Daar as-Sa’aadah: “… The third is pure disbelief of indifference, not considering what the Messenger brought, neither loving nor hating him, neither allying with nor opposing him. Rather, it is turning away from following or opposing him. These two types are what most mutakallimeen deny…” In other words, people of innovation and not the position of Ahlus-Sunnah.
This erroneous stance further implies that "الإنقياد الظاهر" (overt compliance) is not among the seven conditions of the testimony of faith, whereas it should render the testimony of faith beneficial on Judgment Day. "الإنقياد" refers to compliance through one's actions, which shaykh ‘Abdurrahman ibn Hasan ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab interpreted as “Compliance with its rights, which are: the obligatory acts, with sincerity to Allah, and seeking His pleasure.” (Relevant) That’s why ‘Abdul-Lateef ibn ‘Abdur-Rahman ibn Hasan Aal ash-Shaykh said about the testimony of faith in Misbaah adh-Dhalaam: “And there is no doubt that knowledge, speech, and action are required for their validity.” On this point, caution is warranted, as this view is associated with the Murji'ah, which imam Abu Thawr has refuted. It's not necessary to quote him directly, but it is important to distinguish between the conditions for entering Islam and the conditions for remaining a Muslim. A condition for entering Islam involves having faith in one's heart and acknowledging it. At this moment, one cannot be deemed kaafir until he establishes salah. Upon uttering the testimony of faith, he is recognized as a Muslim. However, to remain within Islam, he must adhere to obligatory deeds such as establishing salah. This distinction is also clarified by imam ‘Abdul-Lateef in the same book, stating, “Foundations and the like are required for the validity of Islam, not for entering into it.”
The false interpretation of the statements of the Salaf concerning speech and action has led to claims that while faith can decrease, there is a minimum level which won’t diminish. This assertion contradicts the views of major Salaf scholars such as Ishaaq ibn Raahuwayh, Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, and imam al-Awzaa’ee, who have all stated that faith can decrease to the point where it no longer exists. This perspective is mentioned in Sharh Usool al-’Itiqaad Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah by imam al-Laalikaa’ee. Similarly, Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah is quoted in ash-Shari’ah by al-Aajurree and Ishaaq ibn Raahuwayh in as-Sunnah by al-Khallaal. Ibn Battah also reported a statement in al-Ibaanah al-Kubra that serves as evidence, mirroring other statements: I heard ibn ‘Uyaynah saying, "Faith increases and decreases." So, his brother Ibraheem ibn ‘Uyaynah said to him, "O Abu Muhammad, do not say it increases and decreases." He got angry and said, "Be quiet, boy, rather it decreases until nothing of it remains."
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah stated, “And for this reason, the Murji'ah were more repelled by the term ‘decrease’ than they were by the term ‘increase.’” The context of this statement is found in Majmoo’ al-Fatawa:
... Ash-Shaafi'ee, along with the Sahaabah, the Taabi’een, and the rest of the Salaf, say: “Sin affects the perfection of faith, and for this reason, the Lawgiver (i.e. Allah) denies faith to these people.” Thus, the collective entity that is faith does not remain intact with sins, but they [i.e. the Murji’ah] say some of it remains: “either the root, or most of it, or something else,” leading to the argument that some of it goes and some of it remains. And for this reason, the Murji'ah were more repelled by the term "decrease" than they were by the term "increase"; because if it decreases, in their view, it necessitates the total disappearance if it is divisible and multiple, as held by those who say this, namely the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah...
The last point, before mentioning this, keep in mind that Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah assert that the internal and external are intrinsically connected. In other words, the external actions reflect what is in the heart. However, those holding a misinterpretation are compelled to argue, “This applies at all times, except when the faith is very weak; then, it is possible that even if you have faith in your heart, it does not manifest through the actions of the limbs.”
This view contradicts the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): “… Indeed, in the body there is a piece of flesh; if it is sound, the whole body is sound, and if it is corrupt, the whole body is corrupt. Indeed, it is the heart.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.
Let’s consider the statements of the Salaf. Imam al-Marwazi stated in his book Exalting the Value of Salah, “Thus, it is established that faith necessitates reverence for Allah and exalting Him, fearing Him, and hastening towards obedience to Him in proportion to the greatness of knowledge and recognition instilled in the heart.”Imam ibn Taymiyyah stated in Majmoo’ al-Fatawa: “The Qur’an clarifies that the faith of the heart necessitates corresponding outward actions.”
