Estimated Reading Time: 3 hours and 33 minutes
This work delves into the intricate 'aqeedah and fiqh discussions surrounding the positions of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab on the excuse of ignorance in cases of major shirk. Through a detailed examination of their teachings and the interpretations by their students and subsequent scholars, we aim to clarify the nuanced perspectives on this issue within the principles of jurisprudence.
The first part lays the foundation by examining shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab's views on shirk and takfeer (declaring someone a disbeliever). It highlights the distinction between committing shirk and being labeled a disbeliever, emphasizing the need for the message of Islam to reach the individual for takfeer to be applicable. The discussion also touches on historical contexts and the misinterpretations of his statements over time.
The second part addresses common misunderstandings of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab’s position. It underscores the importance of distinguishing between the establishment of proof (whether the message has reached a person) and understanding the proof (comprehending the message). This section refutes claims that he declared takfeer indiscriminately, providing insights from his descendants and scholars of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah.
In the third part, the focus shifts to the nuanced differences in the views of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and scholars of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah regarding ignorance in shirk. It explores the varying interpretations and the existence of multiple opinions within the same scholarly tradition. The discussion highlights the conditions under which ignorance might be considered an impediment to takfeer and presents the broader scholarly discourse on this issue.
The final part concludes by reaffirming the importance of context and precise understanding in interpreting shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab's and ibn Taymiyyah’s statements. It addresses the misapplications and over-simplifications of their views, emphasizing the need for a thorough and nuanced approach to 'aqeedah issues. The conclusion reiterates that ignorance can be a valid impediment to takfeer, depending on the circumstances, and calls for careful consideration of each individual case.
This compilation serves as a comprehensive guide to understanding the complex and often misunderstood positions of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and his scholarly successors on the issue of ignorance in major shirk. It aims to provide clarity and dispel misconceptions, fostering a more informed and nuanced discourse in 'aqeedah.
This work is organized into the following chapters:
Our topic today pertains to “العذر بالجهل,” which translates to the “excuse of ignorance” in the context of takfeer. We are addressing the scenario where an individual Muslim may commit an act of disbelief due to ignorance, yet is excused because they are unaware of the gravity of their actions. This literal description, however, does not encompass all scenarios as there are exceptions regarding when one can be excused and for what exactly they are excused. To be more specific, one might ask, “Does ignorance prevent the declaration of an individual Muslim as a disbeliever if they commit acts of disbelief, unaware that their actions constitute worship directed towards other than Allah?” Our primary focus today is not just any type of disbelief but specifically shirk in worship. This point is crucial as there are differing opinions among the 'ulama', and it has led to significant disagreements among contemporary Ahlus-Sunnah and misconceptions concerning the matter.
With the help of Allah and based on my background knowledge, I can attest that my research on this topic spans twelve years. When I mention twelve years, I do not mean that it is my only area of expertise or that I devote every moment to it. Rather, it's a topic I've consistently monitored, keeping an eye on various writings about it, regardless of the authors' positions. There's a good reason for this: the topic is often either exaggerated or underestimated. Such extremes have led to hatred and division among the uninformed. This topic is frequently mishandled. I know some individuals who have exaggerated it to the extent that they adopted Khawaarij opinions and ultimately became Khawaarij. May Allah protect us. Conversely, I also know others who have so greatly underestimated it that they ended up echoing the Murji’ah. The issue arises because many people dare to discuss this topic without the necessary knowledge or qualifications. That’s why it has been a focal point of my research for such a long time.
I will discuss this topic in two rounds. In the first, I will address it simply, briefly, and in general terms. In the second, insha'Allah, I will delve more in-depth and provide sources for anyone interested in exploring the matter further.
Firstly, this topic is part of Islamic sciences, akin to many others, meaning it is not suitable for just anyone to discuss. It does not pertain to the obligatory matters one must know, making it a grave mistake to start researching this topic without adequate knowledge. Speaking on any topic without proper understanding can actually be a major sin. Unfortunately, many of our brothers and sisters, especially those raised in countries with education systems that follow a so-called democratic model—where children are taught to express their opinions freely—tend to overstep their bounds. This is particularly true when discussing Islam, leading many to speak without proper knowledge, even if they do not know Arabic. Allah says:
قُلْ إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ رَبِّىَ ٱلْفَوَٰحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ وَٱلْإِثْمَ وَٱلْبَغْىَ بِغَيْرِ ٱلْحَقِّ وَأَن تُشْرِكُوا۟ بِٱللَّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِۦ سُلْطَـٰنًۭا وَأَن تَقُولُوا۟ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ
Say, "My Lord has only forbidden immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed - and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allāh that for which He has not sent down authority, and that you say about Allāh that which you do not know." (Al-Anfaal 7:33)
This Ayah indicates that speaking about Allah and Islam in general without knowledge is severely admonished by the 'ulama'. They ascertain it is more grievous than other sins; it is worse than major sins like zina, worse than treating others unjustly, and even worse than shirk. But how is it worse than shirk? Because committing shirk, promoting it, and allowing it are all aspects of speaking about Allah without knowledge. This is why. Thus, the Ayah warns us of the dangers of discussing matters without knowledge. This topic is often discussed alongside others, such as takfeer, as it is related. While there are many other texts from the Qur’an and other sources highlighting the peril of speaking without knowledge, it is not our primary focus today. However, I will mention a relevant hadith found in Saheeh Muslim, where the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Indeed, Allah does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people, but He takes away knowledge by taking the lives of the scholars. Until, when there are no scholars left, people will take as their leaders the ignorant. They will be asked [for religious rulings] and will issue them without knowledge, thus they will go astray and lead others astray." (Relevant)
To give you a brief example similar to this, imagine becoming ill and needing a doctor, but instead, you go to someone who is not qualified, though they claim to be so and are trusted by others. The consequences could be catastrophic. Speaking about Islam without knowledge is even worse. Our faith should be more valuable to us than our own health. The health of our hearts and souls is more important than that of our bodies. Unfortunately, when it comes to health, people seek the best doctors to manage their condition, but when it comes to fatwas and Islam, they ask just about anyone. This illustrates a serious misjudgment among Muslims. That's why ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, ibn Sireen, and others have stated:
إِنَّ هَذَا الْعِلْمَ دِينٌ فَانْظُرُوا عَمَّنْ تَأْخُذُونَ دِينَكُمْ
"Verily, this knowledge is Deen, so be careful from whom you take your Deen.”
Muslim reported it in the "Introduction of Saheeh" (1/16), and ad-Daarimi (424) narrated it from Muhammad ibn Sireen.
This topic as said relates to takfeer, talking about takfeer without knowledge is also very dangerous. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
أَيُّما امْرِئٍ قالَ لأَخِيهِ: يا كافِرُ، فقَدْ باءَ بها أحَدُهُما، إنْ كانَ كما قالَ، وإلَّا رَجَعَتْ عليه
"Whoever calls his brother 'disbeliever,' it will apply to one of them: if the other is as he says, then so be it; but if not, it returns upon him."
Agreed upon, and the wording is from Muslim. (Relevant)
لعنُ المؤمنِ كقتلِه
"Cursing a believer is like killing him."
(Source)
If cursing a Muslim is likened to killing, what then of declaring takfeer against a Muslim who does not deserve it? In fact, declaring takfeer against a Muslim is even worse than cursing him. It will be much worse and more dangerous if it involves declaring takfeer against the ‘ulama’. Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that to give the opportunity to the ignorant to make takfeer against the 'ulama', it’s major sin and evilness which one must take care to prohibit which the ‘ulama’ agree upon. (Source) He also stated that this is known among the Raafidhah and Khawaarij. (Source) (Source) This means that it is not known to be associated with Ahlus-Sunnah. Backbiting a Muslim is a major sin, and backbiting a scholar is even worse. This is why the 'ulama', as imam Ahmad said:
لُحومُ العُلَماءِ مَسمومةٌ
“The flesh of the scholars is poisonous.”
(Relevant: "The danger of attacking the scholars and the misfortune of belittling their status.")
This is based on the understanding of the Ayah:
يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ ٱجْتَنِبُوا۟ كَثِيرًۭا مِّنَ ٱلظَّنِّ إِنَّ بَعْضَ ٱلظَّنِّ إِثْمٌۭ ۖ وَلَا تَجَسَّسُوا۟ وَلَا يَغْتَب بَّعْضُكُم بَعْضًا ۚ أَيُحِبُّ أَحَدُكُمْ أَن يَأْكُلَ لَحْمَ أَخِيهِ مَيْتًۭا فَكَرِهْتُمُوهُ ۚ وَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ تَوَّابٌۭ رَّحِيمٌۭ
“O you who believe! Avoid much suspicion; indeed some suspicions are sins. And spy not, neither backbite one another. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? You would hate it (so hate backbiting). And fear Allâh. Verily, Allâh is the One Who forgives and accepts repentance, Most Merciful.” (Al-Hujurat 49:12)
That's why it is important when you hear the ignorant speaking in such a manner to advise them and forbid the evil. Distance yourself from them, do not give them an opportunity to speak, and avoid listening to them, among other actions.
This topic is deeply intertwined with fiqhi books, specifically the “chapter on the ruling of the apostate” (باب حكم المرتد) and the “judiciary book” (كتاب القضاء), underscoring the importance of discussing it with knowledge. Discussing disbelief in general terms is one matter; however, addressing specific individuals who may fall out of the fold of Islam—when and how it happens—requires a deeper understanding. It necessitates a much more profound level of knowledge to begin declaring Muslims as disbelievers, a process that is entirely distinct from more general discussions. There are some 'ulama' who should be aware of the circumstances of all ordinary Muslims. Moreover, it is only these 'ulama' who comprehend intricate topics that are beyond the grasp of ordinary Muslims. This differs from cases where 'ulama' unanimously declare groups like the Qadiyaniyyah, or someone who openly curses Allah, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), or Islam, as disbelievers. In such instances, 'ulama' clearly define for ordinary Muslims that any individual Muslim committing such actions is considered a disbeliever, not just in a general sense but as a specific judgment.
Regarding the criteria considered by the 'ulama' when declaring an individual to have apostatized from Islam, they rely on well-defined nullifiers of Islam, supported by solid evidence from the Qur’an, Sunnah, or the consensus of the ‘ulama’. These considerations are aligned with the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, as opposed to those of the Khawaarij or Murji’ah. This issue is discussed not only in books of ‘aqeedah but also in fiqhi books. Similarly to any judgment in Islam, takfeer relies on specific requirements, noted by many fuqahaa’ and ‘ulama’ across all the madhhabs. If these requirements are met, the judgment is applied; otherwise, it does not apply to the individual Muslim or situation. Additionally, certain conditions, termed impediments, must not be present for the judgment to be valid. This principle applies universally.
One of the requirements of salah, for example, is that the designated time, such as the time for dhuhr, must have arrived, and the individual must have performed wudhoo'. For women, menstruation is an impediment. These principles are similarly applicable to takfeer. The criteria include reaching puberty, and for younger individuals, the ability to distinguish between matters (تميز). An individual Muslim must also be accountable (مكلف), sane, and the actions must be intentional rather than accidental. This is contrasted with the hadith narrated by Muslim (2747), where a man mistakenly exclaimed, “O Allah, You are my slave and I am your lord,” due to overwhelming joy, even though the statement itself is considered disbelief. Moreover, the decision to commit an act leading to takfeer must be voluntary and not coerced, as stated in the Quran:
مَن كَفَرَ بِٱللَّهِ مِنۢ بَعْدِ إِيمَـٰنِهِۦٓ إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُۥ مُطْمَئِنٌّۢ بِٱلْإِيمَـٰنِ وَلَـٰكِن مَّن شَرَحَ بِٱلْكُفْرِ صَدْرًۭا فَعَلَيْهِمْ غَضَبٌۭ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌۭ
“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.” (An-Nahl 16:106)
As demonstrated, the opposites of these requirements are impediments that prevent the application of judgments. There are notably two hindrances that provoke significant discussion: ignorance and misunderstanding.
Concerning ignorance, we bring forth some evidence from the Qur’an:
... رَبَّنَا لَا تُؤَاخِذْنَآ إِن نَّسِينَآ أَوْ أَخْطَأْنَا ...
“… Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred…” (Al-Baqarah 2:286)
It is established in Saheeh Muslim from Abu Hurayrah from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that Allah the Exalted said, “I have done so” when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the believers made this [above] supplication.
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah cited this evidence after explaining, “whoever does not specifically declare disbelief does so because these conditions are not met in their case, despite generally speaking about disbelief.” He further elaborated, “And if it is established by the Book interpreted by the Sunnah that Allah has forgiven this Ummah for mistakes and forgetfulness, then this is generally preserved, and there is nothing in the legal indication that requires that Allah punishes a member of this Ummah for their error, even if He punishes the erroneous from other nations.” (Source) This principle stems from “قياس الأولى”, which is commonly understood as “a fortiori analogy”, a method of reasoning that draws stronger conclusions from established premises. This is exemplified in the context of:
… فَلَا تَقُل لَّهُمَا أُفٍّ …
… say not to them [so much as], "uff,"… (al-Israa’ 17:23)
In this instance, ‘ulama’ have employed it to substantiate a more compelling conclusion based on the principle that if minor expressions of discontent like saying "uff" to one's parents are prohibited, then more severe actions, such as hitting, are unquestionably forbidden.
Evidence from the Sunnah: Al-Bukhaari (3481) and Muslim (2756) narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “A man who never did any good deeds told his family that when he died, they should burn him, then scatter half of him on land and half of him in the sea, for by Allah, if Allah were to seize him, He would surely punish him as He had never punished anyone in the world. When the man died, they did what he had instructed them to do, then Allah commanded the land to gather what was in it, and He commanded the sea to gather what was in it, then he said (to the man): ‘Why did you do this?’ He said: ‘For fear of You, O Lord, and You know best.’ So Allah forgave him.” According to a version narrated by al-Bukhaari, he said: “When I die, then burn me and grind up (my bones), then scatter me in the wind.”
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah explained: “This man had doubts and was ignorant of the power of Allah, may He be exalted, to restore the son of Adam after he had been burned and his remains scattered, and to re-create and resurrect the deceased if that is done to him. These are two great principles: The first principle has to do with Allah, may He be exalted, namely belief that He has power over all things. And the second principle has to do with the Last Day, namely belief that Allah will restore this deceased person and requite him for his deeds.” (Source)
Countless early and later 'ulama' have understood this to mean that the man committed disbelief because he doubted Allah's power and ability to resurrect him. However, Allah excused and forgave him due to his ignorance. Some early ‘ulama’ have noted that while instances exist, such as the mentioned hadith, where something as severe as disbelief could be excused due to ignorance, there are also situations where one might be punished for seemingly minor offenses while being unaware of the gravity of the sin. An example provided by the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is of a woman who entered Hell because she detained a cat, neither feeding it nor allowing it to eat from the vermin of the earth, such as insects. This is narrated by al-Bukhaari (2365) and Muslim (904). Therefore, it is essential that we navigate our lives between hope and fear.
Another evidence from the Sunnah: "Islam will erode just as the embroidery of a garment erodes, until no one knows salah, fasting, or ritual sacrifice. Even a man and a woman will say: People before us used to say: There is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah, so we too say: There is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah. Silah then asked: What good does 'There is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah' do for them? He replied: They will enter Paradise and be saved from the Fire with it." (Source) (Relevant) Not believing that salah, zakat, fasting, and hajj are obligatory constitutes disbelief. However, because they were ignorant and the message did not reach them, Allah excused them and did not punish them. Then there is more general evidence that all the 'ulama' bring forth on this topic, in which Allah says:
وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّىٰ نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا …
“… And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning).” (Al-Israa’ 17:15)
After the warning has been given, one will be accountable; not before. ‘Ulama’ mention this as evidence that one can not declare takfeer against an individual Muslim, if he is ignorant.
The 'ulama' differentiate between "الجاهل" (the ignorant) and "المعرض" (the indifferent). The former refers to an ignorant Muslim who is eager to learn, yet lacks access to knowledge. In contrast, the latter describes an ignorant who actively avoids learning; even when offered knowledge, he refuses to engage. Most 'ulama' agree that this type of willful ignorance, stemming from negligence, is inexcusable and will result in punishment. To exemplify this, imagine a city where all Muslims know that salah is obligatory, yet an individual claims otherwise, stating it is not obligatory. Similarly, if all Muslims in this city assert that wine is haram, but this individual contends it is not. Such individuals are considered disbelievers because they distance themselves from learning. The fuqahaa’, as highlighted by ibn Qudaamah and others, agree that denying established obligations like salah or legitimizing prohibited items like wine, categorizes a person as a disbeliever, as these are universally recognized principles. However, exceptions are made if the individual lives in a village distant from a city rich in knowledge, has recently converted to Islam, or resides among kuffaar in a place where there is no Islamic knowledge available. This perspective stems from historical contexts where ‘ulama’ recognized the challenges faced by Muslims living among kuffaar, which differs significantly from today where, in most cases where Muslims reside, access to Islamic knowledge is readily available.
The last impediment, "التأويل”, pertains to interpretation. Misunderstandings stemming from erroneous interpretations come in two forms. The 'ulama' recognize one form as a significant hindrance to declaring takfeer, whereas the other form does not pose such a barrier. The first form, as ibn Hajar al-Asqalani noted in his book Fath al-Baari, is similar to a misunderstanding of 'ulama' statements, which can be interpreted in such a way within the Arabic language. He points out that while there is a possibility of this interpretation, it remains slim. What about the other form? To illustrate with an extreme example: consider someone using evidence from the Qur'an to justify secularism. Such interpretations are not merely errors; they amount to disbelief. This approach is reminiscent of the Isma'eelis ('Alawis), who interpret the Qur'an as if it were a series of dreams and riddles. Similarly, the Qadiyaniyyah have misunderstandings, but their misinterpretations are not considered valid, and each individual is considered a disbeliever.
When impediments exist, the 'ulama' refrain from declaring takfeer against individuals involved. This discussion, presented briefly and without intricate details, highlights the necessity of specialized Islamic knowledge, which not everyone possesses. Just as it is dangerous to trust someone who is not qualified as a doctor, it is even more harmful to listen to someone unqualified to speak on religious matters. This is not a subject for beginners, especially not for those who have only recently become righteous or have just embraced Islam. Typically, only the ignorant start with such topics, which should not be a priority when beginning to seek knowledge. Such discussions should come much later. There is a difference between learning about the nullifiers of Islam, especially if they are widespread, and the subject we are discussing. Unfortunately, many brothers exaggerate this topic to the extent that it seems to be the sole focus of their Islamic discourse, indicating a profound ignorance. Constantly bringing up such topics can lead to a hardened heart, which is why such individuals often exhibit poor manners. Even minor disputes can escalate into major conflicts because their hearts are not soft; they do not remember Allah often, nor do they focus on reciting the Qur'an or other forms of worship. Their discussions revolve solely around talk, a trait typically associated with the Mubtadi'ah, like the Mutakallimeen, and not with the Ahlus-Sunnah. Which reminds me of what al-Hasan al-Basri said: "Indeed, these are people who have grown weary of worship, despised caution, and found speech easier for them than action." (Source) Some may not even know the six articles of faith, yet they prioritize discussing these intricate topics.
Taking ignorance into account regarding takfeer is not a blanket excuse; there is a distinction between an ignorant Muslim and a zindeeq. The 'ulama' consider certain individuals when they commit acts of disbelief due to hindrances such as ignorance or misunderstanding. These individuals are described with five characteristics: they believe in Allah and His Messenger—here, we are not addressing those who deny clear truths such as those presented in the Qur’an, as some secularists do. We are discussing people who respect Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), not those who curse them, as such individuals are unequivocally disbelievers. We are considering people who accept the Deen of Allah, unlike Iblees who defies divine orders, or those who oppose out of arrogance. We are dealing with those who fulfill obligatory deeds and practice aspects of the Deen, not those who abandon all obligations, known as 'معرض'. Their ignorance is not excused; this situation is universally recognized by the 'ulama' as disbelief, encompassing both those scholars who view the abandonment of salah as disbelief and those who do not. Additionally, we are dealing with people who love Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), not those who harbor hatred towards them or the clear tenets of the Deen.
In summary, we are dealing with individuals who believe, show love, respect, accept, and implement the Deen, even if minimally. Those individuals who commit acts of disbelief due to ignorance or misunderstanding represent a hindrance in declaring takfeer against them as individuals, and we are specifically referring to Muslims. The matter has also been clarified by ibn Hazm, ibn Taymiyyah, Muhammad Ameen ash-Shanqeeti, and others. The evidence includes the end of Surah al-Baqarah and the accompanying hadith as explanation, indicating that it refers to Muslims.
We are not discussing disbelievers, such as Christians and Jews, whose ignorance or awareness changes nothing about their status as disbelievers. The question of whether they will be tests on Judgment Day if the message had not reached them is a separate issue. However, all 'ulama' agree, as noted by ibnul-Qayyim, that they are disbelievers as individuals. We are also not discussing polytheists such as Hindus or Buddhists.
Then comes an important question: Is there a difference between shirk as a form of disbelief, and other types of disbelief other than shirk? The answer is no. The 'ulama' who stated this include ibn Hazm, ibnul-’Arabi al-Maaliki, ibn Taymiyyah, adh-Dhahabi, al-Aloosi, Jamaal ad-Deen al-Qaasimi, al-Mu’allami, ‘Abdurrazzaaq ’Afeefi, as-Sa’di and others.
This is the first round, and it was a general presentation that did not delve into details, mention differences of opinion, explain why some scholars have differed, assess if some differences could be valid, or explore what the misunderstandings are, among other aspects. This should be sufficient for most people to understand.
In this second round, I do not recommend proceeding for anyone who has not acquired sufficient knowledge. Once, shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem Aal ash-Shaykh conducted a lesson for third-level students—since 'ulama' generally teach in three progressive stages—and a first-level student sneaked in to listen. When the shaykh discovered this, he expelled and rebuked him. Imagine the consequences in worldly education if someone attempted to skip ahead without a solid foundation in the basics.
|
The topic we are discussing is not introductory. Inquiring about this topic with a shaykh might result in either a brief summary or an extensive explanation. Either way, the response could serve as a sufficient overview of what is otherwise a complex subject requiring detailed discussion. However, it's important to note that to cover all points thoroughly, this subject could easily fill an eight-hour lecture. Since our aim is to focus only on the most crucial aspects, especially given that they will be translated and we are compelled to discuss them, we would not delve deeply if it were not for the translations. This is a complex topic; we will begin by summarizing it as an introduction, and later, we will delve into more detailed discussions, translating some sections verbatim and conveying the intended meanings of others, before referencing the sources.
In the following discussion, we will be more specific about our topic, which is whether ignorance constitutes a hindrance to declaring takfeer against an individual who is originally Muslim, especially if he commits shirk in worship similar to what is practiced by grave worshippers. This practice, namely grave worship, was propagated by two misguided sects, the Sufis and the Shee’ah. We are referring not to their first generations, but to the later ones, whose deviance worsened due to the influence of Greek philosophy, as the ancient Greeks were also known for grave worship. This also affected ordinary Muslims, leading them to unknowingly fall into shirk in worship, the very practice that Allah sent prophets to prohibit and combat. At the same time, these Muslims generally believe in the teachings of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, love Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), show respect, accept the Deen, and fulfill their religious obligations. However, they were not aware that this shirk is an unforgivable sin, punishable by eternal damnation in Hell, nor did they understand that it was the reason the Quraysh were labeled as disbelievers [obviously, not that they don’t know that they are], among other critical issues.
Our topic is specific in the ignorance and specifically about shirk in worship. How many differences of opinion are there whether ignorance is a hindrance or not for the individual who have committed shirk in worship? There are three opinions:
Those who hold this position include: ibn Hazm, ibnul-‘Arabi al-Maaliki, ibn Taymiyyah, adh-Dhahabi, al-Aloosi, ibnul-Wazeer, al-Mu’allami al-Yamaani, ‘Abdurrazzaaq ‘Afeefi, as-Sa’di, ibn ‘Uthaymeen and others.
Aba Butayn alleged that most 'ulama' share this opinion, despite ibn Taymiyyah's explanation that the excuse of ignorance aligns with the fundamentals and foundations of the Salaf. Those who hold this second position include: ash-Shawkani, Ishaaq ibn ‘Abdurrahman ibn Hasan, Muhammad Ibraaheem Aal ash-Shaykh, ibn Baaz, ibn Jibreen, and others.
This third position actually falls between the two held by Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab and his school: ‘Abdullah ibn Hasan, Hamad ibn Naasir al-Ma’mar, ‘Abdul-’Azeez al-’Anqari, his great-grandson ‘Abdul-Lateef ibn ‘Abdurrahman, Hamad ibn ‘Iteeq, and ‘Ali al-Khudayr. This third position somewhat agrees with both the first and second positions in certain aspects. Strangely, it posits that the individual is neither a Muslim nor a kaafir, but a Mushrik.
The first is obviously the strongest and the correct position; we will later, insha'Allah, provide explanations and prove it.
One of the reasons for the confusion, ambiguity, and lack of clarity for many in our time is the widespread misunderstanding of shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab's position. It is often alleged that those holding the first, second, and third positions each claim that shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah shared their respective views, a notion prevalent among the scholars of Da’wah an-Najdiyyah. For instance, Ishaaq ibn ‘Abdurrahman ibn Hasan asserted that shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah did not take ignorance into account in takfeer, a topic we will address later, insha’Allah. Meanwhile, Aba Butayn, aware that his position does not align with that of ibn Taymiyyah, asserted that ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion represents the first position. When examining shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab's texts, it appears he considered himself a follower of ibn Taymiyyah’s views on these matters. Although he did not explicitly claim this, he noted his unawareness of Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah before reading the works of ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim.
Another example is Sulayman ibn Sahmaan, who erroneously alleged that ibn Taymiyyah declared takfeer against every individual of the Jahmiyyah, a claim contradicted by the extensive discussions in ibn Taymiyyah’s Majmoo’ al-Fatawa. It’s important to note that Majmoo’ al-Fatawa was not compiled in one piece as it is today. Sulayman’s misunderstanding stemmed from his reliance on summaries of ibn Taymiyyah’s works, which he used as a basis despite their condensed nature. These summaries could indeed be interpreted as Sulayman did, though a return to the unabridged texts shows that ibn Taymiyyah did not categorically declare takfeer on an individual basis. Furthermore, ibn Taymiyyah clarified that claims of imam Ahmad declaring takfeer on an individual basis were grossly mistaken.
Misunderstandings among 'ulama' are not unusual, even in fiqh. For instance, great imams of the madhhab have been misquoted, with other 'ulama' pointing out these errors and providing textual evidence to the contrary. Because the scholars of Da’wah an-Najdiyyah, or the school of shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab, have greatly benefited from the works of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, many assume their statements exactly align with his. This is the root of the mistake. Adh-Dhahabi, a student of ibn Taymiyyah, actually shared the same positions as ibn Taymiyyah, contrary to what is often assumed by the 'ulama' Da'wah an-Najdiyyah, whose views differed. Many others, like al-Aloosi and Jamaal ad-Deen al-Qaasimi, have benefited from ibn Taymiyyah but hold different positions from those of the ‘ulama’ Da’wah an-Najdiyyah.
One might ask why such misunderstandings of ibn Taymiyyah’s statements occur. It relates to a principle in jurisprudence (usool al-fiqh) known as "unrestricted generality" (عموم المطلق). This principle, agreed upon by the 'ulama' of Ahlus-Sunnah, encompasses all individuals. However, whether it includes all in circumstances is the question at hand. So, what is "unrestricted generality"? It is a subject addressed in usool al-fiqh under "العموم", the plural of "العموم”. "العام" refers to general texts that encompass all that was mentioned. For example, if the Qur’an refers to Muslims, it means all Muslims; texts about disbelievers cover all disbelievers; texts about those who establish salah apply to all who establish salah, and so forth. The opposite of "العام" is "الخاص", which means specific and is restricted. Typically, if a general text suggests a prohibition and a specific text allows something, the specific text is considered an exception to the general prohibition. Here is an example:
… حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ ٱلْمَيْتَةُ وَٱلدَّمُ
“Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood…” (Al-Maa’idah 5:3)
Then there is a hadith stating: "Two kinds of dead meat and two kinds of blood have been made lawful for you. The two kinds of dead meat are fish and locusts, and the two kinds of blood are the liver and spleen." (Source) (Relevant)
Based on these texts, all dead meat and blood are considered haram; however, specific texts provide exceptions to this rule.
So, the 'ulama' of Ahlus-Sunnah agree that "العام" covers all individuals and objects, but the question remains: does this apply in all in circumstances? What is most common in the books of usool al-fiqh, and regrettably, those who have been actively involved in writing and widely publishing these books, are the Mutakallimeen: the Mu’tazilah, Ashaa’irah, and Maatureediyyah. These groups hold positions that contrast with the understanding of the Salaf, as mentioned by ibn Taymiyyah. The reason is attributed to 'Ilm al-Kalaam, which is influenced by Greek philosophical thought, leading to a departure from how the early Arabs understood their language. Consequently, this has led to significant deviations. Al-Hasan al-Basri said when asked about the cause of misguidance: "What destroyed them is their inability in Arabic (العجمة)." Some scholars have said: "People neither became ignorant nor differed except when they left the Arabic tongue and inclined towards the tongue of Aristotle... The Qur'an was not revealed, nor did the Sunnah come, except in the terminology of the Arabs and their methods of conversation, dialogue, argumentation, and reasoning, not on the terminology of the Greeks. Every people have their language and terminology." [Read: أثر العربية في استنباط الأحكام الفقهية من السنة النبوية]
So, the Mutakallimeen mistakenly believed that "العام" not only covers all individuals and objects but also applies in all circumstances. One might wonder what these circumstances entail. In the context of our discussion, the considerations are whether ignorance and misunderstanding should be taken into account, whether the message reached those who are ignorant or misunderstood it, and whether they were coerced. Yet, they interpreted "العام" as covering in all circumstances without exceptions. They argue that if exceptions are to be made, there must be a specific text, similar to the provision for coercion. Regarding shirk, they acknowledge exceptions in specific texts, such as the man who doubted Allah’s power to resurrect him and other cases we've mentioned. However, they assert that there is no textual evidence providing exceptions for shirk, claiming that those who fall into shirk are disbelievers on an individual basis, regardless of whether the message has reached them or they are aware of their actions.
