The Pure Guidance (Part Two)

1
2
Translators note:
This is a translation of a detailed essay originally written in the Arabic language, by our brother Nasir al-
Sunnah al-Qurashi ‫حفظه هللا‬. The essay discusses and refutes the false manhaj of the khawarijis from every
angle, who misinterpret the verses and statements of Qur’an and Sunnah which have caused doubts for
the simple ones. The author has presented each statement they misinterpret as a "misconception", then
refutes and clarifies each one using authentic narrations, according to the correct understanding of the
early Salaf. He has authored many works which address the many controversial issues the Ummah is
facing today, which are approved by Shaykh Abu Bara’a himself. Among the great works he has
authored is the essay in discussion: “The pure guidance regarding the judgement of apparent Islam,
[Part Two].”
We ask Allah Azza wa Jal reward the brother on our behalf and on behalf of the muslimeen and make
this a means of guidance upon the true manahaj for generations to come. Ameen.
A brief introduction of the author:
“I am a poor servant of Allah in need of His forgiveness. I am of a Shāmi/Syrian origin and Qurashi
descent; a graduate from the institution of Shar'iah.
I migrated to dar al-Islam from Jazeera al-Arab (Arabian peninsula) and entered Ash-Shām in the year
1434 Hijri.
I joined the frontiers then undertook studies in the institution of Dawla al-Islamiyah as a student, then as
a teacher of Aqeeda. I have studied under a number of Shuyookh, may Allah have mercy on those who
were killed and preserve those who are living. (From the Shuyookh are the following):
Abu al-'Āliyya al Indonesi who is a student of Shaykh Sidra (Mus'āid Basheer may Allah preserve him) -
Abu Yahya Tunisian - Abu Ilyas and Abu Hamza and Abu Dujana al Masri (all of Egyptian origin) - Abu
Mus'ab Sahrāwi - Abu Hafs al-Hamdāni - and Abu Bara'a as-Sayf whom I studied from for many years
and continue to benefit from him .. I continue to seek knowledge from him until today and from other
scholars of grace.
We ask Allah to keep us steadfast and to grant us the understanding of His Deen.. Ameen”
[Nasir al-Sunnah al-Qurashi]
3
The pure guidance regarding the judgement of apparent Islam
■ Holding fast onto the Book and the Sunnah to demolish the
misconceptions of the recent Mu'tazila; the people of innovation and
fitnah [strife].
Table of Contents
■ Introduction.........................................................................................8
■ Misconception - 1: The prophets [peace be upon them] made general
takfeer upon their people, without the exclusion of anyone................12
■ Misconception - 2: {"We reject you"}, meaning, we make takfeer
upon you, which means takfeer is from asl ad-din [i.e. foundation of the
religion] and the excellent example to be followed in religion..............25
■ Misconception - 3: Surah Al-Kafirun is a declaration of takfeer of the
Mushrikeen and a disassociation from Shirk.........................................39
■ Misconception - 4: The statement of the friend of Allah [peace be
upon him], "There are no believers on the surface of the earth except
you and I."..............................................................................................43
■ Misconception - 5: The statement of Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail, "O
people of Quraish! By Allah, none amongst you is on the religion of
Abraham except me."............................................................................47
4
■ Misconception - 6: The hoopoe made general takfeer upon the
people of Bilqis, even though he did not witness the kufr of each
individual................................................................................................60
■ Misconception - 7: The companions of the cave knew takfir by fitrah
and 'aql [rationale], thus they made general takfir of their
people....................................................................................................68
■ Misconception - 8: The statement of Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq [may Allah be
pleased with him], "The [people] of the earth [have become]
disbelievers."..........................................................................................72
■ Misconception - 9: The consensus of the Companions [May Allah be
pleased with them] on the kufr of the people of apostasy, and their
takfeer of the people of Musaylma was general...................................80
#Revealing the [true interpretation] of the athār [i.e. narrations of the
Salaf] which the heretics use to make general takfir of the people.......92
#Credible statements regarding the method of dealing with mursal
[form of] hadiths..................................................................................114
■ Misconception - 10: The original principle [i.e. to rule with Islam] the
one who displays it, conflicts with the apparent situation of today,
which is the prevalence of Shirk!.........................................................128
■ Misconception - 11: If shirk becomes widespread and appears
amongst a people, then the ruling [of takfeer] descends on all
individuals, without exception.............................................................136
■ Misconception - 12: There is no difference between the takfeer of
muslim individuals and the original disbelievers [kuffar asli]..............152
■ Misconception - 13: The ruling of individuals is attached to the ruling
of the majority.....................................................................................157
5
■ Misconception - 14: Whoever is from a Dār [land] is [considered] to
be one of it's people, until it appears from him otherwise..................170
■ Misconception - 15: The ruling of Islam is only to be passed after
examining [the individual]; when he displays separation from the
people with regards to all the widespread nullifiers............................182
■ Misconception - 16: To disregard the rituals as an indication of Iman
and to consider them shared actions with the mushrikeen................217
■ Misconception - 17: If we affirm the Islam [of an individual] by the
mere profession of the Shahadatayn, we would then have to affirm the
Islam of Pharaoh [may Allah curse him]..............................................232
■ Misconception - 18: If rituals alone affirm the ruling of Islam upon an
individual, then Allah [Azza Wa Jal] would not have reprimanded its
people..................................................................................................236
■ Misconception - 19: The inflicting of punishment upon a land in
which the majority were mushrikeen is [evidence for] takfeer of those
therein collectively, without exception................................................243
■ Misconception - 20: The hadith ["He who prays our prayers.."] is
general, but the verse {"And whoever supplicates with Allah another
deity.."} specifies its meaning, and accordingly, the apparent rituals
which are common between the muwahideen and the mushrikeen are
disregarded..........................................................................................248
■ Misconception - 21: An oppressed and weak mastoor al hāl Muslim
[one who displays signs of Islam], is not [ruled] a Muslim until he openly
disagrees with that which his people are upon, with regards to the
nullifiers...............................................................................................260
■ Misconception - 22: A number of misconceptions based on weak
assumptions.........................................................................................274
6
■ A Consolidation of the research and a conclusion, so be patient O
people of Islam.....................................................................................289
*Takfeer: is the ruling upon an individual or a group, of their exiting the

religion [of Islam] according to the rules established by Shari'a.
Authors note: The misconceptions mentioned here are statements of

the heretics [Kharijites], the ghulat [i.e. extremists in takfeer]. In Sha
Allah, we will begin to demolish and respond to each statement and will
explain the correct aqeeda of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaàh regarding
these masā'il [issues] which are points of dispute between us and them.
We ask Allah, the Wise, the All-Knowing, to teach us that which will
benefit us, and to benefit us with what we have been taught, and to
increase us and you in knowledge, sincerity and in following the straight
path.. Ameen
Compilation and arrangement by Nasir al-Sunnah al-Qurashi ‫حفظه هللا‬.
7
■ Introduction 1:
All praise is for Allah, who commanded His servants with tawheed, and
made shirk forbidden upon them and condemned it. My Lord, He who
established the hujja against the people, thus cut off from them all
[forms of] excuse and objection. He sent messengers with glad tidings
and warnings to show people the path to prosperity from the path of
the losers, and made the rulings in this world based on the apparent,
and singled out Himself with the knowledge of the [hidden] secrets. The
ultimate command in matters of conflict belong to him, and it is not for
us, except to obey, and during dispute and ignorance [in matters of
religion], our submission is to divine revelation and not to intellect [or
reason].. and may prayers and peace be upon Muhammad the Hadi,
the best of mankind, who came with the pure guidance and the true
manhaj [methodology] in which there is no contradiction, who was sent
with the sword and likewise with the Book, to spread Tawheed. O my
companions..
As for what follows:
As is the custom of the people of whims and innovations in every time

and place, who cling to their poor understanding of the texts [Quran
and Sunnah] and who rely on texts which are either correct but not
explicit in evidence, or explicit but incorrect. Their purpose in doing this
is to affirm a matter of innovation, and from it is to generalise in takfeer
and to make takfeer a matter from asl ad-din [foundation of the
religion], thus making chain takfeer, and they include takfeer of the
children of the Mushrikeen to be from asl ad-din, consequently denying
8
the Sunnah and the consensus [of scholars] regarding it, and they make
takfeer upon anyone who opposes them in some jurisprudential issue
among other matters of their desires.
The one who contemplates the condition of these people will not find
in them any traits of ahl al- Islam [people of Islam] nor its followers, and
what unites them is their enmity towards Ahl Sunnah Wal Jama'a and
demolishing the laws of Allah, thus, actualising the objectives of the
crusaders in delaying the establishment of Dār al-Islam [land of Islam]
and the establishment of Allah's law. So the sole purpose of these
people is to permit the blood, honour and wealth of the mujahideen,
being treacherous to the soldiers of the victorious sect. Therefore, if
one was to trace the history of the nations of Islam, they would not find
a mention of these people in the conquests, nor in the repulsion of the
armies of the infidels from the lands of Islam.
9
■ Introduction 2:
665 - Hafs bin Umar Al Ardebili narrated to us, he said that Abu Hatim
narrated, he said, Hassan bin Abdul Aziz Al Jarawi narrated that [Imam]
Al Shafi’i would "Strictly forbid [others from] speaking about
philosophy, and he would say [regarding them], that if one of them
would disagree with his companion, he would say, "You have
disbelieved", while he was supposed to have said, "You have made a
mistake". The Sheikh said; "So the philosophers in takfeer of each other
are correct, because their differences [amongst themselves] in their
laws are legislated by their whims and their religion is invented by their
opinions, so their whims caused them to disperse, and their opinions
became scattered, and trials [in religion] befell them, thus they were
deprived of insight [of the truth] and the ability to act upon it. They
slipped away from the straight path of evidence, so the wrongdoer
among them is a heretic, and the one who is right among them is [a
man] without principle, nor reality".
[Al-Ibanah Al-Kubra 2/535 by Ibn Battah 387]
And you will not find these heretics, except that they have made their
pens a way of legislating war against the people of Islam, while the
Jews, the Christians, and the cow-worshippers are safe from them [i.e.
their swords]. You will not find them to have even a foothold of land
upon which the laws of Allah are established, nor a sword except a
sword of betrayal with which sanctities are violated, until they do not
feel safe even amongst themselves, while each one of them thinks
10
himself to be the believer [in the era of] Pharaoh, yet a disbeliever in
[the sight] of others..
There is no contentment for any group of them, and no matter how

many [of them] gather around in this herd, they are quick to declare
each other disbelievers, cursing one another over the simplest of
matters, quick to steal each others possessions, violating each others
honour, either by persuading the women to make takfeer upon their
husbands, thus divorcing them and entering false marriages without
[the consent of] the Wali, or by tempting them with wealth, so that one
of them sells her religion and her Akhira for a little worldly offer.
11
Holding fast onto the Book and the Sunnah to demolish the
fitnah [strife]
■ Misconception - 1: The prophets [peace be upon them] made

general takfeer upon their people, without the exclusion of anyone
1- Allah the Most High says, {And [mention, O Muhammad], when

Abraham said to his father and his people, "Indeed, I am disassociated
from that which you worship. Except He who created me; and indeed,
He will guide me. And He made it a word remaining among his
descendants that they might return [to it]}. [Az-Zhukhruf:27-28]
2- Allah the Most High said, {Verily, I have abandoned the religion of a
people that believe not in Allah and are disbelievers in the Hereafter}.
[Yusuf: 37]
3- Allah the Most High said, {And Noah said, "My Lord, do not leave
upon the earth from among the disbelievers an inhabitant. Indeed, if
You leave them, they will mislead Your servants and not beget except
[every] wicked one and [confirmed] disbeliever}. [Nuh: 26-27]
12
They claim that the statement of Allah Almighty; {"to his father and his
people"} is [evidence of] general takfeer upon each individual from his
people and his father, and they said, did Ibrahim [peace be upon him]
see them all worship idols??!!! Were they continuously involved in the
worship of idols all the time, in front of him visibly, or did he judge
them based on the apparent and [according to] the majority ??!!!
[They also claim] that the saying of Yusuf [peace be upon him],
{"Indeed, I have abandoned the religion of a people"} is evidence of
general takfeer of his people and that is why he described them as
disbelievers, and that the prophets usually made general takfeer which
included all individuals.
[They further claim] that Nuh [peace be upon him] even made takfeer
of the children who would come out of the loins of those [disbelieving
people], while he did not witness the kufr of their fathers individually,
one by one, and that he ruled upon them based on what was [seen]
common, what appeared generally from them and what was
widespread amongst them.
So based on these introductory matters [mentioned above], in which

we do not disagree regarding its principle [that the nations of the
prophets were indeed disbelievers], but rather, our disagreement with
them is regarding that which they falsely claim, that this necessitates
[general takfeer] of [all] people, according to them, and that there is no
such thing as a mastoor al hal Muslim [i.e. one who wears signs of
Islam] in this era, and that they are following the [teachings] of the
13
prophets with regards to their making general takfeer of their people,
thus they made takfeer of everything, even the stones and the trees..
Revealing the misconception and a response to it:
Foreword: We are aware that the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬was upon the religion of
Ibrahim [peace be upon him] before his message, and this religion was
not [understood] by fitrah [natural disposition] only, but rather, it was a
religion which Allah [Azza Wa Jal] had assigned his khalil [prophet
Ibrahim] to convey, and a sound fitrah does indeed conform with this
religion as it consists of a foundation, obligations and laws.
So that the ignorant one does not say to us that these rulings were
[revealed] before the coming of the Sharia, and that Ibn Nufail [may
Allah have mercy on him] worshipped Allah by fitrah and 'aql [rational
reasoning], and that he knew sujood on the back of his ride, and knew
the prohibition of [consuming] the sacrifice of a polytheist [through
this]..
Ibrahim [peace be upon him] based his evidence on the perfect

organised work [of Allah], which indicates to His Oneness, with regards
to the rising and setting of the sun, the rising of the moon and its
disappearance, and the appearance of the stars and their setting. Then
he said, {“If my Lord does not guide me, I will certainly be one of the
misguided people".} [Al-An’am: 77] Thus, he knew that guidance occurs
by means of hearing [revelation]. [Explanation of the principles of the
Beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaàh 2/219 by Lil-al-Kai (414H)]
14
If it is said [as the Mu'tazila claim], that if istidlal [i.e. deducing
evidence] for tawheed wasn’t obligated by mere 'aql [rational
reasoning], then it would have been permissible by Shari’a to abolish it
[i.e. tawheed], and to make disbelief lawful, [or even] obligate it, and
since it did not permit [tawheed to be abolished], then we have come
to know that the obligation [of tawheed] is by reason. It is said to such
a person [in response]: The Shari’a has permitted statements of [kufr]
during harm, but if the person utters such statements [of kufr] willingly,
then it becomes kufr. Do you not see that if he was under ikrah
[compulsion], then it is permitted for him to say [the statement of kufr]
as long he doesn't believe this with his heart, then that statement
would not be considered kufr [on his behalf]. Likewise, this is also
permitted in actions such as prostrating to an idol, worshipping the sun
and the moon, and so on. If he commits such things to protect himself
from the harm of the disbelievers, while [his heart] is firm in faith, he
has not committed kufr. [Qawati' al-Adillah 2/47 by Al-Samani 489h]
Know, that according to the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah, the 'aql [i.e.
rational reasoning] does not obligate anything upon an individual, nor
does it relieve him [of any obligatory matter], and it has no share in
making matters lawful or unlawful, pleasant or loathsome, and if
revelation wasn't heard, nothing would be obligated upon anyone, and
they would not be subjected to reward nor punishment. They argue
[this point] using the statement of the Most High: {And We would
never punish ˹a people˺ until We have sent a messenger ˹to warn
them˺.} And His saying, {[We sent] messengers as bringers of good
tidings and warners so that mankind will have no argument against
Allah after the messengers}. And Allah [Azza Wa Jal] said in reference
15
to the angels, in which they address the people of Hellfire, {Did
messengers not come to you from among yourselves, reciting to you
the revelations of your Lord and warning you of the coming of this
Day of yours?” The disbelievers will cry, “Yes ˹indeed˺!}
So He established the hujjah [evidence] against them by sending them

messengers. So if the [understanding] of the hujja was attached to 'aql
[rational reasoning], then His sending of messengers would not be a
required condition before [carrying out] punishment. The Prophet ‫ﷺ‬
said, "I have been commanded [by Allah] to fight people until they
testify that there is no god except Allah", which shows that he is the
caller to Iman, but according to their view, it would then mean that the
caller to Iman is the 'aql [intellect]. The Book came in support of this, in
[the sending of messengers], as Allah the Most High said, {Say, ˹O
Prophet,˺ “O humanity! I am Allah’s Messenger to you all. To Him
˹alone˺ belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth}. This
shows that da'wah [calling] is for him, [i.e. the messenger] and that
hujja [evidence] is established by it. There are many similar examples of
these verses in the Qur’an. Then how horrific is the statement of those
who claim that in reality there is no da'wah to Iman for any of the
prophets and messengers, and that their presence and absence holds
the same position, and if they [i.e. the messengers] weren't present,
the obligation of Iman upon the people would be on the side [of
intellect] which is obligated upon them after their coming into
existence, and that they [i.e. the messengers] have no share in da'wah
in this [tawheed], but the share is only in their calling towards the
rituals and other branches of worship, and so they made 'aql [rational
reasoning] callers to Allah [Azza Wa Jal], and placed them in the
position of the messengers among themselves. [Al-Intisār li Ashāb Al
hadith 1/75 by Al-Sam'āni 489h]
16
The statements of these heretics then necessitate [the belief] that the
sending of the messengers and their conveying [the message] by the
command of their Lord through divine Revelation is not necessary, as
long as the servant acquires guidance through fitrah and rationale. So
the worship of Allah, [according to them] is by 'aql [rational reasoning],
and takfeer of the disbelievers and having enmity towards them is
known through rational reasoning. Rather, [their words necessitate the
belief] that intellect [alone] enters one into Hellfire if he was to act
against the requirements of fitrah. Whoever says such statements has
rejected the words of his Lord and has made the sending of messengers
useless, as long as guidance is achieved by 'aql [rational reasoning] and
they say fire is obligated for those who oppose it.
I do not know whether you will enter Paradise by 'aql [intellect], or
have your devilish whims not dictated this idea to you yet and it is
under consideration.
So, we move onto the next question:
Did the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬make takfeer of his people by shar'i takfeer? Did he
destroy an idol prior his message? Did he give news [of entry into]
Hellfire to those who died before the revelation came to him? Did he
disassociate himself from them and have enmity towards them before
he was commanded to declare [innocence from them] and separate?
Did he take their wealth as booty and did he enslave their women, even
once, before he was commanded with jihad?
The response to that is:
17
1-Did you know that the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬used to live under the care of his
uncle Abu Talib, and he would respect the ties of kinship and treat
them kindly. In fact, he even married two of his daughters, Ruqayyah
and Umm Kulthum, to two disbelievers; they being Abu al-'Āas and
Ikrimah bin Abi Jahl. Is this an act of a person who makes shar'i takfeer
of his people, and shows them enmity and hatred? So if takfeer is from
Asl al-deen [foundation of religion] then it necessitates something evil,
that you make takfeer on the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬because he did not comply
with that which you stipulate by the verse [i.e. Al-Mumtahinah: 4], as
you claim O heretics, that he must announce takfeer of his people
before his message, since the matter according to you is known by
fitrah and rationale. Was Zaid bin 'Umru bin Nufail upon a purer
[religion of] Haniffiyya than the Messenger of Allah ‫!?ﷺ‬
Al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih on the authority of Aisha, [may Allah be