Ibnul-Qayyim stated in al-Fawaa’id:
The principle of faith has both an external and internal aspect: externally, it is the declaration of the tongue and the actions of the limbs, while internally, it is the affirmation of the heart, its submission, and its love. An external appearance without an internal foundation is of no benefit, even if it protects blood, secures wealth, and progeny. Nor is an internal belief without external manifestation sufficient, except in cases of incapacity, coercion, or fear of destruction. The absence of external action, when there is no impediment, is a sign of internal corruption and a lack of faith. The deficiency of faith is evidence of its weakness, and its strength is a testament to its robustness. Faith is the heart and essence of Islam, and certainty is the heart and essence of faith. Any knowledge and action that do not increase the strength of faith and certainty are questionable, and any faith that does not motivate action is suspect.
We will now mention the hadith which they consider their strongest evidence for their argument, which is actually a matter they have greatly misunderstood. It is narrated in Saheeh Muslim, a hadith known as Juhannamiyyeen or the hadith of intercession, and I will quote some parts of the hadith:
… Allah, the Almighty, will say: “The angels have interceded, the prophets have interceded, and the believers have interceded, and none remains except the Most Merciful of the merciful.” He will then take a handful from the Fire and bring out from it people who have never done any good... Allah will admit them into Paradise without any good deed they have done, nor any good they have forwarded…
Let’s see whether their understanding is the same as how Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah understood it. Imam ibn Khuzaymah, who in his time were regarded as the imam of the imams, stated in his book at-Tawheed:
This phrase "they have never done any good at all" belongs to the category which the Arabs denote as the negation of a name from something due to its lack of perfection and completeness. Thus, the meaning of this phrase, based on this principle, is that they have never done any good in a complete and perfect manner, not in the sense of what was obligatory upon them and commanded.
A similar sentiment was expressed by imam Abu ‘Ubaydah al-Qaasim ibn Sallaam, who was among the fuqahaa’ and ‘ulama’ in hadith and also an expert in the Arabic language. To the extent that when imam Ahmad encountered difficulty with some words, he would refer to him, and it was recommended that people consult him in these matters. Imam Abu ‘Ubaydah confirmed what imam ibn Khuzaymah said about the Arabs. This principle is universally understood across languages; for instance, if someone has done their job poorly, and it is said to him, “You have not done your job,” it doesn’t imply that he hasn’t done anything at all. This is akin to the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) where the hadith doesn’t mean a person has not done a single deed; rather, he has performed some deeds, but not in a complete sense. A confirming example is the hadith of the man who killed ninety-nine people and then sought repentance, only to kill one more, making it a hundred. When he sought the path to repentance and was directed to a place with good people, he died en route. The angel of mercy and the angel of punishment arrived and debated over him. What did the angel of punishment say? He said the man had never done any good. However, the hadith clearly indicates he performed a good act in seeking repentance and heading to the place of good people; these actions were considered deeds, yet he was described as not having done any good, meaning he hadn’t completed any deed in the full sense, not that he hadn’t performed any good deed at all.
It is important to note that when imam ibn Khuzaymah made the above statement, he did so to counter the claims of the Murji'ah. Regrettably, some contemporary "Salafis" echo the very sentiments once articulated by the early Murji’ah, showing no difference in their stance.
Concerning the misunderstanding of the statement "لم يعملوا خيرا قط" within the framework of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah principles and deductive reasoning: if a ruling is supported by numerous pieces of evidence, such as the Qur’an, Sunnah, and countless statements of the Salaf, yet seems contradictory, or if a hadith can be interpreted in two ways—one that aligns with the statements of the Salaf and another that contradicts them—the approach of the Salaf dictates adhering to the interpretation that aligns with their statements. This reflects ibn Khuzaymah’s emphasis on sticking to interpretations consistent with the Salaf’s views rather than those that contradict them. Essentially, those who adhere to the contradicting interpretation are the innovators. This principle is akin to Allah's warning against clinging to the ambiguous, as mentioned in Aali ‘Imraan (3:7), and applies equally to the Sunnah.