Ahlus-Sunnah concur that once the 'ulama' have sufficiently propagated the teachings of Tawheed and shirk, and these concepts have become widespread, anyone who continues to commit shirk in worship is undoubtedly a disbeliever on an individual basis. The disagreement centers on whether individuals have been adequately informed by the 'ulama' about the dangers of the shirk in worship they are committing.
It's important to clarify that we are not discussing Muslims who knowingly commit shirk and are aware that they are worshipping something other than Allah, as such individuals are undoubtedly apostates. Instead, we are focusing on Muslims who may not realize that their actions constitute worship directed towards other than Allah.
To continue our topic, those with a misunderstanding have applied this erroneous principle as though general texts apply in all circumstances, similar to how they cover all individuals. All those who misunderstood ibn Taymiyyah tackled his texts based on this false usool al-fiqh principle, despite the fact that it was not the principle ibn Taymiyyah himself applied, as he considered it completely erroneous and gravely mistaken. He stated that this approach is not how the Salaf interpreted the texts nor is it derived from the Arabic language, explaining that general texts cover all individuals but not in all circumstances. When a circumstance is unspecified, other texts are required for clarification. Ibn Taymiyyah applied this correct principle in other topics, not just in discussions of takfeer but also in texts on warnings and rewards, and the curse "لعن" as in the hadith "Allah has cursed alcohol and the one who drinks it" (Sunan Abi Dawud, 3189). In another hadith discussing a man who was caught drinking wine, the Sahaabah cursed him, but the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Do not curse him, for by Allah, I know that he loves Allah and His Messenger” (Saheeh al-Bukhaari, 6780). Ibn Taymiyyah also applied this principle in matters of "تفسيق" where someone committed major sins but should not be described as faasiq unless there are textual evidences categorizing such individuals as such. This principle, clarified by ibn Taymiyyah himself, has been widely misunderstood regarding takfeer and shirk. Those who misunderstood him simply repeated what he had said, not realizing that the basis of ibn Taymiyyah's statements related to a different principle in usool al-fiqh, contrary to what they believed to be correct. Only a few, including imam al-Qaraafi among others, contested this principle in the books of usool al-fiqh. This widespread misunderstanding of ibn Taymiyyah’s statements stems from the application of certain principles in usool al-fiqh, which were not utilized by ibn Taymiyyah himself, revealing that he in fact held a different position than those assumed by many.
For anyone reading this who has not understood, I hope you realize that this is not a simple issue but a complex and convoluted one. I encourage you to refrain from making uninformed comments on these matters and instead stay quiet, presenting texts without adding personal commentary.
This was the primary reason for the misunderstandings of ibn Taymiyyah's statements. Are there other reasons? Yes, there are other reasons. Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned three foundations related to ‘aqeedah, the first of which I already discussed concerning warnings, rewards, curses, and even takfeer. When he talked about takfeer, it was mostly in relation to the denial of some of the Lofty Attributes of Allah as well as the denial of well-known Shar’i obligations, such as salah. When ibn Taymiyyah discussed these, it was based on "unrestricted generality" (عموم المطلق), meaning that it applies to all individuals but not in all circumstances. On this basis, as he said, one should mention judgments as generally as they are in the texts, such as saying, “If a person commits this act of disbelief, then he is a disbeliever.” But does this mean that every specific individual is a disbeliever requiring a declaration of takfeer? Not at all, as we are dealing with general statements and judgments. Doesn’t it apply to all individuals? Yes, but not in all circumstances. That’s why he clarified that one should make general takfeer but when it comes to specific individuals, it requires considering precepts and impediments. This is the first principle which ibn Taymiyyah extensively utilized and discussed in his books.
Another foundation related to ‘aqeedah, which ibn Taymiyyah extensively discussed in his works, which actually also relates to usool al-fiqh. It is called in Arabic "مسألة تحسين العقل وتقبيحه," meaning the issue of rationalizing good and evil. This issue concerns whether we can discern good from evil before receiving the message from the prophets or in places where Shari’ah has not reached us. Ahlus-Sunnah and the Mubtadi’ah hold respective positions—the former correct and the latter false. We need not mention what the Mubtadi’ah are saying but focus on what Ahlus-Sunnah say: "Yes, the intellect can discern what is good and bad in general, but not in detail." One can see that speaking the truth and being just are good, and that lying and being unjust are bad, although it cannot discern in detail what is just and what is unjust. Ahlus-Sunnah state that although one can see what’s good and bad, it does not mean that if one opposes it, they will be held accountable on Judgment Day as deserving of good or bad. While one might be rewarded for good, the issue here concerns the bad and whether it warrants punishment, despite one’s awareness, unless one has received the message from the prophets, but not before.
That’s the position of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. What does Mu’tazilah say? The intellect can discern all that is good and bad, both in general and in detail, and individuals will be accountable on Judgment Day even if they have not received the message. Ashaa’irah react oppositely; they assert that the intellect cannot discern at all what is bad or good, both in general and in detail, and that one will be punished whether aware of it or not because Allah does what He wills.
The basis for those Mubtadi’ah is from ‘Ilm al-Kalaam. It has affected many, unfortunately, where they did not realize that the opinion they held was from the Mu’tazilah among the contemporaries. They argue that as long as one has fitrah, which can distinguish between Tawheed and shirk, it is sufficient evidence. Then, the individual is a disbeliever as this was the "ميثاق" (covenant) from Allah, which is more specific than fitrah and connected to Tawheed. They use this as evidence that such individuals are disbelievers and will reside in Hell forever. This is the foundation of the Mu’tazilah and not from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah.
One of the evidences ibn Taymiyyah mentioned regarding “تحسين العقل وتقبيحه”, that Allah called kuffaar as mushrikeen, that they’re astray before the message reached them, as Allah says:
وَإِنْ أَحَدٌۭ مِّنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ ٱسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّىٰ يَسْمَعَ كَلَـٰمَ ٱللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُۥ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌۭ لَّا يَعْلَمُونَ
“And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allāh [i.e., the Qur’ān]. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.” (At-Tawbah 9:6)
Those who misunderstood ibn Taymiyyah also use his statements as evidence regarding those who consider themselves Muslims yet commit grave worship towards others. They mistakenly believe that ibn Taymiyyah does not take into account the excuse of ignorance in matters of shirk, which is a serious error. Insha’Allah, we will later examine his texts, aside from their misunderstandings of general texts. Ibn Taymiyyah himself stated that considering ignorance is specific to those who are ascribed to the Ummah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and not to the original mushrikeen. When discussing those who identify themselves as Muslims but justify worship directed towards others than Allah, and are aware that it constitutes worship of others than Allah, it is correct to say that such individuals are not Muslims. However, here we are dealing with Muslims who utter the shahaadah and believe that Islam is based on worshipping Allah alone, yet they are unaware that certain specific actions constitute worship of others besides Allah. These are the types of individuals we are dealing with. It is incorrect to use his point on "تحسين العقل وتقبيحه" as it pertains to the original mushrikeen who are original kuffaar. Insha’Allah, we will later explore one of the statements of ibn Taymiyyah where he mentioned something that confirms his awareness of this issue but did not consider this principle to contradict the other principle. This again is due to the fact that general texts cover all individuals but not in all circumstances.
The third foundation which ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in ‘aqeedah is often misunderstood by some who believe that it implies one shouldn’t consider the excuse of ignorance in cases of shirk. This principle relates to eemaan, meaning that what is in the heart and one's actions are connected. It is impossible for one whose heart is full of eemaan to display all kinds of sins and disbelief, contrasting with the Jahmiyyah who claim that it is possible. This matter is called in Arabic "التلازم بين الظاهر والباطن", meaning the correlation between the apparent and the hidden. Some have also misused this principle; they claim that those who commit shirk outwardly reflect the same internally and therefore, they are not Muslims. This assertion is grossly incorrect.
Firstly, ibn Taymiyyah discussed how ignorance serves as an impediment to declaring takfeer for shirk in worship, stating that takfeer cannot be declared under such circumstances. He also stated that what is inside relates to the apparent actions, but despite this, he did not consider that this principle contradicts the other. What confirms this, if we were to take their claims literally, then there would be no hindrances when it comes to takfeer, as every individual, for whatever act of disbelief they commit, whether shirk or otherwise, reflects what is in their heart. They might claim that what one does reflects a belief in its permissibility, or that only the insane might act in a way that does not reflect their heart. If we took this literally, then there would be no hindrance of ignorance whatsoever. To claim otherwise would be contradictory.
As stated, some have taken this principle, which was applied correctly by ibn Taymiyyah but others used it as a basis for this specific topic. However, the foundation one should primarily consider is the first, not the second nor the third. These are the reasons for the misunderstandings that have arisen regarding the position of ibn Taymiyyah.
Are there other misunderstandings? Yes, many people have been influenced by ‘Ilm al-Kalaam unknowingly, echoing statements that originate from the Mutakallimeen rather than the Salaf, as clarified by ibn Hazm and ibn Taymiyyah. The reason for disagreements among both earlier and contemporary Ahlus-Sunnah is the influence of ‘Ilm al-Kalaam in this matter. I will give two examples; I previously mentioned the claim that fitrah alone is sufficient evidence for declaring takfeer on an individual who commits shirk, without the need for the message to have reached them—this is a foundation of the Mu’tazilah, not Ahlus-Sunnah. Another example is the assertion that when someone commits any act of disbelief related to “أصول الدين” (foundations of the Deen), ignorance is not considered an excuse at all. Ibn Hazm and ibn Taymiyyah have clearly refuted this, with ibn Taymiyyah dedicating eight pages in great detail to show that this notion originated from the Mu’tazilah, then spread to the Ashaa’irah, into the books of usool al-fiqh, and eventually influenced some fuqahaa’ of Ahlus-Sunnah. They then began to echo this stance, unaware of its origins. Discussing the original source and its subsequent influences is complex, but we will address what's relevant to our topic concerning its origins. When the Mu’tazilah and Ashaa’irah state that ignorance in Usool ad-Deen is inexcusable, one must ask, what constitutes Usool ad-Deen according to them? Their definition differs from that of Ahlus-Sunnah. When Ahlus-Sunnah discuss this, they include Tawheed and its categories, the six articles of faith, the foundational beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah in ‘aqeedah, and well-defined obligations and prohibitions, all of which are considered part of Usool ad-Deen. Those attempting to restrict what is considered Usool ad-Deen have been influenced by the Mutakallimeen. The question remains: Who says that the Lofty Attributes of Allah are among Usool ad-Deen? Many from the Salaf, such as Abu Haatim ar-Raazi, Abu Zur’ah ar-Raazi, Abu Uthmaan as-Saabooni, Uthmaan ibn Sa’eed ad-Daarimi, and many others have addressed this. Who covered this comprehensively? Ibn ‘Abdul-Barr and ibn Taymiyyah. A statement from ibn Taymiyyah has been misunderstood by contemporaries; some believe that he denies the division between “أصول الدين” (foundations of the Deen) and “فروع الدين” (branches of the Deen), which is a significant misunderstanding. Ibn Taymiyyah never made such a claim. What he opposed were the assertions of the Mu’tazilah and Ashaa’irah regarding Usool ad-Deen, not its division, as he clearly clarified in other texts. He stated that, according to Ahlul-Hadith (the Salaf), Usool ad-Deen is not restricted to just ‘aqeedah but also includes clear obligations and prohibitions. What do the Mutakallimeen, i.e., the Mu’tazilah, Ashaa’irah, and Maatureediyyah, consider as Usool ad-Deen? They argue that one must believe in Allah's existence, and they claim that the main evidence for this belief is not the message, the prophets, nor the Qur’an or Sunnah, but rather solely the intellect, with everything else merely following. In short, they consider the intellect as the primary evidence, a stance also echoed by Hizbut-Tahreer. This is what the Mutakallimeen, such as the Mu’tazilah, Ashaa’riah, and Maatureediyyah, mean when they discuss Usool ad-Deen. They also claim that what this entails also falls under Usool ad-Deen, leading them into complex discussions to the point where some of them entirely deny the Lofty Attributes of Allah, accepting some, denying others, and even distorting some of their meanings, all based on the same principle of considering this as part of Usool ad-Deen. In other words, they base all of Usool ad-Deen on intellect. They agree that some of the Lofty Attributes of Allah can only be proven by intellect, both in general and in detail. They consider that if someone erroneously concludes something about the Lofty Attributes of Allah, then that person becomes a disbeliever. That’s why they say that ignorance and misunderstanding have no place in Usool ad-Deen. This is their position. Unfortunately, some from Ahlus-Sunnah have been affected by this as ibn Taymiyyah mentioned. This view is still resurfacing and being repeated by some, and some ‘ulama’ from Da’wah an-Najdiyyah have fallen into this. They adopted this foundation without knowing its origin, claiming that ignorance cannot be taken into account concerning matters of Usool ad-Deen. This is a gross mistake. That’s why ibn Hazm and ibn Taymiyyah stated that claiming ignorance as a hindrance in takfeer, something considered in “فروع الدين” (branches of the Deen) but not in the foundations of the Deen, is an innovation originating from the Mu’tazilah.
A third example, which also relates to this, concerns some of the Lofty Attributes of Allah, such as His power. On this false basis, if one claims that Allah cannot do something, then one is considered a disbeliever on an individual basis, regardless of ignorance or misunderstanding. While it is correct that such a claim constitutes disbelief, the circumstance differs if it comes from a Muslim due to ignorance or misunderstanding, like whether the message had reached him or not. This is exemplified in hadith narrations from Saheeh al-Bukhaari and many other sources, like the story of the man from Bani Israa’eel who doubted Allah’s power to resurrect him, which would otherwise be considered disbelief. However, Allah forgave him, and ‘ulama’ have explained that this was due to his ignorance.
If we return to the interpretations of this hadith by the Ashaa'irah and Maatureediyyah, we are not dealing with just two individuals but numerous, some of whom were fuqahaa’, who misinterpreted this hadith. Regrettably, many from Ahlus-Sunnah have accepted this false interpretation as though it is recognized, and they mention that it is one of the acknowledged opinions on how this should be understood. This has led to excessive focus on this interpretation as though there are differences of opinion regarding this hadith, which is a gross mistake. They have misinterpreted the meaning of the hadith.
That's why ibn Hazm and ibn Taymiyyah regarded it as "تحريف" (falsification). Why did the Mutakallimeen do this? Because it contradicts their foundational beliefs in ‘aqeedah, influenced by ‘Ilm al-Kalaam. They considered belief in the Lofty Attribute of Allah, "القدرة" (power), to be a matter that the intellect understands; therefore, any mistake due to ignorance is not an excuse or a hindrance in declaring takfeer, and they would declare the individual a disbeliever. The Mutakallimeen believed that this man from Bani Israa’eel deserved to be punished in Hellfire forever but instead misinterpreted its meaning to imply that "لَئِنْ قَدَرَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ" could mean something else in the Arabic language. Unfortunately, many continue to promote these unacknowledged and weak opinions without realizing their origins.
The reasons for these misunderstandings lie in the school of shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab, which does not hold a uniform position contrary to popular notion. They have two opinions, which we have already mentioned. Many people are not aware of this and believe they share one opinion, leading to misunderstandings of some of their statements. If one asks why such disagreements occur, it is due to the evidence and how it is established. Ignorance is not a continuous hindrance; it can be repealed and removed when da’wah and the evidence reach the individual. They disagree on how the evidence should be understood.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab and his students, including ‘Abdul-Lateef, interpret the evidence by clarifying to those who worship graves that what they are doing is shirk, as mentioned by Allah. They present texts from the Qur’an and Sunnah to them. Many from their school and countless texts confirm this, but it contrasts with the views of Abu Butayn and Ishaaq who argue that as long as it is known that there is a religion called Islam, a Prophet named Muhammad, and the presence of the Qur'an, it does not matter whether they are aware of their actions contradicting the Qur’an or not, or whether the ‘ulama’ have clarified this to them. They treat grave worshippers as though they are original kuffaar. Those who bring up this topic are not even aware of those disagreements.
It is very important to note that concerning the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah, which confirms once again where this topic should be placed, it is a mistake to prioritize it as one of the first topics for learning and seeking knowledge. All of the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah, without any exception, have never written a book as an independent work from the beginning; all of their works have been refutations of misunderstandings. Even well-known books like "Mufeed al-Mustafeed," which is based on refuting a widely held opinion, follow this pattern. Another book, "al-Intisaar Li Hizbillah al-Muwahhideen" by Abu Butayn, was written similarly as a refutation. "Takfeer al-Mu'ayyan" by Ishaaq was also written as a refutation. All of their works, fatwas, articles, and so on, focus solely on refutations against others. This was due to Abu Mansoor but primarily due to Dawud ibn Jirjeesh al-'Iraqi, whose misunderstanding of the matter led him to misuse the statements of ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim.
If one were to ask what the issue is, it is crucial to understand the difference between an 'aalim writing on a topic independently for whatever reason and writing a refutation against someone. The difference, as mentioned by 'ulama', is that to understand what the 'ulama' are saying, you should read from their independent works and not the refutations. In independent works, an 'aalim directly presents his opinions, unlike in refutations, where he addresses and counters another’s views, meaning you must also understand the reasons for the other person's misunderstandings and mistakes. If you don’t comprehend these, you risk misunderstanding the statements yourself. This has led to many misconceptions about what Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab and Abu Butayn said. For example, some believe that "Mufeed al-Mustafeed" was written regarding the excuse of ignorance in shirk, which is grossly incorrect. Shaykh Muhammad Ibraaheem Aal ash-Shaykh, a descendant of ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab, stated that this book was written to refute the claim that only those Muslims who convert to Christianity, Judaism, and such were considered apostates during ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab’s time, and that anyone else would not be regarded as an apostate as long as they uttered the shahaadah. The book was written to refute this specific claim, which is unrelated to our current topic.
In Abu Butayn’s book “al-Intisaar Li Hizbillah al-Muwahhideen,” he mentions that there is nothing called excuse of ignorance and to claim it is an innovation. However, Abu Butayn himself admits that there is excuse of ignorance, but he does not label it as such because the one he is refuting, Dawud ibn Jirjeesh, had a chaotic interpretation of it. Dawud ibn Jirjeesh claimed it was what ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim stated, asserting that the actions of grave worshippers, which he sometimes justifies as mustahabb or mubaah, were not even shirk and called it an excuse of ignorance. Thus, when Abu Butayn refutes, he refutes this distorted interpretation. Similarly, ibn Taymiyyah refuted the false meanings of Usool ad-Deen and its divisions, countering the claims of the Mu’tazilah and Ashaa’irah. That’s why, when Abu Butayn refers to ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion, he is actually addressing the opinion we have discussed, albeit not considering it the strongest opinion but acknowledging it nonetheless.
So, if one is not aware of what the Mubtadi’ah said during the time of the 'ulama' of Da’wah an-Najdiyyah, and the misunderstandings they held which were refuted by the 'ulama' of Da’wah an-Najdiyyah, there is a risk of misunderstanding what the 'ulama' of Da’wah an-Najdiyyah are saying.
The last reason for ambiguity arises from the term "العذر بالجهل." Unfortunately, it has been interpreted differently by various individuals. If two people discuss a topic and do not agree on the meaning of the term without having clarified it with one another, they will definitely talk past each other. I recall having a discussion with someone for an entire hour, only to realize at the end that we actually agreed with each other. The reason for the discussion stemmed from each of us understanding the term differently, and we didn’t do what the 'ulama' advised, which is "تحرير محل النزاع" or resolving the point of contention. It is crucial when using specific terms to clarify them so that we don’t end up talking past each other. Read carefully about the term "العذر بالجهل"; the word "العذر" refers to excusing someone who commits shirk. Hearing this, even in English or any other language, it sounds ridiculous. Hence, you see people exclaiming, “See those who excuse the mushrikeen!” However, the intended meaning of excusing someone due to ignorance is to consider ignorance as a hindrance from declaring takfeer against an individual. That is what it is about and nothing else.
Unfortunately, some have also misunderstood this term, claiming that we can’t criticize until the message reaches them, which is incorrect. Narrated by imam Ahmad in his Musnad (17388): The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was approached by a group of people. He pledged allegiance to nine of them and withheld from one. They said, "O Messenger of Allah, you pledged to nine and left this one out." He said, "He has an amulet on him." So he put his hand in and cut it off, then he pledged allegiance to him and said, "Whoever hangs an amulet has indeed committed shirk." ‘Ulama’ have deduced from that incident that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not excuse a man, which means he criticized him despite his ignorance and the fact that he was not yet a Muslim but was about to embrace Islam. This particular matter was not even major shirk but minor shirk. If something that constitutes minor shirk is criticized, and the person was about to embrace Islam, then certainly major shirk can be criticized even if the individual is ignorant. Thus, when someone mentions "العذر بالجهل", it does not mean that we cannot criticize due to ignorance.
The ambiguity of the term "العذر بالجهل" and its interpretation has been a source of much misunderstanding, as seen during the time of the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah. Many have not approached the term as early 'ulama', such as ibn Taymiyyah, did, especially after the widespread influence of 'Ilm al-Kalaam. Whenever a term not mentioned in the Qur'an or Sunnah was used, ibn Taymiyyah would first examine if the term was ambiguous, thereby addressing it in great detail from all aspects to avoid misunderstandings. He did this not only for words that could be misconstrued due to 'Ilm al-Kalaam but also for other words that could be misunderstood over time, such as how the Salaf may have understood certain terms, which can change in people's understanding over time. Hence, he often treated them as if they were originally ambiguous. This is the approach we should also take with "العذر بالجهل". To avoid confusion, we should set aside the term "العذر بالجهل" and discuss whether ignorance is a hindrance from declaring takfeer against an individual or not. These are the most important points that should be considered, all as part of an introduction.
To briefly reiterate what we are discussing, the issue concerns "العذر بالجهل في الشرك الأكبر," which has caused significant misunderstanding among scholars and students. One reason is that the term 'العذر بالجهل' does not have a universally agreed meaning. In such instances, how do 'ulama' deal with this? Firstly, they clarify the terms to resolve potential misunderstandings. It's advisable to avoid the term "العذر بالجهل" altogether, instead using another term where there is no controversy, such as "مانع الجهل." Is ignorance a hindrance to declaring takfeer against an individual if he commits major shirk? This is a general question. However, if we discuss this in detail, we would say, "Ignorance serves as a hindrance to declaring takfeer against a specific individual," but it is not a hindrance to declaring takfeer in general, such as stating, "Uttering such a thing or performing such a deed of disbelief, he is a disbeliever." But does this statement apply to every individual? Not necessarily. Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah clarified this across his works. If one says ignorance serves as a hindrance to declaring takfeer against an individual, does this apply indefinitely as long as the individual remains ignorant? The clear answer is no. It depends on whether the message has reached him, whether the judgment from the Qur'an and the Sunnah has reached him or not, and whether all of this has been made clear to him. Once it has been made clear, there is no difference in the realization of the truth; as long as the message has reached him, he will be considered a disbeliever both specifically and individually, in other words, he will become a murtadd. May Allah protect us. Here we are discussing major shirk; if we were to discuss types other than major shirk, then there would be additional details. When we say major shirk, does it apply to all forms of shirk? No, but we are specifically dealing with shirk in worship.
In short, if a Muslim commits major shirk in worship and is simultaneously ignorant of its severity and unaware of its judgment from Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and so long as the message has not reached him or been made clear to him—whether 'ulama' have spoken to him directly or it is a topic 'ulama' have discussed and that has become widespread among the people—takfeer cannot be declared against the individual until those conditions are met.
This position is supported by countless pieces of evidence, as we have already discussed. This includes the fact that ignorance serves as a hindrance to declaring takfeer, as well as misunderstanding texts due to incorrect interpretation, which is another hindrance to declaring takfeer against an individual. I had forgotten to mention an incident as evidence for such a misunderstanding, which involved 'Uthman ibn Madh'oon during the Khalifah of 'Umar ibnul-Khattaab, where he consumed wine.
لَيْسَ عَلَى ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ وَعَمِلُوا۟ ٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتِ جُنَاحٌۭ فِيمَا طَعِمُوٓا۟ إِذَا مَا ٱتَّقَوا۟ وَّءَامَنُوا۟ وَعَمِلُوا۟ ٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتِ ثُمَّ ٱتَّقَوا۟ وَّءَامَنُوا۟ ثُمَّ ٱتَّقَوا۟ وَّأَحْسَنُوا۟ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُحْسِنِينَ
"Those who believe and do righteous good deeds, there is no sin on them for what they ate (in the past), if they fear Allâh (by keeping away from His forbidden things), and believe and do righteous good deeds, and again fear Allâh and believe, and once again fear Allâh and do good deeds with Ihsân (perfection). And Allâh loves the good-doers." (Al-Maa'idah 5:93)
This Ayah was revealed concerning those who drank wine (alcohol) before it was made forbidden, and during that time, some of the Sahaabah feared punishment. Then Allah revealed the Ayah. However, 'Uthman ibn Madh'oon was not aware of this revelation and misunderstood it to mean that as long as one is a believer and fears Allah, there would be no issue with drinking alcohol. Hence, he believed alcohol could be halal for some people, which is in reality a clear form of disbelief. Despite this, 'Umar ibnul-Khattaab and other Sahaabah did not declare takfeer against him as they recognized that he had misunderstood, and it was later clarified to him. He also received the Shari'ah punishment for having consumed alcohol.
There are five points to keep in mind when discussing this topic. The first point is that we are addressing the ignorance of a person who is unaware that the shirk he is committing constitutes worship directed towards entities other than Allah. Unfortunately, this has occurred and become widespread in the Islamic world, where people commit shirk. When you tell them, "Fear Allah, you are committing worship towards others than Allah," they would reply, saying that this is not worship. This is the type of situation we are discussing. However, if a person is aware that he is committing an act of worship towards other than Allah, then he is similar to a person who believes in a prophet other than Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), like those who followed Musaylamah the Liar or similar individuals. Such individuals are clearly disbelievers without a doubt. We are discussing Muslims who acknowledge that we cannot worship anyone or anything besides Allah but are unaware that the acts they are committing constitute worship directed towards other than Allah. This is the type of ignorance we are discussing.
Then there is a typical question that often comes up, asking, "If you consider this type of ignorance in these topics, then must you also consider ignorance among Jews, Christians, Nusayris, Alawis, and those who curse Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)?" This is not entirely accurate, as these two instances have no correlation, contrary to what some allege. First and foremost, concerning Jews and Christians, as ibn Hazm, ibn Taymiyyah, and Muhammad Ameen ash-Shanqeeti have mentioned, ignorance serves as a hindrance to takfeer. It's a promise from Allah to the Ummah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) but not applicable to earlier nations. We have already discussed this before: whether Jews or Christians are ignorant or not, whether the message has reached them or not, they are indeed disbelievers regardless.
However, what about the 'Alawis and those who curse Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)? The answer is clear when we read the statements of ibn Taymiyyah and other 'ulama': those people who do not believe in clear texts from the Qur'an and the Sunnah, such as those who deny them or consider them untrue, are definitely disbelievers, and their ignorance is not taken into account. This has been the case with the Baatiniyyah, whose adherents have misinterpreted textual evidence as if it were dreams or illusions. It is also the case with philosophers who believe what the prophets advocate is all illusion, meaning it is not the truth. This applies similarly to communists who claim any Islamic background. All these groups are undoubtedly disbelievers on an individual basis.
The other point concerns love, or rather, the lack of it. Specifically, those who clearly hate Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and who oppose the Deen of Islam. In these cases, we do not take into account whether they are ignorant or not, or whether they are aware of their stance or not. Those who hate Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and by extension, Islam, have no belief in their hearts whatsoever, and there should be no discussion surrounding their ignorance. These individuals are similar to extreme secularists who were born Muslims; their statements, when heard, are atrocious. These individuals cannot be considered as they are disbelievers, regardless of whether they are ignorant or whether the message has reached them.
The third point concerns showing respect "تعظيم", and its opposite, blaspheming and cursing. It is impossible to be a believer if one lacks this respect. That is why all of the Salaf agree that anyone who blasphemes or curses Allah, His Messenger, or the Deen is a disbeliever both inwardly and outwardly without a doubt, and this applies on an individual basis without exception. However, being coerced or tortured is another issue, which does not fall into the same category we are discussing and is itself considered a hindrance, as 'ulama' have unanimously agreed, from declaring takfeer against such an individual.
The fourth point concerns accepting revelation, with the opposite being what Iblees did—he denied and opposed the command of Allah. The ignorance of such individuals is not taken into account, similar to secularists in general.
The last and fifth point concerns "الإنقياد والمتابعة," which means being willing to follow what is stated in the Qur'an and the Sunnah and having already established some practice of the obligations. It is not a matter of abstaining from or being unwilling to establish some practices. Thus, those who are unwilling and have not established any practices, it is impossible for them to have eemaan in their hearts. If they had some eemaan, they would have practiced some, which contrasts with democrats who believe that practicing Shari'ah or anything else is voluntary, or those who do not establish any obligations in practice through actions with one's limbs.
So when we consider all these points, it becomes clear that individuals such as the 'Alawis, Nusayris, ibn 'Arabi the zindeeq, and similar types of people are disbelievers on an individual basis. One must not assume that ignorance is an indefinite shield against Allah’s judgment on takfeer, which cannot be lifted. That is not the case at all. All these points are very important as they clarify the matter, and we will, insha'Allah, bring forth the statements of the 'ulama', especially from shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. We are presenting them generally so that one is aware of them from the beginning.
The other point to consider is that we are not discussing a matter on which all 'ulama' agree, but rather a matter that involves three positions, which we have already mentioned. As stated by ibn Hazm, ibnul-'Arabi al-Maaliki, ibn Taymiyyah, adh-Dhahabi, al-Aloosi, al-Qaasimi, al-Mu'allami, 'Abdurrazzaaq 'Afeefi, as-Sa'di, ibn 'Uthaymeen, and other 'ulama', they agree that if a Muslim falls into shirk due to ignorance, unaware that it constitutes worship towards other than Allah, and the message of what he is doing has not reached him, they do not declare takfeer against this individual even though they make a general declaration of takfeer. They assert that we cannot declare takfeer against him until the conditions are met and the hindrances are lifted. As long as this is the case, the individual in question remains a Muslim. This is the correct position.