pleased with her] that Khadija, [may Allah be pleased with her] said
when describing the interaction of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬with his people
before the message. Khadija said, "Nay! But receive the good tidings!
By Allah, Allah will never disgrace you, for by Allah, you keep good
relations with your Kith and kin, speak the truth, help the poor and the
destitute, entertain your guests generously and assist those who are
stricken with calamities." [6/173 No. 4953]
So takfeer is not from the meaning of La-ilaha-ila-Allah which is

achieved by fitrah and 'aql [rational reasoning] as you claim. Rather, it is
a part of its obligation and requisite, and is a legal [shar'i] ruling. It [i.e.
the shahadah] has two parts to the creed which includes the pillar of
negation [nafi, i.e. kufr bit-taghut]. As for the takfeer of a Muslim, there
is detail in it. Part of it is included in the first portion [i.e. kufr bit-
18
taghut], and part of it is a jurisprudential ijtihadi matter [matter which
requires investigation] depending on what the individual committed of
the nullifier. Therefore, it is undoubtedly true that open declaration of
takfeer of the mushrikeen is not from the usool [foundations] of the
millah- Ibrahim, but in fact, it is from it's wajibat [obligations] which are
achieved by being informed, which means it is achieved through the
shar’i texts [i.e. Quran and sunnah].
2- Then we ask you, is the request of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬from his uncle
Abu Talib, of uttering the Shahada sufficient to prove his Islam or not,
and is what he asked of the Jewish boy and what he taught to Muādh in
the da'wah of the people of Yemen sufficient? Rather, is [the Shahada]
which he used to call his people towards, for which he would
intentionally be present in their gatherings and their paths sufficient or
not???
If you reply in the affirmative, and agree that it is sufficient, then you
have attained the truth.
But if you reply in the negative, that it is insufficient in ruling the kafir
asli [original disbeliever] with apparent [outward] Islam, unless he
makes an [additional] declaration of disbelief in the taghut and his
takfeer of them, which you have restricted to the takfeer of chiefs and
rulers, and the takfeer of those who worship them, [i.e. the takfeer of
the whole earth], its human and its jinn according to your claim, and
other such additional conditions [you impose] for which Allah has not
sent down any proof, then you are kuffar because you claim knowledge
[of the religion] which the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬did not know!!
19
The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and those who believed in his message did
not exceed what was stipulated in the verse of Az-Zumar before the
message. Allah the Most High said, {But those who have avoided
ṭāghūt, lest they worship it, and turned back to Allah - for them are
good tidings. So give good tidings to My servants.} [Zumar-17]
So this was the situation of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬before the message. He

avoided the worship of idols and turned to the worship of the Most
Merciful, and he saw that whoever worships idols has gone astray and
is not upon the truth..
'Amr bin 'Abasah Al-Sulami [May Allah be pleased with him] reported:
"In Jahiliyya [Pre-Islamic Period of Ignorance], I used to think that the
people who used to worship idols were misguided and did not adhere to
the true religion. Then I heard of a man in Makkah who was preaching a
message. So I mounted my camel and went to him. I found that (this
man who was) Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬remained hidden because of the
persecution by his people. I had entered Makkah stealthily and when I
met him I asked him, "Who are you?" He ‫ ﷺ‬said, "I am a Prophet." I
asked; "What is a Prophet?" He said, "Allah has sent me (with a
message)". I asked, "With what has He sent you?" He said, "He sent me
to strengthen the ties of kinship, to destroy idols so that Allah alone
should be worshipped and nothing should be associated with Him". I
asked, "Who has followed you in this?" He said, "A freeman and a
slave". (At that time only Abu Bakr and Bilal (May Allah be pleased with
them) were with him). I said, "I shall follow you". He said, "You can not
do that now. Do you not see my situation and that of the people? Go to
your people, and when you hear that my cause has prevailed, come to
me". So I went back to my people, and while I was with my people, the
20
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬emigrated to Al-Madinah. I continued to ask
people about him till some of my people visited Al- Madinah. On their
return, I asked them, "How is that man who has arrived in Al-Madinah
faring?" They said, "People are hastening to him. His own people had
planned to kill him but did not succeed." Then I went to Al-Madinah and
came to him.” [Narrated by Muslim 2/208 no.832]
■ Point of evidence: This is the companion speaking about himself,

realising that they, [i.e. mushrikeen] were misguided and 'misguidance'
here is a linguistic term, not a Shar'i term. The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬did not teach
him that takfeer is from asl ad-din [foundation of religion], and did not
require that he makes takfeer of them, the takfeer according to Shar'i
law, while he knew of the man’s belief, [regarding them], wherein he
saw through fitrah, rationale and by statement, that they were
misguided and mistaken. So say as you please, [O heretics], but rather,
say [the truth] that he viewed them as disbelievers, but didn’t make the
legal shar'i takfeer, rather, takfeer in the linguistic sense. Therefore, we
see that they are all descriptions and not shar'i names that hold shar'i
rulings. Therefore shar'i names and the Shar'i ruling are not learnt
except through the text [i.e. Quran and Sunnah] and are not affirmed
until after their [application] by text..
An explanatory example: Based upon the linguistic meaning, for

example, a fasting person breaks his fast during the day of Ramadan. So
from an intellectual and linguistic point of view, this would break the
fast, even if one forgot, because action in the linguistic sense is
attached to the one performing the action. However, from the shar'i
point of view, the one who forgot is excused as stipulated by the Book
of Allah and the Sunnah of his prophet ‫ﷺ‬. So we notice here, that
21
according to the linguistic meaning and intellectual understanding, he
was made a muftir..[i.e. one who is not fasting], but from the shar'i
point of view, he is not a muftir and his ruling is that he remains as a
fasting person.
Conclusion: The Shar'i name and the Shar'i rulings come hand in hand.
If the name is found, then the ruling is obligated, and if the name is
removed the ruling shall be removed, and for whom a Shar'i name is
established, then the rulings related to it are also established, and for
whom the shar'i name is negated, then we also remove the shar'i
rulings from them. Thus, the ruling is in accordance to the name, and
does not detach from it and this is truth in which there is no doubt, and
another [interpretation] is not permissible.
Further explanation to refute this misconception:
Firstly, the prophets' takfeer of their people is a truth which cannot be

disputed except by the one with poor intellect and little understanding,
as [we know] Allah [Azza Wa Jal] sent them to mushrik [polytheistic]
nations, and Allah assigned them to call for tawheed. However, their
takfeer was not addressed to those who embraced Islam with them,
and they were not of those addressed in the speech. Rather, the speech
was addressed to the majority, and the overall population were
intended by it, not each and every individual.
Allah the Most High said, {And We certainly sent into every nation a
messenger, [saying], "Worship Allah and avoid ṭāghūt." And among
22
them were those whom Allah guided, and among them were those
upon whom error was [deservedly] decreed. So proceed [i.e., travel]
through the earth and observe how was the end of the deniers.} [Nahl-
36]
And Allah the Most High said: {We had certainly sent Noah to his
people, and he said, "O my people, worship Allah; you have no deity
other than Him. Indeed, I fear for you the punishment of a tremendous
Day."} [Al-Araf: 65]
And He the Most High said: {And to the ʿAad [We sent] their brother
Hūd. He said, "O my people, worship Allah; you have no deity other
than Him. Then will you not fear Him?"} [Al-Araf:65]
And He the Most High said: {And [We sent] Abraham, when he said to
his people, "Worship Allah and fear Him. That is best for you, if you
should know.} [Al-Ankabūt: 16]
Secondly, the command from Allah to [His] Khalil, [peace be upon him]
was to inform his mushrikeen people that he had disassociated himself
from their gods which they worshipped, {“I am totally free of whatever
˹gods˺ you worship"}. He did not even order him to disassociate
himself from them, based on the evidence of him asking forgiveness for
his father, and when it became clear to him that he was an enemy of
Allah and died on shirk, thereupon he disassociated himself from him,
as Allah said, {And the request of forgiveness of Abraham for his father
was only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it
became apparent to him [i.e. Abraham] that he was an enemy to
23
Allah, he disassociated himself from him. Indeed was Abraham
compassionate and patient.} [Tawbah:114]
Thirdly, there is no doubt regarding the statement of Yusuf [peace be

upon him], as his people were mushrikeen, and they were as he said
[i.e. mushrikeen], as they did not originally enter Islam. So did the
Prophet of Allah Ya'qub, [peace be upon him], and the brothers of
Yusuf and everyone who believed in Allah and followed the Messenger
enter this generalization [of takfeer]? Or is the generality you are
referring to now vanished, like a mirage in a lowland which the thirsty
one thinks is water, that it does not include those who display tawheed
and is not known from them to have committed a nullifier, so isn't this
for that???
Fourthly, as for your claim that Nuh, [peace be upon him] even made
takfeer of the children who would later come from the backbone of the
mushrikeen despite the fact that he had not witnessed their disbelief,
and that the takfeer of the children of the mushrikeen is [a judgement]
invented by him, and that it is assured takfeer and is from asl-al-deen.
This statement is rejected and refuted by the statement of the
Almighty, {And it was revealed to Noah, “None of your people will
believe except those who already have. So do not be distressed by
what they have been doing}. [Hud 36].
The knowledge of the kufr of his people in general, and of each
individual, and the disbelief of those who would come out of their loins
was information from Allah the Mighty, when He the Exalted decreed
this in His eternal knowledge and what the pen had passed.
24
fitnah [strife]
■ Misconception - 2: {"We reject you"}, meaning; we make takfeer

upon you, which means takfeer is from asl ad-din [i.e. foundation of
the religion] and the excellent example to be followed in religion.
Allah [Azza Wa Jal] says: {There has already been for you an excellent
example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their
people, "Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever
you worship other than Allah. We reject you, and there has appeared
between us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe in
Allah alone" - except for the saying of Abraham to his father, "I will
surely ask forgiveness for you, but I have not [power to do] for you
anything against Allah. Our Lord, upon You we have relied, and to You
we have returned, and to You is the destination.} [Mumtahina: 4]
They claimed that the meaning of {"we are disassociated from you"} is
that we make general takfeer upon you, upon each and every
individual, and that the takfeer of the mushrikeen is from asl-al-deen
which is achieved and understood by the intellect and fitrah.
25
You have made takfeer from asl-ad-deen, but is there any evidence in
the verse [Al-Mumtahinah 4] which affirms that?! Rather, this verse
proves that what is stated in these matters is that they are among the
wājibat- al-deen [i.e. obligatory matters of religion], except that which
the text [Quran and Sunnah] specified, and included it to be part of nafi
[negation] and disavowal from the taghut, which is proven by evidence
from the Qur’an and Sunnah, such as the takfeer of the Jews,
Christians, mushrikeen, Iblis, Pharaoh, the people of ‘Ad, Thamud and
others whose disbelief was definitively proven by revelation..
Further explanation of the introduction: There is no dispute between

us and yourselves, regarding the issue that the khalil of Allah, Ibrahim
[peace be upon him], the father of the prophets, disassociated himself
from his people after he was certain of their disbelief. Yes indeed we do
not disagree with you on that point, but what do you say concerning
the hadith of the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬, “Whoever amongst you sees an evil, he
must change it with his hand; if he is unable to do so, then with his
tongue; and if he is unable to do so, then with his heart; and that is the
weakest form of Faith." [Narrated by Muslim].
So this is the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, the conveyer from Allah, who
described denial with the heart a [part of] Imaan. Then how do you
judge the hearts of the Muslimeen [whose condition of hearts are
hidden], that they are pleased with kufr or that they do not deny it ?!!!
Is it not from shar'i [legislation] and from rational reasoning for them to
26
present some form of apparent action which would indicate to their
approval or their absence of denial [of kufr]??!!
Is it not from shar'i [legislation] and from rational reasoning for them to
present some form of apparent action which would indicate their
approval or disapproval??!!
None knows what is in the hearts except Allah. So if you say that it is
necessary that a person must openly declare innocence from the kuffar
in order for his Islam to be valid, then we say to you [in response], that
your statement necessitates that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali are
disbelievers [according to you], as it has not been proven that they
disassociated themselves from their people when they entered Islam!!
Far be it from that, may Allah be pleased with them and the rest of the
honourable companions.
▪︎ That which proves the deviation of your statements and that you have
departed from the straight path are [certain] matters [as follows]:
1 - The statement of Allah [Azza WaJa]: {when they said to their

people}.. meaning, a man said to his people. So these matters are not
from asl-al-deen. Is the declaration of takfeer from the asl [foundation],
or is it from the obligated [matters] O deviant ones?!
2 - The statement of Allah [Azza Wa Jal], {We reject you..} They claim
that the meaning of this verse is that we make general takfeer of each
individual [as a whole], but what is known from the shar'i [Islamic law]
27
is that disbelief in something does not always necessitate its takfeer, as
there are some idols which are worshiped in the form of constitutions,
and all idols are tawaghit, but the ruling of takfeer does not apply to
them. We will not prolong the discussion in this matter as we leave the
response to the [scholars] of tafseer, [with the following statements]:
And His statement, {We reject you, and there has appeared between
us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah
alone.} [Al-Mumtahina:4]. Allah [Azza Wa Jal] says, whilst informing
about the statement of His prophet to their disbelieving people, {"We
have denied you"}, meaning, we deny what you are upon, of [your]
disbelief in Allah and so we reject your worship, and [deny] what you
worship other than Allah to be the truth, and there has appeared
between us and you animosity and hatred forever because of your
disbelief in Allah, and for your worshipping other than Him, and there is
no peace between us nor respite, {"until you believe in Allah alone"}
[mumtahina:4] He further says, "Until you truly believe in Allah alone,
singling Him Alone in worship". [Tafseer al- Tabari 22/567]
Thus we further follow on with the [statements] of the scholars of

tafseer:
He [Allah] said, {There has already been for you an excellent

people, "Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever
you worship other than Allah. We reject you}. Meaning, [we reject
you] because of your support for your religion. [Tafseer of the Holy
Qur’an 4/377 by Ibn Abi Zamanian 399H]
28
For the questioner who may ask concerning the meaning of this, I
repeat: {There has already been for you an excellent example}
regarding each of the two terms [used in the verses]. Would [the
meaning] be the same if the first [verse] took place of the second, and
vice versa?
The answer is as stated, that Islam is built upon disavowal of all other
gods and their worshipers, and from the idols and their worshippers.
Do you not see the statement of the one who testifies to tawheed, that
he first denies the [worship of] gods by saying: “There is no god” and
thereafter affirms [worship of Allah], by his saying “except Allah”, the
One [alone] who has the right to be worshipped.
Therefore, the first example is related to disassociation and disavowal