The statement that actions are conditional for the perfection of faith—guess who has said this before? The Ashaa'irah and Maatureediyyah, both among the sects of Mutakallimeen, are known for not being part of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. The Murji'ah al-Fuqahaa' have also previously made this erroneous claim, and they, too, are clearly considered outside the fold of Ahlus-Sunnah. These three sects have echoed the same sentiment. First, why did they not consider actions as part of faith? While they had respect for the Salaf, when the Salaf articulated that faith encompasses both speech and action, they tried to make this statement fit their beliefs, which is indeed a misguidance. Some contemporary "Salafis" have similarly erred. May Allah protect us from such misguidance.
Then there are many others from the Ashaa'irah, Maatureediyyah, and Murji'ah al-Fuqahaa’ who have stated that even if one abandons all deeds, one is still considered a Muslim. It is important to note that in making such statements, they attempted to interpret the views of the Salaf. Another name from the Maatureediyyah:
I could list numerous sources, but citing them all would be too time-consuming. Therefore, I will suffice it with those two references:
In summary, they all made the same statements. These are the individuals whom shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah described as trying to interpret the statements of the Salaf based on their own foundations. On the surface, it appears as though they are echoing the Salaf, but in reality, their views align with those of the Jahmiyyah and the Murji'ah.
There is a statement by ibn Hajar in his Fath al-Baari that has caused considerable confusion among contemporaries. He interpreted the statements of the Salaf to mean that actions are conditional for the perfection of faith. While ibn Hajar is a major imam and hadith scholar, his statements on ‘aqeedah are not reliable. This is why many contemporary ‘ulama’ have critiqued him, including ibn Baaz, al-Muhaddith ‘Abdullah ad-Duwaysh, ‘Abdurrahman al-Barraak, and ‘Abdullah al-Ghunaymaan. Specifically, in the explanation of the chapter Kitaab at-Tawheed across two substantial volumes, the number of mistakes, particularly in the chapter on Tawheed, are numerous. The reason? Ibn Hajar often cites the Ashaa'irah without refutation. Regrettably, as-Saffaareeni referenced ibn Hajar's statement in his book Lawaami' al-Anwaar, which is also a significant oversight. (Relevant)
If one were to ask whether any ‘ulama’ opposed his views, the answer is yes. Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab did so in ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, volume 1, pages 50 to 51. Shaykh ibn Baaz also contested his statements which was quoted in a al-Mishkat Magazine:
Al-Mishkat: “They mention that you did not comment on this at the beginning of al-Fath?” The shaykh: “I don't know, our commentary was forty years ago, before we went to Madinah. We went to Madinah in the year 1381 AH, and we recorded the corrections for al-Fath, I think, in 1377 AH or 87 [perhaps 78], roughly forty years ago. I don't remember, it might have passed by us without noticing.” (Quoted from Al-Mishkat Magazine, Volume 2, Part 2, pp. 279, 280)
Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy upon him) was not an Ash'ari, as he opposed some statements of the Ashaa'irah; however, he was greatly influenced by them, and many of his major shuyookh were Ashaa'irah. May Allah forgive them. (Relevant)
There is another statement by ibn Abi'l-'Izz al-Hanafi in his explanation of al-'Aqeedah at-Tahaawiyyah that could be misunderstood. He stated that the Salaf and Murji'ah al-Fuqahaa’ agree that if one has faith in the heart and acknowledges it with the tongue without performing any actions, one is considered sinful, in other words, not a disbeliever. However, it's suggested that he doesn't mean abandoning all deeds but rather abandoning all deeds except for the four pillars [out of five], as he mentioned earlier that the Salaf declare takfeer upon those who abandon salah. If the confusing part of his statement is similar to what ibn Hajar stated, then we regard it as a grave mistake, one that contradicts what the Salaf have said. If one may wonder where this mistake could occur, we suggest it's because he was explaining the belief of imam at-Tahaawi, who clearly erred in not considering actions as part of faith. This could be the reason behind ibn Abi’l-'Izz's statements if that was his intended meaning.
Insha'Allah, to address the issue of misunderstanding actions as conditional for faith to be perfect, we will explore the stance of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah on kufr and takfeer. Additionally, we will highlight errors made by some among the “Salafis”—errors similar to those concerning eemaan. One mistake often leads to another, and that is generally the case.