The second position, held by many 'ulama', includes ash-Shawkani, Abu Butayn, Ishaaq ibn 'Abdurrahman ibn Hasan, Sulayman ibn Sahmaan, and contemporary 'ulama' such as Muhammad Ibraaheem Aal ash-Shaykh, ibn Baaz, ibn Jibreen, 'Abdurrahman al-Barraak, and Fawzan, among others. They state that the message has already reached them, as the Qur'an is in their hands and they know that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). As long as this is the case, all of them are considered disbelievers on an individual basis, and ignorance does not serve as a hindrance to declaring takfeer against them.
The third position is what shaykh ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and his students have, also 'Abdul-Lateef the great grandson, similar to the first position excpet that they don't call such an individual a Muslim nor a kaafir but instead a Mushrik. This is a clear weak position. Some contemporary 'ulama' who hold this position include 'Ali al-Khudayr.
What has happened, and has become widely spread among many, is that many could not see that there are three positions regarding this issue; some perhaps could see that there are two positions. Unfortunately, most consider as though there is only one position. The worst of it all is that some attempted to distort some of the statements of the 'ulama' because they believe what they say aligns with what the 'ulama' are saying. It was not only the students who fell into this but also some 'ulama', and over time it has caused much conflict concerning this topic. Some began to exaggerate it, and others to undermine it. The 'aalim who has caused much conflict concerning his statements and how they should be understood is shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him). There are many reasons, and insha'Allah, we will go into detail later. One of the reasons was that many believe that every matter the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah (i.e., the school of shaykh ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and his students) say is in accordance with what shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah is saying. Similarly, some people undermine shaykh ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and his school, belittling them, and on the opposite side, there are also people who exaggerate their status to such an extent that if you oppose them, then you are considered outside the fold of Sunni, among other instances. We will, insha'Allah, make this matter clear, though, since it's in the English language, it's not as easy, contrary to if it was in Arabic. This topic, as mentioned previously, was researched over the span of twelve years, and when I say twelve years, you can imagine the massive contradictions among people and how much has been written on it in our time. Also, this matter has been exaggerated by some to such an extent that they ended up becoming Khawaarij, where they declared takfeer on all, obviously with various degrees, but this matter has been a reason for them becoming Khawaarij, where they exaggerated in takfeer all the time. Then there are others on the other side, who have undermined it so much that they ended up becoming Murji'ah and ended up echoing exactly what the Murji'ah used to say. I have met both types of people and have read into their writings as well. Their mistakes no longer pertained merely to ignorance or whether it served as a hindrance, nor to the conditions under which it becomes a hindrance, and so forth; their mistake extended onto eemaan and takfeer, affecting their stances. Those who exaggerate became Khawaarij, and those who undermine it became Murji'ah. May Allah protect us from misguidance.
We have already clarified previously that it's a grave mistake for individuals who have just started to become righteous or those who have recently converted to Islam to prioritize this topic or emphasize it. Rather, it is a topic that should be studied much later. When you study, you should first learn from the 'ulama', learning from them without adding or subtracting, as this topic extends to and affects many other topics. It is impossible to fully comprehend this issue unless one has foundational knowledge.
There are three main reasons, and there other other points as well, as to why shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah is being misunderstood. This is something to keep in mind as we are going to repeat this over and over again. The first reason being that shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah based this all topic upon a principle, that otherwise is dealt with in the books of usool al-fiqh, and his opinion concerning this principle, is not based upon what is widely circulated in the books of usool al-fiqh which otherwise are known from the Mu'tazilah and Ashaa'irah, rather ibn Taymiyyah's opinion is based upon the Salaf and Ahlus-Sunnah position. This principle is unfortunatley not that wide spread as it's not many who bring this up to clarify it, so his texts are brought up and understood on what basis? The other principle which ibn Taymiyyah himself opposes. That's why his statements are often misunderstood by many. This is the first main reason. What is this principle? We will discuss it later insha'Allah.
The second main reason involves the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah. When we say 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah, 'Da'wah' means calling others towards Islam, and 'an-Najdiyyah' refers to a place known as an-Najd in the Arabian Peninsula where shaykh ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab began his da'wah. So, when we say Da'wah an-Najdiyyah, we mean the school of shaykh ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab. Da'wah an-Najdiyyah, when they spoke about this topic, all, if not most of it—and when I say all, I don't think I'm mistaken on this, though I will say most of what is written by them on this topic—there is no single topic of it where they have independently dealt with it, but instead the topic is dealt with by the rejection of other opinions. When Da'wah an-Najdiyyah wrote about this, the topic was not dealt with as a starting point in the beginning. If it were not for others making false statements regarding this topic, they wouldn't have written about it similar to how they have written about Tawheed and so on. This shows that it's a topic that should be placed in a position it doesn't belong to, as though it should be emphasized. If someone were to ask why this is a problem, the problem is that you will never understand what Da'wah an-Najdiyyah are saying unless you comprehend the false statements they are rejecting. If you are not aware of this, there is a big chance of you misunderstanding what they are talking about and this is what had happened to many. In other words, they were making refutations and you, not understanding which opinion is being refuted, just read what they are saying and are not aware of the false opinions.
The third main reason involves a book written by Taariq 'Abdul-Haleem from Egypt, who belongs to a Da'wah school that was active in the '70s. The shaykh who founded this is shaykh 'Abdul-Majeed ash-Shaadhili (may Allah have mercy upon him), who recently died (relative to the time of this recording). The shaykh was the first among the contemporaries to deal with this topic from a usool al-fiqh perspective. His students, very much looking up to that topic, are those people who exaggerated in this topic. Many from his school have written books that have widely spread and had a very negative effect, and few could discern from where the notion is coming from, that is 'Abdul-Majeed ash-Shaadhili. Many weren't aware of this. Their books were "الجواب المفيد في حكم جاهل التوحيد" by Taariq 'Abdul-Haleem, "العذر بالجهل تحت المجهر الشرعي" by Aal Farraaj, and "عارض الجهل" by ar-Raashid (and he also has another book); all these books return to the same opinion which is from the same person, 'Abdul-Majeed ash-Shaadhili. The book that affected most was by his best student, Taariq 'Abdul-Haleem. He collected opinions from his shaykh and made some additions to it from himself, writing it in the year 1978. At that time, there was oppression against the "Islamists." They needed to print it out under another name, Abu 'Abdillah Abdurrahman ibn 'Abdul-Hameed. The book reached Saudi Arabia, where one shaykh appreciated it, the shaykh is al-Ghaamidi, who is no longer alive; may Allah have mercy upon him. He made a collection of small 'aqeedah books, which is similar to Majmoo'ah at-Tawheed, around twenty-six mutoon. So, al-Ghaamidi made a similar collection on the topic of what we are discussing, when compared to others, they belong to earlier 'ulama' with the exception of "الجواب المفيد في حكم جاهل التوحيد," which is written by a contemporary whose name was not known, and who praised the collection in general? Shaykh ibn Baaz. That's why this collection became widely popular and widely known, and due to that, this specific book became suddenly widespread and many were affected by this as it contained major mistakes. If it was asked but shaykh ibn Baaz praised it, the answer is that our contemporary 'ulama', it's not always when they praise a book, it doesn't mean that they have read the book cover to cover completely, sometimes they may praise a book because they trust the author in question, or because it was read to them in some portions of it, what confirms all this, there was one individual from Egypt, his name was shaykh Sa'eed ar-Rubaashi, he refuted this book as it was first printed in Egypt. Since shaykh ibn Baaz praised the collection, many will also assume that it includes "الجواب المفيد في حكم جاهل التوحيد". So, it made shaykh Sa'eed ar-Rubaashi go to shaykh ibn Baaz and he read for him his refutation against this book in question, to correct the mistakes. Shaykh ibn Baaz affirmed the whole refutation and praised it. The book by Taariq, as said, had a very negative effect on the very topic. Those are the three major main reasons for the misunderstandings of the statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah.
If one were to ask about the relevance of the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah to the statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, it is because those who brought up far-fetched and false opinions allege that ibn Taymiyyah held those opinions, and the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah have refuted them. Sometimes, some misguided individuals discuss specific statements; unfortunately, some believe when they read the refutations that they apply or conform to all of ibn Taymiyyah's statements. Their refutation was for a specific matter, but some people have generalized it. In regards to the book by Taariq 'Abdul-Haleem, he unfortunately falsified the statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah.
To continue our topic, what will it primarily be about? It aims to make the position of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah as clear as possible so that we all understand what we are doing. Is it similar to what the 'ulama' traditionally did in examining an opinion from a specific 'aalim? This approach is well-known among the 'ulama'. Where are such matters often addressed? They are dealt with in the books of fiqh and are also frequently discussed in other areas like 'aqeedah, among others. However, the method is predominantly used in fiqh when they want to understand the opinion of an imam. There are specific methods by which they examine these opinions, one of the most important principles to consider, which is clarified in the book "الصارم المسلول" by shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah:
"... Taking the opinions of fuqahaa' from general statements without referring to their explanations and the implications of their principles leads to reprehensible positions."
(Source)
In other words, what shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah is suggesting is that there are two matters to keep in mind regarding situations where statements might seem to contradict themselves or where 'ulama' disagree about how a specific statement from a particular 'aalim should be understood. The first matter is that they not only shed light on the general statement but also gather all of his general statements. Then afterwards, if there are other sentences that contain details, exceptions, or specifications, they consider all of those. If you have noticed, I began this topic by presenting it in general and gradually transitioning to more specifics. This approach is almost the same technique the 'ulama' use. The other method they consider is to refer back to the 'aalim's foundational positions both in his 'aqeedah and usool al-fiqh. Another principle, which indicates the position of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and is apparent from his own statements across his works—and from other 'ulama' pointing these out, especially the practical aspect—suggests using the principles from usool al-fiqh. Usool al-fiqh, utilized to understand the statements of Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), can also, and rather should, be applied to understand the statements of the 'ulama'. How do we do this? Here we are dealing with a specific subject in usool al-fiqh and not the entirety of usool al-fiqh. You cannot consider the statements of the 'ulama' as though they are free from mistakes, unlike the Qur'an and the Sunnah. No one has ever claimed that. What are we dealing with? The statements themselves from the Arabic language and how they should be approached. In other words, we are dealing with terms like "محكم" (entirely clear), "متشابه" (ambiguous), "عام" (general), "خاص" (specific), "منطوق" (explicit), "مفهوم" (implied), and so forth. These are the techniques one should consider to understand specific opinions of an 'aalim.
Before we proceed, we have mentioned at the beginning that it's best to stay away from the term "العذر بالجهل" (the excuse of ignorance), as this can be misunderstood. What is the reason? Listen to the incorrect meanings that have been applied in the context of shirk. For example, some have used the term "العذر بالجهل" within discussions of shirk, intending to mean that it applies to all those who commit grave acts of worship, implying that this is all fine and acceptable. You can see how problematic this looks. They regard such individuals as excused and act as though what they are doing is not wrong at all.
The second false interpretation is that the ignorant, as long as they remain ignorant, should never have takfeer declared against them, regardless of the type of shirk or other forms. This implies that even when the message has reached them but they remain ignorant, we cannot declare takfeer against them! This clearly contradicts what the 'ulama' say about the "معرض" (the indifferent), the one who doesn't care and doesn't want to listen.
The third false interpretation, which is unfortunately quite widespread today, asserts that one should "قيام الحجة" (establish the proof). It suggests that one shouldn't declare takfeer until going to the individual and clarifying the matter, despite the message having reached their surroundings and da'wah being already widespread. They say you still need to establish the truth. This is far-fetched and a false statement.
The fourth false interpretation is where some take the term literally, so long as he is excused, you cannot criticize him as long as he is ignorant. They claim that you can only criticize him after the message has reached him. They erroneously equate criticism with takfeer. No one ever said that at all.
Remember, we are focusing on shirk in worship because there are some complexities I do not wish to delve into—for example, whether it applies to someone who denies some of the Lofty Attributes of Allah because they have not learned about them from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. I do not want to expand on this topic as it would become overly extensive. The conflict or the issue here isn't about this but rather about shirk in worship. The first two interpretations are from the Mubtadi'ah, and the last two, unfortunately, some from Ahlus-Sunnah have adopted, which contradicts the statements of the 'ulama'.
We will examine the position of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah by using the techniques we have mentioned; the evidence supporting his statements confirms that his position was what we already mentioned at the beginning. First of all, when we return to the foundations, some allege that these foundations are what shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah based his position on. This discussion is restricted to only three foundations. Did shaykhul-Islam mention these three foundations? Yes, absolutely. The question remains whether this topic is what his foundations are based on.
The first foundation concerns "التلازم بين الظاهر والباطن," meaning the correlation between the apparent and the hidden. This foundation addresses how statements uttered and apparent actions correlate with what is inside the heart. The Salaf, including shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, address this topic under the subject matter of eemaan and kufr. What does Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah say about this matter? They assert that when one has eemaan in the heart, it will definitely be evident in what one says and does; if there is nothing apparent, it is impossible for the individual to have eemaan in his heart, as they correlate with each other. There are countless evidences supporting this. Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah delved in-depth into this topic when refuting the Jahmiyyah and Ashaa'irah, as these sects claimed that one could be among the Awliyaa' of Allah while committing all kinds of disbelief. In other words, they argue that outwardly, one can appear as a kaafir but be a great believer at heart. May Allah protect us from such misguidance. Those with the misunderstanding, which is a weak opinion, allege that a person who commits shirk, and whose outward actions reflect major disbelief, consequently embodies major disbelief internally as well; as long as this is the case, as they claim, they are disbelievers, and ignorance cannot be taken into account, among other assertions. To ensure we are not misled by this false opinion, if this reasoning were accurate, ignorance would no longer be taken into account at all in declaring takfeer, whether it pertains to shirk or other topics. If you asked them whether ignorance cannot be considered at all as an impediment to declaring takfeer, they would deny this and claim it applies only in cases of shirk or other major issues. Their misunderstanding of this principle would then apply in all circumstances since the apparent correlates with the hidden.
The second foundation is addressed in both 'aqeedah and usool al-fiqh, under "مسألة تحسين العقل وتقبيحه," meaning the issue of rationalizing good and evil. This concerns whether we can discern good from evil before receiving the message from the prophets, such as whether the intellect can discern what is unjust, if lying is bad, and so forth. As stated, Ahlus-Sunnah have their position, while the Mubtadi'ah hold their own, which is false. The Mu'tazilah, due to their exaggeration of the intellect's role, describe it as though they no longer need the prophets. They allege that the intellect alone can discern everything, both good and bad, so if one makes a mistake, despite not having received any message, he will be held accountable. This is completely incorrect. The Ashaa'irah undermine this issue by claiming that the intellect cannot discern anything at all regarding matters of good and bad; it's as though it's all blank, so it depends on whether the message has reached him or not. Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah take a middle position, stating that it relates to the fitrah and can discern some aspects generally but not in detail. The mind can discern that justice is good and injustice is bad, speaking the truth is good and lying is bad, but it cannot discern all the details within these issues. At the same time, they assert that one will be punished for doing bad despite knowing from the mind that it's bad, but that it depends on whether he has received the message. In other words, one will be accountable and be punished if the message had reached him. One of the evidences which shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah mentioned is that Allah labeled the Arabs at the time, who were kuffaar, as mushrikeen and described them as being misguided before the message had reached them. There are many Ayat from the Qur'an indicating this. The well-known Ayah is:
وَإِنْ أَحَدٌۭ مِّنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ ٱسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّىٰ يَسْمَعَ كَلَـٰمَ ٱللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُۥ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌۭ لَّا يَعْلَمُونَ
“And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allāh [i.e., the Qur’ān]. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.” (At-Tawbah 9:6)
That's why they assert that the judgment of them being mushrikeen is confirmed even though the message had not reached them. Some mistakenly apply this principle in the context of our discussion. Those who erroneously support this view are primarily those who align with the positions of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and his students, like 'Ali al-Khudayr, who contend that as long as the message has not reached someone, we cannot declare takfeer against him; he is then considered a mushrik but neither a Muslim nor a kaafir. However, if the message has reached him and he does not make tawbah, one can then declare takfeer against him on an individual basis. This opinion is gravely mistaken. What is shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah discussing? He is discussing the original mushrikeen whom Allah Himself described, and it is without doubt that all 'ulama' agree they are disbelievers on an individual basis, regardless of whether the message had reached them or not. Unfortunately, this is not what shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, his students, or 'Ali al-Khudayr assert. They do not regard grave worshippers as disbelievers as long as the message has not reached them. Thus, it is clear that there is a contradiction. Does this mean, according to the correct position, that one cannot regard them as mushrikeen? Not at all. They are mushrikeen. There is a significant difference between a general judgment and a specific judgment. For a general judgment, we are obligated to label them as kuffaar and mushrikeen in general, affirming that what they do constitutes disbelief and shirk. However, what we are discussing is the judgment on an individual basis. There is also a difference between describing their actions and judging them based on the description of what they do, and calling him a mushrik as a judgment that he is a murtadd.
This matter concerns the distinction between "اسم" (name) and "حكم" (judgment), and we may delve into more detail later, as I don't want to digress too much. Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah mentions that a mushrik receives the "اسم", meaning he is subject to judgment in this life, but he won’t receive the 'حكم' or the consequences in the Hereafter, nor will he face certain consequences in this life, such as those related to jihaad, hudood, and similar matters. When we say that "اسم" is a judgment in this life, it pertains to whether he is a Muslim, kaafir, or munaafiq. Remember, we are dealing with the fact that there are general judgments and specific judgments. However, here, the main topic is not about these judgments but rather "مسألة تحسين العقل وتقبيحه," meaning the issue of rationalizing good and evil. For example, when an individual receives a judgment in this life, ibn Taymiyyah refutes the claims of the Ashaa'irah; and when an individual receives a judgment in the Hereafter, he refutes the claims of the Mu'tazilah. The issue has been that those who allege that their views align with what shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah has said have taken the matter out of context, erroneously applying his general statements to their specific claims.
The third foundation will present evidence for the statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, upon which he based his views. Ibn Taymiyyah discusses certain foundations regarding judgments related to rewards and punishments in both this life and the Hereafter. Specifically, he refers to textual evidence from the Qur'an and the Sunnah concerning "وعد" (promises) and "وعيد" (threats), and how these should be understood. But does it only concern this? No, he also discusses cursing and 'تفسيق' (declaring someone a fasaiq), implying that one who commits certain acts will receive specific rewards or punishments in the Hereafter, and similarly, may be cursed or declared a faasiq. Ibn Taymiyyah also applies this to takfeer, generally stating, "one who commits this or that act of disbelief is a disbeliever." However, when discussing takfeer within our topic, he emphasizes two cases. The first involves denial of some of the Lofty Attributes of Allah, as done by the Mu'tazilah and Jahmiyyah, and the second involves denial of well-established obligations and prohibitions. He asserts that all these fall under the same principle: when one states general judgments such as "one who does this deserves that," it should not necessarily be understood to apply to every individual but rather depends on certain conditions being met and impediments being absent—"تحقق الشروط وانتفاء الموانع". He stated that all these belong to this principle.
To give you one clear example regarding curses, consider the hadith: "Allah has cursed alcohol and the one who drinks it" (Sunan Abi Dawud, 3189). In another hadith discussing a man who was caught drinking wine, the Sahaabah cursed him, but the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Do not curse him, for by Allah, I know that he loves Allah and His Messenger” (Saheeh al-Bukhaari, 6780). Such general judgments do not necessarily apply to every individual; they may pertain to some but not others. What determines when and to whom it applies? It depends on certain conditions being met. The critical factor in all this is whether the message had reached them. One of the key considerations is that ignorance is dispelled and any misunderstanding is clarified.
We will see later, insha'Allah, that shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, when discussing shirk in worship and whether to consider ignorance before declaring takfeer, based all this on this [third] foundation. Those who hold a contrary opinion allege something about ibn Taymiyyah regarding this issue. They claim that he applied this foundation to other forms of disbelief but not to shirk. We will, insha'Allah, later examine whether their assertions are correct or not.
There is a very long fatwa known as "الكيلانية", found in Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 12, from page 466 to page 501. How many pages does it cover? Thirty-five pages. Insha'Allah, I will take some portions of it. This fatwa contains evidence relevant to our current discussion, and we will focus on the foundations upon which he based his fatwa. It includes two main points: first, the beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, and second, the evidence he used. We will examine whether he employed the same evidences when discussing shirk and whether these align with what others have claimed.
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah states and I will take the crucial points:
No one has the right to declare any of the Muslims a disbeliever, even if they err or make a mistake, until the proof has been established against them and the argument has been clearly explained to them. A person's Islam, once confirmed with certainty, cannot be nullified by doubt; it can only be removed after establishing the proof and dispelling the doubts. Regarding the declaration of takfeer for someone who says this statement, it is based on a principle that needs clarification; because of its lack of precision, there has been much confusion among the nation regarding the declaration of takfeer against the people of innovation and desires, as there has been confusion in the past and present in withdrawing faith from the people of debauchery and major sins, as many of the people of innovation, like the Khawaarij...
And:
... '[textual evidence of] threats [in the Hereafter]' from the Khawaarij and the Mu'tazilah mandate punishment for those who commit major sins, because the texts of threats apply to them. For example, the Ayah states:
إنَّ الَّذِينَ يَأْكُلُونَ أَمْوَالَ الْيَتَامَى ظُلْمًا إنَّمَا يَأْكُلُونَ فِي بُطُونِهِمْ نَارًا وَسَيَصْلَوْنَ سَعِيرًا
"Indeed, those who consume the property of orphans unjustly are only consuming fire into their bellies, and they will burn in a blazing fire" (An-Nisaa' 4:10)
And:
And another saying, "Whoever's last words are 'Laa ilaaha illa'llaah' will enter paradise," does not stipulate the performance of obligations; it has even been authentically reported, "even if he commits adultery, steals, or drinks alcohol." Here, people became confused. A group from the Murji'ah denied the generality and said: there is no generality in language; they are the ones who stand among the Murji'ah and some from the Ash'ariyyah and the Shee'ah, who only committed to this to prevent all believers from falling into the texts of threats. The moderates said: indeed, the generality is correct, and the forms imply generality; however, the general can accept exceptions; and this is the view of all creatures, past and present, except this minority. They said: whoever is forgiven is an exception from the generality. Another group said: failing to fulfill a threat is not a lie, and the Arabs do not consider it dishonorable or shameful if a man promises harm and then does not follow through, just as they would consider it dishonorable or shameful if he promises good and then does not fulfill it. This is the opinion of groups from the early and later [scholars] who argued with the saying of Ka'b ibn Zuhayr addressing the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "I was informed that the Messenger of Allah threatened me, but forgiveness from the Messenger of Allah is hoped for." They said: Thus, this is a specific threat and he hoped for forgiveness while addressing the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It is understood that forgiving the threatened is permissible even if it is not from the specification of the general. The correct approach is to say: the Book and the Sunnah contain texts of promises and threats, just as they contain texts of commands and prohibitions. Each set of texts explains and clarifies the others. Just as texts of promises based on righteous deeds are conditioned on the absence of apostasy, which invalidates deeds because the Quran indicates that whoever apostatizes has voided his deeds, so too are texts of threats against disbelievers and sinners conditioned on the absence of repentance; because the Quran indicates that Allah forgives all sins for those who repent. This is unanimously agreed upon among Muslims, as well as in disputes.
And:
"... If these preliminaries become apparent in the naming of the believer, the disbeliever, and the openly faasiq, and in the judgment of promises and threats, and the distinction between the general and the specific, and what has occurred in this regard of confusion, then the 'issue of declaring takfeer against the people of innovation and desires' is derived from this principle..."
And:
We begin with the doctrine of the imams of the Sunnah concerning the issue before alerting to the evidence. We say: The well-known position from imam Ahmad and the majority of the imams of the Sunnah is the declaration of takfeer against the Jahmiyyah, who negate the attributes of the Merciful; indeed, their statement is explicitly contradictory to what the messengers have brought from the Book, and the reality of their statement is the denial of the Creator, a denial of the Lord and what He has informed about Himself through His messengers. For this reason, 'Abdullah ibnul-Mubaarak said: "We can recount the words of the Jews and Christians, but we cannot recount the words of the Jahmiyyah." And more than one of the imams stated that they are more kuffaar than the Jews and Christians, meaning from this aspect. For this reason, they declared takfeer against those who say: the Quran is created, Allah will not be seen in the Hereafter, Allah is not upon the Throne, Allah does not possess knowledge, power, mercy, anger, and the like of His attributes. As for the Murji'ah, the texts indicate that he does not declare takfeer against them; because their innovation is of the type like the differences among the fuqahaa' in branches of Shari'ah, and much of their speech returns to disputes over words and names. Hence, the discussion of their issues is termed "The Chapter of Names" and this dispute among fuqahaa', though it relates to the fundemantal of the Deen, hence disputing it constitutes innovation. Similarly, the Shee'ah who prefer 'Ali over Abu Bakr are not declared takfeer; this too is the position of a group of fuqahaa', even though they are considered innovators. As for the Qadariyyah who affirm knowledge and the Raafidhah who are not from the extremists, and the Jahmiyyah and the Khawaarij: there are two narrations about declaring takfeer against them. This is the real position with him generally, although he predominantly refrained from declaring takfeer against the Qadariyyah who affirm knowledge and the Khawaarij, despite saying: "I know of no people worse than the Khawaarij." Then a group of his companions narrated two opinions about declaring takfeer against the people of innovation outright, even including the Murji'ah in this, but this is not the case; about declaring takfeer against those who do not declare takfeer, there are two narrations, the more correct of which is that he does not declare takfeer. Some of them created a dispute about declaring takfeer against those who do not declare takfeer outright, and this is purely erroneous. The Jahmiyyah, among many of the Salaf like Abdullah ibnul-Mubaarak, Yusuf ibn Asbat, a group of imam Ahmad's companions, and others, are not counted among the seventy-two sects into which this Ummah will split; rather, their origins are among the Khawaarij, Shee'ah, Murji'ah, and Qadariyyah, and this is what has been transmitted from Ahmad and what is narrated from the majority of the imams of the Sunnah and Hadith: whoever says the Quran is created is a kaafir, and whoever says that Allah will not be seen in the Hereafter is a kaafir, and so forth. Then Abu Nasr as-Sijzi narrated two opinions about this: "One of them" is that it is disbelief that takes one out of the Deen, he said: "And this is the opinion of most." And "the second" is that it is disbelief that does not take one out. For this reason, al-Khattaabi said: "They said this by way of intensification," and likewise, the later followers among our companions disputed about the eternal damnation of those declared takfeer among these; the majority of them imposed eternal damnation on them as transmitted from a group of early scholars of hadith; like Abu Haatim, Abu Zur'ah, and others, and some of them refrained from stating eternal damnation. The cause of this dispute is the contradiction of evidence, for they see evidence that mandates applying the rulings of disbelief to them, then they see among the individuals who said those statements those who have such faith that it is impossible for them to be disbelievers, so the two pieces of evidence contradict each other at their end. The reality is that they were afflicted in the general terms in the speech of the imams as the early ones were afflicted in the general terms in the texts of the Legislator.
And:
"... if it is established by the Book interpreted by the Sunnah that Allah has forgiven this Ummah for mistakes and forgetfulness, then this is generally preserved, and there is nothing in the legal indication that requires that Allah punishes a member of this Ummah for their error, even if He punishes the erroneous from other nations...”
He then mentioned the hadith about a man doubting whether Allah could resurrect him. Subsequently, he states:
"This hadith is mutawaatir (widely transmitted) from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) narrated by the scholars of hadith and the chains of narration from Abu Sa'eed, Hudhayfah, 'Uqbah ibn 'Amr, and others. Ahlul-Hadith know that these narrations provide them with certain knowledge, even though this may not be achieved by others who do not share their means of acquiring knowledge. This man had doubted and was ignorant of Allah's power to resurrect the son of Adam..."
Remember, this fatwa does not pertain to shirk at all, which is something we will address later, insha'Allah. Instead, it relates to general principles, highlighting that generalities do not always correlate with specifics.
"... And it is definitively known that many of these mistaken individuals possess some degree of eemaan in Allah and His Messenger, as we discuss those who are like this. Moreover, many among the Salaf also made errors in many of these issues and agreed not to declare takfeer on this basis..."
After shaykhul-Islam gave some examples, he stated:
"... Also, the Book and the Sunnah indicate that Allah does not punish anyone except after the message has been delivered, so whoever has not received the message at all is not punished at all, and whoever has received the message in general but not some details is not punished except for denying what the proven apostolic proof has established..."
Later, after having discussed some issues, he concluded:
When this is understood, declaring takfeer on specific individuals among these ignorant ones and their likes—where it is judged that they are among the disbelievers—is not permissible until the prophetic proof has been established against one of them, clarifying that they are in contradiction with the messengers, even if such a statement is undoubtedly kufr. Similarly, the discussion on declaring takfeer on all specific individuals must consider that some of these innovations are more severe than others, and some innovators may have aspects of eemaan that others do not. Therefore, no one is permitted to declare any of the Muslims as disbelievers if they err and make mistakes, until the evidence is established against them and the proof made clear to them. And one whose eemaan is established with certainty does not lose it through doubt; rather, it only ceases after the establishment of proof and the removal of any doubts. This response cannot bear more than this. And Allah is the one asked to grant us and all our brothers success in what He loves and is pleased with, and Allah, exalted be He, knows best.
As mentioned, the fatwa is known as 'الكيلانية.' As you can see, it takes into account the mistakes commonly associated with this topic, similar to those made by the Khawaarij and the Murji'ah. It also guides how to approach texts to avoid falling into the same errors. Similarly, we should approach the statements of the Salaf concerning takfeer. It emphasizes that the evidences from the Qur'an, Sunnah, and statements of the Salaf suggest that general takfeer does not correlate with specifics or individual cases, but instead depends on the required conditions and prerequisites.