from the disbelievers and their actions; {..Indeed, we are disassociated
from you and from whatever you worship}, and that they regard them
as enemies until they believe. So this example separates the believer
from the kafir so that he [the Muslim] is able to differentiate based on
what is evident from him, and so that he disassociates himself from
their friendship and actualizes hostility. The meaning [of the word
'example' in the second verse] is that they followed them [i.e. the
messengers] in example, so that they may receive their rewards and
they turned towards the afterlife like the turning of those who are
given good news of Paradise, without the fear of punishment. [Durah
Al-Tanzil wa ghurra Al-Ta’wil 1/1268 by Al-Khatib Al-Iskafi 420h]
29
Regarding the statement of Allah the Most High: {There has already
been for you an excellent example}, meaning, an excellent role model.
And His saying, {In Abraham and those with him, when they said to
their people, "Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from
whatever you worship other than Allah. We reject you, and there has
appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever".} The
overall meaning is that He commanded them to follow [the example] of
[prophet] Ibrahim by disassociating [themselves] from the mushrikeen
and to abandon their alliance with them. And regarding His saying,
{Except for the saying of Abraham to his father, "I will surely ask
forgiveness for you.} Qatada stated in the [tafseer] of its meaning,
follow Ibrahim, except in this [matter], which is his seeking forgiveness
for his mushrik father. [Tafseer al Quran 5/415 by Al-Samani 489H]
{"We reject you"} meaning, in what you have believed in, of the idols.
It is [also] said to mean, [we reject] your actions and that we have
denied them and denied that you are upon the truth. {"And there has
appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever"},
meaning, we will persist in this, as long as you remain upon disbelief,
{"until you believe in Allah alone"}, then enmity will turn into alliance,
{except for the saying of Abraham to his father, "I will surely ask
forgiveness for you"}, so do not imitate him in asking forgiveness so
that you would be asking forgiveness for the mushrikeen, for he had
promised [his father], as Qatada, Mujahid and others stated . It has also
been said that the meaning of the exception is that [prophet] Ibrahim
abandoned his people and stayed away from them, except in his asking
forgiveness for his father, then He explained his excuse in Surah Al-
Tawbah". [Tafsir 18/56 Al-Qurtubi 671h]
30
3▪️- The statement of the Most High: {"And there has appeared
between us and you animosity and hatred."} Expressing enmity and
hatred is also not from asl-al-deen, as showing enmity with the tongue,
and defending and performing jihad with the limbs are among the
obligatory [matters], or according to you, is jihad from asl al-din, O you
who only resemble men, as real men are not the likes of you, O you
who have turned your backs [in battlefield] and exposed the backs of
the mujahideen, who are the people tawheed, in every land which
were the frontiers of Islam. So if declaration and expressing enmity is
from the asl [foundation], as you claim, then you have disbelieved, and
if [you say] it is from among the obligations as we have [previously]
presented, then you lied against your Lord as you have made takfeer of
His [believing] servants, and have betrayed the trust and the covenant.
4 - The statement of Allah the Most High: {Except for the saying of
Ibrahim to his father..}, is a devastating blow for them [in refutation of
their claim].. yet they continue to say that indeed the "excellent
example" here is asl al-din.. and this [part of the verse] is the exception
from the excellent example, because linguistically, the exception of
something is excluded from the rule of exception].. [as Allah [Azza Wa
Jal] excluded Prophet Ibrahim seeking forgiveness for his father]. Do we
then say that Ibrahim, [peace be upon him] nullified asl al-din by asking
forgiveness for his father as his action is contrary to the "excellent
example” [i.e.: the asl al-din according to them]?
5 - It is further said: This surah [and what is included in this verse] was
revealed in Madina, so istidlal [deducing evidence] from this verse
alone is dropped in explaining asl al-din. So were the companions who
were in Abyssinia ignorant of asl al-din O Ruwaibdah?! What religion is
31
this which remained without an asl [foundation] for more than thirteen
years in Makkah, then the Ansār entered it without knowing the asl al-
din of their religion while some of them were martyred and others died
while Allah testified for them of His pleasure and success.
As for the third group, they were those who remained in Abyssinia until
the end of the sixth year of Hijrah or the beginning of the seventh year.
It was led by Ja'far himself, [may Allah be pleased with him], and his
wife Asma bint Umays was with him, and Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari and
some of his companions, [may Allah be pleased with them all]. It
appeared that from time to time, some of them would leave him [Ja'far
and his companions], leaving to the city of Madina because this last
group was only sixteen men, as Ibn Ishaq mentioned, and with them
were approximately four women and five children. [For a summarised
version, please refer to Seerah Nabawiyya 2/359-362, al-Tabari: Tarikh
al-Rusul wal Mulūk 2/343, and Ibn Kathir: Al Bidāyah Wa Al-Nihāyah
4/235]
Allah the Most High said: {Indeed, those who have the best claim to
Ibrahim are his followers, this Prophet, and the believers. And Allah is
the Guardian of those who believe.} [Al-Imrān:68]
He the Most High also said: {Then We revealed to you, [O

Muhammad], to follow the religion of Abraham, inclining toward
truth; and he was not of those who associate with Allah}. [Nahl:123]
It is necessary for the seeker of truth and salvation to worship Allah

with insight, by adhering to the evidence, by supporting and bringing
together parts of it with one another, not contradicting parts with each
32
other, or accepting parts of the evidence while disregarding the rest, as
the heretics do, each one of them [interpreting] according to his own
desire and what he understands.
▪️ In order for us to prove the validity of what we believe to be correct in

the religion of Allah, regarding the fact that takfeer is only [understood]
by hearing [divine revelation], and rational reasoning has no share in it,
and that the position of general takfeer is for those who worship other
than Allah, not takfeer of a mastoor al-hāl Muslim [i.e. a Muslim whose
condition [of religion] known by signs of Islam] in any time and place.
Upon us is to follow the chain of revelation in the story of the Hanif, the
father of the prophets Ibrahim, [peace be upon him and upon our
Prophet], who was on the manhaj and Sunnah of Noah, [peace be upon
him], as stated clearly in the Qur'an.
He the Most High said, {Peace upon Noah among the worlds. Indeed,
this is how We reward the good-doers.˹For˺ he was truly one of Our
believing servants.Then We drowned the others [i.e., disbelievers].
And indeed, one of those who followed his way was
Abraham.˹Remember˺ when he came to his Lord with a pure heart.}
[As-Saffat: 79-84]
Abd Ibn Hamid, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Al-Mundhir and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated on
the authority of Mujahid, [may Allah be pleased with him], regarding
His statement, {And indeed, one of those who followed his way was
Abraham.} He said, from the followers of Noah is Ibrahim, who
followed his method and Sunnah. {˹Remember˺ when he came to his
Lord with a pure heart.} He said there is no doubt [in this
33
interpretation]. Also, Abd Bin Hamid, Ibn Jarir and Ibn Al-Mundhir
narrated from Qatada, [may Allah be pleased with him] said regarding
His statement, {And indeed, one of those who followed his way was
Abraham.}, he said it means from his religion. {˹Remember˺ when he
came to his Lord with a pure heart}, meaning [pure] from Shirk. {Is it
false gods that you desire instead of Allah? Then what is your thought
about the Lord of the worlds?"}; meaning, when you will meet Him
while you have worshiped others. [Al-Durr Al-Manthur by Al-Suyuti
7/100]
A summary of the events of Prophet Ibrahim [peace be upon him]:
1 - Disputing with his people regarding their idols and explaining their
deficiency, weakness, and unworthiness of worship. Also explaining
that guidance is achieved by revelation, not by 'aql [intellectual
reasoning], even though he presented rational arguments against
them.
Allah the Most High said: {And his people argued with him. He
responded, “Are you arguing with me about Allah, while He has
guided me? I am not afraid of whatever ˹idols˺ you associate with
Him—˹none can harm me,˺ unless my Lord so wills. My Lord
encompasses everything in ˹His˺ knowledge. Will you not be mindful?
And how should I fear your associate-gods, while you have no fear in
associating ˹others˺ with Allah—a practice He has never authorized?
Which side has more right to security? ˹Tell me˺ if you really know! It
is ˹only˺ those who are faithful and do not tarnish their faith with
34
falsehood who are guaranteed security and are ˹rightly˺ guided. And
that was Our [conclusive] argument which We gave Abraham against
his people. We raise by degrees whom We will. Indeed, your Lord is
Wise and Knowing.} [Al-An’am:80-83]
And He the Most High said, {And mention in the Book [the story of]
Abraham. Indeed, he was a man of truth and a prophet.[Mention]
when he said to his father, "O my father, why do you worship that
which does not hear and does not see and will not benefit you at all. O
my father, indeed there has come to me of knowledge that which has
not come to you, so follow me; I will guide you to an even path. O my
father, do not worship [i.e., obey] Satan. Indeed Satan has ever been,
to the Most Merciful, disobedient. O my father, indeed I fear that
there will touch you a punishment from the Most Merciful so you
would be to Satan a companion [in Hellfire]."} [Maryam:41-45]
2 - Disassociating [himself] from their idols with the tongue and

showing enmity to them with the tongue, while showing their
deficiency and weakness:
Allah the Most High said, {And [mention, O Muḥammad], when

from that which you worship. Except for He who created me; and
indeed, He will guide me." And he made it [his testimony] a word
remaining among his descendants that they might return [to it]}. [Az-
Zukhruf:26-28]
35
And He the Most High said: {Relate to them ˹O Prophet˺ the story of
Abraham. When he said to his father and his people, "What do you
worship? "They said, "We worship idols and remain to them devoted.
“He said, "Do they hear you when you supplicate? Or do they benefit
you, or do they harm? "They replied, “No! But we found our
forefathers doing the same.” He said, "Then do you see what you have
been worshipping. You and your ancient forefathers? Indeed, they are
enemies to me, except the Lord of the worlds.} [Ash-Shu'ra:69-77]
3 - Showing [physical] enmity physically by the hand towards their idols

and destroying them:
Allah the Most High said: {And indeed, We had granted Abraham
sound judgment early on, for We knew him well ˹to be worthy of it˺.
When he said to his father and his people, "What are these statues to
which you are devoted?" They said, "We found our fathers
worshippers of them." He said, "You were certainly, you and your
fathers, in manifest error." They said, "Have you come to us with
truth, or are you of those who jest?" He replied, “In fact, your Lord is
the Lord of the heavens and the earth, Who created them ˹both˺. And
to that I bear witness.” And [I swear] by Allah, I will surely plan
against your idols after you have turned and gone away." So he made
them into fragments, except a large one among them, that they might
return to it [and question].} [ Al-Anbiya:51-58]
4 - Showing enmity towards the mushrikeen themselves after the idols,

then separating from them and abandoning them by emigrating from
amongst them:
36
Allah the Most High said: {They said, "Have you done this to our gods,
O Abraham?" He said, "Rather, this - the largest of them - did it, so
ask them, if they should [be able to] speak." So they returned to
[blaming] themselves and said [to each other], "Indeed, you are the
wrongdoers." Then they reversed themselves, [saying], "You have
already known that these do not speak!" He said, "Then do you
worship instead of Allah that which does not benefit you at all or
harm you? Shame on you and whatever you worship instead of Allah!
Do you not have any sense?” They said, "Burn him and support your
gods - if you are to act." We [i.e., Allah] said, "O fire, be coolness and
safety upon Abraham." And they intended for him a plan [i.e., harm],
but We made them the greatest losers. And We delivered him and Lot
to the land which We had blessed for the worlds [i.e., peoples].} [Al-
Anbiya:62-71]
He the Most High said, {They said, "Construct for him a structure [i.e.,
furnace] and throw him into the burning fire." And they intended for
him a plan [i.e., harm], but We made them the most debased. And
[then] he said, "Indeed, I will go to [where I am ordered by] my Lord;
He will guide me.} [As-Saffat: 97-99]
And He the Most High said: {O my father, indeed I fear that there will
touch you a punishment from the Most Merciful so you would be to
Satan a companion [in Hellfire]."[His father] said, "Have you no desire
for my gods, O Abraham? If you do not desist, I will surely stone you,
so avoid me a prolonged time."[Abraham] said, "Peace [i.e., safety]
will be upon you. I will ask forgiveness for you of my Lord. Indeed, He
37
is ever gracious to me. And I will leave you and those you invoke [i.e.
worship] other than Allah and will invoke my Lord. I expect that I will
not be in invocation to my Lord unhappy [i.e. disappointed]. So when
he had left them and those they worshipped other than Allah, We
gave him Isaac and Jacob, and each [of them] We made a prophet.}
[Maryam:45-49]
5 - Complete separation [from the mushrikeen] by bringing together

the aforementioned [evidences], by showing disassociation, hatred and
enmity towards the mushrikeen for the worship in itself, and for what
they worship besides Allah.
Allah the Most High said, {You already have an excellent example in
Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, “We
totally dissociate ourselves from you and ˹shun˺ whatever ˹idols˺ you
worship besides Allah. We reject you. The enmity and hatred that has
arisen between us and you will last until you believe in Allah alone.”
The only exception is when Abraham said to his father, “I will seek
forgiveness for you,˹” adding, “but˺ I cannot protect you from Allah at
all.” ˹The believers prayed,˺ “Our Lord! In You we trust. And to You we
˹always˺ turn. And to You is the final return.} [ Mumtahinah:4]
And Allah the Most High knows best.
38
fitnah [strife].
■ Misconception - 3: Surah Al-Kafirun is a declaration of takfeer of the

Mushrikeen and disassociation from Shirk.
Allah [Azza Wa Jal] said: {Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “O you disbelievers! I do not

worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I
worship. Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship. Nor will you
be worshippers of what I worship. For you is your religion, and for me
is my religion.} [Al-Kafirun:1-6]
They claimed that as long as the speech is addressed generally, and

because it shows separation between the people of truth and the
people of shirk, then it is clear evidence of the kufr of the youth among
whom shirk and kufr has become widespread, from the secularists and
democratic parties, parliaments, and tawaghit rulers, and that takfeer is
from asl ad-din and is understood by fitrah and 'aql [rationale].
Revealing the misconception and a response:
As for you considering Sura Al-Kafirun as evidence, claiming that it

proves general takfeer [of all people], and that takfeer is from asl ad-
39
deen which is understood by fitrah and 'aql [rationale], then the
response to such a claim is given by the scholars of tafseer from the
start:
It was only stated as it is [i.e. surah kafirun], because the speech is from
Allah to the messenger ‫ ﷺ‬regarding specific individuals from the
mushrikeen, of whom He knew were never to believe, which was a
matter written for them in His prior Knowledge. So He commanded his
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬in order to instil despair in that which they hoped for [i.e. for
the Prophet to worship their gods], of which they themselves
mentioned, and that it was an impossible thing never to happen,
neither from him nor from them at any given time. So the Prophet of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬lost hope for them to believe [in Islam] and they were never to
be successful, and so they became exactly that, as they were neither
successful nor did they pass [the worldly test], as some of them were
killed on the day of Badr [by the Muslims] and some perished prior to
that as disbelievers. The scholars of tafseer stated similar to what we
have stated regarding this matter, and narrations of this have been
reported. [Tafseer Jāmi' al bayan 24/702 by imam Tibari 310H].
▪︎ And we follow up with statements from the scholars of tafseer:
It has been narrated on the authority of ibn Abbas, that the Quraysh
called the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to give him a large amount of wealth
until he would become the richest man in Makkah, and they would
marry him off to any woman he desired. So they said, 'This is for you O
Muhammad, so stop cursing our gods and don't mention them in a
40
disgraceful manner, and if you do not [accept this], then we present to
you an offer which will be of benefit to you.’ He asked what it was, and
they said, "You worship our Lord for a year and we worship your lord
for a year". He told them not until I see what comes from my Lord.
Then it was revealed from Allah: {Say, [O prophet] "O disbelievers, I do
not worship what you worship."} [Tafseer Al Quran Al 'Atheem
10/3472 Ibn Abi Hatim 327 H]
Sura Al-Kafirun, {Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “O you disbelievers!} is a disavowal

from shirk. The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬commanded a man to recite it before he
sleeps, and he said, “It is a disavowal from shirk.” Also, whoever recites
it, is as though he recited a quarter of the Quran. [Al nakt daleel 'alā
bayan 4/557 li Qasab 360H]
His statement: {Say,[O prophet] O you disbelievers! I do not worship

what you worship} of idolatry. {Nor are you worshippers of what I
worship}, meaning; you worship idols and do not worship Allah. {Nor
will you be a worshipper of what I worship.} meaning; you worship
idols and do not worship Allah. {Nor will I worship what you worship.},
meaning; from the idols. {Nor do you worship what I worship.},
meaning; you worship idols. {For you is your religion,} of kufr
[disbelief], {and for me is my religion}; Islam. [Tafseer of the Holy
Qur’an 5/169 by Ibn Abi Zaminin 399H]
1 - Allah [Azza Wa Jal] says: {Say, O disbelievers!}. Takfeer upon the

disbelievers is a truth regarding which no two Muslims dispute, but to
openly declare it, and to announce separation [from the kuffar] is not
from the asl ad-deen. Rather, the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬did not resort to this until
41
the disbelievers showed enmity and hatred for the religion of Allah the
Almighty.
2 - Then it is said further, [in response]: The Sunnah is the explanation

[tafseer] of the Qur’an. So where do we find from the Sunnah of the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬that he set a condition upon the one who came to him
wanting to embrace Islam, a condition that he must first announce the
takfeer of the mushrikeen so that he could enter the religion??
3 - Why did the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬leave the people to their understanding,

despite knowing that from amongst them were those who were
intelligent and others who were simple minded, the attentive and the
Bedouins, yet he did not completely explain asl ad-deen so that the
argument can be established against them?
4 - Why didn't the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬ever declare that which you have entered
into asl ad-deen, and didn't ask this from any disbeliever before his
entering Islam? Or is asl ad-deen according to you based on
understanding and extraction [of rulings] only?
5 - This verse is a disassociation from all [types] of shirk, and likewise

we also disassociate from Allah all types of shirk, and we make takfeer
of every mushrik, whether a kafir asli [original disbeliever] or an
apostate. So how does the one who is judged to be a Muslim enter into
this meaning, while he has entered the protection of his Lord, as long
he doesn’t commit a nullifier.
42
fitnah [strife]
■ Misconception - 4: The statement of the friend of Allah [peace be

upon him], "There are no believers on the surface of the earth except
you and I."
Ibrahim [peace be upon him] said, as mentioned in the Sahih, "O