I will begin with a brief introduction. The topic of kufr and takfeer is integral to Shari’ah. While some have exaggerated its importance, others have undermined it, mirroring divergences on other foundational points of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. It is crucial to warn against both exaggeration and undermining of these issues. A common error in contemporary discourse is mislabeling the Khawaarij as “takfeeris.” However, every Muslim should ideally practice takfeer by declaring the Jews, Christians, and idol worshippers as disbelievers. So, how should we refer to the Khawaarij? They are those who exaggerate in takfeer. Since takfeer can be either valid or false, we cannot reject it outright nor can we universally warn against takfeer. Instead, we should caution against its exaggeration.
Takfeer and kufr are based on the understanding of eemaan according to Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. As long as eemaan, as defined by Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, encompasses the belief of the heart, actions of the heart, speech of the tongue, and actions of the limbs, then kufr can be committed in one of these four areas. May Allah protect us. For example, one can become a kaafir by claiming that Allah has a son, or by doubting whether the Qur’an is the truth or questioning the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Kufr can also occur through actions of the heart, such as hating Islam, rejecting something known to be part of Islam, or by loving kufr or being content with it. Additionally, it can arise from the speech of the tongue, such as cursing Allah, the Prophet, or His Deen. Lastly, it can result from actions of the limbs, for example, prostrating to an idol, graves, slaughtering animals for them, supporting kuffaar against Muslims, and similar actions.
We have now discussed the four aspects in which a person can manifest disbelief. However, if one commits or utters something that is considered kufr, on what basis can they be judged as a kaafir? It is important to clarify that we are discussing this in general terms, without targeting any specific individual. Just because someone makes a statement of kufr does not automatically mean that every person who says similar is a kaafir or commits an action of kufr; there is no direct connection between the two. There are specific conditions that must be met before judging individuals as such. This is a complex topic with its own set of rules and principles.
In general, how does Ahlus-Sunnah judge those who commit acts of kufr? They base their judgments on what the individual has explicitly stated or done. They do not consider the individual’s internal beliefs or whether he actually subscribes to Islam in his heart. Essentially, Ahlus-Sunnah judges based on outward actions rather than internal convictions. This is the stance of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah.
In contrast, the Murji’ah do not consider actions as part of eemaan, as long as they view actions as separate from eemaan, they will never deem someone a kaafir based solely on their actions. This is not part of their creedal framework. According to them, one cannot be a kaafir based solely on actions. However, there are some actions that all Muslims agree are exclusive to a kaafir. How do the Murji’ah and Jahmiyyah interpret this? They argue that a person is a kaafir not because of the actions per se, but because the actions indicate that the individual has rejected Islam in their heart. It is important to note that when they identify such a sign, they do not attribute it to arrogance or mere rejection by the heart. Instead, they focus on actions that contradict the belief of the heart, completely disregarding the actions of the heart as part of eemaan. Can you see the distinction? The majority of the Murji’ah do not consider actions of the heart as part of eemaan. That’s why they consistently return to the belief of the heart as the central element of eemaan. This encapsulates the position of the early Murji’ah.
What do contemporary Murji’ah say? I am referring to some who identify themselves as “Salafis” or claim to adhere to Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, yet misinterpret the statements of the Salaf. There are actually two groups among them. One group does not declare takfeer on those who commit acts of kufr unless they believe in their hearts that what is haram in Islam is halal. This is a condition that can never truly be met because beliefs reside in the heart, and only Allah knows what is in a person's heart. Another group aligns with the early Ashaa’irah in their approach; they also declare takfeer, but misinterpret its basis, claiming a person is not a kaafir based on what they have said or done. Instead, they view such actions as mere indications of an absence of belief in the heart. Notice that they focus solely on the belief of the heart, not the actions of the heart.