Another reference in Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 23, pages 345 to 350. Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah states:
Regarding prayer behind someone whose innovation from the people of whims leads to disbelief, there is a dispute concerning the Friday prayer behind such a person. Those who believe such a person has committed disbelief are commanded to repeat their prayer because they have prayed behind a disbeliever. However, this issue pertains to declaring the people of whims as disbelievers, and people are conflicted about this matter. It has been narrated from Maalik in two narrations, from ash-Shaafi'ee in two opinions, from imam Ahmad also in two narrations, and Ahlul-Kalaam have mentioned two opinions for al-Ash'ari. Most schools of the imams detail this.
And the truth of the matter is in that: a statement might be kufr, so it can be declared that its speaker is a disbeliever, and it is said that whoever says such is a disbeliever. However, the specific individual who made the statement is not judged as a disbeliever until the proof, which condemns its denier as a disbeliever, is established against him. This is like the texts of divine threat, where Allah Almighty says,
إنَّ الَّذِينَ يَأْكُلُونَ أَمْوَالَ الْيَتَامَى ظُلْمًا إنَّمَا يَأْكُلُونَ فِي بُطُونِهِمْ نَارًا وَسَيَصْلَوْنَ سَعِيرًا
"Indeed, those who consume the property of orphans unjustly are only consuming fire in their bellies, and they will burn in a blazing fire." (An-Nisaa' 4:10)
Such texts of threat are true, but the specific individual is not testified against with such a threat, nor is any particular person among the people of Qiblah witnessed against with Hell, because it is possible that the threat does not apply due to the absence of a condition or the presence of a preventing factor. Perhaps the prohibition has not reached him, he may repent from the prohibited act, he may have great good deeds that erase the punishment of that act, he may suffer tribulations that expiate for him, or an accepted intercessor may intercede for him.
Thus, statements that lead to the speaker's disbelief might be such that the individual has not received the texts that establish the recognition of truth, or they might be present but not confirmed to him, or he might not have been able to understand them, or perhaps doubts acceptable to Allah occurred to him. Anyone among the believers who strives in seeking the truth and errs, Allah forgives his error, whether it is in speculative or practical matters. This is what the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the majority of scholars of Islam uphold. They did not divide matters into foundational issues, denial of which constitutes disbelief, and subsidiary issues, denial of which does not constitute disbelief. As for distinguishing between types and naming one as 'foundational issues' and the other as 'subsidiary issues,' this distinction has no basis from the Sahaabah or their righteous successors, nor from the scholars of Islam. It is derived from the Mu'tazilah and similar people of innovation, and from them, some fuqahaa' have adopted it in their books. This distinction is contradictory because it is said to those who differentiate between the two types: what are the 'foundational issues' that lead to disbelief if mistaken? What separates them from 'subsidiary issues'? If said, 'Foundational issues are matters of belief, and subsidiary issues are matters of action,' it is replied: People disputed whether Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saw his Lord or not, and whether 'Uthman is superior to 'Ali or 'Ali is superior. Many meanings of the Quran and the authentication of some hadiths are issues of doctrinal belief, and there is no disbelief in them by consensus. The obligation of prayer, zakat, fasting, pilgrimage, the prohibition of indecencies and alcohol are practical matters, and denying them constitutes disbelief by consensus. If it is said that 'foundational issues' are definite matters, it is replied not so: many practical matters are definite, and many knowledge issues are not definite, and being definite or speculative is relative. A matter might be definite to one person because the clear evidence is apparent to him, as he heard the text from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and was certain of its intent. For another, it might not even be speculative, let alone definite, due to the text not reaching him, or not being established to him, or his inability to know its indication. It is established in authentic narrations from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that a man told his family, "When I die, burn me then crush me then scatter me in the sea, for by Allah, if Allah is able to punish me, He will punish me such that He has not punished anyone in the worlds." Allah commanded the land to return what it took of him and the sea to return what it took, and He asked, "What led you to do what you did?" He said, "Your fear, O Lord," so Allah forgave him. This was doubt in Allah's power and the resurrection, thinking he would not return and that Allah would not be able to punish him if he did that, and Allah forgave him. These issues are elaborated in another place.
But the intention here is that the doctrines of the imams are built on this detail between the type and the individual. Thus, a group narrated about them disputes in this regard and did not understand the depth of their statements. A group narrates from Ahmad about declaring the people of innovation as disbelievers in two unrestriced narrations, even placing the dispute in declaring the Murji'ah and the Shee'ah who prefer 'Ali over 'Uthman in that. Some even inclined towards declaring them disbelievers and consigning them to eternal Hellfire, but this was not the doctrine of Ahmad or other scholars of Islam. His position was clear that he did not declare the Murji'ah, who say faith is merely confession without deeds, as disbelievers, nor those who prefer 'Ali over 'Uthman. His texts explicitly state refraining from declaring the Khawaarij and the Qadariyyah and others as disbelievers. He only declared the Jahmiyyah, who deny Allah's Names and Attributes, as disbelievers, for their contradiction to what the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) brought is apparent and clear: and because their actual doctrine is negating the Creator, and he had been tested by them until he recognized the reality of their matter, that it revolves around negation. Declaring the Jahmiyyah as disbelievers is well-known from the Salaf and the scholars. However, he did not declare the individuals among them as disbelievers, for those who call to the statement are greater than those who merely say it, and those who punish their opponent are greater than those who only call, and those who declare their opponent as a disbeliever are greater than those who only punish. And yet, those who were from the authorities and said the statement of the Jahmiyyah, that the Quran is created, and that Allah is not seen in the Hereafter, and other such statements, and called people to that and tested them and punished them if they did not respond and declared those who did not respond as disbelievers. They did not release a prisoner until he admitted the statement of the Jahmiyyah, that the Quran is created, and other such statements. They did not appoint anyone in authority nor give them provision from the public treasury except those who said that, and with this, imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) prayed for their mercy and sought forgiveness for them, knowing that they were denying the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and not denying what he brought, but they interpreted and erred, and followed those who told them that. And similarly, ash-Shaafi'ee, when he said to Hafs al-Fard when he said, "The Quran is created," "You have disbelieved in Allah the Almighty." He explained to him that this statement is disbelief, but did not judge that Hafs had apostatized by just that, because the proof by which he would become a disbeliever had not been clarified to him, and if he had believed he was an apostate, he would have sought his execution. He explicitly stated in his books the acceptance of the testimony of the people of whims and praying behind them. And thus said Maalik (may Allah have mercy on him), ash-Shaafi'ee, and Ahmad regarding the Qadariyyah: if they deny Allah's knowledge, they disbelieve. And some of them debated the Qadariyyah about knowledge; if they admitted it, they disputed, and if they denied it, they disbelieved. And Ahmad was asked about the Qadariyyah: do they disbelieve? He said: If they deny the knowledge, they disbelieve, and then the denier of knowledge is from the type of the Jahmiyyah. As for killing the caller to innovation, he may be killed to prevent his harm to the people, as the combatant is killed. And not every killing for apostasy is because it is in itself disbelief; thus Ghaylan the Qadari and others may be killed in this way. And these issues are elaborated elsewhere, but we have highlighted them here briefly.
Some of these points require much more detail and need to be expanded upon, specifically four or fewer of them. Insha'Allah, next time we will address them and present their statements. One such point pertains to the principles of usool al-fiqh as held by shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. Misunderstandings and misapplications often arose from a failure to comprehend how texts should be approached. One can only understand what shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah intends by his statements by returning to his principles in usool al-fiqh. For example, it is agreed upon by Ahlus-Sunnah that general texts cover all individuals, but the question is whether this applies in all circumstances. Our discussion should consider whether factors such as ignorance, awareness of actions, mistakes, intentional actions, or coercion play a role. These are all relevant circumstances. The well-known principle from the books of usool al-fiqh is that general texts apply in all circumstances, claiming that you cannot mention exceptions unless you provide evidence, for instance, being coerced. Unfortunately, many people apply this false principle to the understanding of the statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and the Salaf erroneously. Rather, shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah himself refuted this claim and proved that it does not even exist in the Arabic language; and that the Salaf does not understand the general texts in such a way. He clarified that while it is agreed that general texts apply to all individuals, they do not apply in all circumstances; also, that general texts are indefinite and, if they are to be made definite, then there are conditions that must be met, and one should refer back to other texts. This actually makes sense. Allow me to give an example: A person makes an advertisement about recruiting doctors in certain Muslim countries. Does this advertisement specify which doctor? No, it simply states 'a doctor.' When doctors approach the agency, it only looks for specific doctors who meet the requirements needed elsewhere. The agency then reviews their resumes to determine whom they need and whether these candidates meet their requirements. Does a doctor have the right to complain if they are not considered because they do not meet the necessary criteria? The advertisement was general, and while the doctor has the right to inquire, the general call does not guarantee inclusion in all circumstances. Thus, according to ibn Taymiyyah, the doctor does not have a right to complain. It's correct that the general text covers you, but there are requirements you need to fulfill; we have to see if you meet our expectations. It’s correct that the advertisement covers you, but it doesn’t mean we should accept you in all circumstances. When ibn Taymiyyah discusses takfeer, he does so with this principle. Those who misunderstood the topic and ibn Taymiyyah’s statements did not apply his actual and correct principle but rather a contradicting and false one. Many were not aware of this actual and correct principle utilized by ibn Taymiyyah. This is one of the major causes of misunderstandings, misapplications, and missteps. Insha'Allah, in our next discussion, we will go in-depth with this principle.
To continue our discussion on whether ignorance is an impediment to declaring takfeer against an individual who has committed major shirk in worship without being aware that what he is doing is forbidden and is, in fact, an act of worship directed towards someone other than Allah.
To recap our previous discussion, this topic is well known as "العذر بالجهل" in regards to shirk, which literally translates as excusing one for ignorance. I have mentioned that I refrain from using this term because it has become ambiguous, misunderstood, and often misused. Some apply it correctly, while others interpret it wrongly. There are four incorrect meanings associated with the term. That's why I've chosen to refrain from using it. If I inadvertently use this term, remember that I intend it only to mean that ignorance is an impediment to declaring takfeer against an individual if he has committed shirk in worship and was not aware that his actions constituted shirk, and all this under the condition that the message has not yet reached him. However, once the message has reached him and he continues in his actions, the individual becomes a kaafir, regardless of his ignorance. Ignorance is not at all an impediment to declaring general takfeer, such as saying, "Whoever commits this act has committed major shirk." However, this does not necessarily mean that takfeer is declared against every individual, as it depends on whether the message has reached them. Nor does it mean that they are exempt from criticism due to their ignorance.
Secondly, and this is also an important reminder, Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah generally—here I'm discussing all kinds of disbelief, not only shirk in worship—are in agreement that ignorance is taken into account when declaring takfeer against individuals. This means that ignorance becomes an impediment to declaring takfeer against the individual in some forms of disbelief. Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah also agree that there are other forms of disbelief where ignorance is not considered at all, such as claiming it is permissible to worship someone or something other than Allah, as the kuffaar of Quraysh did, or asserting that there are prophets other than Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), as was the case with Musaylamah the Liar and, in our times, with the Qadiyaniyyah; or cursing Allah, His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and Islam, or committing any violations against them. In these cases, ignorance cannot be taken into account, and one must declare general takfeer, as well as specific takfeer on an individual basis. Similarly, among Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, as there can be agreement on foundational matters of fiqh but disagreements on some branches of 'aqeedah, so too can there be agreement on clear issues of fiqh with some disagreement on specific points in detail. The topic we are discussing is similar, in that some forms of disbelief, especially those that involve shirk in worship, may see specific disagreements among 'ulama' on whether ignorance can be considered. We have already mentioned that there are three positions regarding this, and we have identified which position is the strongest.
Thirdly, one of the reasons for disagreement, especially among contemporary Ahlus-Sunnah, is the major misunderstandings, misconceptions, and confusion—or I’m not quite sure how precisely to label it—regarding the statements of ibn Taymiyyah and their interpretation. Why focus specifically on him? Because among Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, he holds significant importance, having written extensively on these issues. Many earlier 'ulama', and scholars in our time as well, have utilized his statements. Furthermore, he is considered a major imam. Thus, it is crucial to accurately discern his madhhab. As noted earlier, it is well known that the statements of certain 'ulama' require specific methods to understand, which we have previously discussed. This approach is what we have applied to the statements of ibn Taymiyyah, returning to his foundational principles. It is alleged that he used three foundations; we identified one that ibn Taymiyyah himself consistently applied, while the application of the other two was misinterpreted by others. The correctly applied principle by ibn Taymiyyah focused extensively on those who deny Allah's Attributes, such as the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah. Another issue involves ignorant Muslims, whether recent converts or Bedouins, who are unaware of well-established Shari'ah matters, such as the obligatory five daily prayers or the prohibition of wine. Ibn Taymiyyah made it clear that takfeer in these cases is not permissible. He also addressed divine promises and threats, curses, and matters of tafseeq, as well as takfeer, stating that while judgments should be general, they should not be understood to apply to every individual unless conditions are met and impediments are removed. We have also examined his extensive fatwa, through which he demonstrated—may Allah have mercy upon him—how these should be approached based on two main topics: the position of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah on faith and disbelief, and their stance on usool al-fiqh regarding the interpretation of general texts. After reviewing these, we highlighted several important points, noting that some require more attention as they are crucial to understanding the broader discussion. Before proceeding, it is essential to have a clear understanding of what has been discussed so far, as missing some points could lead to a lack of comprehension of the intricacies of the forthcoming discussion. This is a complex topic, and without grasping the foundational points, the subsequent details may not be as beneficial.
From the extensive texts of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah we have examined, two points need further expounding. The first point is that ibn Taymiyyah cited many evidences from the Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijmaa', statements of the Sahaabah, and Qiyaas. These evidences confirm a general principle based on which he addressed takfeer against individuals from misguided sects who committed major disbelief, like the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah. These evidences appear in other sections of Majmoo' al-Fatawa, not only in the volumes we've discussed but also stated in volume 3, from pages 229 to 235, and 407 to 413, and in volume 20, from pages 33 to 36. All confirm again and again that general takfeer does not necessarily mean it applies to every individual. Does this mean that one cannot make specified takfeer against every individual whatsoever? No. This is not what shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah advocates. Instead, conditions should be met and impediments removed for takfeer to apply to individuals. This has been the approach since the Salaf when they declared takfeer against individuals, and yet, specified takfeer did not apply to other individuals. Why? Either because conditions were not met or impediments were not removed. What are these conditions and impediments? The most important condition is that the message must be reached, and the primary impediment, which we mostly focus on, is ignorance "الجهل" and misunderstanding "التأويل". If one asks whether ignorance applies in all circumstances? No, as we have already discussed, and there is no need to repeat that. Does "التأويل" apply to all kinds? No, and we have already discussed that as well. The details concerning both have been touched upon. This is the first point upon which shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah brought forth much evidence, emphasizing some more than others, and which have been repeated across his works. These evidences indicate and confirm a general principle which he emphasized or utilized predominantly, which is quite an important point. Remember that ibn Taymiyyah considers this a general principle. If one asks about its importance, remember if we say that this is a general principle, it's something very clear, and when I say very clear, it's because there are so many evidences confirming this. In other words, there is no place for dispute, meaning any opinion contradicting this is on the wrong side and greatly mistaken, which ibn Taymiyyah himself emphasized. So long as it's very clear, as shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah mentioned, then why is it that some from Ahlus-Sunnah have been mistaken? Especially regarding how the statements of the Salaf should be understood? What is the reason for these mistakes? The reason for this, and which will be our main topic of discussion, requiring detailed exposition and clarification, is related to usool al-fiqh.
This principle in Arabic, "هل العام يفيد العموم في الأحوال," translates as "Does the general [text] imply generality in all situations?" Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah universally agree that "العام" covers all individuals. However, the question arises: does it apply in all situations the person in question finds themselves in? This is the core of our discussion. What are these general texts? They include texts that categorize those who worship other than Allah as kuffaar and mushrikeen. These texts clearly cover every individual who commits major shirk, but do they apply in every situation and circumstance? By circumstances, we mean whether the message has reached the person, whether they are aware or ignorant, the prevalence of da'wah, and their understanding or misunderstanding of the texts.
Those whom shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah discussed, who misunderstood the statements of the Salaf, asserted that these texts cover every individual in all situations. This is why when these individuals consider the texts generally, not only do they apply it to issues of shirk but also to the Lofty Attributes of Allah. They declare takfeer against individuals and misguided sects who have committed disbelief, claiming that it covers every individual regardless of their awareness or whether the message has reached them. They argue that the texts are general and that exceptions should only be mentioned if there is specific evidence for them. They imply that no such exceptions exist or at least they are not aware of any. Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah countered this view, stating that this understanding does not exist in the Arabic language and is not how the Salaf approached the general texts. He also noted that this is the same error the Khawaarij made when dealing with Qur'an and Sunnah evidences regarding sinners. Ibn Taymiyyah stated that while the general texts certainly cover all individuals, they do not apply in every circumstance or situation a person might be in; they are indefinite in those situations and require other texts that clarify the conditions and requirements.
The question arises: Does the general principle mentioned by shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, which pertains to groups like the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah and those who deny clear obligations such as salah due to ignorance, also apply to acts of shirk? Insha'Allah, we will explore ibn Taymiyyah's statements to see if this principle extends to shirk as well. We will address this in detail later, but first, we must understand some key statements that confirm this principle of usool al-fiqh. Why is this so important? Unfortunately, this principle, although utilized by shaykhul-Islam, is not widely recognized in the books of usool al-fiqh. The other principle is more commonly associated with the Mutakallimeen, such as the Mu'tazilah and Ashaa'irah. It is analogous to a native Arabic speaker who thinks in Arabic but speaks another language; their thought process remains rooted in Arabic. Thus, the Mu'tazilah and Ashaa'irah, despite using Arabic, think within the frameworks of Greek philosophy due to their deep engagement with 'Ilm al-Kalaam. This is why the Salaf described those who are misguided as being afflicted by "العجمة" — despite speaking Arabic, their thought process aligns with another language, leading to misguidance and innovation.
To illustrate this point, consider the Qadariyyah and later the Mu'tazilah, who claimed that committing a major sin would definitively result in punishment in the Hereafter, unless one repents. If not, the punishment would be eternal Hellfire, yet in this life, such a person is neither a believer nor a disbeliever. This misguidance stems from their misunderstanding of how Allah threatens punishment but does not always carry it out immediately. The Salaf countered this by saying, "You are affected by 'ujmah." This term refers to their ignorance of the Arabic cultural context where threatening someone without following through, if one forgives instead, is seen positively and is even praiseworthy among Arabs. Conversely, it is considered negative and blameworthy to promise a reward and not fulfill it. The Salaf used a poem from the Jaahiliyyah period to underscore this aspect of Arab thought. Another example, often misused by modernists, involves interpreting the Qur'an Ayah from al-Kahf 18:29 about apostasy as offering "free choice." This misinterpretation arises from not understanding that, in Arabic usage, such phrases are typically threats, akin to saying, "Do as you wish, and you'll see the consequences." This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Arabic nuance in such expressions.
I provide these examples so that no one is left wondering why scholars who have written on usool al-fiqh might make such mistakes. We have previously given an example involving an advertisement for a doctor. To substantiate all this, the statements of ibn Taymiyyah are found throughout his works, particularly in his book Minhaaj as-Sunnah where he refutes the Shee'ah and the Qadariyyah. These discussions can be found in the edition verified by Muhammad Rashaad Saalim, specifically in volume 4, pages 179 and 218-220, and in volume 5, page 154. In these passages, he discusses examples from fiqh concerning children’s inheritance, as outlined in an-Nisaa' 4:11, which generally covers all children but becomes indefinite under specific circumstances. He elaborates that while the rule broadly covers all children, its application depends on specific conditions, such as the child being Muslim and there being no legal impediments, like the child not having killed the parent. Ibn Taymiyyah critiques the notion held by some that these conditions are merely exceptions to the general rule, asserting instead that they are integral to determining its application. He clarifies, "General in terms of individuals, unrestricted in terms of place and circumstances. Thus, a restricted discourse to this unrestricted one would be a new discourse clarifying a legal ruling that is not preceded by anything that contradicts it, and it does not remove the apparent meaning of a legal discourse, hence it does not contradict the original principle." (Source)
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah referred to this generality as "العموم المطلق" (unrestricted generality), meaning it is unrestricted in terms of circumstances. This very point, where many misunderstood ibn Taymiyyah's statements, stems from overlooking this concept. Their misunderstandings arose because they were not aware of this crucial aspect. They interpreted his statements based on a commonly known principle from usool al-fiqh, which actually originates from the Mu'tazilah and Ashaa'irah. These groups contend that general texts also cover all circumstances. Consequently, they misinterpreted the statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, which is precisely the same issue he highlighted when previous scholars from Ahlus-Sunnah misunderstood the Salaf. This mistake is recurrent in our discussions as well. Thus, as shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah stated as highlighted before:
The reality of the matter is that they were afflicted in their use of general terms in the statements of the imams in the same way the early ones [i.e. the Khawaarij] were afflicted in their use of general terms in the texts of the Legislator. Whenever they saw them, they said: "Whoever says such and such is a disbeliever," leading the listener to believe that this phrase encompasses everyone who says it without considering that declaring takfeer against someone has conditions and impediments that may exempt a specific individual. Thus, the declaration of takfeer in general does not necessitate the declaration of takfeer of a specific individual unless the conditions are met and the impediments are absent.
(Source)
As mentioned before, ibn Taymiyyah applied this general principle across five topics: divine promises and threats, curses, matters of tafseeq, and takfeer. That's why, when discussing takfeer, he refers to it as "التكفير المطلق" (unrestricted takfeer), similar to his term "العموم المطلق" (unrestricted generality). Here, we understand why he describes general takfeer as 'unrestricted takfeer': its foundation lies in 'unrestricted generality'. The reason is that general texts are unrestricted with respect to circumstances. Thus, matters of takfeer from the Qur'an, Sunnah, and statements of the Salaf are general in regard to individuals but unrestricted in regard to circumstances.
Unfortunately, many contemporary Ahlus-Sunnah have overlooked this foundational knowledge regarding shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah's principles in usool al-fiqh. While they often reference his views on divine promises and threats, curses, matters of tafseeq, and takfeer in cases of the Jahmiyyah and others, they tend to overlook this principle when addressing shirk. This inconsistency arises because they are not fully aware of the underlying principle. Insha'Allah, we will later demonstrate that ibn Taymiyyah consistently applied the same principle to shirk as he did to other topics.
Now we will examine ibn Taymiyyah's statements regarding shirk to determine whether he considers ignorance before the message reaches individuals. There are four important texts from him. The first is known as Fatwa al-Qalandariyyah, found in Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 35, pages 164 to 166:
... And indeed, this is not exclusive to them; rather, all those who are among the ascetics, the jurists, the devout, the poor, the ascetics, the [rhetorical] theologians, the philosophers, and those among the kings and the wealthy; the scribes; the accountants; the doctors; the people of the government offices; and the general populace who do not affirm all that Allah has informed through His Messenger, nor prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, or subscribe to a religion that contradicts the Deen with which Allah sent His Messenger, both inwardly and outwardly, are misguided. This includes those who believe that their shaykh provides for them, supports them, guides them, helps them, aids them, or those who worship their shaykh, call upon him, prostrate to him, or those who prefer him absolutely over the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) or in any aspect of virtue that brings one closer to Allah, or those who believe that they or their shaykh are independent of following the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). All these people are disbelievers if they openly show this; and munaafiqeen if they hide it. These types are numerous in this era due to the scarcity of advocates for knowledge and faith and the waning influence of the message in most countries. Most of these people do not possess the legacies of the message or the heritage of prophecy to recognize the true guidance, and many of them have not received it. In times and places of religious interruption, a man is rewarded for whatever little faith he has, and Allah forgives those against whom the argument has not been established for things He does not forgive for those against whom the argument has been established, as in the well-known hadith: "A time will come upon people when they will not know of salah, fasting, hajj, or 'Umrah except for an old man and an old woman. They will say: We saw our fathers saying there is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah." And it was said to Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamaan: "What will 'there is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah' avail them?" He said: "It will save them from the fire." The basis is that a statement that is disbelief by the Book, the Sunnah, and consensus is said to be disbelief in utterance as the Shari'ah evidence indicates; for 'eemaan' is among the judgments received from Allah and His Messenger, not something that people can decide based on their assumptions and desires. And it is not necessary to judge every person who says this as a disbeliever until the conditions for declaring disbelief are established and its impediments, such as someone who says alcohol or usury is permissible, due to his recent conversion to Islam; or because he was raised in a remote desert; or he heard a statement he rejected and did not believe it to be from the Quran or the sayings of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as some of the Salaf would deny things until it was confirmed to them that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said it. And as the Companions would doubt things like seeing Allah and others until they asked about it from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). And like the one who said: "If I die, crush me and scatter me in the sea; perhaps I may escape from Allah," such people are not declared disbelievers until the proof of the message is established against them as Allah Almighty says:
لِئَلَّا يَكُونَ لِلنَّاسِ عَلَى اللَّهِ حُجَّةٌ بَعْدَ الرُّسُلِ
"So that mankind will have no argument against Allah after the Messengers." (An-Nisaa' 4:165)
And Allah has pardoned this Ummah for mistakes and forgetfulness, and we have discussed the rules of this answer in their places, and the fatwa does not bear more elaboration than this. And Allah knows best.
As you can see, what we have previously discussed aligns with what he states here. The principle is consistent across discussions, including those involving shirk. It's important to note that he mentions a general judgment, identifying said people as disbelievers based on general texts that apply if they meet specific conditions. He emphasizes that this is how such judgments should be presented and clarified. However, when it pertains to specific individuals and ignorance is prevalent in their area, consideration should be given to the principle he mentions. Therefore, there is no contradiction between these two instances.
Next statement, found in Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 28, page 480, discusses the Raafidhah during ibn Taymiyyah's era. It is crucial to consider the historical context when examining his statements because the beliefs of the Raafidhah, particularly the Twelvers, have evolved over time. For instance, during ibn Taymiyyah's time, they did not claim that the Qur'an was falsified. This point is significant because the contemporary Raafidhah, who may assert that the Qur'an is falsified, represent a more extreme deviation, and in such cases, ignorance cannot be taken into account. He described them as follows: "They resemble the Christians in their excessive veneration of humans, in their innovated acts of worship, in associating partners with Allah, and other things." He then further stated on page 485, "He [Allah] mentioned in His Book about His Tawheed, dedicating sovereignty exclusively to Him, and worshiping Him alone without any partners—practices from which they have deviated. For they are mushrikeen as the hadith about them states," It should be noted that the hadith in question is actually weak, but the point being that he is using it to argue against them. He continues, "because they are the most extreme in venerating graves that have been taken as idols besides Allah. And this is a topic whose description is extensive." Despite saying that, what conclusion did he reach in his fatwa on pages 500 and 501?
As for declaring takfeer against them and consigning them to eternity [in Hell], there are also two well-known scholarly opinions on this matter, both narrations from Ahmad. The opinions regarding the Khawaarij, the Harooriyyah, the Raafidhah, and others like them. The correct view is that the statements they make, which are known to contradict what the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) brought, are disbelief, and so are their actions which are of the same type as the actions of disbelievers against Muslims; these are also disbelief. I have mentioned the evidences for this in other places; however, declaring a specific individual among them a disbeliever and ruling their eternal damnation is contingent upon establishing the conditions for takfeer and the absence of its impediments. We pronounce the texts of promises, threats, takfeer, and transgression, but we do not judge a specific individual to fall under this general category until the requisite conditions, which are unopposed, are met. I have elaborated this rule in "The Principle of Takfeer." [i.e. the Fatwa "الكيلانية"] Therefore, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not declare the one who said, "If I die, burn me and scatter my ashes in the sea, for if Allah has power over me, He will punish me with a punishment that He has not inflicted on anyone in the worlds," a disbeliever, despite his doubt in Allah's power and resurrection. For this reason, scholars do not declare someone who legalizes something prohibited because of their recent conversion to Islam or because they grew up in a remote desert a disbeliever; for the judgment of disbelief only applies after the message has been received. Many of these people may not have received the texts that contradict their views and are unaware that the Messenger was sent with that, so it is declared that such a statement is disbelief and they are declared disbelievers only when the proof which makes one a disbeliever if abandoned has been established against them, but not others. And Allah knows best.
As you can see, he emphasized the general principle of takfeer which we previously discussed, i.e., the extensive fatwa. Even though he is addressing shirk, he still applies the same evidences and principles that pertain to divine promises and threats, curses, and matters of tafseeq. The Raafidhah are one of the misguided sects, akin to the Jahmiyyah. However, in this instance, he didn't describe them as the earliest Raafidhah; in other words, shirk developed later but he remained consistent with his principle. Recall his statement in Fatwa al-Qalandariyyah, where he identified various forms of shirk others fall into, noting, "...or subscribe to a religion that contradicts the Deen with which Allah sent His Messenger, both inwardly and outwardly..." Despite this, did he consider that it contradicts the principle of takfeer? The answer is clearly no, which confirms that those who base this topic on "التلازم بين الظاهر والباطن"—the correlation between the apparent and the hidden—are gravely mistaken in doing so. Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah did not base his position on this.
In other statements regarding the Raafidhah, ibn Taymiyyah related the matter of takfeer to individuals who are eternally condemned to Hell, highlighting that these issues are distinct despite stemming from the same principle but applied under different circumstances. Why mention this? It addresses a common misconception among some within Ahlus-Sunnah who have misinterpreted shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah’s views on clear matters. They incorrectly claim that ibn Taymiyyah did not regard them as disbelievers in this life, only in the Hereafter, arguing that they will not remain in Hellfire eternally. This is a misrepresentation of his intent and statements. In fact, the issue is neither about making takfeer nor about judging an individual's eternal fate in Hellfire. The critics argue that we cannot declare takfeer against those who have not received the message, labeling them as mushrikeen and non-Muslims. However, ibn Taymiyyah’s Fatwa al-Qalandariyyah contradicts this view and supports the use of evidence he presented. Did this prevent ibn Taymiyyah from making a general judgment of takfeer? No, it applied universally to all individuals but not necessarily to all circumstances, akin to the principle of takfeer. Without understanding this foundational principle of usool al-fiqh, which ibn Taymiyyah consistently used, one cannot fully grasp these issues and may fall into various significant errors, as previously discussed.