Sarah! There are no believers on the surface of the earth except you and
I. This man asked me about you and I have told him that you are my
sister, so don't contradict my statement."
I say, how similar is his statement [peace be upon him], to that of our
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬on the day of Badr, wherein he said, “O Allah! If you destroy
this band of adherents to Islam, you will not be worshiped upon the
earth". [Narrated by Muslim from the hadith of Umar, may Allah be
pleased with him].
They alleged that the words of the khalil [peace be upon him] includes
the whole earth and whosoever is upon it including Prophet Lut, [peace
43
be upon him], and that [this statement] would not harm him because
he is a Muslim according to himself!!!!
The first aspect: This information is in fact true, authentic and infallible,
and whoever denies this, claiming that there were Muslims present in
that land other than them, and despite that Prophet Ibrahim made
takfeer upon them, then he has disbelieved due to rejecting the [true]
information of Allah's khalil. It is absolutely obligatory to believe that
there were no Muslims present in that land except Ibrahim and Sarah,
thus this matter ends the dispute.
The second aspect: That [the definite article "the"] in the word [Al-ard,
i.e. the earth] is referring to lam li al-ʿahd and is not used in the general
sense, which is evident from the context of the following hadith: (“A
man (i.e. Ibrahim) has come down here, accompanied by a woman who
was one of the most charming of people.” [Once he was passing
through the land of a tyrant (king)]. This is why our scholars stated,
regarding Prophet Ibrahim’s negation of Islam [for everyone in that
land] with the exception of himself and his wife, with the saying of
Allah: {So Lot believed in him. And Abraham said, “I am emigrating ˹in
obedience˺ to my Lord.}, that the land he intended was the land in
which the incident took place, and Lut was not with him at that time.”)
17251- Ali bin Al-Hussein narrated to us that Muhammad bin Isa

narrated to us [he said], Salamah narrated to us on the authority of Ibn
44
Ishaq, who said, “Then Ibrahim [peace be upon him] set out emigrating
to his Lord, and prophet Lut also went with him. They both made hijrah,
and he married Sarah, the daughter of his uncle, and set out with her,
seeking to flee with his faith with trust upon his Lord, until he arrived at
[a place called] Jarān. He stayed there as long as Allah wished him to
stay. Then he emigrated from there until he arrived to Egypt wherein
was a [tyrant] pharaoh from the previous pharaohs, and Sarah was one
of the best people, as it has been stated. She did not disobey Ibrahim in
any matter, and that is why Allah honoured her. [ Tafseer Ibn Abi Hatim
9/3051]
The third aspect: This is from the information of the prophets, and the
origin of it is divine revelation. It is obligatory upon us to believe
whether negating or affirming [matters], and we must not disagree [in
this matter]. However, we do not believe as the Kharijites do, in
denying Islam to the masses because they are immoral, non-righteous
and wicked liars. They reject the statement of the prophets and
contradict their rulings regarding the fact that whoever displays Islam is
judged with Islam in any given land, until that which nullifies Islam
appears from him with conclusive evidence. May Allah sever the roots
of these heretics if they do not repent and return to the truth.
The fourth aspect: 11040 - My father narrated,[he said] that Yahya bin
Abdul-Hamid narrated to us,[he said] that Yaqoub bin Abdullah
narrated on the authority of Ja'far bin Abi Al-Mughirah, on the
authority of Sa'eed bin Jubayr, regarding His statement in the verse, {he
began to argue [i.e., plead] with Us concerning the people of Lot.} He
said, "When Jibreel came to prophet Ibrahim [peace and blessings be
upon him] and told him he will destroy the people of Lot, he [Ibrahim]
45
said, "Will you destroy a village in which there are four hundred
believers?" He said, “No.” He said, “Then three hundred believers.” He
said, “No.” He said, “Eighty believers.” He replied in the negative.
“Fifty?” He replied in the negative. “Then forty believers?” [to which he
still replied in the negative]. He said, “Then fourteen believers?” He
said, “No.” So Ibrahim thought that they were fourteen including
prophet Lut's wife, but [in reality], there were thirteen believers
therein, whom Allah destroyed, and Jibreel knew of that, and that is
[the meaning] of His statement, {he began to argue [i.e., plead] with
Us concerning the people of Lot.}". [Tafseer ibn Abi Hatim 6/2058]
■ Point of evidence: Prophet Ibrahim, [peace be upon him] counted

the wife of Lut [peace be upon him] from among the Muslims, thus
judging her by the apparent. Then the [following] question arises, ‘Does
his takfeer include [all the people] residing in the land as you
distortedly understood it to include Lut [peace be upon him]?’ If you
reply in the affirmative, that [this takfeer] does not harm him, then
know that this a slander against the Prophets. Then we further ask, ‘Did
he make takfeer upon them through divine revelation or by ijtihad
[concluding his own opinion]?’ If [you agree] to the first, then you have
invented a lie against your Lord, and if [you agree] to the second, then
you have alleged that the khalil [of Allah] made takfeer upon the
prophets and Muslims and that he invented lies against his Lord, so
repent to Allah, may Allah guide you.
46
fitnah [strife].
■ Misconception - 5: The statement of Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail, "O

people of Quraish! By Allah, none amongst you is on the religion of
Abraham except me."
Laith stated that Hisham wrote to me from his father, on the authority
of Asma bint Abi Bakr [may Allah be pleased with them], she said, "I
saw Zaid bin Amr bin Nufail standing with his back against the Ka'ba
saying, "O people of Quraish! By Allah, none amongst you is on the
religion of Abraham except me." He used to preserve the lives of little
girls. If somebody wanted to kill his daughter, he would say to him, "Do
not kill her for I will feed her on your behalf." So he would take her, and
when she grew up nicely, he would say to her father, "Now if you want
her, I will give her to you, and if you wish, I will feed her on your behalf."
[Narrated by Bukhari]
They allege that this statement of Ibn Nufail is [evidence for] general
takfeer which includes both the young and old, and even the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬
himself, and the muwahideen too, the likes of Salman, Abi Dhar, Qas
bin Saed, Warqa bin Nofal and others. They claim that Ibn Nufail
understood this by his fitrah and 'aql [rational reasoning], despite the
fact that the message had not reached him, and even though he had
47
not witnessed every individual from among the people to have
committed shirk???!!!!
Their adherence to [the statement] of Zaid bin Amr in considering the

mushrikeen to be upon misguidance is corrupt, because the
disbelievers of Quraysh did not display anything with regards to the
utterance of the two testimonies nor did they display Islam. Rather,
they were profoundly drowned in the worship of their idols from the
scalp of the head to the soles of the feet.
They claim that the two hadiths contradict [one another]:

12- Was the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬upon the religion of his people before his
message? They said, you narrated that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said,
“Never did a prophet disbelieve in Allah, and that Allah sent to him two
angels who took out from his heart a clot, when he was young, then
washed his heart and returned it to its place.” Then you narrated that
he was on the religion of his people for forty years and he married his
two daughters off, [one] to Utbah bin Abi Lahab, and [the other] to Abu
Al-Aas bin Al-Rabi` while they were disbelievers". They said, "There is a
contradiction and disagreement in this, and a disregard for the
Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. Abu Muhammad stated, and we too state that
there is no right for anyone [to disagree] in this matter, [with the
blessing of Allah], or to say anything regarding this matter if indeed he
knew the meaning of it, because all Arabs are from the sons of Ismail
48
bin Ibrahim [peace be upon them] except those from Yemen. They
continued to remain upon the remnants of the religion of their father
Ibrahim, [may Allah grant him peace], some of which includes the
pilgrimage to the ka'bah and visiting it, circumcision, marriage, the
occurrence and [validity] of divorce if it was [given] three times, and the
possibility of taking her back for the husband if he divorced her once or
twice only, and the blood money of a hundred camels [for the killing of
a soul], ghusl from major impurity [janabah], the adoption of the
judgement of urethra for the hermaphrodite, and the prohibition of
incestuous relationships with kin, or with [those who have become of]
kinship [by marriage], and lineage. These are well-known matters
regarding them. [Ta'weel mukhtalif hadiths 1/176 by Ibn Qutayba
276h]
■ Point of evidence: the absence of declaring exception of the prophet

‫ ﷺ‬is just like the exception of the Arab Hunafā [those who didn't
commit shirk], and the ruling on the general doesn't necessitate
judgement of all the individuals, O evil ones who have walked on the
surface of the earth, if only you had used your intellect.
213 - 'Isma bin Issam Al-'Akbari told me, he said that Hanbal bin Ishaq
narrated to us, he said, "I said to Abu Abdullah, ‘what do you say about
the one who claims that the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬was on the religion of his
people before he was sent with the message?’ He said, "This is an evil
statement. The one who utters such a statement must be warned
concerning these statements, and must not be accompanied in
gatherings". I told him that our neighbour who has these [critical
views], Abu al-Abbas says such statements. He replied, "May Allah kill
him. What remains if he claims that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was on
49
the religion of his people while they would worship idols, and while
Allah the Mighty and Sublime spoke [of his Prophet hood], and Prophet
Isa also gave the good news [of his prophet hood] when he said, {His
name is Ahmad}". I told him that he claims that Khadija was upon that
way [i.e. religion], when the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬married her in the days of pre
ignorance [Jahiliyya]. He said, "As for Khadija, I do not say anything. She
was the first from amongst the women who believed in him. Then what
do people say regarding this talk of philosophy. These are a people of
philosophy, and whoever took a liking to philosophy did not succeed.
Glory be to Allah! Glory be to Allah from such a saying". He signified
this matter and argued [this point] with statements which I did not
memorize, and he mentioned his ‫ ﷺ‬mother, that when he was born she
saw Nur [light]. "Was it not that when he was born, she saw this, and
before his message he was pure and cleansed from [the worship of]
idols. Was it not that he did not eat what was sacrificed on the
monuments [of the idols]". He then said: "Beware of the philosophers
for their affair will not end good". [As-Sunnah 1/195 li Abu Bakr al-
Khalal 311 AH]
■ Point of evidence: Consider O Sunni, the treatment of the righteous

predecessors with those who uttered such evil statements, [may Allah
kill them]. And here are their grandchildren of those philosophers, from
the recent wasted Mu'tazila's, who are now revealing their rotten
heads so that their statements suggest that Ibn Nufail, [may Allah have
mercy on him] included the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬to be [on the religion] of his
people, and they even claim, [may Allah kill them], that this is a takfeer
of judgement [only], which does not harm the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬. So which
statement is more corrupt than this, while the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬is like a
shining mark of the religion of Hanifiyyah, the religion of prophet
50
Ibrahim, who avoided the worship of idols, who was a worshipper of
the nights in the cave, for Allah.
And [based] upon that, when Ibn Nufail considered the people to be
upon misguidance in general, while [his statement] did not mention the
Hanafis clearly, is because he knew of the disbelief of the general
people and the majority [with certainty], unlike the heretics [of today]
in their takfeer of the general [population], many of whom display
Islam, while there is no known nullifier established amongst the
majority. Nevertheless, they have made the rule of the majority fall
under the rule of the minority individuals and sects, so the matter
turned against the khawarijis, contrary to [the statement] of Ibn Nufail!
▪️ The [correct] response is that it was necessary to judge the general

majority with Islam in ruling, and to exclude individuals who have fallen
into disbelief. But they fell into what their ancestors from the Khawarijs
had fallen into, and the [true] evidence became dark for them, so they
fell into misguidance, away from the [true] path, may Allah reform
them and guide them to the right path.
Among the strangest contradictions which some of the heretics

[themselves] have become wary about, regarding those [amongst
them] who make general takfeer, and regarding the evil actions of their
[own] people, is their inclusion of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬in the ruling of
disbelief just like his people, due to the statement of Ibn Nufail, [may
Allah have mercy on him], which is [a judgement] based on their
crooked understanding of a fundamental rule, which is; 'ruling is for the
majority, and the rare have no ruling'. The [following] text presents
51
some of their statements, [in justifying their false interpretation of the
statement of ibn nufail], may Allah guide them:
• [They say], as for the matter of including the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬to be [on the
religion] of his people, it is known that the treatment of the prophets is
different from others, and not everything which may be said to other
than the prophets may be addressed to the prophets. Upon our
Prophet be blessings and peace.
Allah the Most High says: {Do not make [your] calling of the
Messenger among yourselves as the call of one of you to another.}
[Nur:63]
• [They further argue] stating; the assertion that the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬was
ruled with disbelief due to the inclusion of him upon [the religion] of his
people, and then establishing the validity of this inclusion and takfeer
due to "Zayd bin Nufail" being ignorant of the condition of the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬destroys and nullifies tawheed, and this is not what we have
been commanded to do, of reverence, honour and respect for him ‫ﷺ‬.
Abolishing their heresies, with the following:
a) [They also argue], that the inclusion [of the prophet ‫ ﷺ‬is not explicit
in the generality of the speech to all individuals, with the presence of a
known exception. Also, it is not possible for anyone in Makkah to be
ignorant of the Hanifiyyah [i.e. inclination to tawheed] of the Prophet
52
‫ ﷺ‬before his message because he was like a shining mark between
them and his news filled the hearing and sight [of the people].
[So these heretics further justify their false interpretation of the

statement of ibn Nufail] by stating that this inclusion in the speech is
not necessitated by shari' [judgement], nor linguistic [rulings], nor
custom or intellect, because it is correct to say such a statement and
generalise it in a gathering in which the majority are “a people of
disbelief” with the presence of one or two of your “muwahhid
brothers”, as your speech was [intended] for the original, the general
and for the majority of those in the gathering. This is similar to what the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said regarding Abu Bakr [may Allah be pleased with him],
("Allah sent me (as a Prophet) to you (people) but you said (to me),
'You are telling a lie,' while Abu Bakr said, 'He has said the truth.') Here,
the generalization made is correct in terms of Shar'i [judgement],
linguistic [rulings], according to custom and intellect, as this
generalization was [intended] for the original, general and for the
majority [of those present], because [we know] that “Ali” and “Zayd bin
Haritha” embraced Islam during the time of Abu Bakr’s conversion to
Islam -[may Allah be pleased with them]- and they did not say “you
lied”.
They say, so accordingly, there is no explicit evidence which includes

each individual with the presence of a known exception, and whoever
says of the ignorance of the Hanifiyyah of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬has lied. With
that, the statement of Zayd bin Nufail does not include the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬
and does not attach him [in this generalization], because the
fundamental [issue] is the absence of the ignorance of his Hanifiyyah
[the prophets inclination to tawheed] and his perfection [in manners].
53
b) [They also argue in defence of this inclusion], that the reputation of
his tawheed and Hanifiyyah, and the perfect manners of the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬
and his trustworthiness and the perfection of his character in Makkah
before his message filled the hearing and sight [of the people].
Furthermore, the reputation and distinction of his condition, the
perfection of his character, and [narrations] of he being upon
Hanifiyyah are far more than that of Zayd. Whoever claims that the
Hanifiyyah of “Ibn Nufail” was more famous in Makkah, then he should
mention clear evidences, not delusional suspicions.
[So they argue], that this diminishes the fact that “Zayd bin Nufail”
was ignorant of the condition of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬while he was a shining
mark amongst them.
c) [They continue in defence of their false interpretation of the

statement of ibn nufail, stating], it is not permissible to go into this
[discussion], by saying that "Zayd" included him [i.e. the Prophet] with
his people and made takfeer upon him, and that this inclusion is correct
by virtue of the rule of generality, while it is contrary to the reality of
the matter! This statement is from that which “nullifies the foundation
of Islam completely,” because it contains disregard and contradiction
[of the prophet], which is not from the reverence, honour and respect
which we have been commanded to have for him ‫ﷺ‬.
They continue arguing, how dare a Muslim whose heart is filled with
honour and shar'i reverence for the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬say that so-and-so
made takfeer of him due to his inclusion [of being on the religion] of his
54
people, and that this inclusion is correct considering the rule of
generality and this inclusion contradicts the truth!
Subhanallah, we seek refuge in Allah from such a statement. If the one

who said this was in the presence of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and his
companions, he would have dared to say this, addressing the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬that so-and-so made takfeer of you due to including you to
[be on the religion] of your people, and that his words are correct
considering the rule of inclusion, but [the takfeer doesn't affect you] in
reality?!
d) [They add, stating], the stipulated texts of general takfeer made by

the Prophets [may Allah have mercy on them] for their nations, and the
takfeer made by the Companions [May Allah be pleased with them]
upon the general "apostates" are explicit evidence [taken from text of
Quran and Sunnah] regarding the general [populations], and no
consideration is given to those [individuals] referred to as "majhool al
hāl", [i.e. one whose condition of religion is unknown].
■ We state [in refutation of all the aforementioned statements which

they cite as evidences in defence of their claims], this is truth mixed
with falsehood, which is that they did not document [and present] what
they wrote with the aim of following the truth. Rather, it is due to their
fear of the destruction of their innovated beliefs. If they were to adhere
to what they presented, it would necessitate that they rule with Islam,
the mastoor al hāl muslim [the Muslim who has signs of Islam], against
whom a visible, credible nullifier considered by Sharia wasn't
established.
55
It has been narrated by ibn Umar that Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail went to
Sham, inquiring about a true religion to follow. He met a Jewish
religious scholar and asked him about their religion. He said, "I intend to
embrace your religion, so tell me some thing about it." The Jew said,
"You will not embrace our religion unless you receive your share of
Allah's Anger." Zaid said, "'I do not run except from Allah's Anger, and I
will never bear a bit of it if I have the power to avoid it. Can you tell me
of some other religion?" He said, "I do not know any other religion
except the Hanif." Zaid enquired, "What is Hanif?" He said, "Hanif is the
religion of (the prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a
Christian, and he used to worship None but Allah (Alone)" Then Zaid
went out and met a Christian religious scholar and told him the same as
before. The Christian said, "You will not embrace our religion unless you
get a share of Allah's Curse." Zaid replied, "I do not run except from
Allah's Curse, and I will never bear any of Allah's Curse and His Anger if I
have the power to avoid them. Will you tell me of some other religion?"
He replied, "I do not know any other religion except Hanif." Zaid
enquired, "What is Hanif?" He replied, Hanif is the religion of (the
prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a Christian and he used
to worship None but Allah (Alone)" When Zaid heard their Statement
about (the religion of) Abraham, he left that place, and when he came
out, he raised both his hands and said, "O Allah! I make You my Witness
that I am on the religion of Abraham." [Narrated by Bukhari]
■ Point of evidence: It is said to these heretics, since Ibn Nufail made

general takfeer of the people [as you claim], then how did he exclude
the Jewish and Christian scholars from this generality. If he knew
takfeer by fitrah and 'aql [rationale], then why did he travel in search of
a religion. Was he in doubt concerning his affair until certainty became
established for him? Furthermore, regarding your claim that he knew
56
his Lord through fitrah and intellect, and that he used to make takfeer
of the monks by including them in this generality, and that he left
searching for the rituals of the religion of Ibrahim and not it's asl
[foundation], then how did he accept rituals from those whom he made
takfeer upon??!! Rather, the hadith is clear that he was searching for
the [true] religion and creed!
We will take a few pauses, so that we may clarify [certain matters],

concerning this hadith, which are as follows:
1- Al-Hanif is a Shar'i name which has connotations that are only known
by Sharia. Al-Hanif is the one who worships Allah alone, [believing] He
has no partner, and this is what the hadith concluded; ("He replied, the
religion of (the prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a Christian
and he used to worship None but Allah (Alone)").
2- Ibn Nufail learned of this Shar'i name from what the two men [i.e.
scholars] taught him, not from his own intellect; ("He said, "I do not
know any other religion except the Hanif." Zaid enquired, "What is
Hanif?").
3- Zaid, [may Allah have mercy on him], entered the religion of Ibrahim
[peace be upon him] after his testimony and his acknowledgment of it;
("So he said, "O Allah! I make You my Witness that I am on the religion
of Abraham.").
57
4- That he, [may Allah have mercy on him], knew of his people's
detachment from the religion of Ibrahim through the two monks from
the People of the Book, whom he asked, while acknowledging the
ugliness of shirk by 'aql [rationale], except that knowledge of the Shar'i
description of it was not possible, except by hearing [divine revelation];
("Will you tell me of some other religion?").
5- The separation from his people was after knowing that his people
had forsaken the religion of Abraham, [peace be upon him], and proof
which he was able to hear reached him from the monks.
6- The negation of the religion [of Ibrahim] from the mushrikeen in

general, was in reality what they were upon and what they displayed
[of themselves].
Abu Huraira reported that the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said, "I saw Amr bin Luhai Al-
Khuzai dragging his intestines in the (Hell) Fire, for he was the first man
who started the custom of releasing animals (for the sake of false
gods).' [Narrated by Bukhari]
We were told by Hanad, he said 'Ubaidah narrated on the authority of