Firstly, Allah says:
مَن كَفَرَ بِٱللَّهِ مِنۢ بَعْدِ إِيمَـٰنِهِۦٓ إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُۥ مُطْمَئِنٌّۢ بِٱلْإِيمَـٰنِ وَلَـٰكِن مَّن شَرَحَ بِٱلْكُفْرِ صَدْرًۭا فَعَلَيْهِمْ غَضَبٌۭ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌۭ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمُ ٱسْتَحَبُّوا۟ ٱلْحَيَوٰةَ ٱلدُّنْيَا عَلَى ٱلْـَٔاخِرَةِ وَأَنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِى ٱلْقَوْمَ ٱلْكَـٰفِرِينَ
Whoever disbelieved in Allâh after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith; but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allâh, and theirs will be a great torment. That is because they loved and preferred the life of this world over that of the Hereafter. And Allâh guides not the people who disbelieve. (An-Nahl 16:106-107)
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah commented: “It is known that the disbelief mentioned here does not refer only to belief in the heart because one cannot be coerced into this belief, and the exception of those who are coerced has been made. Nor does it refer to those who say and believe because the exception of those compelled has been made, and one cannot be forced into forming and expressing beliefs. It only refers to those who are coerced into speaking. Thus, it is understood that it refers to those who utter words of disbelief, upon whom is the wrath of Allah and for whom there is great punishment, and that they are disbelievers by that...” (Source)
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab said in Kash ash-Shubuhaat: Allah does not excuse any of these people except those who are coerced while their hearts remain content with faith. As for others who have committed disbelief after having faith—whether they did it out of fear, for diplomatic reasons, out of attachment to their homeland, family, clan, wealth, jokingly, or for any other purposes—they are considered disbelievers, except for those who are coerced. The Ayah indicates this from two aspects: the second of which is the saying of Allah,
ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمُ اسْتَحَبُّوا الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنْيَا عَلَى الْآخِرَةِ
"That is because they preferred the worldly life over the Hereafter"
Thus it clarifies that this disbelief and punishment are not due to belief, ignorance, hatred for the Deen, or love of disbelief, but rather because they saw in it a share of worldly gains and thus favored it over Deen. (Source)
Second evidence:
وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ إِنَّمَا كُنَّا نَخُوضُ وَنَلْعَبُ ۚ قُلْ أَبِٱللَّهِ وَءَايَـٰتِهِۦ وَرَسُولِهِۦ كُنتُمْ تَسْتَهْزِءُونَ لَا تَعْتَذِرُوا۟ قَدْ كَفَرْتُم بَعْدَ إِيمَـٰنِكُمْ
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?" Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after your belief... (At-Tawbah 9:65-66)
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah stated: “And He did not say, ‘You are lying’ in their statement, ‘We were only joking and playing,’ so He did not accuse them of lying in this excuse as He did in the rest of the excuses they presented which would absolve them from disbelief as if they were truthful. Instead, He clarified that they disbelieved after having believed, through this jesting and playing.” (Source) Elsewhere in the book, shaykhul-Islam also stated that, in general terms, if an individual says or does something that constitutes kufr, he will become a kaafir because of that, despite not intending to become a kaafir. It is important to remember that what the scholars have explained is stated in general terms without specifying anyone. If takfeer were to be applied to a specific individual, there are conditions that must be met before applying takfeer, such as the presence of hindrances and other factors.
Allah also said:
يَحْلِفُونَ بِٱللَّهِ مَا قَالُوا۟ وَلَقَدْ قَالُوا۟ كَلِمَةَ ٱلْكُفْرِ وَكَفَرُوا۟ بَعْدَ إِسْلَـٰمِهِمْ
They swear by Allāh that they did not say [anything against the Prophet (ﷺ)] while they had said the word of disbelief and disbelieved after their [pretense of] Islām… (At-Tawbah 9:74)
Note that Allah declared them disbelievers based on what they had uttered, not because of what was in their hearts.
Imam Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Marwazi mentioned in his book “Exalting the Value of Salah” an Ijmaa’ by Ishaaq ibn Raahuway: “Among those they unanimously declared takfeer and judged as they would judge a denier, is the believer who believed in Allah the Exalted and in what came from Him, but then killed a prophet or assisted in killing him, even if he acknowledged that killing prophets is forbidden. He is a disbeliever, as is anyone who insults a prophet or rejects his words without dissimulation or fear.” (Source)
Ishaaq ibn Raahuway also stated an Ijmaa’ in at-Tamheed: “The scholars have unanimously agreed that anyone who insults Allah, the Almighty and Majestic, or insults His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), or denies something that Allah has revealed, or kills one of the prophets of Allah, while acknowledging what Allah has revealed, is a kaafir.” (Source)
The Salaf are all in agreement that the basis of declaring someone takfeer is based on what one has said and done.