Another statement is found in his book "الاستغاثة في الرد على البكري", as verified by 'Abdullah as-Sahli, on pages 411-412. In another edition, it appears in volume 2, page 731:
After knowing what the Messenger brought, we necessarily understand that he did not legislate for his Ummah to call upon anyone who has passed away—be they prophets, righteous people, or others—neither in the form of seeking aid nor otherwise, nor in the form of seeking refuge nor in any other way. Likewise, he did not legislate for his Ummah to prostrate to or towards the deceased and similar actions. Rather, we know that he forbade all these practices, and that they constitute the type of shirk which Allah and His Messenger have prohibited. However, due to prevalent ignorance and a lack of knowledge about the message's implications among many of those who came later, it is not possible to declare takfeer against them for this until it becomes clear to them what the Messenger brought that contradicts this. Thus, I have never clarified this matter to anyone who knows the foundation of the Deen except they became alert; they said this is the foundation of the Deen of Islam. Some of the prominent shuyookh among our knowledgeable companions [i.e. the Hanaabilah] have said this is the greatest thing you have clarified for us, knowing that this is the foundation of the Deen.
This aspect needs further emphasis. Firstly, how could they recognize the fundamentals of the Deen and acknowledge that this was the most significant clarification made by ibn Taymiyyah? They understood that no one besides Allah has the right to be worshipped, but they lacked detailed knowledge. This implies that even though they were unaware of the specifics—which could lead to the risk of falling into shirk—ibn Taymiyyah still considered them knowledgeable about the general foundations of the Deen. Unfortunately, those who argue that ignorance should not be considered in cases of shirk believe that without comprehensive knowledge of both general and detailed aspects of the Deen's foundations, one cannot be considered aware. This view contradicts the statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. When he discussed the differing scholarly opinions regarding the Raafidhah, he indicated that earlier 'ulama' had two known interpretations concerning how the statements of the Salaf should be understood. However, in reality, there is only one view that aligns with the principles—there are unrestricted statements and others that require specific conditions to be met. Therefore, there is only one [valid] opinion, which shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah clarified. However, he only presented it in the context of what was well-known among the early 'ulama'.
We have now clarified ibn Taymiyyah's position on individuals who commit shirk in worship due to ignorance and before the message has reached them; namely, that we cannot declare takfeer against them until the necessary conditions are met. Next, we'll name which of the 'ulama' attributed this correct stance. This discussion is to ensure no one perceives this as merely my personal interpretation. Among the 'ulama' who pointed this matter is shaykhul-Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, cited in "مفيد المستفيد," and in numerous other sources. 'Abdurrahman ibn Hasan mentions this stance in "مجموعة التوحيد", and also in "الجامع الفريد" on pages 330 and 333-334. 'Abdurrahman ibn Qaasim in "شرح رسالة أصل دين الإسلام". While Abu Butayn holds a contrary opinion, he acknowledges that ibn Taymiyyah do not declare takfeer before the message reaches, as stated in his book "الانتصار لحزب الله الموحدين" on pages 66-67. 'Abdul-Lateef discusses this in his "مصباح الظلام" on pages 499-500. 'Allaamah al-Iraqi Mahmood Shukri al-Aloosi addresses this in "غاية الأماني في الرد على النبهاني", volume 1, pages 29-36. These examples are from the early 'ulama' who support our case. Among contemporary scholars, shaykh al-'Uthaymeen also upholds this view. (Relevant)
All these 'ulama', to be very specific and precise, agree that ibn Taymiyyah does not declare takfeer against an individual until the message has reached them, regardless of whether it pertains to shirk or other matters. He does not differentiate between these two circumstances. Regarding whether he considers them disbelievers, we have only touched on this briefly and, insha'Allah, will elaborate in much more detail later. Why do I mention this point? Because some within Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah claim that ibn Taymiyyah declares takfeer against every individual even if the message has not reached them. If you point out the contrary, they argue that he means takfeer in the Hereafter, not in this life. They allege that ibn Taymiyyah views such individuals as not being disbelievers in this life, yet acknowledges they are disbelievers; however, we cannot claim that these people will be eternally punished in Hellfire like the original disbelievers. This interpretation clearly falsifies his statements. We have already highlighted his views against the Raafidhah and will delve deeper into this topic, insha'Allah. Regarding the five 'ulama' I mentioned, what exactly did they say about ibn Taymiyyah? They did reference his statements, presenting them as if he held two opinions. However, both discussions relate to shirk and are in fact grounded in a single principle.
Insha'Allah, we will now discuss another form of falsification that is unfortunately widely spread. We have previously mentioned that the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah had a major enemy, Dawud ibn Jirjeesh from Iraq. He opposed them not only through his writings but also physically aligned himself with grave worshippers in their battles. Afterwards, he propagated his erroneous teachings. There are three well-known books refuting ibn Jirjeesh, each written by Abu Butayn, 'Abdurrahman ibn Hasan, and 'Abdul-Lateef. These works document numerous instances where ibn Jirjeesh falsified statements of ibn Taymiyyah. Without familiarity with ibn Jirjeesh's statements and his falsifications, there is a potential for misunderstanding the discussions of these 'ulama'. For instance, when ibn Jirjeesh spoke about the excuse of ignorance, his discourse did not align with our understanding. He falsely attributed to ibn Taymiyyah the notion that ignorance justifies grave worship, presenting it as permissible, which is obviously far-fetched. He misinterpreted the excuse of ignorance as if those who fell into shirk were making their own ijtihaad, arguing that their mistakes should be excused as those of mujtahids. He claimed that there is no difference between making ijtihaad in fiqhi matters while mistaken and committing shirk due to ijtihaad, implying that those who commit shirk might even be rewarded. He then misrepresented some of ibn Taymiyyah’s statements concerning those who worship Allah beside graves, involving innovations and not shirk. These are two completely different cases, but ibn Jirjeesh falsely conflated them as though they were the same!
Before we analyze ibn Jirjeesh's claims, let's revisit what ibn Taymiyyah says. When discussing disbelief related to the Lofty Attributes of Allah and fiqhi matters, where a person might express opinions considered disbelief, ibn Taymiyyah states that if someone is a mujtahid known for seeking the truth and concludes something incorrect, Allah will excuse and forgive such individuals, even though their statements are technically disbelief. We have previously reviewed evidence cited by ibn Taymiyyah himself, including errors made by some of the Sahaabah and other prominent 'ulama'. Such individuals, known for their sincerity and recognized as mujtahids, will be rewarded by Allah for their efforts to seek the truth, despite their mistakes.
In 'Abdul-Lateef's refutation, for instance, he clarifies that ibn Jirjeesh is wrongfully conflating topics and justifying shirk. It's true that ibn Taymiyyah consistently applied the same principle to takfeer against individuals, but that does not mean he equated mistakes in shirk with those in fiqh or concerning the Lofty Attributes of Allah. While there may be room for ijtihaad in some cases, it is not as ibn Jirjeesh alleges—these are indeed falsifications attributed to ibn Taymiyyah. Those excused for their ijtihaad, as previously proven, are instances where criticism of the individuals themselves is unwarranted, though not necessarily their statements.
When it comes to shirk, the situation is different. Anyone with intact fitrah and reasoning can recognize this error. If the message has not yet reached them, takfeer might not be declared due to their ignorance, but this does not exempt them from criticism. Therefore, while the same principle applies, it does not mean all cases are equivalent. Ibn Jirjeesh, unfortunately, did not differentiate between these issues, instead wrongly equating them.
Imam 'Abdul-Lateef ibn 'Abdurrahman clearly differentiates between the two issues. Unfortunately, many today misunderstand his refutation of ibn Jirjeesh. They see 'Abdul-Lateef correcting ibn Jirjeesh’s misuse of texts, misapplied to discussions of the Lofty Attributes of Allah and fiqhi matters, rather than shirk. Those unfamiliar with ibn Jirjeesh’s statements might wrongly believe that 'Abdul-Lateef limits the excuse of ignorance to non-shirk matters. In reality, 'Abdul-Lateef also acknowledges ignorance as an excuse in cases of shirk elsewhere. This leads to confusion and the false impression of a contradiction in 'Abdul-Lateef's arguments, primarily due to a lack of familiarity with ibn Jirjeesh’s falsifications. So, this unfamiliarity has led people to repeat similar errors by misusing 'Abdul-Lateef's texts and misapplying issues, mistakenly arguing as though he states there is no excuse of ignorance in shirk—similarly to how ibn Jirjeesh falsified the statements of ibn Taymiyyah. This results in three compounded errors: a lack of understanding of ibn Taymiyyah’s positions, ignorance of ibn Jirjeesh’s false arguments, and misinterpretations of 'Abdul-Lateef’s clarifications.
For reference, you can read 'Abdul-Lateef's refutations in his works: "منهاج التأسيس" on pages 222-223 and 250-252, and "مصباح الظلام" on pages 498-503. There, you will find the details I have mentioned.
Insha'Allah, now we turn to the statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. If you claim he stated something different from what we are mentioning, upon which opinion are you basing this? The following statements, which are often cited, come from "نقط المنطق." This work has been published as an independent book, but it is also included in Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 18, pages 53 to 55. It discusses "المسائل الظاهرة والحفية" (apparent and hidden matters). He states:
Some of them may have faith and [major] hypocrisy and may be apostates: either from the foundation of the Deen or from some of its laws, either an apostasy of hypocrisy or an apostasy of disbelief, which is often prevalent; especially in times and places dominated by ignorance, disbelief, and hypocrisy.
Here, he is discussing the Mutakallimeen. The focus of this discussion is not on those who superficially study 'Ilm al-Kalaam, as is common among most Ashaa'irah; rather, it addresses those who delve deeply into it. Concerning "in times and places dominated," if one asks where it occurred, it was during the Tartar and Faatimiyyoon occupations or similar. He continues:
These individuals are among the wonders of ignorance, injustice, lies, disbelief, hypocrisy, and misguidance that cannot be fully covered in this discussion. If these are covert beliefs, it might be said that such a person is in error, astray, and the decisive proof that would render one a disbeliever has not been established against him.
Who is he speaking about here? He is specifically referring to Fakhr ar-Raazi, well-known among the Ashaa'irah. Alhamdulillah, it seems that he repented at the end of his life, turning away from philosophy and 'Ilm al-Kalaam. (Source) Though their repentance often lacks detailed adherence to the Sunnah, as they are mostly ignorant of it, at the very least, they return to the belief of ordinary Muslims. Fakhr ar-Raazi, unfortunately, may Allah protect us, was deeply engrossed in 'Ilm al-Kalaam and philosophy. If one asks about the difference, logic is an introduction to philosophy, and 'Ilm al-Kalaam is where some Muslims attempted to filter philosophy by removing its objectionable parts and retaining what they deemed "clean" and compatible with Islam. However, in reality, it is filled with misguidance.
This is a brief description. Fakhr ar-Raazi was not only an expert in 'Ilm al-Kalaam but also in philosophy. May Allah protect us, he was also knowledgeable in one of the sciences indulged in by philosophers, not necessarily all but most, which is witchcraft. Whether he practiced it himself is unknown as there is nothing to confirm this, but needless to say, he was an expert in how it should be practiced and even wrote a book on the subject. A king, whose mother was deeply involved in witchcraft, asked ar-Raazi to write a book for her, which he did. The book is filled with disbelief and shirk, going beyond disbelief as it deals with clear acts of shirk. He claimed that it is not shirk if one believes that the stars have no influence and everything happens by the will of Allah. What he mentioned is something even grave worshippers acknowledge as shirk. That's why ibn Taymiyyah considered him an apostate, by consensus of the Muslims. This is a brief overview, otherwise, one might not understand the full context of his discourse. He continues:
However, this occurs among certain groups in the obvious matters that both the elite [i.e., 'ulama'] and the common among the Muslims know to be part of Deen of the Muslims. Even the Jews, Christians, and polytheists know that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was sent with these teachings, and whoever contradicts them, such as commanding the worship of Allah alone without any partners and prohibiting the worship of anyone other than Allah—be it angels, prophets, or others—is considered an obvious sign of Islam, like opposing Jews, Christians, and polytheists, and like prohibiting indecencies, usury, alcohol, gambling, and the like. Then you find many of their leaders falling into these categories, thus they are apostates, although they may repent from such acts and return like the leaders of the tribes such as al-Aqra' and 'Uyaynah and those like them who apostatized from Islam and then re-entered it. Among them are those who were suspected of hypocrisy and diseased hearts, and among them were those who were not. Many of these leaders are like this; sometimes they explicitly apostatize from Islam and sometimes they return to it, but with illness in their heart and hypocrisy, yet there are occasions when faith predominates over hypocrisy, although it is rare that they are free from some form of hypocrisy, and their stories in this regard are well-known. Ibn Qutaybah mentioned some of this in the beginning of 'Mukhtalaf al-Hadith,' and some authors of the aricles have narrated bits of this as mentioned by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, al-Qaadhi Abu Bakr ibn al-Baaqillaani, Abu 'Abdillah ash-Shahrastaani, and others. More significantly, some of them have authored works on the religion of the polytheists and apostasy from Islam, as ar-Raazi wrote his book on the worship of celestial bodies and presented evidence on the goodness and benefit of it, encouraging it, which is apostasy from Islam by the consensus of Muslims, even if he may have returned to Islam.
This text is often misunderstood, and I must emphasize before we continue that in our da'wah, which follows the path of the prophets, we stress warning against shirk and advocating for tawheed. We present both detailed and general aspects of this call, which, alhamdulillah, we have previously done. We bring up this specific topic because some have exaggerated it to the extent that it has led some to become Khawaarij, may Allah protect us. Otherwise, we wouldn't have spent so much time on it. One shouldn’t think, as the ignorant claim, that we are excusing mushrikeen or that our teachings are from ourselves rather than based on the evidence from the Qur’an, Sunnah, and 'ulama'. Just as ibn Taymiyyah stated at the outset, it's not up to you, nor is it a matter of your whims, to pass judgment on people; it should be based on texts. In this particular issue of apparent and hidden matters, many misunderstand ibn Taymiyyah’s statements. This is what we are going to discuss.
There are two meanings of "apparent" and "hidden" matters according to ibn Taymiyyah. The first meaning is well-known among the 'ulama' and is commonly discussed in the books of usool al-fiqh. When one mentions "الظاهر" (the apparent), it refers to the first impression gained from a text, which is discussed in usool al-fiqh. This implies that the apparent meaning of a text is understandable directly without the need for another book to interpret it, though this understanding depends on one's knowledge of the Arabic language. Even so, ordinary Muslims can grasp the apparent meanings of texts such as Surah al-Kaafiroon and Surah al-Ikhlaas—the basics and foundational aspects are understandable to everyone.
"الخفي" (the hidden) refers to meanings that not everyone can comprehend, requiring deeper knowledge to be understood. These are aspects that ordinary Muslims might not discern, typically requiring 'ulama' to explain, and sometimes even 'ulama' need to investigate further and consult other 'ulama' about them.
This is the first meaning.
Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) also used these terms in a second sense, which is less commonly found in other scholars' writings. In this second meaning, he uses "the apparent" to refer to knowledge that is widespread among Muslims, such as the obligations of salah and the prohibition of alcohol. "The hidden," according to him, refers to knowledge that is not widespread among Muslims but known only to 'ulama' and students of knowledge.
This is the intended meaning according to ibn Taymiyyah.
The first meaning, which is well-known, has led to some individuals falsifying the position of ibn Taymiyyah and misunderstanding him. They claim that according to him, ignorance cannot be taken into account regarding apparent matters, citing his statements on shirk and similar topics. They argue that matters well-known in the Qur'an and Sunnah cannot accommodate ignorance. Consequently, they allege that ibn Taymiyyah does not believe in excusing ignorance in cases of shirk and that he declares takfeer on every individual. They assert that the clarity of these issues in the Qur'an and Sunnah is as obvious as the sun, suggesting that whether the message reached someone or not, it is the individual's responsibility to know.
Firstly, it's crucial to clarify that ibn Taymiyyah used the second meaning, contrary to their assertions, which they were likely unaware of. Had they been aware, they might have recognized that their interpretation was flawed. The second meaning has actually been used in many sources, and I will highlight just two, which should suffice. He also discussed this at the beginning of "بيان تلبيس الجهمية".
Here, we will reference his book "درء تعارض العقل والنقل" (Reconciling Reason and Revelation) [note: editions may vary], volume 3, page 97 and in page 330. In page 97, he states:
"The apparent and the hidden are relative and additional matters."
In page 330:
The apparent and the hidden may be relative and contextual matters. What may be clear to some people or to a person in certain circumstances might not be clear to others or to them at another time. Thus, they benefit from some of the limits and evidence in a way that they do not at other times.
So, if ibn Taymiyyah used the first meaning concerning the texts, it would not be subject to individual variation but rather pertain to the texts themselves. This is similar to "المعلوم من الدين بالضرورة" (what is necessarily known of the Deen). He stated this explicitly in Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 13, page 118:
The fact that something is known as part of the Deen by necessity is a relative matter. A new convert to Islam or someone who has grown up in a remote desert may not know this at all, let alone know it by necessity. Many 'ulama', by necessity, know that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) performed the prostration of forgetfulness, ruled on blood-money liability by the 'aaqilah, adjudicated that the child belongs to the marital bed, and other matters that are known by necessity to the specialists, but most people do not know these things at all.
Unfortunately, many people misuse the terms as though they relate not to whether knowledge and the message are widespread, or whether da'wah is prevalent, but as if they pertain to the clarity of the texts themselves. We will now examine and confirm that the evidence of those who allege ibn Taymiyyah did not believe in the excuse of ignorance in shirk actually pertains to the second meaning he intended, not the first. Understanding it with the first meaning changes everything. It would imply that regardless of whether the message has reached them or not, according to their incorrect interpretation, an individual is a disbeliever. What confirms this is his statement, "... this occurs among certain groups in the obvious matters that both the elite [i.e., 'ulama'] and the common among the Muslims know to be part of Deen of the Muslims. Even the Jews, Christians, and polytheists know that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was sent with these teachings..." How did the Jews, Christians, and mushrikeen know this? Did they all study the Qur'an and the Sunnah? Clearly not. Where did they learn it? Through da'wah from the Muslims, meaning the general knowledge is widespread, and from that, they know what Muslims proclaim. This is the first evidence. The second evidence, one of the things ibn Taymiyyah mentioned, was the prohibition of zina, riba, alcohol, and gambling. According to their understanding of apparent matters, we can no longer consider ignorance, even if the person is a new convert or lives far away where knowledge isn't widespread. This clearly confirms our case. Is this all? Actually no. We will, insha'Allah, discuss other statements of ibn Taymiyyah. The text we have brought forth is closely similar to another source stated in Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 4, pages 53 to 55. Before reading it, let me explain what it is about: he said this in response to someone from the Mutakallimeen who claimed that the Mutakallimeen are superior to Ahlul-Hadith, making disparaging remarks. So, ibn Taymiyyah refuted them and affirmed the rightful position of Ahlul-Hadith in general, though that they are not like this is another discussion. He presented general texts about their status in Islam and clarified how doubtful the Mutakallimeen are, and described their leaders accordingly. Later, insha'Allah, I will elaborate on this, but he stated that the most one can say is that they are Muslims. What does he mean by this? It means they cannot be regarded as mu'mineen or imams but does he consider them at most as Muslims despite some of them committing shirk? This confirms that those who allege ibn Taymiyyah claimed such people are mushrikeen and not Muslims are clearly falsifying his statements. This again confirms that the issue is not about whether texts are widely known or how hidden they are among people, but rather whether knowledge or da'wah is widespread among Muslims.
If one were to ask whether Fakhr ar-Raazi committed shirk without considering ignorance, what ar-Raazi did was affirm that celestial planets and stars could be worshipped alongside Allah. It's evident that these were regarded as false gods and that it all pertained to worship. He even went as far as to claim that worship involves drinking wine, effectively making what was haram, halal. It's impossible to be a Muslim while directly claiming that one can worship others besides Allah. Here, we are discussing the ignorant who reject the worship of anyone besides Allah but fall into shirk due to ignorance. The ignorant here admit that we cannot worship anyone except Allah, unlike ar-Raazi, who affirmed, advocated for, praised, and encouraged it. Even if we were to assume that knowledge is not widespread, he would still be considered an apostate. Therefore, if knowledge and the message are widespread, this is even clearer. That's why when the Ashaa'irah saw the book, they denied its authorship to ar-Raazi, as they considered him a major imam, despite it being factually attributed to him. Those who possess knowledge of 'Ilm al-Kalaam might be Muslims, but some could be hypocrites, which aligns closely with what Allah mentions at the beginning of Surah al-Baqarah, where some hypocrites can walk while seeing the light, whereas others remain in darkness. This refers to two types of hypocrites. May Allah protect us.
In regard to the understanding we just mentioned about ibn Taymiyyah's statements on apparent and hidden matters, have any 'ulama' mentioned this interpretation? The answer is yes; among them are shaykhul-Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and Abu Butayn. They have statements that reflect their understanding of the position that takfeer should not be declared until the message has reached, specifically discussing shirk. Ibn Taymiyyah's usage of the terms "apparent" and "hidden" matters, if searched for in the books of fiqh, especially under the chapter on apostasy, you will not find those terms used in that context. What was used before ibn Taymiyyah? They discussed matters clearly outlined in Shari'ah, like the obligation of salah and the prohibition of wine. The fuqahaa' state, considering the context of their time when knowledge was widespread, that for newly converted Muslims or those living remotely where ignorance might occur, these matters are considered part of the necessary knowledge of the Deen. At that time, denying such obligations as salah or the prohibition of wine would make one a disbeliever. Ignorance in such situations and circumstances could not be taken into account, except for recent converts or those living remotely like the Bedouins. Ibn Taymiyyah spoke about the same but used different terms: apparent matters are those teachings of the Deen so widely propagated, and hidden matters are those about which the da'wah has not been widely spread, meaning some are aware of them but not others. One will be accountable if the knowledge is widely available but has not made any effort to learn it. For example, in modern-day Saudi Arabia, knowledge about Tawheed and shirk is widely spread, similar to the knowledge that the five obligatory prayers are obligatory and alcohol is haram. Not all the details, but much of it is widely known. In such a place, if someone falls into shirk despite living there and understanding the Arabic language well, their ignorance cannot be excused, and they would be considered a disbeliever if they have not made any effort to learn. This aligns with the position of most 'ulama' concerning "المعرض" (the indifferent).
Concerning the matter we discussed, which confirms our case, shaykhul-Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab discussed this in his book "Mufeed al-Mustafeed." It's important to remember the context of his statement: he was refuting the claim that no one can become an apostate unless they convert to, for example, Christianity or Judaism. Some alleged that a person remains a Muslim if they have uttered the Shahaadatayn, despite committing all kinds of disbelief and shirk. This was the reason why he authored the book, as noted by shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem Aal ash-Shaykh. Why do I mention this? Unfortunately, some 'ulama', like shaykh 'Ali al-Khudayr, asserted that the book was authored due to the "excuse of ignorance," which is not accurate and actually a grave mistake. Hence, 'Ali al-Khudayr, on perhaps five different occasions, asserted concerning ibn Taymiyyah, "Is it him you claim that he doesn't declare takfeer against individuals?" Ibn Taymiyyah stated that we cannot declare takfeer until the message reaches, while others claim that we cannot declare takfeer at all. They took the first statement but neglected the rest. Shaykhul-Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab said:
This is his [i.e., ibn Taymiyyah] manner of discussing the issue in every instance we have found in his discourse. He does not mention refraining from declaring takfeer against a specific individual without linking it to what resolves the issue, indicating that the intention behind withholding takfeer is until the proof reaches him. Once the proof reaches him, he is judged according to what that issue necessitates, be it declaring takfeer, tafseeq, or sinfulness. He also explicitly stated that his words apply similarly in other obvious matters. He said in his refutation of the Mutakallimeen, when he mentioned that apostasy from Islam is often found among some of their leaders.
After mentioning what we already had discussed, he then said:
Reflect on this, and consider the details of the doubt that the enemies of Allah mention. However, if Allah decrees His fitnah, you will not be able to prevent it. What we believe, adhere to in our Deen before Allah, and hope to remain steadfast upon, is that if he or someone more knowledgeable than him errs in this issue—and this issue concerns a Muslim who commits shirk with Allah after the proof has reached him, or a Muslim who prefers this over the monotheists or claims to be on the truth, or anything else from the explicit, apparent disbelief that Allah and His Messenger and the 'ulama' of the Ummah have clarified—we believe in what has come to us from Allah and His Messenger about his takfeer, even if someone errs.
You will better understand what shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab meant when we discuss his madhhab regarding the consideration of ignorance and the application of takfeer. There are points where he agrees with ibn Taymiyyah but also areas where he disagrees. The crucial part of our discussion focuses on where he aligns with ibn Taymiyyah.
So far, in our discussion about the position of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, one might ask if other 'ulama' have mentioned similar views. The answer is clearly yes. One such scholar is ibn Hazm, who discusses this in his book "الفصل في الملل والأهواء والنحل", particularly in volume 3, pages 291 to 302, under the title "Discussion on Who is Declared a Disbeliever." Ibn Hazm’s views are quite similar to ibn Taymiyyah's, though there are slight differences, and they share many positions. In his discourse on shirk, ibn Hazm addresses it generally, not specifically in worship contexts. Ibn Hazm also expressed similar views in his book "al-Ihkaam fee Usool al-Ahkaam," specifically on pages 72-73 in the edition published by Daar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyyah.
There is a statement by ibn Hazm that was unfortunately far-fetched. He posited that if we were to consider, noting he was a Dhaahiri, that some people are unaware and the message has not reached them—that 'Eesa is not the son of Allah—then their ignorance should be taken into account. Unfortunately, he went to such extremes because of his Dhaahiri stance. In other words, he exaggerated in his literal interpretation of the texts. Another instance of ibn Hazm's exaggerated Dhaahiri position was his view that one cannot urinate in still water, such as a small pond. The fuqahaa' have explained that urinating into a cup and then pouring it into the pond would be equivalent, but ibn Hazm disagreed, asserting that it is not the same. He argued that by urinating into a cup and then pouring it into the pond, one is not disobeying the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). However, he was gravely mistaken in those points. May Allah have mercy upon him. Apart from other considerations, the Dhaahiriyyah fell into innovation in usool al-fiqh by rejecting Qiyaas.
Are there other 'ulama' who aligned with the position of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah? Yes, al-Qaadhi Abu Bakr ibn al-'Arabi al-Maaliki in his explanation of Saheeh al-Bukhaari, but unfortunately, his complete commentary has not reached us. The part that has survived was also mentioned in his explanation of Sunan at-Tirmidhi. Another scholar from Ahlus-Sunnah who referred to his statement was Muhammad Jamaal ad-Deen al-Qaasimi from ash-Sham, in his Tafseer of the Qur'an, specifically in Surah an-Nisaa', Ayah 48.
His intent is to clarify that just as acts of obedience are termed eemaan, sins are also termed disbelief. However, when disbelief is attributed to these sins, it is not meant to signify the kind of disbelief that expels one from the faith. The ignorant and the mistaken among this Ummah, even if they commit acts of disbelief and shirk which would make one a mushrik or kaafir, are excused due to ignorance and error, until the proof becomes clear to them, abandoning which would make one a kaafir.
(Source)
Other 'ulama' include the very student of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, imam adh-Dhahabi. Before discussing his statement, it is acknowledged by 'ulama' that adh-Dhahabi authored a book called "al-Kabaa'ir." This has been mentioned by scholars like as-Subki and ibn Katheer. However, contemporary 'ulama' often refer to an edition of "al-Kabaa'ir" that was not authored by adh-Dhahabi; this version includes many additions by an unnamed author but is still attributed to adh-Dhahabi. This newer edition is larger, whereas the earlier, smaller edition is the one correctly attributed to adh-Dhahabi. In our discussion on shirk, adh-Dhahabi addresses aspects related to recent converts to Islam, those who were slaves, previously mushrikeen, and whose masters were greatly ignorant, highlighting that these converts retained remnants of shirk.
Again, other 'ulama' who aligned with the position of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah include al-Aloosi, Jamaal ad-Deen al-Qaasimi, Muhammad 'Afeefi, al-Mu'allami, as-Sa'di, al-'Uthaymeen, and others. Before ibn Taymiyyah, scholars like ibn Hazm and al-Qaadhi Abu Bakr ibn al-'Arabi al-Maaliki held similar views. I mention this because some allege a consensus that ignorance in matters of shirk is not considered; meaning, an individual is regarded as a disbeliever even if the message has not reached them. This supposed consensus (Ijmaa') has been falsely referenced to scholars such as al-Qaraafi al-Maaliki, who was an Ash'ari—may Allah have mercy upon him. The reason I highlight his Ash'ari affiliation will become clear later, insha'Allah. He stated the following in "شرح تنقيح الفصول":
And therefore, Allah does not excuse him out of ignorance in the foundations of the Deen, by consensus.(Source)
Remember our previous discussions on Usool ad-Deen? Ibn Hazm and ibn Taymiyyah addressed the stance of those who claim there is no excuse for ignorance in the foundations of the Deen. They identified such opinions with the Mu'tazilah and those who followed in their path, i.e., the Ashaa'irah. Before delving into why, let's clarify what Usool ad-Deen means to them. It’s not merely about the worship of Allah but revolves around proving the existence of Allah through intellectual evidence, which includes affirming His Lofty Attributes. They argue that errors or ignorance in these details render one a disbeliever, and such ignorance is inexcusable. This interpretation of Usool ad-Deen and the division between the foundations and branches of the Deen is fundamentally flawed.
This incorrect opinion has seeped into some Usool al-Fiqh books, leading some Ahlus-Sunnah 'ulama' to unwittingly adopt it, a point we've discussed previously. Insha'Allah, we'll explore how ibn Hazm and ibn Taymiyyah critiqued this viewpoint. Ibn Hazm addressed these issues in the previously mentioned sources concerning the erroneous opinion on the division of the Deen's foundations and branches.