Muhammad bin Amr, on the authority of Abu Salamah, on the authority
of Abu Huraira, he said, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said, “I was shown
the Fire, and I saw in it Amr bin fulan bin fulan bin khandaf, who was
dragging his intestines in the hellfire, and he was the first to change the
religion of Abraham, and he started the custom of releasing animals
58
(for the sake of false gods), and the most similar I have seen to him is
Akthham ibn al-Jun.” Aktham said, "O Messenger of Allah, does his
resemblance harm me"? He said, “No, because you are a Muslim, and
he is a disbeliever". [Tafseer At- Tabari 9/28]
■ Point of evidence: Did the Quraysh live in the Amazon jungle, for
example, or were they a people who were following the religion of
Abraham, after which they committed Shirk and so their fitrah became
obliterated? Did Ibn Nufail know that there was a prophet named
Ibrahim through his fitrah or by his intellect, so that he would know to
make takfeer by these means?
59
fitnah [strife]
■ Misconception - 6: The hoopoe made general takfeer upon the

people of Bilqis, even though he did not witness the kufr of each
individual.
Allah the Most High said: {I found her and her people prostrating to
the sun instead of Allah, and Satan has made their deeds pleasing to
them and averted them from [His] way, so they are not guided.} [An-
Naml: 24]
They alleged: that the hoopoe [Hud-hud], this small muwahid, ruled
the whole nation of Bilqis with kufr, {"I found her and her people"}
based on his fitrah [natural instinct], and he conveyed that news to the
Prophet of Allah Sulayman [peace be upon him], without detailing the
fact that their individuals fell into disbelief.
The Hoopoe made takfeer of Bilqis and her people due to apparent
reasons, regarding which no two Muslims dispute.
60
Allah [Azza Wa Jal] informed us of this in His statement: {I found her
and her people prostrating to the sun instead of Allah, and Satan has
made their deeds pleasing to them and averted them from [His] way,
so they are not guided.} [An- Naml: 24]..
Regarding His saying: {I found her and her people prostrating to the
sun instead of Allah}, [An-Naml: 24]. Al Hassan said, "They were a
majus [magian] people.{And Satan has made their deeds pleasing to
them and averted them from [His] way, so they are not guided, [24]
[And] so they do not prostrate to Allah.} [An-Naml:24-25] [Tafseer
Yahya bin Salam 2/540]
Regarding His statement: {I found her and her people prostrating to

the sun instead of Allah}:
16265 - We were told by Muhammad ibn al-Abbas, the servant of Bani

Hashim, that Abd al-Rahman ibn Salama narrated to us that Salamah
narrated on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ishaq, on the authority of
Yazid ibn Ruman, [regarding the verse] {"I found her and her people
prostrating to the sun instead of Allah"}, that she had a small window
in her house, and when the sun would rise, she would look towards it
and prostrate to it. [Tafseer Ibn Abi Hatim 9/2867]
The statement of Allah the Most High, {But she had been hindered by
what she used to worship instead of Allah, for she was indeed from a
disbelieving people.} [Naml:43]
61
Regarding His statement, {But she had been hindered by what she
used to worship instead of Allah.} [An-Naml:43], the interpretation
which we have interpreted is that the term “what” from His saying
“What she used to worship” [An-Naml: 43], [comes after] the term
'sadda' [hindered], which is in the accusative position, thus the meaning
is that her ignorance in itself did not hinder her from the worship of
Allah, or that she did not understand. Rather, what hindered her from
the worship of Allah was her worship of the sun and the moon, and that
was part of the religion of her people and her forefathers, and so she
followed their ways in this. [Tafsir al-Tabari 18/80]
The statement of Allah, {But she had been hindered by what she used
to worship instead of Allah}, (meaning, it hindered her from the
worship of Allah, by what she used to worship besides Allah). And
[regarding] His statement, {for she was indeed from a disbelieving
people.}, is the apparent meaning as indicated by the verse. She was an
Arab from the kings of Yemen. Some [of the scholars] stated regarding
His saying, {for she was indeed from a disbelieving people.}; He said
this because she was from a Magian people who used to worship the
sun. [Tafsir Al-Samani 4/101]
Did we disagree with you regarding the takfeer of those of who worship
other than Allah and make with Him equals??? Never by my Lord!!!
Rather, we disagree with you regarding the takfeer of the one who
displays Islam and its rituals, merely because he is [residing] in a land
where Kufr and Shirk has become widespread! This is the point of
dispute with you..
62
Then we continue to present [proof] in argument against you, and we
say, with the help of Allah, the All-Knowing, the Wise:
Firstly, Allah, the Exalted in His Exaltation, Created this universe

muwahhid for Allah, [i.e. they make Allah one], including all it's atoms.
So the heavens, the earth, the birds, trees and the atoms of pure air, all
praise Allah.
Allah [Azza Wa Jal] says, {The seven heavens and the earth and
whatever is in them exalt Him. And there is not a thing except that it
exalts [Allah] by His praise, but you do not understand their [way of]
exalting. Indeed, He is ever Forbearing and Forgiving.} [Al-Isrā:44]
And Allah [Azza Wa Jal] says, {Do you not see that Allah is exalted by
whoever is within the heavens and the earth and [by] the birds with
wings spread [in flight]? Each [of them] has known his [means of]
prayer and exalting [Him], and Allah is Knowing of what they do.} [An-
Nur:41]
Ikrimah said, "None of you should disgrace [or blame] his ride [animal]
or his garment, for everything glorifies His praise.” [Tafsir al-Tabari
17/455]
Al-Nakh’i and others said, "This is general regarding anything which has
a soul, and even includes that which does not have a soul, even the
creaking of the door. [Al-Jami` Al-Ahkam Al-Qur’an 10/268]
63
Secondly, the hoopoe is an unintelligent creature, who knew the matter
based on what was made apparent to him and by the fitrah which Allah
had created him upon, regarding the people of Bilqis, who were on [a
religion] contrary to the truth, which Sulayman, [peace be upon him]
and his brothers from the prophets and messengers brought. However,
when he [i.e. the hoopoe] generalized that, and transmitted [this
information] to the one who received divine revelation, the mind of the
Prophet of Allah Sulayman [peace be upon him] did not accept this
merely by the claim of the hoopoe. Rather, he first commanded him to
confirm, because the matter is seriously great.
Allah the Most High said, informing about the response of His Prophet,
{Solomon said, “We will see whether you are telling the truth or
lying.} [An-Naml:27]
Ibn Hazm said, "As for the story of the ant and the hoopoe, they were
two miracles which were specific to that particular ant and that
particular hoopoe, and were two signs of the prophet hood of
Sulayman, the Messenger of Allah [may Allah prayers and peace be
upon him]. This is like the talking of the arm [of the sheep], the longing
of the [tree] trunk, and the food which glorified Muhammad ‫ ﷺ‬which
were signs of his prophet hood, [peace be upon him]. Likewise, the staff
of Musa, [peace be upon him] coming to life was a sign of the Prophet
hood of the Messenger of Allah Musa, [peace be upon him], because
speaking includes these types of things." [Al-Fasl fi millal wal Ahwā wa
Nahl” (1/69-71)]
64
This is contrary to what the heretics of this time are upon, in
generalising [in the matter of takfeer] without verifying, or without
having any established evidence of kufr [against an individual], they
pass judgement upon the weak and oppressed mastoor al-hāl muslim
[one who has/wears signs of Islam], because of their absence of openly
declaring takfeer of the tawagheet, and because they do not [openly]
revolt against what the people are upon, by making jihad with the
tongue, the pen and the sword.
Thirdly, if we were to agree with you regarding your statement of the

hoopoe, then you have destroyed your heresy, because this small
messenger is an unintelligent being, while intellect [is the factor which]
enters one into the limit of takleef [i.e. the charge and responsibility of
Islamic duties] according to the consensus of the scholars.
Allah [Azza Wa Jal] says: {Indeed, We offered the Trust to the heavens
and the earth and the mountains, and they declined to bear it and
feared it; but man [undertook to] bear it. Indeed, he was unjust and
ignorant.} [Al-Ahzab:72]
Then the 'aql [intellect], which is the cause of takleef, is one of the
specialities of mankind which distinguishes him from other animals.
Also, that which we witness from the behaviour of animals with regards
to reforming their livelihood and disposing of their surroundings is
indeed an instinctive “guidance” which Allah has deposited within the
animal.
65
Al-Sarakhsi states, “[Intellect] is an expression which relates to choice,
which a person builds [a decision] upon, with regards to what he puts
forth and what he leaves behind, which cannot be perceived by the rest
of the senses, because performing an action or [deciding to] abandon it,
is not taken into consideration except by wisdom and a good outcome.
For this reason, it [i.e. human] is not considered one of the beasts
because it is devoid of this meaning, and a good outcome is not
achieved regarding what a human does or abandons, except after
reflecting on it with the mind. Therefore, when his actions appear in
accordance to the norms of the wise, this becomes evidence for us that
he is wise and is able to distinguish [between matters], and that his
actions and statements are not absent of wisdom and a good
outcome.” [Usul al-Sarakhsi -1/347]
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya stated, “They [meaning the animals] are given a
degree of judgement and awareness in order to fulfil their interests and
the interests of those who are dependent upon them, and that which
the human uses to distinguish [between matters] was taken away from
the mind and intellect of the animal, and so the virtue of the ability to
distinguish and [other] specialities of man is made evident.” [Miftah dar
as-Sa'adah - 1/234]
Based on the aforementioned, it is necessary to be like the

unintelligent hoopoe while it does not harm him. But the loss of the
mind in a human is something which expels one from the limit of
takleef [i.e. charge and responsibility of Islamic duties], as the
testimony of the insane is not accepted by the consensus of the
scholars of Islam. 268 - They have unanimously agreed that there is no
66
testimony for the insane while he is in the state of insanity. [The Book
of Consensus 1/68 by Ibn Al-Mundhir 319h]
67
fitnah [strife]
■ Misconception - 7: The companions of the cave knew takfir by fitrah

and 'aql [rationale], thus they made general takfir of their people.
They alleged that the young people of the cave believed in their Lord
merely by their 'aql [rationale], without [the guidance of] divine
revelation nor a messenger, and they made general takfeer by intellect
and fitrah, even though they did not witness the disbelief of each
individual.
It has been narrated on the authority of Mu'ammar, who said that

Ismaìl bin Sharrus told me on the authority of Wahb bin Munabbih,
who said, "A man from the disciples of Isa ibn Maryam [Jesus, son of
Mary] came to the city of the people of the Cave and intended to enter
it. It was said [to him] that there is an idol at its door, and none enters
through it except he [must first] prostrate himself before it, and so he
disliked to enter through it. He went to the bathroom [market] which
68
was near that city wherein he worked for the owner of the bathrooms.
The owner of the bathroom market saw blessings and clemency in his
work, so he entrusted [the work] to him and continued with him. Some
of the youths of the city became attached to him, and he began to tell
them the news of the heavens and the earth, and the news of the
Hereafter, until they believed in it and found him to be truthful, and so
they became in the same condition as he was, in a good form.” [Al-
Musanif 5/423 'Abd al-Razzaq 211h, and at Tabari transmitted it 310h in
Tafseer 15/174]
Ibn Humaid narrated to us, he said, it was narrated by al-Hakam bin

Bashir, he said that 'Amr narrated to us regarding the saying [of Allah],
{The companions of the cave and the inscription..} [Al-Kahf: 9] The
youth were on the religion of [Prophet] Isa, upon Islam, and their king
was a disbeliever, who brought out an idol for them, but they refused
[to worship it] and said, {Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the
earth. Never will we invoke besides Him any deity. We would have
certainly spoken, then, an excessive transgression.} He said, so they
separated from their people to worship Allah [alone] and one of them
said, 'my father had a cave in which he used to shelter his sheep, so let
us go and stay there', and so they entered it, and then they became a
lost [people] in that era, and were later [a people] sought. It is said that
they entered this cave, and their people said [after finding them], 'We
do not desire for them a punishment or a torment more severe than
that we block them [by building a structure over them]. So they built
over them and then closed it off. Then Allah sent them a king who was
on the religion of Isa, and he removed that building which was built
over them, so some of them said to each other, {"How long have you
remained ˹asleep˺?”} [Al-Kahf: 19] [Tafseer Jami’ al-Bayan 1/162 al-
Tabari 310h]
69
Point of evidence: We found that according the scholars of tafseer,
the youth were on the religion of Christianity, and with that they would
have known the truth, through it's evidence, on the tongue of the
messengers, and [based on that] they made takfeer of their people who
were against the call of the messengers.
Qatadah stated [regarding the companion of the cave], that when he

entered the city, which was a city in Rome named Fusus, he took out
some dirhams to buy food with it. The people refused to accept the
dirhams and took him to the king of the city. They saw that the dirhams
were the dirhams of the King from whom they fled. They said, 'This
man has found a treasure', so he feared for himself that he may be
subjected to torture and he looked towards his companions, upon
which the king told the people, 'Allah has made clear to you that which
you disputed in [i.e. the belief of the Resurrection]. I inform you that
people will be resurrected with their bodies.’ [Tafsir 1/177 Yahya bin
Salam 200h]
Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari reported that Ibn Hamid narrated to us, he
said, Salama narrated to us, on the authority of Ibn Ishaq, on the
authority of Abdullah Ibn Abi Najih, on the authority of Mujahid, he
said, 'It has been narrated [regarding the companions of the cave], that
they were youth, due to some of them having primary teeth which
were clear [i.e. white] as paper, [i.e. metaphor used in the Arabic
language to describe a people of young years]. They were from the
people of Rome who used to worship idols, then Allah guided them to
Islam. Their Shari'a [law] was the Shari'a of prophet Isa [Jesus],
according to a group of the Salaf from our scholars'.
70
Ibn Hamid narrated to us, he said, Al-Hakam bin Bashir narrated to us,
he said that Amr narrated to us - meaning Ibn Qais Al-Mala’i, regarding
the saying of Allah, {The companions of the cave and the inscription};
the youth were on the religion of Isa, son of Maryam, [peace be upon
him], upon Islam, and their king was a disbeliever. Some of them
[scholars] claimed that their matter and fate to the cave was before
Christ, [Masih] and Masīh informed his people of them, and Allah [Azza
Wa Jal] resurrected them from their slumber after Isa [Christ] was
raised during the period between him and Muhammad ‫ﷺ‬. Allah knows
best when it was. As for what the scholars of Ahl- al Islam are upon, it is
that their affair was after Masīh. As for it being in the days of the kings
of the sects, then this is something which is not denied by the scholars,
regarding the information of the ancient people.” [End of quote]['Tārikh
ar-Rusul wal-Mulūk] 1/373]
Point of evidence: None of the predecessors mentioned that the

people of the cave knew Allah by intellect, and that they made general
takfeer of their people by it. However, many tafseer [interpretations]
did mention that their people were mushrikeen. Then how is that
related to the takfeer of the one whose Islam al hukmi [ruling of Islam]
has been affirmed to us..{Inform me with knowledge, if you are
truthful.”}
71
fitnah [strife]
■ Misconception - 8: The statement of Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq [may Allah

be pleased with him], "The [people] of the earth [have become]
disbelievers.”
Abu Bakr [may Allah be pleased with him] placed guards on the
outskirts of Medina, and obliged the people of Medina to attend the
mosque, and said, "Indeed the [people] in the land [have become]
disbelievers.”
They alleged that this statement of As-Siddique, annuls the signs and
rituals of Islam for the one who displays them, who did not
intentionally and willingly commit a nullifier!!!!
Firstly, it has been reported in the two Sahihs, that Qutayba bin Sa'eed
narrated to us that Layth narrated to us on the authority of 'Uqayl, on
the authority of Az- Zuhri, that 'Ubayullah bin Abdullah bin 'Utbah told
me on the authority of Abu Huraira, who said that when Abu Bakr was
made the Prophet's successor after his death and infidelity arose
72
among certain Arabs, ‘Umar bin al-Khattab asked Abu Bakr how he
could fight with the people when Allah's messenger had said, “I have
been commanded to fight with the people till they say there is no god
but Allah, so whoever says so has protected his property and himself
from me except for what is due from him, and his reckoning is left to
Allah.” Abu Bakr replied, “I swear by Allah that I will certainly fight
those who make a distinction between the Prayer and Zakat, for the
Zakah is what is due from property. I swear by Allah that if they were to
refuse me a she-goat which they used to pay to Allah's messenger, I
would fight them over the refusal of it." ‘Umar then said, “I swear by
Allah that I clearly saw Allah had made Abu Bakr feel justified in
fighting, and I recognised that it was right."
Point of evidence: it has been reported in the in the two Sahihs that
the apostasy was committed by some of the Arabs, not all of them,
because Makkah, Medina and Bahrain are among the collective lands of
the Arabs, whose people remained firm on Islam. It is also known from
the context of the wording in the hadith, 'that'/'who'/'here', that these
words are used to separate [matters], which means, only some of the
Arabs apostatized. So how does this correlate with the takfeer which
the heretics make upon the people who are ruled with Islam, without
any evidence [established] against them.
Ahmad narrated with an authentic chain of narration: (60), that Yazid

bin Harun narrated to us, he said, “I Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Abi
Salama [narrate], on the authority of Abdil Wahid bin abi 'Awn, on the
73
authority of Qasim bin Muhammad, on the authority of Aisha, that she
used to say, 'The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬was taken, [i.e. passed away], so the Arabs
apostatized, and hypocrisy appeared in Madinah. If what descended
upon my father had descended upon firm mountains, they would have
demolished. By Allah, they did not differ on a point except that my
father took a share of it's hardship for the sake of Islam..', nevertheless,
she used to say, 'whoever saw Umar bin Al-Khattab will know that he
was created for [bringing] Glory to Islam. By Allah, he was serious,
fencing off the hardship alone, and indeed he prepared for matters [of
hardship] and the likes.’ [Fadhāil Sahāba by Ahmad bin Hanbal/ His
saying ‫ﷺ‬.
One may object to us and derive examples from the likes of the above
mentioned narration, and deduce evidence from this in error over that
which we decided to present, which we mentioned earlier which is the
hadith in Sahihayn [Bukhari and Muslim], and the response to that is as
follows:
1- Firstly, it is known to every student of knowledge that in the event of

an apparent contradiction between evidence, we must try to combine
between them if possible. Thus, we say that the statement of the
Mother of the Believers is in reference to those who apostatized from
amongst the Arabs, not in reference to all the Arabs. This is present in
the language of the Arabs, and verses from the Qur'an also support
this, meaning; it is in reference to the general, but is only intended for
some.
74
Allah the Most High said: {Those to whom people [i.e., hypocrites]
said, "Indeed, the people have gathered against you, so fear them."
But it [merely] increased them in faith, and they said, "Sufficient for us
is Allah, and [He is] the best Disposer of affairs."} [Al-Imrān:173]
Here, Allah Glory be to Him, mentioned the word (people) twice. Would
the intended meaning be that all the people have gathered [against
you] since [the time of] Prophet Adam until the Hour is established, O
ignorant ones?!
Rather, Allah [Azza Wa Jal] used the term (people) in general, but only
specific people were intended by it, meaning, some people. The first
term (people) is in reference to the hypocrites, not all the people, while
the second term (people) is in reference to the disbelievers of Quraysh,
and not all the people, but indeed ignorance blinds you..
2- If we were to take the apparent meaning of the statement,