Imam Abu ‘Ubaydah al-Qaasim ibn Sallaam stated in his letter al-Eemaan: “And affirming this is the jihaad of Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (may Allah have mercy on him) with the Muhaajiroon and the Ansaar against those Arabs who withheld zakat, just as the jihaad of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) against the mushrikeen was the same, with no difference between them in terms of shedding blood, capturing offspring, and seizing wealth, for they were only withholding it, not denying it.” (Source)
Imam al-Humaydi, one of the major shuyookh of imam al-Bukhaari, said: I was informed that some people say, "Anyone who acknowledges the obligations of salah, zakat, fasting, and hajj, but does not perform any of them until he dies, or prays leaning his back towards the qiblah until he dies, is a believer, as long as he does not deny them, knowing that his abandonment of these does not affect his faith if he acknowledges the obligations and facing the qiblah." So I said: This is clear disbelief in Allah, contrary to the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the practice of the Muslims. Allah, exalted and glorified be He, said:حُنَفَآءَ وَيُقِيمُوا۟ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَيُؤْتُوا۟ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ ۚ وَذَٰلِكَ دِينُ ٱلْقَيِّمَةِ
“… [being] sincere to Him in religion, inclining to truth, and to establish prayer and to give zakāh. And that is the correct religion.” (Al-Bayyinah 98:5)
Hanbal said: Abu ‘Abdullah said, or I heard him say, "Whoever says this has disbelieved in Allah, rejected the command of Allah, and denied what the Messenger brought." (Source)
Abu Thawr said: "Know - may Allah have mercy on us and you - that faith is belief in the heart, a statement by the tongue, and action by the limbs. This is because there is no disagreement among Ahlul-’Ilm regarding a man who says: 'I testify that Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, is one, and that what the messengers brought is true, and he acknowledges all the laws,' but then says: 'My heart is not convinced of any of this, nor do I believe in it;' such a person is not a Muslim. And if someone says: 'The Messiah is Allah,' denies the matter of Islam, and says: 'My heart is not convinced of any of that;' he is a kaafir by proclaiming that, and he is not a believer." (Source) Thus, he declared takfeer based on outward actions and did not consider whether the individual truly believed in them, contrary to what the Murji'ah claim and some of those who identify themselves as “Salafis”.
Imam al-Qaadhi ‘Iyaad quoted a statement: “Abu Yusuf ibn ‘Abdullah al-Ra'ini stated in his book: The scholars of al-Qayrawan—Abu Muhammad, Abu al-Hassan al-Qaabisi, Abu al-Qaasim ibn Shabloon, Abu ‘Ali ibn Khaldun, Abu Bakr at-Tabni, and Abu Bakr ibn ‘Udhrah—unanimously agreed that the condition of the Banu ‘Ubayd [i.e. extreme Raafidhis during their time] is like that of apostates and heretics due to what they demonstrated in contradiction to the Shari’ah. Therefore, they are not entitled to inherit by consensus, and the condition of the heretics, due to what they have concealed of negation [i.e. their disbelief in unseen matters], leads to their execution for heresy.” (Source) Note that they differentiated between the reasons for their apostasy and their heresy. They regarded them as apostates based on their outward actions, not their beliefs.
Imam ibn Taymiyyah said: “Legalization (istihlaal) is the belief that Allah has not forbidden something, and sometimes it is due to not believing that Allah has forbidden it. This could be due to a deficiency in faith in divinity or a deficiency in faith in the message, and it constitutes pure denial, not based on any premise. Sometimes, one knows that Allah has forbidden it and knows that the Messenger only forbids what Allah has forbidden, yet they refuse to adhere to this prohibition and oppose the forbidden. This is a greater act of disbelief than the former.” (Source) This is in contrast to the position of the Murji'ah, where they established a condition for takfeer that the individual must internally believe in the istihlaal.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab stated in a letter to someone: "As for your initial statement that Islam has five pillars, like the elements of ablution, and that you recognize the Word of Allah, the word of His Messenger, and the consensus of the scholars, that there are nullifiers similar to the eight nullifiers of ablution, among them are: belief in the heart, even if one does not act or speak, meaning: if one believes contrary to what the Messenger taught his Ummah after it has been made clear to him. Another is speaking with the tongue, even if one does not act or believe. And another is acting with the limbs, even if one does not believe and speak. However, if someone outwardly shows Islam, and we suspect that he has committed a nullifier, we do not declare him takfeer based on suspicion, because certainty cannot be established through suspicion. Likewise, we do not declare someone takfeer from whom we do not know disbelief, because of a nullifier mentioned about him that we have not verified. And what you have affirmed is the correct position that every Muslim must believe and adhere to." (Source)
Imam ash-Shawkani said: “It has been established in Islamic principles that one who denies something definitively established, rejects it, or acts contrary to it—whether out of rebellion, obstinacy, permissibility, or disregard—is a kaafir against Allah and the pure Shari’ah that He has chosen for His slaves. Despite this, the majority of them deem the blood and property of Muslims lawful and do not respect it, nor do they refrain from any of it. This is a well-known and observable fact to everyone, undeniable by the wise or the ignorant, the negligent or the diligent. Furthermore, among them are many traits of ignorant jaahiliyyah that are known to those who investigate them.” (Source) Notice that he did not differentiate between an individual believing something to be permissible (istihlaal), opposing it, or rejecting it; according to him, all of these are the same, contrary to what the Murji'ah say.