When al-Qaraafi discussed this topic, did he base his arguments on the beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah? No, his perspective was that of the Mutakallimeen, particularly the Ashaa'irah. Therefore, the consensus (Ijmaa') he mentioned pertains only to the Mutakallimeen, contradicting Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah's position. The habit of claiming invalid consensus is common among the Mutakallimeen; for instance, their claims that Allah is not above His creation, or that He does not speak with sound, purportedly backed by consensus. These claims often reflect only their group's views, showcasing a profound ignorance of the Salaf's statements. When they reference the Salaf, they either misrepresent them or distort the few statements they do acknowledge.
To assert that ignorance is no excuse, citing al-Qaraafi in this context, mixes two wholly distinct issues. The consensus claimed by al-Qaraafi is baseless, rooted in an innovation that originated from the Mu'tazilah. Therefore, any Ahlus-Sunnah assertions built on his claim that ignorance is no excuse are severely flawed, as there is no legitimate connection due to the differing bases of their conclusions.
In regards to that confirms that which we have described the statements of imam al-Qaraafi with, that it's correct and that its background to their conclusion originated from the Mu'tazilah then influenced later the Ashaa'irah, that which confirms this, where al-Qaraafi himself mentions this in al-Furooq:
Ignorance, which the Legislator has not overlooked in the Shari'ah, is not excused in its commission. The rule is that everything from which precaution is not difficult, and avoidance is not burdensome, is not excused. This type applies in the foundations of Deen, the principles of jurisprudence, and in some branches of fiqh. As for foundations of the Deen, because the Legislator has greatly emphasized all beliefs to the extent that if a person were to exert all efforts and utilize all his capabilities to remove ignorance regarding an Attribute of Allah or something that must be believed in from the foundations of the Deen, and still fails to eliminate that ignorance, he would be sinful and considered a kaafir, doomed to eternal damnation according to the well-known madhhab...
As stated, this is not the position of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. To continue his statement, he went as far as to say:
even though he has reached the limit of his effort, and the ignorance has become unavoidable for him, so much so that this situation seems to fall under the category of being tasked with what is unbearable. Moreover, he is burdened with the proofs of monotheism and the intricacies of foundations of the Deen...
In other words, he suggests that Allah is imposing a burden of responsibility that we cannot bear. How could they utter such things? It's due to 'Ilm al-Kalaam. This represents their understanding of Tawheed, which greatly contrasts with our Ahlus-Sunnah understanding.
Where have shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and ibn Hazm clarified that what al-Qaraafi mentioned actually originated from the Mu'tazilah's opinions and so forth? Ibn Taymiyyah has addressed this in Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 19, pages 203 to 227, and also in Minhaaj as-Sunnah, volume 5, pages 84 to 124. Before continuing our discussion on whom they referenced Ijmaa' to, I want to add a relevant tangent. Those who share the same understanding as al-Qaraafi, namely the Mu'tazilah and Ashaa'irah, misinterpret the hadith of a man who doubted Allah's power to resurrect him in the Hereafter. Ibn Hazm and ibn Taymiyyah describe their interpretation as falsification, not just a mistake. Did ibn Hazm and ibn Taymiyyah explain why they termed it falsification? Unfortunately, they did not elaborate. I will provide the explanation: When the Mutakallimeen assert that mistakes and ignorance in matters of Usool ad-Deen constitute disbelief, this also applies to the knowledge of the seven Lofty Attributes of Allah that the Ashaa'irah affirm, such as al-Qudrah (Allah's power). Thus, when this hadith contradicted their foundational beliefs, they misinterpreted its meaning. This is why ibn Hazm and ibn Taymiyyah termed their misinterpretation as falsification. If you refer back to the explanations in hadith books, unfortunately, many are from Ashaa'irah and Maatureediyyah backgrounds. Although some of them are not deeply engrossed in 'Ilm al-Kalaam, they are significantly influenced by it. You would not believe how much they have falsified this hadith. Some from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah also did so, often citing this falsified meaning and claiming, "See, the 'ulama' disagreed on its interpretation." They are unaware that its background of misinterpretation stems from innovation and misguidance. Who among the Ahlus-Sunnah aligned with the correct interpretation as we mentioned? The first was ibn Qutaybah, a major imam in the Arabic language and one of the 'ulama' of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. The second is ibn 'Abdul-Barr, who listed all the previous 'ulama' who interpreted it similarly. Other 'ulama' include ibn Taymiyyah, ibnul-Qayyim, adh-Dhahabi, ibn Hazm, and many others. Thus, the early Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah are in agreement on its correct understanding. So, it's incorrect to say that there is disagreement concerning this hadith's interpretation, as the disagreement is not based on Sunni foundations but on foundations of bid'ah.
The second scholar referenced as having mentioned Ijmaa' is Abu Butayn, one of the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah. Did he actually mention Ijmaa'? Yes, but was it in the same context as our discussion? Clearly not. The reason for its misunderstanding again stems from a lack of awareness of ibn Jirjeesh's opinion. Firstly, ibn Jirjeesh's false interpretation of the statements of ibn Taymiyyah concerning our case includes six types of falsifications. Those interested in ibn Jirjeesh's statements can refer to Minhaaj Ta'sees by 'Abdul-Lateef, where he addresses and refutes ibn Jirjeesh's statements. Although Abu Butayn did not mention ibn Jirjeesh's statements, he provided refutations. Careful reading of the context and between the lines will reveal that the statements of ibn Jirjeesh align with what 'Abdul-Lateef included about ibn Jirjeesh's statements. Out of these six, one is predominantly focused on in the refutations against ibn Jirjeesh by the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah.
What did ibn Jirjeesh misinterpret in ibn Taymiyyah’s statements? He claimed that when the message reaches someone committing disbelief, we cannot declare takfeer against him until we are certain he discerns truth from falsehood, even in cases of shirk. Thereafter, if he still does not follow the truth, we can then declare takfeer. This suggests that we cannot declare takfeer against the ignorant even after the message has reached them; takfeer can only be declared against the "stubborn" (المعاند). This is the aspect that the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah primarily focused on in their refutations. Ibn Jirjeesh did not acknowledge that what the grave worshippers do is shirk, but rather suggested, hypothetically, if it were considered shirk, takfeer could not be declared against them according to ibn Taymiyyah's statements, until da'wah has been adequately given and the individuals can discern truth from falsehood but continue in shirk due to stubbornness. Then, takfeer can be declared.
It should be noted that ibn Jirjeesh was a student of Abu Butayn. When Abu Butayn clarified these matters in his refutation, he used different terminologies compared to how other 'ulama' traditionally used these terms. This has led to some confusion and misunderstandings about what he was stating, as if Abu Butayn is contradicting himself at some points, unless one understands the context I will mention, insha'Allah.
Before discussing what Abu Butayn said, it's necessary to provide a brief introduction to morphology ("الصرف") and grammar. In grammar, some nouns ("اسم") and nominal sentences ("جملة الإسمية") start in a way that indicates persistence of the subject being discussed, unlike verbs and verb-based sentences, which do not necessarily imply persistence but can indicate repetition—yes, but not persistence. Abu Butayn makes a distinction between the noun "جاهل" and the verb "جهل"; according to him, there is a difference between "لا أكفر الجاهل" (I do not declare the ignorant one a disbeliever) and "لا أكفر الرجل لأنه جهل" (I do not declare the man a disbeliever because he was ignorant). He considers "الجاهل" (the ignorant one), a noun, as denoting a persistent state that cannot be lifted. Therefore, he believes that whether the message reached them or not, one cannot declare takfeer against someone persistently described as ignorant. This principle underlies his refutation of ibn Jirjeesh's statements. However, Abu Butayn does not dispute the use of a verb, as in "لأنه جهل" (because he was ignorant), suggesting that ignorance can be transient and lifted once the message reaches the individual. Here, he aligns with ibn Taymiyyah's position: he refutes the first assertion (persistent ignorance) as not representative of ibn Taymiyyah but accepts the second (transient ignorance) as consistent with ibn Taymiyyah's views. The controversy arises with ibn Jirjeesh’s interpretation, which Abu Butayn criticizes while affirming the latter point. Consequently, Abu Butayn states there is consensus against declaring takfeer on the "جاهل", "متأول", "مقلد", and others characterized by persistent nouns, and asserts that denying the possibility of lifting such states contradicts the consensus. Unfortunately, those unfamiliar with ibn Jirjeesh's opinion and Abu Butayn's style of expression—and the distinction between persistent and transient descriptors—might misinterpret Abu Butayn's statements, leading to widespread misunderstanding. These concepts are complex in English but can be referenced and understood more clearly in Arabic. Here are the following sources that demonstrate what we have discussed:
When one reads through them and pays attention to what was said, it becomes easy to see through them. Otherwise, misunderstandings occur if one is not aware of their contexts.
This confirms our case, which is clearly evident in "al-Intisaar Li Hizbillah al-Muwahhideen" by Abu Butayn. In this work, he discusses the stance of ibn Taymiyyah on not declaring takfeer against someone ignorant until the message reaches them, noting that this is the position of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah regarding shirk. Abu Butayn then states that, in his opinion, this is not the correct view, and mentions that most 'ulama' hold a different view. He does not claim consensus (Ijmaa') but specifies "most of the 'ulama'". The supposed Ijmaa' he refers to concerns the statements of ibn Jirjeesh. Despite acknowledging that there is disagreement on this issue, he admits that ibn Taymiyyah's position contrasts with his own. However, when presenting his evidence, Abu Butayn asserts that the texts are general and then references statements about shirk and mushrikeen, among others, claiming there are no exceptions. This suggests that his interpretation of the texts is based on a false principle of usool al-fiqh, one which ibn Taymiyyah himself refuted as we had discussed before. This approach neither aligns with how the Salaf interpreted the texts nor is it supported by the principles of the Arabic language.
In the beginning, we said that shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab shares the same opinion as shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, in which he stated that one cannot declare takfeer against an individual until the message has reached them. Unfortunately, just as some Ahlus-Sunnah misunderstood and unknowingly falsified the statements of ibn Taymiyyah, they have also done that to the statements of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab. Does this mean that Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab has exactly the same, one hundred percent, the same opinion as ibn Taymiyyah? The answer is clearly no. Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, his children, and his students consider one not as a Muslim nor kaafir but as a mushrik pertaining to our topic. Though, this last opinion mentioned, we will insha'Allah elaborate on it later. What we will discuss now is the part that he agrees with shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. This contrasts with the claim of the later 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah as well as some of the contemporary 'ulama'.
The statements of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab are otherwise very clear. For instance, he clearly distances himself from declaring takfeer against the ignorant whom the message has not reached, and there are four statements on that. Additionally, in other statements, he affirms that he declares takfeer against those to whom the message has reached, specifically in instances where they can discern what Tawheed and shirk are, with three statements supporting this view. In other cases, he combines the two approaches, disproving one aspect and affirming another, with two statements on that. As you can see, it’s a clear matter that confirms our case.
Some of these points are mentioned in the following sources:
I will bring up some of the texts; for example, he said in the third letter:
"As for what the enemies have accused me of—that I declare takfeer based on suspicion, [minor] allegiance, or against the ignorant upon whom the proof has not been established—this is a great slander, intended to turn people away from the Deen of Allah and His Messenger."
Elsewhere, he said:
The Shareef [i.e., one of the descendants of the Prophet ﷺ] asked me about what we fight for and what causes us to declare a man a disbeliever. I told him the truth and clarified the lies used by the enemies to slander us; he then asked me to write it down for him.
After describing the types of people, he said in page 11:
Regarding the lies and slander, they are like their claim that we declare takfeer generally, and that we obligate migration to us for those who can openly practice their Deen, and that we declare takfeer on those who do not declare others disbelievers or who do not fight. All of this, and much more besides, are lies and slander meant to deter people from the Deen of Allah and His Messenger. If we do not declare takfeer on those who worship the idol on the grave 'of Abdul-Qaadir, or the idol on the grave of Ahmad al-Badawi, and others like them, because of their ignorance and the lack of someone to enlighten them, then how can we declare takfeer on someone who does not commit shirk with Allah if they do not migrate to us, do not declare takfeer, and do not fight? "Glory be to You, this is a gross slander." (cf. an-Noor 24:16)
He said in the tenth letter:
We only declare someone a disbeliever who associates partners with Allah in His divinity, after we have clarified to them the proof of the invalidity of associating partners.
In many sources, he clearly stated that he does not declare general takfeer "تكفير بالعموم," meaning against every individual. Where does this understanding come from? From his own two children, as stated in "الدرر السنية":
And those who hear the words of the shaykh, in his saying: "We do not declare takfeer generally," the difference between general and specific is clear. General takfeer means to declare all people disbelievers, whether they are knowledgeable or ignorant, and whether the proof has been established against them or not; whereas specific takfeer is: not to declare anyone a disbeliever unless the proof of the message, which condemns those who oppose it, has been established against them.
As you can see, those who attribute certain views to shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab clearly contradict him and what his children have said about their understanding of their father's teachings.
Who else among the 'ulama' confirms what we have discussed? Additionally, where do they disprove that shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab declares takfeer against every individual, specifically and indiscriminately, as some allege? One of them is 'Abdul-Lateef ibn 'Abdurrahman, along with his sons 'Abdullah and Ibraaheem, and Sulayman ibn Sahmaan, who are all students of 'Abdul-Lateef. 'Abdul-Lateef mentioned this in his works "منهاج التأسيسمم", pages 222-223, and in "مصباح الظلام", volume 3, pages 498-503. 'Abdullah and Ibraaheem made a mutual answer in "الدرر السنية", volume 10, pages 434-435. Sulayman ibn Sahmaan stated this in his book "الضياء الشارق, page 372.
Those who have misrepresented the statements and opinions of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, what has led to these distortions? Again, there is a particular statement that was misunderstood, similar to how some statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah have been misconstrued. The contentious statement is found in letter thirty-six, which is quite lengthy; we will focus on the most crucial parts. Before delving into this, what is the context? It concerns some shuyookh, may Allah protect us from misguidance, who acknowledged that what shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab advocated—Tawheed, and that grave worship is shirk—is indeed the da'wah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). However, because shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and his followers were few and the grave worshippers were many and considered them as the Ummah, these shuyookh labeled the shaykh and his followers as Khawaarij and sided with the grave worshippers in their war against the monotheists. Consequently, shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab declared takfeer against them. He clarified in another fatwa that this takfeer was not merely because they waged war but because they recognized and could discern Tawheed from shirk, yet chose to side with the mushrikeen, which was the basis for declaring takfeer against them. Unfortunately, some people disregard some of his words as though merely waging war against the monotheists justifies declaring takfeer against them; this is actually a viewpoint held by the Khawaarij. That Muslims can wage war against each other can occur, and it does not constitute disbelief. The critical issue here is not merely about waging war; rather, it concerns their awareness that the grave worshippers advocate for shirk, and the battle was fundamentally for that cause. One man, who greatly admired shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and his da'wah, maintained contact with the shaykh but was perplexed as to why he declared them disbelievers. He encountered some statements by shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, which mentioned conditions about whether the message has reached the individuals. It was clear that these shuyookh had received the message and acknowledged it. However, lacking knowledge, the man wrote to shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab seeking clarification. It's evident that he considered the positions of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah erroneous. Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab addressed this issue in his response to the man, and I will highlight a specific statement that has been a source of confusion and misunderstanding. He responded as follows:
Afterward, what you mentioned from the shaykh's saying: "Anyone who denies such and such," upon whom the proof has been established, and you are uncertain about these tawaagheet and their followers, whether the proof has been established upon them, is truly astonishing. How can you doubt this when I have clarified it to you repeatedly? Those upon whom the proof has not been established are those new to Islam, those raised in remote deserts, or it may concern an obscure issue, like exchange and conjunction, and should not be declared disbelievers until it is explained to them; but as for the foundations of the Deen which Allah has clarified and perfected in His Book, the proof of Allah is the Qur'an. So, whoever the Qur'an has reached, the proof has reached him. However, the basic problem is that you have not distinguished between the establishment of the proof and the understanding of the proof; for most of the disbelievers and the hypocrites among the Muslims did not understand Allah's proof despite its establishment over them, as the Most High says:
أَمْ تَحْسَبُ أَنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ أَوْ يَعْقِلُونَ إِنْ هُمْ إِلاَّ كَالأَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ سَبِيلاً
"Or do you think that most of them hear or understand? They are only like cattle - nay, they are even farther astray from the Path (i.e. even worse than cattle)." (Al-Furqaan 25:44)
The establishment of the proof is one thing, and its reaching them is another, and it has been established upon them, but their understanding of it is another matter, and their disbelief for its having reached them even if they do not understand it. If this is unclear to you, consider what he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said about the Khawaarij: "Wherever you find them, kill them."
After that, he discussed those people who admitted that his call represented the da'wah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the Deen of Allah, aside from matters of takfeer and war, as I have already explained.
For the quote above from shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, it seems to contradict his other statements. What do 'ulama' normally do in such instances? First, they differentiate between "محكم" (clear) and "متشابه" (ambiguous), akin to the distinctions found in the Qur'an. This distinction also applies to scholars' statements, where some are clear and others are ambiguous. They analyze these to seek clarification. One of the most egregious errors made by contemporary discussants on this issue is selecting clear ("محكم") texts that suit their understanding, while ignoring ambiguous ("متشابه") texts because they contradict their views. This error is common among both groups: those who acknowledge and those who deny the excuse of ignorance. Unfortunately, only a few can accurately identify what constitutes "محكم" and "متشابه" in detail, demonstrating that something is ambiguous with evidence in the Arabic language, rather than merely making unsubstantiated claims. The statements of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab that we have presented contain more clear than ambiguous statements, though there is only one truly ambiguous statement. This shows what "محكم" is. Secondly, 'ulama' from the Da'wah an-Najdiyyah, including his children and others, confirm these statements. Thirdly, he himself stated that he was telling the truth and refuting falsehoods, as the man in the letter inquired about. If this is not "محكم," then what is? The last piece of evidence is from 'Abdul-Lateef and his two sons, as well as Sulayman ibn Sahmaan, all supporting our case. When they discussed shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab’s opinion, what led them to this conclusion? It was the misinformation that he indiscriminately makes takfeer, among other accusations. This prompted a clarification that the discussion should focus on whether the message has reached the individuals. This all confirms what is considered "محكم". Next, I will illustrate why this text is considered "متشابه" and will present some statements to show their ambiguity.
The first point:
Those upon whom the proof has not been established are those new to Islam, those raised in remote deserts, or it may concern an obscure issue, like exchange and conjunction, and should not be declared disbelievers until it is explained to them; but as for the foundations of the Deen
Here, we see both general and specific exceptions. The question arises: what is considered general and what is an exception? If the statement about new converts and those living far away is general, then it should be understood as follows: one cannot declare takfeer against new converts or Bedouins living in remote areas due to their ignorance, except when it concerns the foundations of the Deen, in which case we will declare takfeer. This is the first point. When do we apply this? It's when we consider the initial part as general and the latter as the exception. However, it can also be interpreted the other way around. If one considers Usool ad-Deen as general and the rest as specific, it implies that takfeer is declared regarding Usool ad-Deen, except for new converts or Bedouins who live far away. The question then becomes which part is general and which is specific? To answer this, we refer back to usool al-fiqh, where some scholars outline principles that help discern what is general and what is specific. This ambiguity illustrates that the statement is not straightforward.
The second point:
So, whoever the Qur'an has reached, the proof has reached him.
Does this imply that as long as we possess the Qur'an and recite it, the proof (hujjah) has reached us regardless of the subject matter or circumstances? Or does it mean that once 'ulama' present the Ayat of the Qur'an with explanations, then the proof has reached? These are the two possibilities. Is this mentioned in the Qur'an? Yes:
وَأُوحِىَ إِلَىَّ هَـٰذَا ٱلْقُرْءَانُ لِأُنذِرَكُم بِهِۦ وَمَنۢ بَلَغَ
"... And this Qur’ān was revealed to me that I may warn you thereby and whomever it reaches..." (Al-An'aam 6:19)
لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ
"... that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them..." (An-Nahl 16:44)
It is also stated in the hadith that 'ulama' are the inheritors of the prophets. This further indicates that the statement is ambiguous.
The third point:
the basic problem is that you have not distinguished between the establishment of the proof and the understanding of the proof
The issue here is what "understanding of the proof" entails. Does it refer to understanding the language, or what type of understanding are we discussing? Does this mean that if someone does not understand the Arabic language and the Qur'an has reached him, the message has reached him and now he is a disbeliever? In Arabic, "understanding" has two meanings: the first is the linguistic understanding, like comprehending what was communicated to you; the second is the ability to discern truth from falsehood. As you can see, this is also ambiguous. This specific sentence has caused confusion and misunderstanding among the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah. Who mentioned this? It was Muhammad Rasheed Ridha in his commentary "مجموعة الرسائل والمسائل النجدية", volume 5, on pages 515 and 638, where there was a debate about it.
We will now clarify the points and how they should be understood. The first point, concerning what is general and what is specific, "Usool ad-Deen" is a plural term, unlike the other types mentioned, which indicates that Usool ad-Deen is general. "Usool" here is an indefinite plural connected to something that indicates it's general. According to usool al-fiqh, this should be understood as general, and we do not take ignorance into consideration unless it concerns new converts and those who live far away. So, it’s about whether knowledge has reached them or not. In reality, shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab used concepts known among the fuqahaa', and many have mentioned Ijmaa' on them, such as matters of what is necessarily known of the Deen, then ignorance is not taken into consideration unless it concerns new converts and those who live far away. Hence, they say what is necessarily known of the Deen is something widespread in the cities. Remember, shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab here discusses the shuyookh who admit what Tawheed and shirk are, and who admits who's right and wrong. This was not a general speech but a refutation against some specifics. Many, unfortunately, don’t pay attention to the details and the context.
The second point, which confirms that shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab did not mean "the Qur'an has reached them" in a literal sense, is important to remember in context. He stated, "and should not be declared disbelievers until it is explained to them." Furthermore, those he referred to were shuyookh who knew the truth from the Qur'an. Such individuals with knowledge do not require further explanation from 'ulama' as they can discern truth from falsehood. Thus, in this instance, the Qur'an itself serves as proof. Otherwise, explanations of the Qur'an by the 'ulama' are for those who cannot discern what is correct.
The third point, as we have previously mentioned, concerns the emphasis of the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah in their refutations. Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab dealt with people who were capable of discerning truth from falsehood, as evidenced by his references to "most of the disbelievers and the hypocrites among the Muslims." Who were these disbelievers? They were primarily Arabs, fluent in Arabic. Thus, the issue is not the language per se, as even the early Khawaarij were Arabs. The crux of our discussion is their ability to discern truth from falsehood. What shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab refutes is the notion that "you cannot declare takfeer unless the person in question is stubborn." Here, the implication is that there can be no stubbornness after the truth has been understood and acknowledged; if one still does not follow the truth, it can only be due to stubbornness.
Concerning "فهم الحجة" (understanding the proof) and "قيام الحجة" (establishment of the proof), their meanings can be discerned from the context of their statements:
The best evidence for this is provided by Sulayman ibn Sahmaan, who cited what his shaykh, 'Abdul-Lateef, said about the difference between "فهم الحجة" (understanding the proof) and "قيام الحجة" (establishment of the proof). This can be found in "كشف الشبهتين," pages 91-92, and it precisely confirms what we have discussed. He stated:
Our shaykh, shaykh 'Abdul-Lateef (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "It should be understood that there is a difference between the establishment of the proof ('qiyaam al-hujjah') and the understanding of the proof ('fahm al-hujjah'). The proof is established for anyone whom the call of the messengers has reached if it is in a manner that allows for knowledge to be possible..."
I say: The meaning of his statement (may Allah have mercy on him) "if it is in a manner that allows for knowledge" implies that it does not include those who are devoid of reason and discernment, like children and the insane, or those who cannot understand the language and no interpreter is present to translate for them, and others like these.
Lastly, Insha'Allah, in our next discussion, we will explore statements from the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah which affirm that the "establishment of the proof" ('qiyaam al-hujjah') occurs through 'ulama' for those who cannot discern what the Qur'an conveys. We will reference statements from the children of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, Sulayman ibn Sahmaan, as well as other statements from Ibn Hazm and ibn Taymiyyah. These will illustrate that the establishment of the proof applies to those who, despite speaking Arabic, cannot understand or discern the Qur'an's teachings. This requires explanation from the 'ulama'; only then one can assert that the message has truly reached them.
This is the final part discussing the excuse of ignorance in major shirk during worship. We have explored the teachings of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab concerning the foundations of the Deen, highlighting the difference between the establishment of proof, which refers to whether the message reaches others, and the understanding of the proof, which involves grasping the content of the message. We have identified three ambiguous points that are often misunderstood by many. This misunderstanding has led to attributing to him opinions that contradict numerous other statements. This situation resembles the interpretation of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah's statements on apparent and hidden matters.
Previously, we discussed shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab's statements and clarified ambiguous ones, explaining the possible interpretations in the Arabic language and establishing the correct understanding through the explanations of his children and other 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah. Unlike most, who only adopt clear statements that suit them and dismiss those that would clarify certain points as ambiguous without any elaboration or detailed explanation, we have delved deeper, as these omissions often stem from contradictions to their own views.
Moreover, there is the issue of falsely claiming that there is no excuse for ignorance, leading to the erroneous belief that someone who commits shirk out of ignorance should be considered a disbeliever on an individual basis, according to them. We have demonstrated that this is not the view of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab. Just as in other cases, our arguments are not personal interpretations, but they are actually well-supported within his school, accurately reflecting the intended meaning of his statements.
We will continue to bring forward other statements. 'Abdullah and Ibraaheem, two brothers and sons of 'Abdul-Lateef, along with Sulayman ibn Sahmaan, a major student of 'Abdul-Lateef, have written a joint letter. In it, they explain the opinions of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab on this topic, as well as on takfeer in general. These views are documented in "الدرر السنية", volume 10, pages 433-435. They stated that he does not declare takfeer against those who commit shirk due to their ignorance and because the message has not reached them. To quote some of it:
"As for what he said about shaykh Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on him) he does not declare takfeer against those who follow the Qubbat al-Kawwaaz or the like, nor does he declare takfeer against the idolater until he calls him and the proof reaches him. It is said: Yes; for shaykh Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on him) did not initially declare takfeer against people until after the establishment of the proof and the call."
After that, they also explain texts that are often misunderstood by others. Unlike the common assumption that possession of the Qur'an implies the proof has reached someone, shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab emphasized whether the da'wah had reached the individual. During his time, the Qur'an was already widespread in the Arabian Peninsula; thus, his focus was on the reach of the da'wah. This supports our earlier statements on how his teachings should be understood and interpreted, confirming that our explanation aligns accurately with what his school has explained.
We will now bring up two other statements that also belong to shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, which are often misunderstood. One is found in Kashf ash-Shubuhaat and the other in Nawaaqid al-Islam. These two are more widespread than the other statements we have previously mentioned. Concerning what is stated in Kashf ash-Shubuhaat, he said (may Allah have mercy upon him):
"A person may become a disbeliever by uttering a word that comes from his tongue, and he might say it while he is ignorant; thus, he is not excused due to ignorance."
(Source)
Some have interpreted this to mean that shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab does not take ignorance into account. Firstly, if their interpretation were correct, it would apply not only to shirk but to all forms of disbelief, which contradicts the consensus of the 'ulama'. Secondly, those who have taken the texts at face value and explained them accordingly, without considering the specific context in which the shaykh was speaking, especially in other sources, have fallen into a similar error warned against by shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah.
"... Taking the opinions of fuqahaa' from general statements without referring to their explanations and the implications of their principles leads to reprehensible positions."
(Source)
Those who interpreted the texts of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab literally, assuming he does not consider ignorance as a barrier to declaring takfeer against an individual in cases of shirk, have adopted the same reprehensible doctrines. What supports this conclusion? First, what was shaykhul-Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab discussing? He refers to a point he made in the introduction of the same book, highlighting that merely uttering the testimony of faith and being a Muslim does not immunize one from errors such as apostasy and disbelief. Why did he mention this? During his time, some falsely believed that as long as one has professed the testimony of faith and is a Muslim, one cannot apostate or become a disbeliever unless one converts to other religions such as Christianity or Judaism. This misconception was so prevalent that shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab wrote a letter to refute it, titled "مفيد المستفيد في كفر تارك التوحيد" (Beneficial Aid for the Believer in Understanding the Disbelief of Those Who Abandon Monotheism). Who referenced this letter? It was shaykh Muhammad Ibraaheem Aal ash-Shaykh, under whom shaykh ibn Baaz studied for ten years. Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab only mentioned this in the introduction, as "Kashf ash-Shubuhaat" primarily discusses a specific factor nullifying Islam, which is shirk, whereas "Mufeed al-Mustafeed" deals with all forms of disbelief. The book aims to clarify doubts and misconceptions prevalent at his time regarding grave worship, which is shirk. So, what exactly is he referring to in "Kashf ash-Shubuhaat"? Before this, had other 'ulama' addressed the same issues? The answer is yes; not just one or two, but countless fuqahaa' across all the madhhabs—Hanafi, Shaafi'ee, Maaliki, and Hanbali—which are discussed in the books of fiqh under the chapter on the ruling of apostasy. Many fuqahaa' have stated the exact same thing he did. Again, if we were to take statements from the fuqahaa' without any context, people could fall into the same mistake mentioned in "Kashf ash-Shubuhaat," which involves taking words at face value without understanding their context. So, what was shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab referring to? It was a very specific case of blaspheming Allah, His Deen, the prophets, and such, similar to what was mentioned in the Ayat:
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 disbelieved after you had believed... (At-Tawbah 9:65-66)
Concerning this specific matter, many fuqahaa' mention in their fiqhi books that one can utter a statement and thereby exit the fold of Islam, where ignorance is not taken into account. This issue is specific, but it contrasts with other topics.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab mentioned in "Kashf ash-Shubuhaat" concerning a tree called Dhaat Anwaat. This incident took place during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) at Ghazwat al-Hunayn. The Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) saw the Mushrikeen hanging their swords on the tree and seeking blessings from it, saying, "Make for us a Dhaat Anwaat." The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) became very angry and told them: "This is like the statement of the Banu Israa'eel to Musa: {Make for us a god}." This hadith was reported by Ahmad (21897), and at-Tirmidhi (2180), who said: "This hadith is hasan saheeh."