["So the Arabs apostatized"], that it proves the disbelief of all the Arabs,
except the country of the one who said the statement, then there is still
no evidence based argument for the heretics in claiming that the
Companions [of the prophet] made takfeer of the Muslim mastoor [i.e.
the Muslim who has signs of Islam evident upon him] in accordance to
the rule; 'ruling is for the majority and the rare have no ruling'. The
reason being that riddah [apostasy] is a shar'i name, and the
companions did not use shar'i names indiscriminately, as the apostates
were in fact a people of power and were resisting [as combatants] in a
land, and were not under the authority and power of the Muslims. So
the Companions dealt with them according to what they showed of
75
apostasy and support [for that land] and so the majhool [one whose
condition of religion is unknown] was included [in ruling] with the
ma'loom [one whose condition is known], [i.e. in this case the known
ones were apostates, and the unknown was ruled with the same
ruling]. As for the mastoor al hāl [one who has signs of Islam], he
remained on the original [ruling] of certainty, which was his Islam, [a
ruling] which cannot be removed by assumptions and doubts.
Secondly, from among the statements which the heretics use to deduce
and base their evidence is the following narration. It has been
mentioned in a narration of Al-Qasim bin Muhammad that [the tribes
of] Asad, Ghatfan and Tay gathered with Taliha Al-Asadi and sent
delegations to Madinah where they arrived upon the people [of the
city] who received them, except Al-Abbas. They took them to Abu Bakr
[informing him] that they perform prayer and do not pay Zakah. So
Allah [Azza Wa Jal] made Abu Bakr determined upon the truth and he
said, "If they withhold even a hobbling cord, I will fight them over it.",
and sent them back. They returned to their tribes and informed them
that the people of Madina are only few in number, and enticed them
[to fight]. So Abu Bakr sent guards to the outskirts of Madina and
obligated the people of the city to attend the mosque and said, "Indeed
[the people of] the earth [have become] disbelievers, and their
delegation saw you few in number, and you do not know whether they
come [to attack] by night or by day, and the closest of them to you is
barîd away [i.e. a measurement of approximately twelve miles]. They
were hoping that we would accept from them [the rejection of zakah]
and bid them farewell, but indeed we refused them [this offer], so
76
standby and prepare.” [End of quote] [Al-Bidayah wa Nihayah by Ibn
Kathir, 9/437]
Commentary on the narration:
The narration of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq was also mentioned by Ibn Jarir al-
Tabari with a chain of narrators in his [compilation of] History 3/243. He
stated that al-Siri told me, he said that Shuaib narrated to us on the
authority of Saif, on the authority of Sahl bin Yusuf, on the authority of
Al-Qasim bin Muhammad.
It has also been mentioned in Kitab al-mukhtasar Tarikh Damishq [Brief
History of Damascus], 11/216 [Ibn Manzoor] who transmitted it in a
mursal form, without an Isnad [i.e. chain of narrators], on the authority
of al-Shu’bi, as it was mentioned in the book “Tajarab al Ummam wa
Ta'aqab al Himmam” 1/278 [Ibn Miskawayh], who mentioned the story
in a narrative form without the chain [of narrators].. It was also
mentioned in Al Kitab Tarikh Damishq by Ibn Asaker [Ibn Asaker, Abu al-
Qasim], which he transmitted with an Isnad [chain of narrators] and
said, Saif narrated to us, on the authority of Sahl bin Yusuf, on the
authority of Al-Qasim bin Muhammad
a) This [narration] has been reported in Lisan Al-Mizan 4/247

3797 - Shuaib bin Ibrahim al-Kufi.
"The narrator of the books of Saif is majhool/unknown". [End of quote].
Ibn Uday mentioned him and said he is unknown, and he has hadiths
and reports of which some are rejected and others contain prejudice
against the salaf [predecessors].
77
In the Thiqāt of Ibn Hibbān, Shuaib bin Ibrahim, who is from the people
of Kufa, he narrates on the authority of Muhammad bin Aban Al-Balkhi,
from whom Yaqoub bin Sufyan narrated. It is possible that it be him,
but it appears that he is other than him.
b) There is a defect in the chain of transmission, [that is] Abu
Muhammad al-Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abi Bakr al-Taymi (35 A.H. -
107 A.H.), a Tabi'i from the city who did not witness the wars of
apostasy.
Conclusion: The narration is weak, and even if it was proven authentic

as a narration of historical information, the apparent context indicates
that he intended the land of the apostates, otherwise it contradicts the
great principles of this true religion of Hanif.
Thirdly, the common noun with [the definite article "the" in the word
[Al-ard i.e. the earth] is referring to lam li al-ʿahd [i.e. the 'al' which
refers to a specific matter [or content] and is not used in the general
sense], which is evident from the context of the statement. It may
[also] refer to the description of a subject in discussion, or to the type
[of noun in general]. However the possibility of both is distant here.
The fourth, as for [claiming that] the intended meaning [of the
statement of Abu Bakr] is general, [i.e. all the people of the earth], then
it is an absolute false claim, because from the same land were regions
like Medina, Makkah Bahrain and the likes, which were among the
lands which the people of apostasy did not overpower, so they were
78
not originally included in the statement of the Khalifa at all. So istidlal
[deducing evidence] on such a narration is annulled, due to the [weak]
narration and [poor] understanding of it.
The fifth, the speech of As-Siddiq was addressed to those who

displayed apostasy and resisted [him] with strength [as combatants],
who parted to a specific land away from the leader of the muslimeen,
and they were several sects. Among them were those who claimed
prophet hood, such as Musaylimah and Al-Aswad Al-Ansi, while others
returned to the worship of idols, and some of them refused [to pay]
Zakah.
The sixth, there is no evidence from the above mentioned for what the
heretics claim, that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and those with him from among
the Companions, [may Allah be pleased with them] made takfeer of the
mastoor by Islam [who has signs of Islam], from whom a nullifier did
not appear, due to dependency upon those known for apostasy who
did display the nullifier.
79
fitnah [strife]
■ Misconception - 9: The consensus of the Companions [May Allah be

pleased with them] on the kufr of the people of apostasy, and their
takfeer of the people of Musaylma was general.
They allege that the takfeer made by the Companions upon the
resisting [combatant] groups [i.e. Tāifa Mumtani'a] was general takfeer,
without taking into consideration what these people were displaying
from the rituals of Islam, and while the Companions did not witness the
disbelief of each individual from amongst these people, and they made
takfeer upon them when shirk became predominant in reality.
Firstly, there is not even the least bit of evidence for what they have
understood [of the matter], because the apostasy [riddah] of the
people of Musaylimah was an apostasy of action which was manifested,
in which they divulged, and was widespread, the implementation of
which reached the horizons, and the knowledge of it spread far and
wide.. wherein the [following matters were] accomplished: Shahadah
[testimony] for the prophet hood [of Musaylamah], changing of the
Adhan [call to prayer], abandoning the Salah, permitting alcohol and
80
adultery, distortion of the Shari'a, and denial of faraidh [obligatory
matters], and the invention of the Qur'an called "Qur'an of
Musaylimah". Accordingly, there was no trace left of the rituals of
Islam. Rather they were abolished, and the rituals and rites of kufr and
heresy became predominant.
Secondly, these people favoured [the people] of the land, and resisted
[the Khalifa Abu Bakr] with strength and even added to that, whereby
they prepared an army to fight against the Muslims when they knew of
their advance. Therefore, there is no excuse [for them], and likewise
the same [ruling was passed] for those who did not separate from
them, or those who did not disassociate themselves from Musaylma
and Banu Hanifa and didn’t migrate to dār al- Islam, which was
available at the time. The difference is vast between the situation of
their country and the situation of our country today, so their analogy is
detrimental, thus invalidates their argument, and this is one of their
corrupt ways of examining and presenting the mas'alahs (issues)!!
Thirdly, Banu Hanifa were of two categories; those who did not
originally enter Islam, and [the second type] were those who embraced
Islam. When Musaylma [claimed] Prophet hood during the illness of the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬, those from the first category [of Banu Hanifah] followed
him and some groups from the second category. Therefore, among
them were original disbelievers and apostates. It is from ignorance
then, to base the evidence of argument upon them, and make an
analogy based on their condition, because our discussion is concerning
the Muslim whom you make takfeer upon, while you do not know of
81
him to have displayed [anything of] apostasy!! Our discussion is not
concerning real apostates who pronounce the two testimonies, pray,
fast, and claim [to belong to] Islam!!
Fourthly, the view of the Companions [may Allah be pleased with

them], regarding Musaylma and those with him was from two aspects:
The first: from the aspect of Musaylma, due to his disbelief and
apostasy, who became strong and powerful.
The second: from the aspect of Banu Hanifa, due to them becoming
followers of Musaylma. So anyone who believed in Musaylma was a
disbeliever, even if he was from other than [the tribe] of Banu Hanifa
and wasn't from the people of Al-Yamamah. For this reason, the
discourse was general, regarding Banu Hanifa and Musaylma alike.
Ibn Ishaq mentioned, a sheikh from the people of al-Yamamah told me

that his speech was not regarding this. He claimed that a delegation
from Banu Hanifa came to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and they left
Musaylma with their caravan of luggage. When they converted to
Islam, they mentioned his place to him, so the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
ordered the same [alms to be given] for him as he had ordered for
them, and said, “As for him, he is not an evil [companion] among you,”
meaning; due to his safeguarding the luggage of his companions. Then
they left and brought him what he had given for him. When they
entered al Yamamah, the enemy of Allah apostated and claimed
82
prophet hood, and said, 'I have taken a share in the matter [of prophet
hood] with Muhammad. Did he not tell you so when you mentioned me
to him, that he is not an evil [companion] among you. That is only
because of what he knows, that I have a share with him [in Prophet
hood]'. Then he began to perform rhythms, in emulation of the Qur’an;
'Indeed Allah has blessed the pregnant woman, He brought out from
her a people who seek, from between the uterus and intestines'. He
removed from them the [obligation] of prayer and permitted
fornication and alcohol. Nevertheless, he would bear witness to the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that he is a prophet, so Banu Hanifa applauded
him on that. [Seer A'lam Nubala 276]
276 - (7123) Chapter: “Whoever claims prophet hood, or believes the

one who claims prophet hood has apostated”; because when
Musaylamah claimed prophet hood, his people believed him, and
consequently became apostates, and likewise Tulayha al-Asadi and
those who believed in him.
The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said, "The Hour shall not be established until there
appear thirty imposters, each of them claiming that he is a Prophet."
[Al-Mughni 9/28 by Ibn Qudamah 620H].
A'isha narrated to me that Allah's messenger said, “An army will set
out to attack the Ka'ba, but in an extensive desert the first and last of
them will be swallowed up.” She said, I asked 'O messenger of Allah,
how the first and last of them would be swallowed up while amongst
them will be their markets (the people who worked in business and not
invaders) and the people not belonging to them?", to which he replied,
83
“The first and last of them will be swallowed up, then they will be
raised for Judgement according to their intentions.” [Narrated by
Bukhari]
Point of evidence: Rab al 'Izza, Glory be to Him, knows that which

deceives the eyes and what the breasts conceal. He is the Able [One]
Glory be to Him, to save whom He wills from the people who will be
swallowed, but He, in His Wisdom intends to seize all the people due to
the wicked deeds, but he will take them all in varying conditions and
will raise them according to their intentions. Allah has the most
conclusive argument, and for Allah is the Highest attribute, and
similarly the action of Abu Bakr, [may Allah be pleased with him], when
he dealt with the people of apostasy and ruled upon them based on the
apparent.
This is the principle in such a matter, that whoever displays a nullifier

and resists the leader with power, is to be judged according to the
banner of disbelief under which he was committed to fight, and
resisted due to its power, or displayed approval and support for it and
upheld it. Likewise, the ruling also applies generally to one whose
condition [of religion] we are unaware of, due to the inability of
revealing his condition [of religion], which can be done by either asking
him directly, or enquiring others about him, so we rule him by
dependency upon the land [he resides in].
As for the one who did not fight under that banner and did not
participate in giving any type of victory or support for it, and signs of
apparent Islam was visible upon him, who did not display any other
84
nullifier, there is no course of making takfeer upon him, except
according to those whose eyes Allah has obliterated from insight.
Ibn Sa'ad mentioned in al-Tabaqāt 9341- Muhammad ibn Umar told us,
he said, Hisham bin Saad narrated to us on the authority of al-Dakhil,
the nephew of Muja'ah ibn Murara, on the authority of his father, he
said, "When Khalid bin Al-Walid reached [a place called] 'Ird, while he
was heading towards al-Yamamah [for battle], he put two hundred
horsemen [at the forefront of the army] and said, 'Whoever among you
capture from them, then take him'. So they set off and captured
Muja'ah bin Murara al-Hanafi and twenty-three men from his people
who were going out with him to pursue a man from Bani Numayr. He
asked Muja'ah [regarding their affair] to which he replied, "By Allah, I
did not come close to Musaylma. I came to the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
and embraced Islam, and I did not change, nor did I convert from my
religion". Khalid took the people [from the captives] and struck their
necks thus killing them, but he spared Muja'ah and did not kill him. He
was an honoured man among his people known as Muja'ah al-
Yamamah. Sariyah bin Amr said to Khalid bin Al-Walid, "If you are in
need of the people of Al-Yamamah, then leave this one, [i.e., Muja'ah
ibn Mara'a]. Do not kill him". So he did not kill him but bound him with
an iron chain and sent him to his wife Umm Tamim, who sought
protection for him from being killed, and so Muja'ah too promised her
protection if abu Hanifa were to gain victory and they agreed on that.
Later, Khalid would invite him to his council and speak to him, and
would ask him regarding the matter of al-Yamamah and that of Banu
Hanifa and Musaylma. Muja'ah said, "By Allah, I did not follow him, and
I am a muslim". So [Khalid] said, "Why did you not come out to me at
that time, or speak to me as Thumama bin Athal did". He replied, "If
you see yourself to pardon all that, then do so,” to which he replied, "I
85
have done so". He was the one who made peace for Khalid bin Al-Walid
with [the people of] Yamamah and whatever was in relation to it after
the killing of Musaylma. Thereafter, Khalid took him to Abu Bakr as-
Siddiq with the delegation and mentioned his conversion to Islam, so he
pardoned him and granted safety for him and those with him, and sent
them back to al-Yamamah.
Point of evidence: regardless of whether the story is proven

authentic or not, the ruling of the people of Musaylma is the ruling of a
Tāifa Mumtani'a [resistant armed group], upon whom the ruling of
general takfeer is passed down, upon all the individuals of the group,
and every similar sect is treated likewise. Moreover, fighting a resistant
armed group and knowing the reality of what each individual commits
is not possible, and likewise the application of the conditions [of
takfeer] and the mawāni' [i.e. barriers which prevent the ruling of
takfeer] is impossible. Do you not see that if you intend to slaughter a
sheep, for example, you first put it down on its side, thereafter you
mention the name of Allah upon it and slaughter it, and in the case of
hunting you only mention the name of Allah when releasing it upon the
prey. Likewise for the resistant armed group, as verifying [the
condition] from each individual is not possible, so they are treated as
part of one group.
If it is said, how can we fight them and make general ruling of kufr upon
them while there is a possibility of the presence of one amongst them
who may be concealing his faith. We say in response, that the
possibility of that is indeed likely, but it is upon us to judge by the
apparent, so for this reason we have ruled him with kufr, because he
did not separate himself from the group, or due to his absence of
86
showing any form of opposition to them prior to us gaining ability over
him. As for those who separated from them and displayed Islam, then
his situation is that of Muja'ah ibn Mara'a, and that which they make
apparent of Islam is accepted from them, and his secret affair is left to
Allah Alone, the Knower of the unseen.
Related to this issue, is the story of the people of Al-Raht, who would
chant the same words as Musaylimah in the masjid of Kufa, and they
spoke [in agreement] of his prophet hood, so Ibn Mas'ud, [may Allah be
pleased with him] killed them. So [based on this story], the heretics
[kharijis] claim that [Abu Bakr] made general takfeer upon them [all],
based on the rule of the majority, and he did not verify from each
individual!!!
The original story is the following:

Al-Shashi stated in his Musnad 683- Isa bin Ahmed narrated to us, that
Yazid bin Harun narrated to us that Ismail bin Abi Khaled narrated to us
on the authority of Qais bin Abi Hazim, that a man came to Ibn Mas'ud
and said, "I passed by one of the mosques of Bani Hanifa and I heard
them recite a recitation other than what has been revealed to
Muhammad ‫ﷺ‬. He asked him what they were reciting, to which he
replied, "They say, 'by the mills which grind, and by the kneaders who
knead. By the bakers who bake the bread, and by the thardāt who
make the tharid, and by those who make morsels into morsels'". So he
sent Abdullah to them, who brought forth seventy of them along with
their leader named Abdullah bin Al-Nawaha. Abdullah [ibn Mas'ud]
asked him, 'Did you not tell us that you adhere to our religion?' He
87
said, 'Yes, but only because I was in captivity'. So Abdullah ordered
[that he be killed] and so he struck his neck. Then he looked towards
them and said, 'We shall not leave them to the devils. Rather, expel
them to Ash-Shām, for either Allah Almighty will destroy them with the
plague or He will accept repentance for whom He wills and will turn to
them in forgiveness".
This has a strong chain of transmission, and Ibn al-Nawaha was indeed
killed without repentance, and the repentance was mentioned in
another narration.
Al-Tabarani stated in Al-Kabeer 8960 - Ali bin Abdul Aziz narrated to us,
he said, Abu Naim narrated to us, he said, Al-Mas'udi narrated to us on
the authority of Al-Qasim, he said, "Abdullah came and it was said to
him, ‘O Abu Abd al-Rahman, there are people here who recite the
recitation of Musaylma.’ Abdullah disregarded this, and so [the matter]
remained like this as long as Allah willed for, then he came to him and
said, 'By He whom I swear by! O Abu Abd al-Rahman, indeed I have just
now left a people in a land, and that Qur'an [of Musaylma] is with
them'. So he [i.e. ibn Mas'ud] ordered Qazra bin Ka'ab who took a
group of people with him and told them to bring them forth, and when
he bought them, Abdullah asked them, 'What is this [you have indulged
in] after the spread of Islam?' They replied, 'O Abu Abd al-Rahman, we
ask Allah's forgiveness and repent to Him, and we bear witness that
Musaylma is the liar who lied against Allah and His Messenger'. So
Abdullah accepted their repentance and sent them to Ash-Sham, who
were close to eighty men. However, ibn al-Nawaha refused to repent,
so Qazra bin Ka'b was commanded to take him out to the market where
he struck his neck and ordered his head to be taken and cast unto his
88
mother's lap. Abd al- Rahman bin Abdullah said, 'I later met an old man
from them in Ash- Sham, and he said to me, 'May Allah have mercy on
your father. By Allah, if he had killed us on that day, we would all have
entered Hellfire'''.
Note: This report was narrated by Al-Qasim on the authority of his

father, due to the evidence of his mention at the end of it [i.e. which
means he did not hear the narration direct from ibn mas'ood]. Also his
father was mentioned in the chain of narrators of al-Hakim 8960, and
the chain of transmission of the report is strong.
▪️ It has been clearly reported that they believed in Musaylma, and this
is an evident apostasy which all of them committed. This was
mentioned by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his book:
Ibn Abi Shaybah stated in al-Musannaf 33411 - Abu Muawiyah

narrated to us that Al-A'mash narrated to us on the authority of Abu
Ishaq, on the authority of Harithah bin Mudareb, who mentioned that a
man went out riding his horse, and he passed by the mosque of Bani
Hanifa and prayed there. There, the imam recited the speech of
Musaylma the liar. He went to Ibn Mas'ud and told him, who sent for
them and brought them forth. He offered them the chance to repent,
so they all repented except Abdullah Ibn al Nawaha. He [i.e. ibn
mas'ood] said to him, 'O Abdullah! were it not for the fact that I heard
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬say to you, 'If you were not the carrier of the
message I would have struck your neck. But today you are not a
messenger. O Kharasha, stand up and strike his neck’. So he stood up
and struck his neck".
89
Point of evidence: The matter is not a statement said secretly by one
of them while the rest remained silent. Rather, the matter was that
they were all [reading the Qur’an of Musaylma], as stated by al-
Tabarani in al-Kabir. 8960, and the narration mentioned the [wording]
in a plural form, which means that they were all involved in this action.
So Ibn Masoud, [may Allah be pleased with him], did not judge them by
a general ruling, as the heretics claim without proof. Rather, he
punished them based on clear evidence referred to him by a witness,
and then acknowledgment from themselves, of committing the
nullifier.
We present here, an example of the consideration given by the

Companions for one's apparent Islam, in the land and camps of the
apostates:
'Alqama bin 'Alāthah Al-Amiri, [may Allah be pleased with him]

embraced Islam in the year of the Conquest [of Makkah]. He later
became an apostate after the conquest of Taif and went to As-Sham.
When the Prophet died, he hastily returned, where he camped with
Banu Kilab bin Rabiàh. This news reached Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, [may
Allah be pleased with him], so he sent a detachment to him and placed
al-Qa'qaa bin 'Amr over it as the commander, who marched out with
the detachment and attacked the water area where 'Alqamah was
camping. When he saw the army advance, 'Alqamah ran away on his
horse and so the Muslims captured his family and the men who lived
with them. They told them to fear [the punishment] in Islam and
brought them forth to Abu Bakr. The people of 'Alqamah denied they
ever supported him in his disbelief, even though they were residing in
the camp and the land of the apostates. However, Abu Bakr didn't hear
90
anything evil concerning them [i.e. of apostasy], so he let them go
because they said, 'What is our fault in that which 'Alqamah bin
Alathah committed!' And his wife said, 'If Alqamah disbelieved then
neither I nor my daughter disbelieved'. Later Alqamah embraced Islam
during the caliphate of 'Umar and became a good Muslim and returned
to his wife with the first marriage.
[Musnaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (33272), Tārikh al-Tabari (3/262) and Sunan
al-Bayhaqi (56/8)]
Evidence from the story: the Companions did not make takfeer upon
the family of the leader of the apostate while they were residing in the
land and the camp of the apostates. Rather, they took into
consideration the apparent Islam which was visible from them, until
disbelief was proven against them with evidence and its causes.
91
■ Revealing the [true interpretation] of the athār [i.e. narrations of
the Salaf] which the heretics use to make general takfeer of the
people.
# A continuation of the revealing of misconceptions [8_9]
1-The narrations mentioned explain each other in support. So what is

meant by the apostasy of the Arabs is the apostasy of those who
disbelieved among them, not all of them, but the problem with the
majority of the heretics is that they have a poor understanding of
Arabic text and are unjust.
The following is the most authentic narration due to the agreement of

both Muslim and Bukhari upon it: 1399 Abu al-Yaman al- Hakam bin
Nāfi' narrated to us that Shu'aib bin Abi Hamza told us on the authority
of Az-Zuhri, that Ubaydullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah bin Mas'ud
narrated to us that Abu Huraira said that when Abu Bakr was made the
Prophet's successor after his death and infidelity arose among certain
Arabs, ‘Umar bin al-Khattab asked Abu Bakr how he could fight with the
people when Allah's messenger ‫ ﷺ‬had said, “I have been commanded
to fight with the people till they say there is no god but Allah, so
whoever says so has protected his property and his person from me
except for what is due from him, and his reckoning is left to Allah.”
1400- Abu Bakr replied, “I swear by Allah that I will certainly fight those
who make a distinction between the Prayer and Zakah, for Zakah is
what is due from property. I swear by Allah that if they were to refuse
92
me a she-goat which they used to pay to Allah's messenger ‫ ﷺ‬I would
fight them over the refusal of it." ‘Umar then said, “I swear by Allah
that I clearly saw Allah had made Abu Bakr feel justified in fighting, and
I recognised that it was right."
▪️ 1- It has been reported in An- Nasaī (3417) that Muhammad bin

Bashār told us, he said, 'Umru bin 'Āsim narrated to us, he said, 'Imrān
Abu al 'Awwām narrated to us that Ma'mar narrated to us on the
authority of Az-Zuhri, on the authority of Anas bin Malik who said,
"When the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬died, the 'Arabs apostated, so 'Umar
said, 'O Abu Bakr, how can you fight the 'Arabs?' Abu Bakr replied, 'The
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said, "I have been commanded to fight the
people until they bear witness to La ilaha illallah (none has the right of
worship except Allah) and that I am the Messenger of Allah, and they
establish Salah and pay Zakah." By Allah, if they withhold from me a
young goat that they used to give to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬I will
fight them for it.' 'Umar said: 'By Allah, as soon as I realized how certain
Abu Bakr was, I knew that it was the truth.'"

This narration is da'eef [weak] and is not to be used as evidence for the
following reasons:
- [The narrator] Imran al-Qattān Abu al-'Awwam ibn Dawar al-Ammi,
the imam, muhaddith, Abu Al-'Awwām, 'Imran bin Dawar Al-'Ammi, Al-
Basri, Al-Qattan.
- He narrated from [his teachers], Al-Hassan and Muhammad bin Sirin,
and Bakr bin Abdullah, and Qatadah, and Abu Jamrah Al-Dubai’i, and a
jamā'ah.
93
- Then, Abu 'Asim, and Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi, and Abu Dawood al-
Tayalisi, and 'Amr ibn Asim, and Abd Allah ibn Raja’ al-Ghudani and
others narrated from him.
- Yazid bin Zurai' said, 'Imran al-Qattan was a Haruri [a sect of kharijis]
who viewed revolting [against the Muslim unjust ruler] with the sword.
- Also, Ahmed bin Hanbal said [regarding this narration], 'I hope the
hadith is acceptable'.
- Ibn Udayy said, 'His hadith may be documented'.
- An-Nasa’i said, 'The hadith is da'eef [weak]'.
- Abu Dawud said, 'It is considered weak. He issued a very harsh fatwa
in the days Ibrahim bin Abdullah bin Hassan revolted against [the
sultan], in which blood was shed'.
- 'Affan narrated from him, and considered him trustworthy.
- Ibn Ma'in said, 'His words are not to be taken, as he used to view
revolting [against the sultan], and he was not a preacher'.
- Yahya bin Saeed Al-Qattan mentioned him once and praised him, and
he mentioned that there was a business between them.
He died around the age of one hundred and sixty years- may Allah have
mercy on him.
I said, They wrote his hadith in the four books of Sunnan. [Seer A'lām
an- Nubalā 7/280]
He is one of those accused of holding opinions of the Kharijites, who
broadly permitted blood shed. So such a narration from him is not
accepted, as it is understood that general takfeer was made by them
upon those who embraced Islam from amongst the Arabs and that
their blood was made permissible.
94
▪️ 2 - It has been reported by Imam Ahmad [may Allah have mercy upon
him] in Fadhāil as-Sahābah [the Virtues of the Companions] (381),
Abdullah narrated to us, he said that Yusuf bin Abi Umayyah Al-Thaqafi
narrated to me twice in Kufa in the year two hundred and thirty. He
said that Yunus bin Ubaid narrated to us on the authority of Al-Hasan,
he said, one day or one night, Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari said [while speaking
of 'Umar], 'The Islam of 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab was an honour, his
leadership was victory, and his opinion was sound [as though] he was
guided by an angel. Al-Farooq differentiated between truth and
falsehood, and the Qur’an was revealed in approval of his opinion'. So a
man from Bani Sulaym, who was referred to as Harami said, 'Abu Bakr
was better than him'. Abu Musa repeated his statement and Al-Salami
said the same as he said before three times. When they left [the
gathering], he [Abu Musa] went to Umar and told him of what
happened, to which Umar said, 'A night of Abu Bakr is better than the
entire lifetime of Umar, and a day of Abu Bakr is better than the entire
lifetime of Umar. As for a day [in his era], it was a day when the Arabs
apostated, and as for his night, it was the night in the cave when he
himself guarded the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬.
Al-Dhahabi stated in Al-Seer on the authority of Al-Hasan 4/564, 'It was
narrated via a transmission from a group like Ali and Umm Salamah, but
he [i.e. the narrator] did not hear from them [directly], neither from
Abu Musa, nor from Ibn Saree’, nor from Abdullah Ibn Amr, nor from
Amr Ibn Taghlib, nor from Imran, nor from Abu Barzah, nor from Usama
bin Zaid, nor from Ibn Abbas, nor from Uqbah bin Amer, nor from Abu
95
Tha`labah, nor from Abu Bakra, nor from Abu Hurairah, nor from Jabir,
nor from Abu Saeed. This is what Yahya bin Ma'yyin said.
▪️ 3 - 32731 - Wakee’ narrated to us, he said that Sufyan told us on the

authority of Qais bin Aslam, on the authority of Tariq bin Shihāb who
said, "A delegation from [the tribes of] Buzakha, Asad and Ghatfān
came to Abu Bakr asking for peace. Abu Bakr told them to choose
between a destructive war or a shameful peace treaty. He [the narrator]
said, they said, 'We are aware of the destructive war, but what is the
shameful surrender?' He said, Abu Bakr replied to them, 'You must
surrender all arms and weaponry and you must leave the people to
follow the tails of the camels till Allah shows the Caliph (successor) of
His Prophet and Al-Muhajirin (emigrants) something because of which
you may excuse yourselves, and you shall pay the blood money for those
who are killed from us and we shall not pay the blood money for those
killed from your people. you must also testify that our killed ones are in
Paradise and yours are in Hell, and you shall return what you have
gained from us, and we will seize [as booty] what we have gained from
you'. Umar said, 'Indeed you have made your judgement regarding this,
and I will advise you; as for they surrender all arms and weaponry,
blessed is your opinion. As for they leave the people to follow the tails of
the camels till Allah shows the Caliph (successor) of His Prophet and Al-
Muhajirin (emigrants) something because of which you may excuse
yourselves, then blessed is your opinion regarding this. As for us to seize
[as booty] what we gained from them, and they give back what they
took from us, then blessed is your opinion. As for their [testimony] that
their killed ones are residing in Hell and our killed are residing in
Paradise, then blessed is your opinion. As for them being liable to pay
96
the blood money for our killed ones, then no, for our killed ones were
killed in the path of Allah for which there is no blood money. So the
people agreed to that." [Musnaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 6/437]

The authentic version of this narration is in the Sahih [Al-Bukhari] 7221-
Musaddad narrated to us, that Yahya narrated to us on the authority of
Sufyān, [who said], Qais bin Muslim narrated to us on the authority of
Tāriq bin Shihāb that Abu Bakr said to the delegation of Buzakha,
"Follow the tails of the camels till Allah shows the Caliph (successor) of
His Prophet and Al-Muhajirin (emigrants) something because of which
you may excuse yourselves." [Sahih al Bukhari]
The narration of Tariq bin Shihab regarding the story of Abu Bakr with
the delegation of the people of Bazzakh for Tulayha al-Asdi is authentic.
However, his takfeer was upon those who were killed from them, who
were fighting against the Companions, i.e. they were members of a
Ta'ifa Mumtani'a [a resistant armed group] fighting against the
Companions with Tulayha, who claimed prophet hood, and it was not
takfeer of everyone who resided in the land of Tulayha.. due to the
context of the words of Abu Bakr, ["And you shall return what you have
gained from us, and we will seize [as booty] what we have gained from
you"]. So his statement was concerning the fighters who fought the
Companions and what the Companions gained of booty in battles and
what they gained from the Companions in battles [i.e. which proves
they fought battles against the Companions]. Therefore, there is no
97
evidence of argument for you in the narration which you report, and All
Praise is for Allah.
▪️ 4 - Khalifa bin Khayāt reported in the book of history he authored,

with an authentic chain of transmission: (103) Ali bin Muhammad and
Musa bin Ismail narrated to me on the authority of Hammad bin
Salamah, on the authority of Hisham bin Urwah, on the authority of his
father who said, "The Arabs disbelieved [apostated] and Banu Sulaym
came to Abu Bakr and said, 'The Arabs have become disbelievers so aid
us with weapons', so he ordered that they be given weapons. However,
they turned on him and came to fight Abu Bakr. Abbas bin Merdas said
to them, 'Why did you take his weapons to fight him, and you have
accounted a sin due to this, before Allah'. Then Abu Bakr sent Khalid bin
Al-Walid to Banu Sulaym, who grouped them in an area and set them
on fire.” [History of Khalifa bin Khayat | The departure of Abu Bakr to
Dhi Qissa]
Ibn Sa'ad al-Baghdadi said that Yazid bin Harun told us, he said,
Hammad bin Salamah told us on the authority of Hisham bin 'Urwah, on
the authority of his father that, “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬delayed the
departure from 'Arafah because he was waiting for Usama bin Zayd.
Then a young black boy with a flat nose appeared, and when the people
of Yemen saw him they exclaimed, 'We were imprisoned because of this
one?'. He [i.e. the narrator] said 'That is why the people of Yemen
disbelieved, due to this'. Muhammad bin Sa'ad said, I said to Yazid bin
Aaron, 'What is meant by his statement that the people of Yemen
disbelieved because of this?' He said, 'It is in reference to their apostasy
when they apostated in the time of Abu Bakr. It was because they
98
belittled and underestimated the command of the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬.” [Tabaqāt
al-Kubra li Ibn Saad (47:4) - Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah.]