Concerning the contemporary ‘ulama’, we have previously mentioned al-Lajnah ad-Daa’imah. I will mention them again, as they stated that the author in question contradicted the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, and that his position was aligned with that of the Murji’ah. Essentially, their sentiments were similar to those expressed by other scholars.
Now we will mention some statements which Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah have made. This reflects the specific intentions of Ahlus-Sunnah, in contrast to others who identify themselves as "Salafis" and some scholars, such as shaykh Humood al-’Uqlaa’ ash-Shu’aybi and shaykh ‘Abdul-’Azeez ar-Raajihee, who have declared them as contemporary Murji’ah. These individuals express similar principles but interpret them differently—not as Ahlus-Sunnah have explained, but in a way that aligns with the early Jahmiyyah and Murji’ah interpretations. According to some within Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, there are two types of kufr: "الكفر الاعتقادي" (disbelief in creed), which pertains to beliefs that can exclude one from Islam, and "الكفر العملي" (action of disbelief), which does not result in exclusion from Islam. The former is considered major kufr, while the latter is minor kufr. Did some members of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah employ this concept as the Salaf have stated? Yes, one example is Haafidh Hakami, a contemporary scholar, who discussed this in his book “أعلام السنة المنشورة.” Although his explanations were challenging to understand, they notably differ from those of contemporary Murji’ah. The contemporary Murji’ah argue that actions described as kufr by Allah cannot be considered major kufr unless accompanied by a false creed. This contradicts the views of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah and what we earlier quoted from the Salaf. It is worth mentioning here that ibnul-Qayyim also differentiated between disbelief in creed and action of disbelief. His distinctions were clearer than those by Haafidh Hakami, which could potentially be misunderstood. However, we should adhere to the divisions presented by the Salaf, as scholars like ibnul-Qayyim have done, though not Haafidh Hakami. Does this mean that Haafidh Hakami is incorrect? Not necessarily; the essence of his explanation aligns with that of ibnul-Qayyim, though the manner in which he presented it was less precise and could be misunderstood. This opens the door for misuse by the Mubtadi’ah. So, what exactly did ibnul-Qayyim say?
Here is another principle: disbelief is of two types, action of disbelief and disbelief in denial and obstinacy. Denial is to disbelieve in what one knows the Messenger brought from Allah out of denial and obstinacy, concerning the names of the Lord, His Attributes, His Actions, and His Decrees. This disbelief is in complete opposition to faith. As for action of disbelief, it is divided into what opposes faith and what does not. Prostrating to idols, belittling the Qur’an, killing the prophet, and cursing him are acts that oppose faith. As for ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, and abandoning the salah, it is definitely considered action of disbelief. It cannot be denied the name of disbelief, after Allah and His Messenger have labeled it as such. Thus, the one who rules by other than what Allah has revealed is a kaafir, and the one who abandons the prayer is a kaafir, by the text of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him); however, this is disbelief in action, not disbelief in belief. It is impossible that Allah Almighty would call the ruler who does not rule by what Allah has revealed a kaafir, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would call the one who abandons prayer a kaafir, and the name of disbelief is not attributed to them!
(Source)
What ibnul-Qayyim said contrasts with the views of the Murji’ah, who argue that no deed can be major kufr in and of itself. Note how ibnul-Qayyim differentiated between disbelief manifested in deeds and disbelief rooted in denial and obstinacy. This is why shaykh ibn Baaz stated that slaughtering an animal for someone other than Allah and prostrating to someone other than Allah are deeds of disbelief that make one leave Islam. It is kufr based on action that causes one to come out of the fold of Islam.