Did the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) commit shirk akbar? There was some disagreement among 'ulama' on this. The strongest position is that it was not shirk akbar. Among those who stated that it was not shirk akbar were imam ash-Shaatibi al-Maaliki and shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah in his book "اقتضاء الصراط المستقيم". Additionally, 'Abdullah, the son of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, maintained that this was the agreement among the 'ulama', that the actions of the Sahaabah were not shirk. How can this be, considering that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) likened their actions to those of the Banu Israa'eel, who committed major shirk? The answer is that what the Sahaabah requested was not the same as what the Banu Israa'eel requested but had a superficial resemblance. How so? The question they asked was similar to that posed by 'Umar ibnul-Khattaab regarding whether one could pray behind Maqaam Ibraaheem. The reason for 'Umar's question was to follow the path of Ibraaheem (peace be upon him). What the Sahaabah asked about was following the path of the mushrikeen, and they did not ask to seek blessings directly from the tree. In other words, what they were saying was akin to, "Oh Prophet, ask Allah to bless a tree where we can hang our swords so that we may receive blessings from Allah." Therefore, their question was comparable to that of the mushrikeen, which is why they were criticized by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). The word the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used was "كما" ("as"), a simile, suggesting a resemblance to the narration concerning those unable to stop drinking alcohol being likened to "كعابد الوثن" ("like an idol worshiper"). (Source) Early 'ulama' thus say it was not major shirk, contrasting with the request of the Banu Israa'eel. What were shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab’s views on this specific matter? He held two opinions. One aligned with ash-Shaatibi and ibn Taymiyyah, as stated in his book "Kitaab at-Tawheed". The other opinion was that he considered what the Sahaabah asked about to be major shirk, directly comparable to what the Banu Israa'eel had requested, which he expressed in "Kashf ash-Shubuhaat". However, Abu Butayn and 'Abdurrahman ibn Hasan later shared this view but did not consider the Sahaabah to have committed major shirk. Why? Because they viewed it as merely an erroneous question, not something that was followed up with action. This consideration is similar to the hadith where a young man asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) for permission to commit zina. (Source) In Arabic, this is called "التعدي في السئال" (excessive or inappropriate questioning).
Why did I mention all this? Because this is what shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab was referring to, confirming that the text which was misunderstood was not meant generally but rather literally, when considered in context. He states the following:
"However, this story teaches that a Muslim—even an 'aalim—may fall into types of shirk unknowingly. It emphasizes the importance of learning and caution, and understanding that the ignorant person’s statement, 'We have understood Tawheed,' is among the greatest ignorance and one of Shaytan’s traps. It also teaches that if a diligent Muslim unknowingly speaks words of disbelief, and is then alerted to this and repents immediately, he does not become a disbeliever; as was the case with the Banu Israa'eel and those who asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Moreover, if he does not become a disbeliever, his words will still be sternly admonished, as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did."
According to the second opinion of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, it is confirmed that what they spoke about was indeed disbelief, but it was done unknowingly. After being admonished, they repented, and therefore, they were not considered to have left the fold of Islam. This confirms that the initial statement should not be taken generally, nor should it be understood as though the shaykh does not take ignorance into account in cases of disbelief or shirk at all.
The second text belongs to his son 'Abdullah which is stated in "مجموعة الرسائل والمسائل النجدية", volume 1, page 248:
So we say: If a person who believes in Allah and His Messenger does something that is considered disbelief, or says something that is considered disbelief, or holds a belief that is considered disbelief out of ignorance of what Allah sent His Messenger with (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) then we do not consider this person to be a disbeliever. We do not judge them as a disbeliever until the prophetic proof, which one is considered a disbeliever for rejecting, has been established against them. If the proof has been established against them, and what the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) brought has been made clear to them, and they persist in doing that after the proof has been established, then this is when they are considered a disbeliever. This is because disbelief is defined as opposing the Book of God and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and this is a point of consensus among scholars in general.
So the sentences we initially started with, which have been misunderstood by some, should not be understood literally. Similarly, Abu Butayn has also clarified this in "الدرر السنية", volume 10, page 419, and this statement is the most clear:
He was also asked: Abdullah ibn 'Abdul-Rahman Aba Butayn, about the statement of as-San'aani: "It does not benefit one who commits shirk to say: I do not associate partners with Allah...etc." He replied, meaning: If one commits shirk, they are a mushrik, even if they call it by another name and deny it about themselves.
And his statement: The fuqahaa' have clearly stated in their books that whoever speaks a word of disbelief becomes a disbeliever, even if they do not intend its meaning. What they mean by that is: Whoever speaks words of disbelief, whether jokingly or in jest—and this is a common expression among them—saying: Whoever speaks or acts in a manner that clearly mocks the Deen, even if joking, due to the Ayah of Allah:
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 disbelieved after you had believed... (At-Tawbah 9:65-66)
As for one who speaks a word of disbelief, not knowing it is disbelief, and is then informed and repents, he is not judged as a disbeliever, like those who said: Make for us a Dhaat Anwaat, just as they have a Dhaat Anwaat. And his statement: They became disbelievers with original disbelief, meaning: They were raised upon that, so their judgment is not the same as that of apostates who were Muslims and then committed these acts of shirk.
This confirms that shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab's statements should not be understood generally or taken literally without context.
Imam ibnul-Qayyim had expressed similarly in "إعلام الموقعين", volume 4, page 447 [note: editions may vary]:
If someone utters a word of disbelief without knowing its meaning, they do not become a disbeliever.
Another statement by shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, found in Nawaaqid al-Islam, discusses the nullifications of Islam that were widespread during his time:
There is no difference in all of these nullifications between someone who is joking or serious, or someone who is fearful, except for one who is coerced.
Those who cite this text argue that the shaykh did not mention ignorance among the exceptions. The answer is that those who bring this up have not even understood what the shaykh is referring to. The shaykh is referring to this Ayah:
مَن كَفَرَ بِٱللَّهِ مِنۢ بَعْدِ إِيمَـٰنِهِۦٓ إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُۥ مُطْمَئِنٌّۢ بِٱلْإِيمَـٰنِ
"Whoever disbelieved in Allâh after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith..." (An-Nahl 16:106)
This is what the shaykh is referring to. He is not talking about those who commit disbelief out of ignorance but rather those who are aware of what they are doing. There are four scenarios in this context: one was joking despite not meaning it, the second did so seriously, the third was afraid but not coerced, and the fourth was coerced. The last of them is the one who is excused. There is agreement among all the 'ulama' on this matter. No one has the right to show disbelief, despite not meaning it in one's heart, except under coercion. The Ayah above proves this, as does the Ijmaa' mentioned by ibn Hazm, ibn Taymiyyah, and ibnul-Qayyim. This is what shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab talked about. The context was not at all about whether one is ignorant or not. What confirms this is the following: one of the points the shaykh mentioned in his book Nawaaqid al-Islam was witchcraft (السحر), and he said:
The seventh: witchcraft, which includes spells for separation and love. Whoever practices it or is pleased with it has committed disbelief.
Elsewhere, shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab made it very clear that witchcraft, which includes spells for separation and love, is among the hidden matters where one cannot declare takfeer against an individual until it is clarified for the person and they become aware of what they are doing. What does this mean? According to this madhhab and understanding of hidden matters, one cannot declare takfeer against an individual and must take ignorance into consideration. This again confirms that shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab was not addressing ignorance at all in the context previously mentioned.
Insha'Allah, our upcoming discussion will be about two well-known opinions among the contemporary 'ulama' and students, who unfortunately were not aware of the differences between the opinion of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and the opinions of the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah. They also were unaware that the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah held two differing opinions, not a single, uniform opinion. This misunderstanding led them to interpret the position of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah incorrectly.
There are two falsifications of the statements of ibn Taymiyyah. I say falsifications despite the fact that these were not done deliberately, because one should be aware that they are gravely mistaken. Insha'Allah, we will refute these two falsifications. Since we have already covered all the previous misconceptions and misunderstandings, the upcoming discussion will be much clearer.
If someone says, "It's not clear to me as there are three opinions," we will address them later. First of all, what are these three opinions in general? We will present each opinion individually and elucidate where they agree and disagree.
The opinion of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah is shared by several notable scholars, including ibn Hazm, Abu Bakr ibn al-'Arabi al-Maaliki, adh-Dhahabi, al-Aloosi, al-Qaasimi, al-Mu'allami, 'Abdurrazzaaq 'Afeefi, as-Sa'di, al-'Uthaymeen, and others among our 'ulama'. They hold the following opinion: if someone falls into shirk due to ignorance, takfeer (declaring them a disbeliever) should not be pronounced until the message has reached them.
How does the message reach them? There are two different situations:
What is the status of a person who falls into shirk due to ignorance and is not called a kaafir? They are still considered a Muslim because people are either Muslims or kaafirs; there is no intermediate category. If someone asks about the status of a munaafiq, according to outward appearances, they are treated as Muslims.
This is the position of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah.
The second opinion is from shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and his school, which includes his children and his students. Among the contemporary 'ulama' who share this opinion are 'Ali al-Khudayr, and it appears that Hamood al-'Uqlaa' ash-Shu'aybi also shares this opinion. They say exactly the same as what shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah is saying except for one point: when they don't declare takfeer against an individual due to ignorance, they don't consider him a Muslim, unfortunately. Instead, they consider such individuals as mushrik but neither Muslim nor kaafir. We have already explained before that this opinion is clearly weak and invalid. It resembles the opinion of the Mu'tazilah, as it introduces a mistaken fourth category aside from Muslim, kaafir, and munaafiq.
This is the opinion of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and his students.
Concerning the third opinion, which is an extension of the first and second opinions, this is what Abu Butayn and Ishaaq hold, along with ash-Shawkani and many contemporary 'ulama' like Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem Aal ash-Shaykh, ibn Baaz, ibn Jibreen, and many others. They say that for those who commit shirk, ignorance is not taken into consideration; they are considered as original kuffaar. They are considered as such similar to how the ignorance of the original disbelievers is not taken into consideration, and it does not matter if they had a Muslim background. They are all considered disbelievers on an individual basis.
What about the message? They assert that the message has already reached them. They consider all of them as being required to learn about the message, which is why they don't take ignorance into consideration and declare takfeer against individuals who commit shirk in worship. This not only contradicts the position of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah but also the opinions of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and his students. Remember, how does the message reach? It's when people are not able to understand what it says in the Qur'an, as they are not the same as the early Arabs. It requires the da'wah of the 'ulama', which includes their interpretations and explanations of what it says in the Qur'an.
That's why we have said that the school of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah, the school of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, does not have a shared and uniform opinion but rather two differing opinions. Unfortunately, countless people are unaware of this and believe that they all have a shared opinion. Insha'Allah, we will later explore the texts that prove they do not have a shared opinion.
In regards to the position of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and his statements, we have already covered that. In regards to the statements of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, we have also already covered that. What are we missing now? This clarifies the two differing opinions of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah and concerns the understanding of how the message reaches people. Insha'Allah, we will examine many texts that clearly confirm the differences, showing the two opinions and that they don't have one shared opinion, as many have assumed. Previously, we have read the texts of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab which confirm that the message reaches people first through da'wah, making things clear to them. As he said, they don't declare takfeer because others have not made it clear for people. Before mentioning their statements, has Allah not said:
لِأُنذِرَكُم بِهِۦ وَمَنۢ بَلَغَ
"... that I may warn you thereby and whomever it reaches..." (Al-An'aam 6:19)
Yes, the Qur'an itself contains the evidence, and when the Qur'an reaches people, the message has reached them. This is correct, but it depends on understanding the message. For instance, those whose mother language is not Arabic will not necessarily understand the message just because they can read or recite the Qur'an. The message has not truly reached them until they understand what it says in the Qur'an. Similarly, non-Arabic speakers require a translation of the Qur'an's meaning. Even Arabic speakers, due to dialect differences, might not fully understand much of the Qur'an, requiring the 'ulama' to explain it to them. The Qur'an itself confirms this as Allah says:
لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ
"... that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them..." (An-Nahl 16:44)
And in the hadith:
إنَّ العلماء وَرَثَة الأنبياء
Indeed, the scholars are the inheritors of the prophets.
(Source)
That's why 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
لا تَخلو الأرضُ من قائِمٍ للَّهِ تعالى بحُجَّةٍ
"The earth is never without someone standing up for Allah Almighty as a proof."
(Source)
What about if we find someone who understood what it says in the Qur'an but despite that falls into shirk? Does this mean there will be no takfeer pronounced until an 'aalim explains to the individual? The answer is clearly no. Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab noted this when he declared takfeer against someone who admitted that their da'wah is the truth but instead sided with the grave worshippers in war against them. Those kinds of people are those whom the Qur'an has reached.
Insha'Allah, we will now read many statements from 'ulama' who affirm that the message reaches through 'ulama'. The son of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, 'Abdullah, says in "مجموعة الرسائل والمسائل النجدية", volume 1, page 248:
And whoever the Qur'an has reached, then the proof has been established against them by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
If someone asks, "Does this not contradict what you said earlier?" No, read what the following text says:
However, the ignorant person needs someone from the people of knowledge to inform them of that. And Allah, Glorified and Exalted, knows best.
He also said:
If you say: "This applies to someone who was oblivious, but when alerted, he became aware. What is the ruling regarding someone who scrutinized the evidence, became acquainted with the words of the leading imams, and persisted in his stance until his death?" I would say: There is no impediment to excusing such a person, and we do not say that he is a disbeliever, nor do we say he is erroneous for what was mentioned previously, even if he persisted in his error. This is because there was no one to advocate for this issue during his time with their tongue, sword, or spear. Therefore, the proof was not established against him, nor was the clear path made evident to him. Rather, during the time of the aforementioned authors, there was generally an agreement to avoid the words of the imams of the Sunnah on this matter entirely. Those who came across it disregarded it before it could take root in their hearts. The elders among them continuously discouraged the younger ones from even looking into it, and the power of the kings was overwhelming for anyone who held anything of that in their hearts, except for those whom Allah willed otherwise.
(Source)
He also said in "الدرر السنية", volume 10, page 274:
However, in times of neglect and the prevalence of ignorance, a specific person is not declared a disbeliever because of that until the proof of the message is established against him, and it is made clear to him and he knows that this is the major shirk that Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. If the proof reaches him, and Ayat of the Qur'an and Prophetic hadiths are recited to him, and he then persists in his shirk, he is a disbeliever. This is different from someone who did that out of ignorance and was not alerted to it. The act of the ignorant person is disbelief, but he is not judged to be a disbeliever until the proof has reached him...
Shaykh 'Abdul-Lateef said in "مجموعة الرسائل والمسائل النجدية", volume 3, page 5. This letter is similar to what we see in this day and age, where some people have misunderstood the statements of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and have fallen into the opinions of the Khawaarij. 'Abdul-Lateef encountered these kinds of people in his time, and the latter is excellent. One of the things he said:
And I informed them of the shaykh's disavowal of this belief and doctrine. He does not declare anyone a disbeliever except for what the Muslims unanimously agree is an act of major shirk, disbelief in the signs of Allah and His Messengers, or any part of them, after the proof has been established and has reached the person in a manner considered valid.
What do we learn from this? In other words, it's not always the case that when someone talks to another person, saying, "Fear Allah! What you are doing is shirk!" or similar instances of forbidding what is evil and enjoining what is good, that it automatically means the message has been conveyed. No, it's not just from anyone. Insha'Allah, we will see later. Does this mean one cannot give advice or forbid the evil and enjoin the good? No, you should, in hopes that Allah saves him. Just keep in mind that it doesn't mean if this was from an ordinary person giving admonition that the message has been conveyed, despite the fact that what he did was correct and something he should do, in hopes of the other person recognizing his mistakes.
Shaykh 'Abdul-Lateef stated in his book "مصباح الظلام", volume 1, pages 206-208. The text is long, so I will only include the essential part of the point:
In summary, the proof in every era is established by the people of knowledge, the inheritors of the prophets.
An interesting side point concerning Shaykh 'Abdul-Lateef: He is an Azhari who taught at Al-Azhar for thirty years during the time of Muhammad 'Ali Pasha. He was kept under customs custody. 'Abdul-Lateef later returned to the Arabian Peninsula during the second phase of the establishment of the Saudi Kingdom (out of the three phases).
Sulayman ibn Sahmaan, the student of shaykh 'Abdul-Lateef, stated in "منهاج أهل الحق والاتباع", page 85:
As for the questioner’s statement: "Does every person establish the proof, or must there be someone skilled in establishing it upon those against whom it is established?" What appears to me – and Allah knows best – is that the proof is not established except by someone who is skilled in establishing it. As for someone who is not skilled in establishing it, such as an ignorant person who does not know the rulings of his Deen or what the 'ulama' have mentioned regarding that, the proof is not established by him, as far as I know. And Allah knows best.
And in his book "كشف الشبهتين", pages 76-77,
And al-Ikhwaan [i.e., those who follow the da'wah of shaykh ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab] from among the students of knowledge in Oman, their discussions are mainly about the Jahmiyyah, the grave worshippers, and the 'Ibaadiyyah. These groups are among the Muslims, in their lands, openly professing Islam, debating their doctrines, and arguing with the people of Islam. Thus, the proof has been established against them, and the message has reached them. They were not in distant places far from the Muslims, nor in times of neglect, nor did they grow up in remote deserts away from the Muslims...
The point here, according to Sulayman, is that the message reaches people through high-level students of knowledge who can discuss issues in a manner similar to how 'ulama' would do. Notice here, some who read those texts misunderstand it, assuming that when a Muslim lives in major cities, then the message has reached them, regardless of whether the city is large or small. If someone lives in a remote area, then the message has not reached them. Unfortunately, some assert these claims among people in this day and age, as they take the texts literally and are not even aware of what the 'ulama' are referring to or speaking about when they discuss these matters. They are unaware of the circumstances when those statements were made. During their times, major cities were known to have widespread knowledge. For example, if someone denies the five obligatory prayers or says that wine is halal, they would immediately say that this person is a disbeliever. However, if he comes from a remote place or has just recently converted to Islam, in that particular instance, they take his ignorance into account. It's usually like that. What about when an 'aalim lives in a village and teaches the people? Will they consider the people ignorant? Obviously, no. What about during those times when the major cities are under occupation by the kuffaar, like during the Tartar invasion or under communist rule, and then generations later, where ignorance is widespread? Can one still say it's a major city and ignorance cannot be taken into consideration? This assertion is far-fetched. This is similar to ibn Hazm's opinion on Qiyaas, as he doesn't take reasons and justifications into consideration.
These are parts of the statements from the school of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab.
Then there are two others, such as imam Abu Butayn and Ishaaq ibn 'Abdurrahman. Read carefully what they are saying. You will notice a clear contrast between them [imam Abu Butayn and Ishaaq versus the rest of the school], showing two opinions. Abu Butayn says in "الدرر السنية", volume 9, page 241 [note: publications may vary]:
However, it is sufficient in establishing the proof against them that they know the name of Islam and that Allah does not accept any religion from a person other than Islam. After that, it is up to them to learn about this Deen and to understand its attributes and characteristics.
(Relevant)
That's why Abu Butayn doesn't take ignorance into account in cases of shirk, and he pronounces takfeer on an individual basis. Regarding Ishaaq ibn 'Abdurrahman, he said, as mentioned in "فتاوى الأئمة النجدية", and I took this statement from "ضوابط تكفير المعين عند شيخي الإسلام ابن تيمية وابن عبد الوهاب وعلماء الدعوة الإصلاحية" page 54:
The point is that the proof has been established through the Messenger and the Quran. Thus, everyone who has heard of the Messenger and to whom the Quran has reached, the proof has been established against them. This is evident in the words of shaykhul-Islam.
And of course, as previously mentioned, this is a weak and mistaken opinion. Now we have confirmed those three opinions. What we will do now is address why many were unaware of these three differing opinions. If one asks why we are only focusing on the statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and the school of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and not other 'ulama', the answer is that other 'ulama' do not have as many texts on these matters as they do. That's why they are mostly focused on and not because others are ignored. Many cannot imagine that these 'ulama' could have differing opinions, considering them as though they could not have disagreements on these matters. So, after assuming that they all share the same opinions and encountering certain texts that contradict their assumptions, they either ignore them and do not talk about them, or assert that those statements were ambiguous.
Those who ignore the texts that contradict their assumptions are similar to those who acknowledge the excuse of ignorance in major shirk. For instance, when they read what Abu Butayn and Ishaaq ibn 'Abdurrahman say, they would ignore those texts. At the same time, they assume that what shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab says is exactly the same as what shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah says, as though there would be no differences. On the other side, those who don't consider the excuse of ignorance in shirk assume that what shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab says is the same as what Abu Butayn and Ishaaq say. What is worse in all of this is when they assume what ibn Taymiyyah says is exactly the same as what they say. That's why when they encounter some texts that contradict their opinions, instead of examining and researching from the bottom up, they simply say these texts are ambiguous. They then erroneously and anecdotally assert that those who say the contrary concerning what ibn Taymiyyah says are wrong.
One of the reasons for most of them having mistunderstood and misinterpret the statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, this has had happened between some of the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah themselves. Those who felt into those mistakes were 'Abdul-Lateef ibn 'Abdurrahman and his student Sulayman ibn Sahmaan, and his student used exactly the same as his shaykh. What has led them to this? Remember the basis of foundation and principles in which ibn Taymiyyah based on? Where others had claimed there is another foundation in which it was based on and where we all expounded upon them. This foundation is stated in the Fatwa al-Keelaaniyyah as we brought up before. First of all which is a relevant tangential point so you can all understand this, the contemporary books of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, especially small letters and books, where are they found? Is it in old manuscripts as independent books? They are actually found in one single voluminous book, there is one author whose name is ibn Zaknoon, he was not the student of ibn Taymiyyah but came afterwards, there is a book called "الكواكب الدراري" which is a very lengthy explanation of Saheeh al-Bukhaari, ibn Zaknoon has done the similar in which he collected various fatawa, letters and small books of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. (Source) (Source) That's why most of the fatawa is taken from the collection of ibn Zaknoon. He used to transcribe all the books as they are and not writing them as summaries with the exception of the Fatwa al-Keelaaniyyah in which he clarified that it was a summary. He said:
"So I selected portions from it for myself and transcribed them onto these pages, as the response is very lengthy."
(Source)
This is included in "مجموعة الرسائل والمسائل." In them, there are very long texts of ibn Taymiyyah, whereas those stated in Majmoo' al-Fatawa are usually a bit shorter. This summary is the basis upon which 'Abdul-Lateef and Sulayman ibn Sahmaan understood the position of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah regarding the excuse of ignorance. On the basis of this summary, you can read their understandings in "منهاج التأسيس", page 253; in "كشف الشبهتين", pages 77-78 and in "الضياء الشارق", pages 382-383.
How did they understand this? If you refer back to the summary and the original text, you will see what would have otherwise been clearer. This led both 'Abdul-Lateef and Sulayman to misunderstand shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah's stance on ignorance and that one should not pronounce takfeer against individuals until conditions are met and impediments are removed. They understood it as though when it comes to al-Jahmiyyah and al-Qabooriyyah, ibn Taymiyyah no longer considers ignorance, as they based their understanding on the summary and not the original text. How did I notice this? You can clearly see that in their references to al-Keelaaniyyah, there are omissions of texts. The original texts clearly state that ibn Taymiyyah does not declare takfeer against al-Jahmiyyah on an individual basis, which is not clear in the summarized version. This resulted in their understanding being very lacking. Unfortunately, the contemporaries who took the statements of 'Abdul-Lateef and Sulayman ibn Sahmaan as correct are not even aware of all this. Hence, you will notice them considering their statements as one hundred percent accurate. If something contrary is told to them, they will come up with all kinds of excuses.
To give you an example which is stated in "الضياء الشارق":
With this, you should understand that the dispute and the words of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, and others like him, do not pertain to the grave worshippers and the polytheists. His discussions and subjects concern the people of innovation who oppose the Sunnah and the community, as known from the shaykh's words. If you understand that ibn Taymiyyah's words are about the people of whims, such as the Qadariyyah, Khawaarij, Murji'ah, and the like, excluding their extremists, it will become clear to you that the grave worshippers and the Jahmiyyah are excluded from these categories. As for his statements about not declaring a specific individual a disbeliever, this applies to particular issues whose evidence might be unclear to some people, such as the issues of Qadar and Irjaa', and similar matters discussed by the people of whims.
He understood this as though the foundations and principles mentioned in al-Keelaaniyyah do not apply to the Jahmiyyah and grave worshippers. He understood it that way due to the summary!
Unfortunately, among the contemporaries, when they read what the 'ulama' of ad-Da'wah an-Najdiyyah say on this particular topic, they assume their opinions are free from mistakes. Some even exaggerate their opinions to the point of treating them as part of the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, and anyone who opposes them is considered an innovator!
When I say the contemporaries, I'm not referring to small children, but rather some 'ulama'. Among those who fell into this mistake and made a significant impact on others are shaykh 'Ali al-Khudayr and later shaykh Ahmad al-Khaalidi. Were there others who made the same mistakes? The answer is yes, but their influence was not as great as these two. Others included Naasir al-Fahd and Khaalid ar-Raashid. Also, Taariq 'Abdul-Haleem, but his impact was mostly due to his misunderstanding of ibn Taymiyyah's texts on apparent and hidden matters, as well as his misinterpretation of the foundations of the Deen and the conveyance of the Qur'an as meant by shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab.
'Ali al-Khudayr and Ahmad al-Khaalidi, when they encountered the clear statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah on this matter, unexpectedly saw that ibn Taymiyyah might have had a different position than Da'wah an-Najdiyyah. They came up with interpretations that were, in reality, falsifications, though not deliberate. They made two false interpretations. One was that when ibn Taymiyyah said they don't pronounce takfeer against the grave worshippers until the message reaches them, he was supposedly referring not to declaring them disbelievers in this life, but rather to whether they would enter Hellfire in the Hereafter. This is a clear falsification. Insha'Allah, we will later mention the reasoning and confirm that it is impossible for his statement to be understood this way.
The other falsification, again not done deliberately, was the claim that despite ibn Taymiyyah not pronouncing takfeer against them, he does not call them Muslim but instead calls them mushrik. There are many evidences refuting such falsifications, but I will only present those that are easy to understand in the English language.
Firstly, concerning the reason for their falsification, they claim that ibn Taymiyyah does not pronounce takfeer against those who fall into shirk due to ignorance until the message reaches them, meaning that they won't enter Hell forever, not that he calls them disbelievers. What led them to this? It's a statement from shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah in his book "الجواب الصحيح لمن بدل دين المسيح" ("The Correct Response to Those Who Altered Deen of the Maseeh"). He stated in it that there are two forms of disbelief: one that warrants punishment in the Hereafter and another that does not. He clarified it by saying that those to whom the message has reached but do not follow it will deserve to be punished in the Hereafter forever. The other concerns those to whom the message has not reached, which we have already discussed before. So, they believed that he was talking about disbelief in the same way as takfeer. There is a major difference between the two. The disbelief shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah is talking about is an act an individual commits, while takfeer is what a mufti declares. They are not at all the same. To talk about takfeer as something other than calling an individual a kaafir and to assert that it pertains to the Hereafter and not this life is an assertion that no single 'aalim has ever made using the concept of takfeer. To confirm that it is impossible for ibn Taymiyyah's statement to be understood this way, consider the following:
As for declaring takfeer against them and consigning them to eternity [in Hell], there are also two well-known scholarly opinions on this matter, both narrations from Ahmad. The opinions regarding the Khawaarij, the Harooriyyah, the Raafidhah, and others like them. The correct view is that the statements they make, which are known to contradict what the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) brought, are disbelief, and so are their actions which are of the same type as the actions of disbelievers against Muslims; these are also disbelief. I have mentioned the evidences for this in other places; however, declaring a specific individual among them a disbeliever and ruling their eternal damnation is contingent upon establishing the conditions for takfeer and the absence of its impediments.
(Source)
So, these are two completely different topics. Another point that confirms this is the fatwa itself, known as al-Keelaaniyyah, which we addressed before. He, among other 'ulama', calls these issues "الأسماء والأحكام" (names and rulings). Names refer to terms like Muslim, kaafir, etc., while al-Ahkaam refers to consequences according to Shari'ah both in this life and the next. So, takfeer refers to "الأسماء" and, in contrast, whether one will be punished in Hellfire forever refers to "الأحكام". Aside from al-Keelaaniyyah, but also within the Majmoo' al-Fatawa and elsewhere, it is not at all the same as those who mistakenly thought it was. Also, we have addressed before that shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said that takfeer should be treated as "الوعيد" (divine threat). This shows and proves that these are two different topics.
Another falsification was the claim that despite ibn Taymiyyah not pronouncing takfeer against them due to ignorance, he does not call them Muslim nor kaafir but instead calls them mushrik. What led them to this misunderstanding? It is due to the matter where shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah talked about "مسألة تحسين العقل وتقبيحه," meaning the issue of rationalizing good and evil. When ibn Taymiyyah talked about that one can discern what is good and evil with one's intellect in general, but when it comes to reward and punishment, it depends on whether the message has reached them or not. One of the evidences he used was that Allah called kuffaar mushrikeen, that they were astray before the message reached them and were ignorant, as Allah says:
وَإِنْ أَحَدٌۭ مِّنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ ٱسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّىٰ يَسْمَعَ كَلَـٰمَ ٱللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُۥ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌۭ لَّا يَعْلَمُونَ
“And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allāh [i.e., the Qur’ān]. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.” (At-Tawbah 9:6)
Those who make this falsification claim, "See, ibn Taymiyyah himself mentioned this." The answer is that the principle they use contradicts their claims. Why? Because they admit that when one is ignorant, they don't pronounce takfeer against the individual. But when ibn Taymiyyah mentioned this principle, he was talking about whom? Original disbelievers, and all the Muslims agree that those are disbelievers regardless of whether the message had reached them or not. This confirms that the principle does not apply to their opinion, which is not the same topic they are talking about. This again confirms why it's a falsification.
There are many other evidences, but I will only bring up the most important points. Firstly, the basis of this is discussed in his book al-Eemaan, in regards to the beginning of Surah al-Baqarah and some of the statements of the Salaf, that people are divided into only three categories and no fourth category: Muslim, kaafir, and munaafiq. If one says that there is neither a Muslim nor a kaafir but a mushrik, then one introduces a fourth category. Hamad ibn 'Ateeq had mentioned this fourth category as false and wrong.
Many of our 'ulama', among them ibn 'Abdul-Barr, ibnul-Qayyim, Sulayman ibn 'Abdillah ibn Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, and Sulayman ibn Sahmaan, say that when one doesn't pronounce takfeer against an individual, then one is automatically called a Muslim. They said that whether one is a Muslim jaahil or a kaafir jaahil, there is nothing between the two. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) said in the well-known fatwa al-Qalandariyyah, found in Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 35, pages 164 to 166, where he talks about all kinds of shirk being committed, then what did he say?:
... Most of these people do not possess the legacies of the message or the heritage of prophecy to recognize the true guidance, and many of them have not received it. In times and places of religious interruption, a man is rewarded for whatever little faith he has, and Allah forgives those against whom the argument has not been established for things He does not forgive for those against whom the argument has been established, as in the well-known hadith: "A time will come upon people when they will not know of salah, fasting, hajj, or 'Umrah except for an old man and an old woman. They will say: We saw our fathers saying there is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah." And it was said to Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamaan: "What will 'there is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah' avail them?" He said: "It will save them from the fire."...
Here, shaykhul-Islam confirms that those with little eemaan will, in the end, benefit from it, and he is talking about actual Muslims and not original disbelievers. Another evidence that confirms this is found in another statement in "جامع الرسائل", volume 2, page 293:
As for a person who takes what he desires as a god besides Allah and loves it as he should love Allah, this is major shirk, and the degrees in this matter vary. Many people have a degree of faith in Allah and His Oneness that saves them from Allah's punishment, yet they fall into many of these types of shirk without knowing that they are shirk. They do not even know that Allah has forbidden them, nor has any message from Allah reached them regarding this. Allah the Exalted says,
وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا
"... And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)." (Al-Israa' 17:15)
These people are numerous in times and places where the message is obscured due to the scarcity of those who uphold Allah’s proof. These individuals may have a level of faith that brings them mercy.
If one were to ask how on earth could all this take place? Normally, when it comes to principles on Tawheed and shirk, they cannot coexist, in that Islam and kufr cannot coexist. However, when does one judge what one has committed? It is first when he contradicts what is stated in the Qur'an and Sunnah. In those circumstances of contradiction, they are categorized as major disbelief. It is in that circumstance where we can call them disbelievers, but it requires that knowledge first reaches them. That's why he follows up by saying:
And they may not be punished for much of what others are punished for, those to whom the proof of the message has reached. It should be understood that the deserving of punishment for the servants, for shirk and what is below it, is conditional upon the message being conveyed, both in foundations of the Deen and its branches.
There is another statement which again proves that their interpretation of his statements is impossible to be understood as such and that it is, in reality, a falsification, where he said (may Allah have mercy upon him) in Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 4, page 55:
So, whoever composes writings in the doctrine of the mushrikeen and their likes, at best, his condition is that he is a Muslim. Many of the leaders of these groups are like this; sometimes you find them explicitly apostatizing from Islam, and other times they return to it with a disease in their hearts and hypocrisy. They may also have a third state where faith predominates over hypocrisy, but it is rare for them to be free from some type of hypocrisy. The accounts about them in this regard are well-known.
He said this in the context of refuting some claims of the mutakallimeen who spoke against Ahlul-Hadith, stating that those from the leaders among these groups were at best Muslims. He said that despite writing books containing shirk, when does this apply? It applies when they are ignorant and unaware that they are calling towards worship other than Allah. That's why when he wrote against two individuals who had written books containing shirk, one known as Ikhnaa'ee and the other as Bakri, ibn Taymiyyah did not pronounce takfeer against them. However, he did so against Fakhr ar-Raazi. Why? Because Fakhr ar-Raazi wrote a book containing a form of shirk that everyone could see and recognize, even among the grave worshippers, as shirk and worship done towards other than Allah. That's why he declared him a disbeliever.
Insha'Allah, we will now bring up sources from those who say that there is no ignorance in shirk and at the same time, they claim that there are no differences of opinion in this regard. Do we say that this topic has differences of opinion? We say yes, there are differences of opinion, though at the same time we say one opinion is recognized while the other is weak. But does this belong to Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah? Despite considering it a weak opinion? Yes, it belongs to some 'ulama' from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah whom we respect. We will never degrade them, whether from the early or later 'ulama', who have the contrary opinion. Obviously, what is an error should be criticized with evidence and respect.
However, now we are talking about a lot of people who deny that there is disagreement among the 'ulama' and claim that there is Ijmaa' that there is no excuse of ignorance in cases of shirk. We have already confirmed what their mistakes were. Among those people, some still hold respect for the 'ulama', but others, especially in this day and age, including many students and one 'aalim, al-Haazimi, who eventually held some extreme and khaariji opinions, suddenly degrade others and even pronounce takfeer against some. May Allah protect us.
Those people rely on three books, in general, from those who do not admit that there are differences of opinion in the matter, whether they respect the 'ulama' or not. The first book belongs to Abu Butayn, "al-Intisaar Li Hizbillah al-Muwahhideen," and we have already discussed much of the book before. We have proven that he was refuting the false opinions of ibn Jirjeesh. Much emphasis from Abu Butayn was on refuting ibn Jirjeesh, who said that one doesn't declare takfeer against the ignorant despite the message having reached them unless they discern truth from falsehood and still insist on not following the truth. Ibn Jirjeesh, in that instance, first declares takfeer. That's where much emphasis lies from Abu Butayn, and when he claimed Ijmaa', it was particular to that issue of mistake alone and not against the other.
When Abu Butayn discussed the position of ibn Taymiyyah, he refuted the false interpretations of ibn Jirjeesh, but at the same time, he acknowledged the matter we had discussed regarding the position of ibn Taymiyyah, both on the grave worshippers and al-Jahmiyyah. That was about the book of Abu Butayn. Then there are other statements he mentioned, may Allah have mercy upon him, but he only mentioned them to refute the false opinion of ibn Jirjeesh. Unfortunately, among the contemporaries, what do they do? They use this statement against the position we had discussed. In reality, they are misusing his statement, as Abu Butayn did not state this to refute the statements of ibn Taymiyyah, as he himself admitted, but rather he mentioned it to refute the statements of ibn Jirjeesh. Despite this, we will bring up those statements that belong to Abu Butayn that were misused by others.
One of them was where Abu Butayn said to ibn Jirjeesh that if he only declares takfeer against the stubborn, then he contradicts himself, as he can't continue like this when it comes to ignorant Jews, Christians, etc. What he said about ibn Jirjeesh is correct. However, when this was misused and applied to the matter we have mentioned, it is, of course, wrong. When the 'ulama' discussed this matter, whom were they talking about? It was about original Muslims, as ignorant Jews and Christians are without a doubt disbelievers. The topic of the excuse of ignorance refers to this Ummah, which again refers to the Muslims. This was mentioned by ibn Hazm, ibn Taymiyyah, and ash-Shanqeeti on the basis of the end of Surah al-Baqarah and the hadith that says: "Indeed, Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, has forgiven my Ummah..." (source).
One of the statements they took from Abu Butayn, one of the arguments against ibn Jirjeesh was:
"So, the mushrik is a mushrik, whether he likes it or not, just as the usurer is an usurer, whether he likes it or not, even if he does not call what he did usury. And the one who drinks alcohol is a drinker of alcohol, even if he calls it by another name."
This argument is somewhat both wrong and correct, as when it comes to judgments, it's either that one is faasiq or kaafir. For example, if someone drinks alcohol due to ignorance, we don't call him a faasiq, and he won't deserve Allah's curse as he is clearly ignorant despite the texts describing him as such, as this requires conditions to be met. This also applies to shirk. Linguistically, it would otherwise be correct to call him a mushrik if he commits shirk, but is he a kaafir and murtadd? No, because the conditions are not met, similar to those who drink alcohol due to ignorance. The argument Abu Butayn used against ibn Jirjeesh can be applied to those who have the other opinion. However, the answer is as we have mentioned.
The second book they heavily relied upon was written by Ishaaq ibn ‘Abdurrahman ibn Hasan, titled "تكفير المعين والفرق بين قيام الحجة وفهم الحجة". Some 'ulama' doubted its authorship to Ishaaq. Why? Because they could see that there are many errors that do not befit him as an 'aalim. Those who confirmed its authorship to Ishaaq were also 'ulama'. An 'aalim can make mistakes; it's not that they are free from mistakes. The problem with those mistakes is that he says something wrong about the opinions of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab. That's what makes anyone wonder how that could be the case. The answer is very simple: not everyone has inherited the knowledge of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab generation after generation; a split has occurred.
That's where Muhammad 'Ali Pasha, the Albanian, invaded Dir'iyyah, the city where Aal Sa'ood were in the first phase of the state, where the family of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab was located. When the invasion happened, some were captured and detained, some for up to thirty years. After that, they returned and the da'wah started all over again. The two who were most active were Abu Butayn and 'Abdurrahman ibn Hasan. Abu Butayn had the highest status as he studied under all of the students of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, but because he focused mostly on Hanbali fiqh, he had some different opinions compared to the students of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, particularly in regards to when the message reaches someone or not, whether one declares takfeer on an individual basis or not.
'Abdurrahman ibn Hasan is known for his book Fath al-Majeed; he is regarded as the second mujaddid after his grandfather. This is where the knowledge did not pass through generations continuously. That's why what passed through to Ishaaq ibn 'Abdurrahman were, in reality, the opinions of Abu Butayn, which he assumed aligned with the opinions of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab. Insha'Allah, we will examine them here now. Remember, 'Abdul-Lateef's older brother was Ishaaq ibn 'Abdurrahman and his shaykh.
Concerning why the book was written, one from Ikhwaan 'Ataa' Allah, just like how the school of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab today is known as "Wahhaabiyyah," was known before as brothers who have obeyed Allah, in short as Ikhwaan, not to be confused with the contemporary Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen. One from Ikhwaan, during the time of Ishaaq, claimed that shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab doesn't declare takfeer against an individual until the message reaches him in person, face to face, saying that the grave worshippers nearby, despite the da'wah of the shaykh having reached them, cannot be declared disbelievers. This clearly contradicts what shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab had said. When Ishaaq tackled this misunderstanding, it was addressed mistakenly as well. This is how the letter was based on. He said the following:
... Shaykh Muhammad only declares as disbelievers those whom the Book and the Sunnah have explicitly declared as disbelievers and upon whom the Ummah has agreed, such as those who change their religion and act like the people of Jaahiliyyah who worship angels, prophets, and righteous people, and call upon them. Allah has declared them disbelievers and permitted their blood, wealth, and offspring because they worship others besides Him, whether a prophet, a saint, or an idol. There is no difference in disbelief among them, as indicated by the Noble Book and the extensive Sunnah. This will be explained to you in detail, and some of it has already been mentioned...
I said: This is one of the greatest clarifications regarding his statement about the ignorant worshiper of the tomb of al-Kawwaaz, because he did not exclude anyone in this matter, neither the ignorant nor others. This is the way of the Qur'an: to declare as disbelievers those who associate others with Allah, without exception. His hesitation in some of the answers is to be understood as being due to certain reasons. Also, as you see, he hesitated once, as in his statement: "As for those who cling to the earth, I do not know their state."
So, by Allah, how can one abandon the shaykh's statement in all contexts, along with the evidence from the Book and the Sunnah and the statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim, as in his saying that whoever the Qur'an reaches, the proof has been established against him, and accept it in one place with ambiguity?
This long text contains much that contradicts what shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab mentioned, as well as the statements of 'Abdul-Lateef, who was the shaykh of Ishaaq. It also contradicts 'Abdullah, Ibraaheem, and Sulayman ibn Sahmaan. Ishaaq's understanding is completely different. We have already covered all these points, so there is no need to mention them again.
I can briefly explain that concerning what was meant by when the Qur'an reaches or how the message reaches, we have already explained the opinion of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, as well as how 'Abdul-Lateef and his student understood this. Unfortunately, Ishaaq regarded the statement on Qubbat al-Kawwaaz as ambiguous, despite it not being the case. We have already explained the obvious and clear statements on that.
Regarding the statement "This is the way of the Qur'an: to declare as disbelievers those who associate others with Allah, without exception," this is based on "العام يفيد العموم في الأحوال," which translates as "The general [text] implies generality in all situations." This is an opinion of the mutakallimeen, which ibn Taymiyyah refuted, saying it's not the position of the Salaf.
Also, where shaykh Ishaaq considers shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab's statement "As for those who cling to the earth, I do not know their state" as ambiguous, this was not in reference to the ignorant but to "المعرض" (the indifferent), meaning those whom the da'wah had reached but they do not care to follow the truth. It's not at all the same as those who are ignorant. Most of the 'ulama' say that "المعرض" is a disbeliever on an individual basis. Why did shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab hesitate? It seems that he took it from ibnul-Qayyim's an-Nooniyyah regarding al-Jahmiyyah, as ibnul-Qayyim said about a Jahmi who is "المعرض" that Allah knows best their state. It looks like shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab is following ibnul-Qayyim in this regard. This greatly contrasts with what shaykh Ishaaq has said.
If one asks, "But where are you coming from to say that shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab is talking about 'المعرض'?" Shaykh 'Abdul-Lateef interpreted it this way in "منهاج التأسيس":
However, he acquired knowledge and understood guidance, yet he clung to the earth and followed his desires.
Now we have one left where imam Ishaaq (may Allah have mercy upon him) used his argument based on the statement of ibnul-Qayyim. What is this about? It's stated in "طريق الهجرتين" where he first talks about people in general and their categorizations, believers, then original disbelievers, and afterward talks about ignorant original disbelievers. His discussion revolves around what will happen to them in the Hereafter. Meaning, his focus was not on whether they are disbelievers or not, but rather on the original disbelievers, where there is obviously agreement from the Muslims that they are indeed disbelievers. Unfortunately, Ishaaq regarded this as evidence from the statement of ibnul-Qayyim that can be used for the grave worshippers, despite there being no correlation between the two. According to Ishaaq, in a way, the message is the same as how it has reached the original disbelievers. This is a grave mistake.
The first two books mentioned, it's easy to discern where one is affected if one was influenced by them, but not from the third. It's very hard to discern who is affected by this. There is a good reason for this, and we have talked about this before. The book, first and foremost, which has been heavily relied upon is called "الجواب المفيد في حكم جاهل التوحيد" by Taariq 'Abdul-Haleem, who is still alive at the time of writing this. When it was first written, his name was not included, and when it was first printed, it was in 1978, at a time when there was much pressure against "Islamists" in Egypt. Hence, the name used at the time was Abu 'Abdullah 'Abdurrahman 'Abdul-Hameed. At the time, an Egyptian named Sayyid al-Ghabaashi authored a book, "سعة رحمة رب العالمين," to refute Taariq 'Abdul-Haleem. However, the book did not become widely known, unlike "الجواب المفيد في حكم جاهل التوحيد." Why? Because a shaykh named al-Ghaamidi from Saudi Arabia liked the book and created a collection similar to Majmoo'ah at-Tawheed, with 26 small books collected in two volumes. He called his collection 'Aqeedah al-Muwahhideen, which is different from the former as it included topics of takfeer, ignorance, and such from some of the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah. When one hears the name Abu 'Abdullah 'Abdurrahman 'Abdul-Hameed, it sounds as though he belongs to the early 'ulama', hence some small students thought it was from the book of the Salaf. Though, that's beside the point.
Concerning Taariq 'Abdul-Haleem, all of his opinions were taken from his shaykh, 'Abdul-Majeed ash-Shaadhili. Unfortunately, 'Abdul-Majeed ash-Shaadhili has some opinions that are very questionable, where it's not clear whether he is Sunni or—I dare not say he has Khawaarij opinions, but it's close to that. It's not very clear where he stands, and that's why we don't dare to say he has Khawaarij opinions or something to that effect, as it's dangerous. To declare someone an innovator is not an easy matter. As imam Ahmad said, "Expelling people from the Sunnah is severe." (Source) If one is unable to base one's declaration on very clear texts, then one should abstain and leave it alone.
What shaykh Taariq 'Abdul-Haleem did was collect opinions from his shaykh and add something from himself, then write the book. The school which 'Abdul-Majeed ash-Shaadhili established heavily relies on usool al-fiqh. That's why the manner in which the topic is tackled is based on the principles of usool al-fiqh, and many points were affected by 'Ilm al-Kalaam. The school also has errors which are evident from shaykh 'Abdul-Majeed and Taariq 'Abdul-Haleem but not necessarily other students. They were also the first two who collected the falsifications of the Hadith al-Qudrah, concerning the man who doubted Allah's power to resurrect him in the Hereafter. Their collection contradicted the Ahlus-Sunnah explanation and understanding, implying that there are "differing opinions" on the explanation despite it not being the case.
Unfortunately, one of their mistakes was distorting some of the statements of the 'ulama' to fit their arguments. The statements from 'ulama' that were distorted included those from ibn Hazm, Abu Bakr ibn al-'Arabi, al-Baghawi, ibnul-Qayyim, and ibn Taymiyyah. The distortion of ibn Taymiyyah's statements on apparent and hidden matters became widespread. They were known for their extreme stance against those who opposed this opinion. His shaykh called them Murji'ah, and Taariq 'Abdul-Haleem said that people with this opposing opinion could not have a clear da'wah and that their manhaj was impossible to be correct. They were also the very first, which no one had ever done before, even in Da'wah an-Najdiyyah, to use "حجة الميثاق" as evidence to argue that grave worshippers are all disbelievers on an individual basis. No one had ever used this as evidence before.
There are other books that belong to them, but few are aware of them. The first book that became very well-known was "العذر بالجهل تحت المجهر الشرعي" by Aal Farraaj, with a preface by shaykh ibn Jibreen. In reality, what he did was take the book of Taariq 'Abdul-Haleem and expand on the chapters, as the original book is otherwise small. Then, a man named Abu 'Ulaa ar-Raashid expanded on one of the chapters in his book "عارض الجهل" and also expanded on a chapter in his book "ضوابط تكفير المعين عند شيخي الإسلام ابن تيمية وابن عبد الوهاب وعلماء الدعوة الإصلاحية," both of which were prefaced by Saalih al-Fawzan. When people encounter these books, they assume they are from unrelated individuals despite all of them belonging to the same school. So, don't be fooled by the number of books; in reality, they all trace back to "الجواب المفيد في حكم جاهل التوحيد."
This book, "الجواب المفيد في حكم جاهل التوحيد," unfortunately contains egregious mistakes and major errors. What Taariq 'Abdul-Haleem did was take the statements of ibn Taymiyyah about Bakri after mentioning the shirk committed during his time. Taariq claimed ibn Taymiyyah doesn't pronounce takfeer but he doesn't utter it publicly due to Siyaasah ash-Shar'iyyah, meaning he is claiming that ibn Taymiyyah secretly declares takfeer because it is more beneficial to hide it publicly. Could such instances happen? Yes, in cases where many 'ulama' consider a president or a leader as a disbeliever but don't dare to make it public due to potential torture and harm to the da'wah. Instead, they teach the people the fundamentals of the Deen, allowing them to build upon that understanding and see the truth later.
However, could this apply to ibn Taymiyyah regarding Bakri and this topic? When we read ibn Taymiyyah's principles, evidences, conditions, arguments, and more, it is impossible to attribute such unfounded notions to him, suggesting he secretly declares takfeer. It's like claiming ibn Taymiyyah is a Shee'ah and hypocrite, using taqiyyah. In the book refuting Bakri, the arguments he used and his approach make it impossible to say that he secretly declares takfeer against him and others. This is the major and egregious mistake. Taariq 'Abdul-Haleem's assertions about ibn Taymiyyah cannot be true at all.
Another thing he did was to show the matter he understood, it's not what he himself said but from another 'aalim whose name is unknown to him, where his letter is found in Majmoo'ah at-Tawheed and it's correct that it doesn't say who the author was. Though, the name is stated in another collection al-Jaami' al-Fareed, where the letter actually belong to 'Abdurrahman ibn Hasan. Where he claimed that 'Abdurrahman ibn Hasan opining that ibn Taymiyyah hides declaration of takfeer and the way he interpreted the statements of 'Abdurrahman ibn Hasan are clearly falsifications. Shaykh 'Abdurrahman ibn Hasan after mentioning the statements of ibn Taymiyyah concerning not pronouncing takfeer due to ignorance until the message reaches, in the book refuting against Bakri, after mentioning all the statements of ibn Taymiyyah, he said in "شرح رسالة أصل دين الإسلام وقاعدته":
I said: He, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned what necessitated his refraining from declaring them disbelievers specifically by name, except after clarification and persistence, as he had become a single Ummah. Some scholars declared him a disbeliever for forbidding them from associating others with Allah in worship, so it was not possible to treat them except as he had said. This is similar to what happened with our shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, may Allah have mercy on him, at the beginning of his da'wah. When he heard them invoking Zayd ibn al-Khattaab, may Allah be pleased with him, he said, "Allah is better than Zayd," training them to reject shirk with gentle speech, considering the benefit and avoiding alienation. And Allah, Glorified and Exalted, knows best.
'Abdurrahman considers that since ibn Taymiyyah was alone and no one was standing for da'wah as he did, he therefore considered those people in his time to be ignorant and that the da'wah had not reached them, thus not pronouncing takfeer left and right. 'Abdurrahman then compared ibn Taymiyyah to Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) as he was alone, and then to shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, similarly being alone in his da'wah in the Arabian Peninsula.
What did Taariq 'Abdul-Haleem say in his book "الجواب المفيد في حكم جاهل التوحيد"? He explained it as follows: he ['Abdurrahman ibn Hasan, whom he did not know it was him] made it clear that ibn Taymiyyah did not declare takfeer against them because it was not beneficial to da'wah and was a necessary situation, not a fiqh judgment he believed in. The worst part of all was when he interpreted the statement "as he had become a single Ummah" to mean that kufr had become a single Ummah. Even in Arabic, this doesn't make sense at all. The person who took benefit and harm into consideration was not ibn Taymiyyah but rather shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, not in regards to takfeer but the manner in which he made da'wah. So he compounded and convoluted all these points together erroneously.
What has led this book to become widely known? It was because it was part of the collection in 'Aqeedah al-Muwahhideen. Who praised the collection in general? It was shaykh ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy upon him). This made the book widely spread, contrary to the book "سعة رحمة رب العالمين," which had refuted it and shed light on its countless mistakes.
Thereafter, shaykh ibn Baaz praised this book "سعة رحمة رب العالمين," and how can this be? Because we shouldn't always expect the 'ulama' to have read everything they praise in its entirety. Often, they trust the author. Also, don't expect that when they praise a book, they have read it cover to cover. Usually, they read parts of it. This has happened many times before. Don't believe that when an 'aalim praises a book, he has acknowledged and affirmed everything it contains unless it is clear that the shaykh had read the whole book or it was read to them in its entirety, especially if he has written footnotes or made some small commentaries on the book. That was not the case with the aforementioned book containing collections.
The author of the book "سعة رحمة رب العالمين" is Egyptian. Books printed in Egypt often don't spread as fast as they do in Saudi Arabia. Then, when the internet became widely accessible, the book was not even available online until recently [relative to the time of recording].
I will conclude with two points. The first is that, as we have discussed before but as a reminder, some believe that when one has this opinion [concerning the excuse of ignorance], one should always take ignorance into consideration in all forms of disbelief without exceptions. Only the ignorant say such statements. Do such people exist who take ignorance into account in cases of all forms of disbelief in all situations? Unfortunately, there are quite many who hold such a false opinion. Despite stating what seems to be a contrary opinion, in practice, they don't even declare takfeer against anyone. We clearly distance ourselves from such matters. That's why we said that the grave worshippers, such as Sufis, Shee'ah, and others, who are in Saudi Arabia, where knowledge is widespread, are disbelievers on an individual basis because the da'wah on Tawheed and shirk is strongly spread, even in cities and villages.
As the saying goes:
ليس من أراد الحق فأخطأه كمن أراد الباطل فأصابه
"He who seeks the truth and misses it is not like he who seeks falsehood and attains it."
So there is a difference between ignorant Muslims who commit shirk and zanaadiqah. Those zanaadiqah who miss the five characteristics of believing, showing love, respect, accepting, and implementing the Deen. Again, without those, it's impossible for one to be a Muslim, similar to the Ismaa'eeliyyah, Nusayriyyah, Druze, extreme Sufis with the beliefs of Hallaaj and ibn 'Arabi on Wahdatul-Wujood and similar, secularists, and nationalists with ideological beliefs (obviously differentiating from ignorant Muslims without such ideological beliefs).
What confirms this is what shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said in Majmoo' al-Fatawa, volume 11, pages 401-413. After explaining the people whose ignorance is taken into account, he concluded by describing those whose ignorance is not taken into account:
As for the statement: "Can this come from someone who has humility towards the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)?" It is said: This does not come from someone who acknowledges prophethood in general. Rather, the one who says this is a disbeliever in all the prophets and messengers, because they all came with commands and prohibitions for the servants until the time of death. This statement does not even come from someone who has humility towards Allah and acknowledges Him as the God of the world. For such acknowledgment necessitates that a person be a slave of Allah, humble before Him. Whoever allows a person to do whatever he pleases without worshiping Allah has indeed denied that Allah is his God.
Those kinds of topics and those forms of disbelief, here misguidance is not taken into account at all. Are they called original disbelievers? No, they are murtaddeen (apostates). As long as they utter the testimony of faith, claim to be Muslims, and come with far-fetched claims, they are murtaddeen. Those 'ulama' who say such people are not murtaddeen but instead original kuffaar are gravely mistaken, similar to the grave mistake of Hamad ibn Naasir ibn 'Uthmaan ibn Ma'mar, who said that those who grew up since childhood among the grave worshippers are no longer considered murtaddeen but original kuffaar. The same applies to one of the two opinions of as-San'aani and shaykh ibn Baaz regarding a French man. (Source) Shaykh ibn Baaz mistakenly said that the man had not entered Islam. However, the way the man had interpreted Islam, he is a murtadd. To confirm why this is a weak opinion, when shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah was asked about a Jew who jokingly uttered the testimony of faith, he considered him a murtadd. Early 'ulama' similarly considered Ismaa'eeliyyah, Nusayriyyah, etc., as murtaddeen and never as original kuffaar.
I will end by recapping some important points. The term "العذر بالجهل" is often misunderstood, and therefore, it is important to clarify what one intends by it and dispel false notions associated with it. Instead, one could use "مانع الجهل." When one says that ignorance is an impediment to pronouncing takfeer against an individual, it doesn't mean that it prevents one from stating a general takfeer, as general takfeer is obligatory and confirmed in the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Ijmaa'. We have confirmed that the statements of ibn Taymiyyah and other 'ulama' have nothing to do with the claims and opinions of ibn Jirjeesh, which have been refuted in independent books by some of the 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah.
Al-Haazimi, however, doesn't even know what the contemporary 'ulama' have said; he degradingly calls them Jaraajishah, Jahmiyyah, and declares takfeer against them. One of the worst aspects is that when it comes to al-'Uthaymeen, he praises him, despite the fact that those whom he criticizes and degrades hold the same views as al-'Uthaymeen. This is really foolish. I say this not to disrespect the 'ulama' but rather to highlight that this individual has become a khaariji. He holds the false opinion that he can declare takfeer against those who don't declare takfeer, which is one of the opinions of the Khawaarij, as the issue does not concern original disbelievers.
It's not the first time in Islamic history that someone who is a Mubtadi' is also an expert in usool al-fiqh and the Arabic language. There are many such individuals in history. Many from the Mu'tazilah were experts in the Arabic language and usool al-fiqh. Even many Sufis were experts in the Arabic language and usool al-fiqh. So, it doesn't mean that when one is an expert in the Arabic language and usool al-fiqh, one is necessarily Sunni.
This research confirms that there is no consensus on this topic among Ahlus-Sunnah. Those who assert that there is consensus are clearly mistaken, as they misunderstood what it's all about. Yes, there is consensus that takfeer is not only about the stubborn. That is correct. There are not two opinions on this but three. The 'ulama' of Da'wah an-Najdiyyah do not agree with each other on this topic and have two opinions. They also disagree on many details aside from what I've mentioned. To mention one example, Abu Butayn considered those who waged war against the da'wah to be all ignorant and not stubborn. On the contrary, the son of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, who himself experienced those events, described them as stubborn but not ignorant. There are also instances of contrary statements between Abu Butayn and 'Abdul-Lateef, where 'Abdul-Lateef was correct while Abu Butayn was mistaken.
This research confirms that ibn Taymiyyah based this topic on the foundation of divine promises and threats, which apply to the individual when the conditions are fulfilled. Other principles and foundations do not necessarily contradict each other.
This research also confirms that some statements of ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab have been falsified and misunderstood by many. Unfortunately. If one considers their specific statements in their respective contexts, one will come to understand what they meant by their statements.
This research also shows that there are many reasons why they fell into those mistakes. One of them is the belief that "العام" (the general) covers all individuals and objects. However, the question remains whether this applies in all circumstances. The last part, which says it applies in all circumstances, is the mistaken opinion from the Mutakallimeen.
Also, 'Abdul-Lateef and Sulayman ibn Sahmaan relied upon the statements of ibn Taymiyyah from a text that was actually a summary and not the full text. There are many other points we have discussed before. Alhamdulillah, this is the end of the discussion. The reason for the detailed discussion is to ensure that everyone is aware that this topic is not being discussed without knowledge.
وصلى الله وسلم وبارك على عبده ورسوله نبينا محمد وعلى آله وأصحابه أجمعين
|
Return to the main page