Another principle that some Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah state is often misunderstood and misrepresented by some who identify as “Salafis.” The principle, "لا يكفر بذنب ما لم يستحله," means that one does not declare takfeer upon someone for a sin committed unless he deems it permissible. Imam at-Tahaawi mentioned this, but as ibn Abi’-’Izz al-Hanafi and ibn Baaz explained, it specifically refers not to just any sin, but rather to major sins, excluding those considered as major kufr or shirk. Shaykh ibn Baaz clearly expressed this in his commentary on al-‘Aqeedah at-Tahaawiyyah. Similarly, ibn Taymiyyah expressed comparable views in al-’Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah. Because this principle could be misunderstood, some 'ulama' did not accept it as mentioned by ibn Abi’-’Izz al-Hanafi in his explanation of al-’Aqeedah at-Tahaawiyyah on page 317. Also, among those who did not accept it was imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, as reported in "as-Sunnah" by al-Khallaal. Consequently, many scholars have mentioned this; they restricted it to stating that they do not declare takfeer upon someone committing sins other than shirk. Many have either specified or confined this principle, including imam al-Bukhaari in his Saheeh, as well as as-Saffareeni, Haafidh Hakami, and other scholars.
Another statement that Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah make, which is often misinterpreted, is that we do not declare takfeer on someone who utters the shahaadah due to an action. This statement is based on a hadith found in Sunan Abi Dawud, which imam ibn Qudaamah mentioned in "Lum'at al-I'tiqaad." However, this hadith is classified as weak by al-Mundhiri and as-Suyooti. Despite this, the meaning is not as the Murji'ah understood it, but aligns with the first principle we mentioned. In other words, it pertains to actions involving major sins, as explained by ibn Taymiyyah. (Source)
Another statement that is often misinterpreted, mentioned by ibnul-Qayyim, defines kufr as denial. Some Murji'ah interpreted it as denial in the heart, which is clearly incorrect. Let's consider what ibn Hazm says, “In the Deen, it is a description of someone who denies something that Allah Almighty has mandated to believe in, after the proof has been established against him by the truth reaching his heart without his tongue, or his tongue without his heart, or with both, or an action that the text states expels him from the name of al-eemaan.” (Source) As you can see, he considered that denial could be through the heart, the tongue, or actions of the limbs. All these forms are considered as denial.
The last point concerns a statement that can be misinterpreted, which contradicts the interpretation of the Salaf regarding one of the hindrances to declaring takfeer: intention. What did Ahlus-Sunnah mean by this? They argued that the intention was not about one wanting to become a kaafir. The evidence, as previously mentioned, suggests that even if a person did not intend to become a kaafir but commits an act of kufr, he becomes a kaafir. An example of the correct application of this principle is found in a report narrated by Muslim (2747): “Allah rejoices more over the repentance of His slave than any one of you if he is on his camel in a desolate land, then it runs away from him and on it is his food and drink, and he despairs of finding it, so he goes to a tree and lies down in its shade, having despaired of finding his camel, then while he is like that, it suddenly appears in front of him and he takes hold of its reins and says, because of his intense joy, ‘O Allah, You are my slave and I am your lord,’ making this mistake because of the intensity of his joy.” When the person said this, it was unintentional, as he meant to say, “O Allah, You are my Lord and I am your slave.” This type of circumstance is a hindrance to declaring takfeer, and it is not understood in the way that contemporary Murji'ah interpret it.
I will conclude by mentioning some names of the 'ulama', whom we respect and love for the sake of Allah, though their errors are not acceptable and should be strongly rejected as long as they contradict the Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijmaa' of the Salaf, and one of the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. One individual who made this grave mistake was in Jordan, and his students widely spread this matter; unfortunately, it was shaykh al-Albani, may Allah have mercy upon him. The student who spread it was 'Ali al-Halabi, against whom the scholars issued fatwas on four occasions, concerning his books. Another individual in Egypt, who was not the only person involved, is Yasir al-Burhami. Before I conclude, it should be noted that Yasir al-Burhami's mistake was only concerning eemaan, not takfeer. In contrast, shaykh al-Albani made mistakes in both areas. May Allah forgive them all and have mercy upon them.
I will remind myself and all of you of the statement of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him):
إنَّ الحَقَّ لا يُعرَفُ بالرِّجالِ، فاعرِفِ الحَقَّ تَعرِفْ أهلَه
"Indeed, the truth is not known through men; know the truth and you will know its people."
(Relevant)
Return to the main page