The first narration: It is classed weak and [the chain] is disconnected
because Hisham bin Urwa narrated from his father 'Urwa bin Al-Zubayr,
who was born approximately in the last [years] of the Caliphate of
Umar and the beginning [years] of the Caliphate of Uthmān, and it is
said to be in 23 Hijri, which means that he did not witness the time in
which the wars of apostasy took place which were in the era of Abu
Bakr, and he did not mention the mediators [i.e. narrators] between
him and the time of Abu Bakr..
The second narration: 'Urwa bin Al-Zubayr himself reported this

narration from the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬in a mursal form, but he did not witness
the era of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬nor did he mention the mediators [i.e.
narrators] between them.
▪️ 5 - The narration of Qatādah was also reported by al-Bayhaqi with a

good chain of transmission: (15385) Abu Abdullah Al-Hafiz and Abu
Saeed bin Abi Amr told us, they said, Abu al-Abbas Muhammad ibn
Yaqoub narrated to us, that Yahya bin Abi Talib told Abdul Wahhāb ibn
'Atā that Sa'eed, he is ibn Abi 'Arūba, told us on the authority of
Qatādah regarding the statement of Allah the Mighty and Sublime, {O
you who have believed, whoever of you should revert from his religion
- Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and
99
who will love Him} [Al-Māidah:53]. [The complete verse]. He said, “This
verse was revealed and indeed Allah knew that people would apostate.
So when Allah took the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to Himself, the people
apostated from Islam, except for [those] in three mosques, the people of
Madinah, the people of Makkah, and the people of Ju'ātha from
Bahrain belonging to [the tribe of] Abd al- Qais. The Arabs said, "As for
the Prayer, we will pray, but the Zakah, by Allah, we will not allow our
money to be confiscated". So they spoke to Abu Bakr, [may Allah be
pleased with him] to pardon them and overlook them. He responded to
them, 'Indeed if they had understood, they would have given Zakah in
obedience'. However, Abu Bakr, [may Allah be pleased with him],
refused them and said, 'By Allah, I will not differentiate between
something which Allah has combined. By Allah, if they withhold from
me a small she-goat which Allah and his Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬ordained, I will
fight them for withholding it'. So Allah sent troops against them, who
fought for what the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬had fought for [i.e. Islam],
until they agreed to the simple aid, which is the ordained Zakah. Then
the Arab delegation came to him, so he gave them the choice between a
shameful peace treaty or a destructive war, and they chose the peace
treaty, as it was easier for them to testify that their killed ones were in
Hellfire and the killed ones of the Muslims were in Paradise, and what
the Muslims seized from their wealth is permissible [to take], and what
they took from the Muslims was to be returned to them".
[Sunnan al-Kubra Al-Bayhaqi | The chapter on whoever says there is no

claim for the injuries and blood regarding what was lost of wealth
during the fight against the people of transgression.]
100
Mu'ammar bin Rashid narrated in “Jami’ah”: (484) on the authority of
Qatādah, he said, "when the Messenger of Allah ( )‫ﷺ‬passed away, the
Arabs apostated, except for the people of the three mosques, Masjid
Al-Haram, the masjid in Al-Madina and the Masjid in Al-Bahrain. [Jāmi'
Mu'ammar bin Rashid| Bāb al-Qabāil.]

The narration of the tabi'i Qatādah, [may Allah have mercy on him], is
da'eef [weak] who narrated in a mursal form, as he did not witness the
time of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and did not mention the mediators [i.e.
narrators] between them, as Qatada was born in the year 60 [and it is
also said] 61 AH.
▪️ 6 - Muhammad ibn Ishaq stated, "The Arabs apostated after the

death of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬except for the people of the two
mosques; Makkah and Madinah. The tribes of Asad and ghatfān
apostated and their chief was Tulayha bin Khuwailid al- Assadi the
soothsayer. Also [the tribes of] Kinda and those who followed them
apostated and al-Ash'ath ibn Qays al-Kindi was [the chief] over them.
The tribe of Math'hij and those who followed them also apostated and
the soothsayer al-Aswad ibn Ka'b al-'Ansi was made chief leader over
them. The tribe of Rabi'a also apostated along with al-Ma'roor ibn al-
Nu'man bin Munthir, and Banu Hanifa continued in their matter [of
belief and obedience] to Musaylimah bin Habib, the liar. [The tribe of]
Sulaym also apostated along with the tribe of Fujā'a and his name was
Anas bin Abd Yaleel. Also, Banu Tamim apostated with Sajāha the
soothsayer. The tribes of Asad, Ghatfan and Tay gathered with Tulayha
101
Al-Asadi and sent delegations to Madinah where they arrived upon the
people [of the city] who received them, except Al-Abbas. They took
them to Abu Bakr [informing him] that they perform prayer and do not
pay Zakah. So Allah [Azza Wa Jal] made Abu Bakr determined upon the
truth and he said, "If they withhold even a hobbling cord, I will fight
them over it.", and sent them back. They returned to their tribes and
informed them that the people of Madina are only few in number, and
enticed them [to fight]. So Abu Bakr sent guards to the outskirts of
Madina and obligated the people of the city to attend the mosque and
said, "Indeed [the people of] the earth [have become] disbelievers." [Al-
Bidayah wa Nihayah by Ibn Kathir, 3:309- Dār al- kutub al- 'Ilmiyya]

Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasār al-Madani (80 AH _ 151 AH), [may
Allah have mercy on him], the author of the biography is a mudallis
[one who conceals a flaw in the sanad], who conceals the weak and
unknown narrators. In addition to his tadlis, this narration is munqati'
[the sanad is disconnected], as he did not witness the era of the death
of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬nor the succession of Abu Bakr, thus the narration is
da'eef [weak].
Ibn Hajar mentioned him to be from the fourth rank from the ranks of
the mudalliseen (p. 51) and said, 'He is known for tadlees [concealing a
flaw in the sanad] as he narrates from the weak, the unknown and from
those more evil than them. Ahmad, Al-Daraqutni, and others described
him as such. This is not considered an overall slander in his hadiths, as
the hadiths of a mudallis who has a lot of tadlis may be accepted if he
clearly mentions how he heard the narration. Only the hadiths which he
102
narrates with the use of the term 'an [i.e. a narration from so and so] is
rejected.
▪️ 7 - Al-Tabarani narrated: (4057) Muhammad bin Musa bin Hammad

Al-Barbari and Abdan bin Ahmed narrated to us, they said, Abu Al-
Sukeen Zakaria bin Yahya Al-Tā’i narrated to us that the uncle of my
father, Zahar bin Hisn narrated to us on the authority of his grandfather
Humayd bin Manhab, who said, Khuraym bin Aws said: "I heard the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬say that the city of Hira with white palaces was
shown to me and I saw Shayma, the daughter of Buqayla al- Azdiyya
riding a white mule and she was wrapped in a black veil." So I [Khuraim]
said, 'O Messenger of Allah! If we enter that city as conquerors and I
find a woman with that description, is she mine?' He ‫ ﷺ‬said, 'she is
yours'. Then the Arabs apostated, but no one from the tribe of Tay’i
apostated, and we used to fight the tribe of Banu Asad, and amongst
them was Taliha bin Khwaylid al-Faq'asi. So Khalid ibn al-Walid praised
us and some of what was said (in poetry) regarding us was, "May Allah
reward Tayi' on our behalf in their lands with the best recompense,
they are the heroes of the battlefield, for they are the people (who
hold) the banners of tolerance and call, when the young boys were
called out, with great expertise they hit Qais for the religion, after they
answered the call of (the people) of darkness and blindness." [Al-
Mu'jam Kabeer by At- Tabarāni | Khuraym bin Aws bin Haritha bin Lam
at- Tā'iy]
103
The first narration is classed as da'eef [weak]: 1_ It was mentioned in
the book Mawsū'ah, the statements of Abu al-Hasan al-Daraqutni,
regarding the narrators of the Hadith and its defects - 1/265
1310 - Zakariya bin Yahya bin 'Umar bin Hisn Al-Ta’i, the father of Al-
Sakin Al-Kufi Al-Kilabi.
-Al-Hakim said, "I asked Al-Daraqutni, is Abu Al-Sakin Al-Kalabi 'Zakaria
bin Yahya?' He said he is al-Ta'i Kufi, he is not a strong/trusted narrator
as he narrates hadiths that are not clear.." (329).
- Al-Barqani said, “I heard Al-Daraqutni say Zakariya bin Yahya Al-Ta’i is
matruk [i.e. his narrations are abandoned], Basri. (166).”
Also, Ibn Hajar mentioned that Al-Daraqutni said that he is not a strong
narrator, as he narrates manakeer [disapproved narrations]. Al-Bukhari
narrated from him in his Sahih. “Al-Mizan” 2 (2895).
2- It has been mentioned in 'Mizān al I'tidāl 2/69, in Dar Al Ma'rifa for

Printing and Publishing, Beirut - Lebanon - 1st Edition (1963), Zahr bin
Hisn, from his grandfather, and from him Abu Al-Sakin Al-Ta’i narrates,
and he is unknown.
Al-Tabarani reported: (1174) on the authority of Wā'el bin Hujr that he

stated in the long narration, after Mu'awiyah bin Sufyan ordered him to
take governance over Kufa, 'I am not in need of anyone after the death
of the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬. Did you not see that Abu Bakr wanted me [to
govern] but I refused, and 'Umar wanted me [to govern] but I refused,
and 'Uthman wanted me but I refused, though I did not reject the
bay'ah [pledge] to them. The message of Abu Bakr came to me in which
[he mentioned] the people of our region apostated. So I stood firm with
104
them [calling them to return in repentance] until Allah returned them
to Islam without the governance.." [to the end of the narration]. [Al-
Mu'jam Kabeer li Al-Tabarani | Umm Yahya, the wife of Wā'el bin Hujr,
on the authority of Wāel bin Hujr.

Al- Tabarani reported the narration with this chain of transmission:
Abu Hind Yahya bin 'Abdullah bin Hujr bin 'Abdil Jabbār bin Wā'el bin
Hujr Al- Hadrami al- Kufi narrated to us, that my uncle Muhammad bin
Hujr bin Abdil Jabbār narrated to me, that Sa'eed bin Abdil Jabbār
narrated to us on the authority of his father Abdil Jabbār, on the
authority of his mother Umm Yahya, on the authority of Wā'el bin
Hujar, he said..[The narration]
It has been reported in Mujma’ al-Zawa’id wa manba' al- Fawāid lil al-
Haythami 9/624: It was narrated by al-Tabarani in al-Saghir wa al-Kabir,
and in (this chain) is Muhammad ibn Hujar, who is da'eef [weak].
Muhammad bin Hujar bin Abdul Jabbar bin Wā'el bin Hujar, on the
authority of his uncle Sa'eed, and from him Ibrahim bin Saeed Al-
Jawhari.. he has munkar [disapproved narrations].
It was stated that his kunya (i.e. he was known as) Abu al-Khanafs.
Al-Bukhari said, it has to be re- checked [i.e. the narration is not
authentic]
[Mizan al-I'tidāl fi ma'rifa al-rijāl 3/511].
105
▪️ 9 - Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayruwani mentioned that Ibn Habeeb stated in his
book which specialises in the biographies of the atheists that, “It was
written to him asking about a people from Berbers in Morocco who
were referred to as Salihiyya. A man came to them and claimed prophet
hood, who named himself Sālih. He told them that Prophet Muhammad
was only sent to the Arabs, and he commanded them to break the
Ramadan fast and replaced it with the fast in the month of Rajab and
other matters which he legislated for them. So they believed him and
apostated, and they persisted in that until they bore generations, and
the Muslims fought them on more than one occasion. So Ibn Habeeb
wrote to them [in response], 'If they are captured and are gained victory
over, or over a group of them, then they and their offspring have the
ruling of apostasy, the elders amongst them must repent, either they
repent, or they must be killed. Likewise, the same applies to those of
their offspring who have reached adolescence, as their enslavement is
not permissible by captivity. Every child that is born to an apostate after
his apostasy bears the ruling of an apostate, and the offspring they bear
from them shall not be enslaved. The young child must be forced to
convert to Islam, and the one who has reached adulthood must repent,
and if he does not repent, he must be killed. He mentioned that the
same was said to him by all of the students of Imam Malik who spoke to
him.” [An-nawādir wa Ziyādāt (502 - 503: 14) Dār al Gharb].

This fatwa is in reference to a specific town whose people made their
separation and apostasy from Islam apparent, and they no longer
displayed the two testimonies, especially the testimony that
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah- because they viewed that the
Prophet ‫ﷺ‬was sent to the Arabs in particular. Therefore, this is a
106
specific fatwa for a specific country in a specific situation, not a general
fatwa.
If it was general - and this was not the case- then it is still not [to be
used as] evidence, as the scholars in their fatwas are sometimes right
and sometimes mistaken, and they are between receiving one reward
and two rewards, and so, their fatwas [verdicts] are not to be taken as
evidence like verses of the Quran and hadiths are taken, especially the
scholars of later generations.
▪️ 10 - Imam Al-Shafi’i said, "With this we take [rulings] and this

resembles the rulings of Islam, when judging others, people are charged
[to rule] according to the most likely (thought that have), based on what
is made apparent to them." [Al- Umm li al-Shafi’i (329:2)]

The statement of Al-Shafi’i is regarding the majhool al- hāl [one whose
condition of religion is unknown], the one who did not make anything
specifically apparent to us in order for us to judge him by it, who
neither made Islam apparent nor displayed disbelief, and it was not
possible to ask him about his religion or to enquire from reliable
trustworthy people regarding him. The scholars judge him based on
ijtihad - as Al-Shafi’i and others said, by virtue of the principle that
'ruling is for the majority and the rare/minority have no ruling'.
The statement of Al-Shafi’i does not address the one whose Islam al
hukmi [Islam of judgement] is affirmed with certainty, due to him
107
displaying Islam and it's rituals, such as [pronouncing] the two
testimonies, prayer, or attributing himself to Islam. In addition, that
which nullifies Islam was not individually proven against him, with shar'i
proof, by two just witnesses or by confession.
▪️ 11 - Abu Bakr Al-Ajiri said, "When the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬passed away the
people of al-Yamamah apostated due to their denial of paying Zakah.
They said, 'We will pray and fast but we will not pay Zakah from our
wealth.' So Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, [may Allah be pleased with him], fought
them along with all the Companions, until he killed them and captured
others, and said, 'You must testify that your killed ones are in the Fire
and our killed ones are in Paradise.'” [The Forty Hadiths of Al-Ajri |
Islam is built on five (pg. 81)].

The following is the complete statement of Al-Ajri, [may Allah have
mercy on him], so that one can understand what he meant from the
context:
4- Abu Ahmad Harun bin Yusuf the merchant told us that, “Ibn Abi
'Umar, meaning Muhammad al-Adani narrated to us that Sufyan bin
Uyaynah narrated to us on the authority of Sa’ir ibn al-Khums, on the
authority of Habib ibn Abi Thabit, on the authority of Ibn Umar who said
that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said: "Islam is raised on five (pillars);
testifying 'there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is His servant and
108
messenger', and the establishment of prayer, payment of Zakat,
Pilgrimage to the House (Ka'ba) and the fast of the month Ramadan.
Muhammad ibn al-Husayn said: 'Know the meaning of this hadith so
you will understand it, if Allah wills. Know that the first thing that the
Prophet was sent with was the command to call the people to bear
witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the
Messenger of Allah. Whoever says it sincerely from his heart and dies
upon that will enter Paradise. Thereafter, prayer was made obligatory
upon them, so they prayed, and then they migrated to al- Madina. Then
time after time, other obligatory matters were ordained for them, and
whenever a fardh was prescribed for them, they would accept it, like
fasting the month of Ramadan and the giving of Zakah, then the
pilgrimage was made obligatory for those who were able to do so.
When they believed in that and carried out these ordains, Allah the
Mighty and Sublime said: {This day I have perfected for you your
religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you
Islām as religion.} [Al-Ma’idah: 3]. So the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said: “Islam is built
on five.” So know that whoever abandons an obligation from these five
and he disbelieves in it and rejects it, then tawheed does not benefit him
and he is not a Muslim. The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said, “Between a servant and
disbelief there is the abandonment of prayer", so whoever abandons
prayer has committed disbelief.” And Ibn Masoud said: “Allah the
Mighty and Sublime, combines zakat with prayer. Whoever does not
pay zakat on his money, there is no prayer for him.” And when the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬passed away, the people of al-Yamamah apostated and
refused to pay zakat and said, 'We will pray and fast but will not pay
zakat from our wealth.' So Abu Bakr As-Siddiq fought them [may Allah
be pleased with him] along with all the Companions until he killed them
and captured some and said, 'Do you testify that your killed ones are in
Hell and our killed ones are in Paradise?' All of that was because Islam is
109
based on five, which means that parts of it (alone) are not accepted
without others. So know that in sha Allah."
Here, Imam Al-Ajri speaks about those who apostated from the people
of Al-Yamamah with Musaylma, who fought against the Companions
with Musaylimah.
▪️ 12 - 2587 - Sa’eed narrated to us, he said, Khalid bin Abdullah

narrated to us, on the authority of Dawud, on the authority of 'Āmer,
on the authority of Anas bin Malik, he said: “Six people from (the tribe)
of Bakr bin Wael apostated on the day of Tastur, and I approached
Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, and he asked me,
'What happened to the people (of Bakr?' I directed my speech to
another topic in order to distract him, but he asked (again), 'What
happened to the people (of Bakr)?' I responded, 'They were killed.' He
replied, 'To have been able to meet them was dearer to me than what
the sun has risen upon.' He (the narrator) said, I said to him, 'What
other way was there to deal with them than to kill them?' He replied, 'I
would have offered them to enter through the door (of Islam) from
which they exited, [i.e. to repent from the nullifier which they
committed], either that or I would have imprisoned them.' [Sunan
Saeed bin Mansour]
32737 - Abd al-Rahim bin Suleiman narrated to us, on the authority of

Dawood bin Abi Hind, he said Aamir narrated to us that Anas bin Malik
was told that a group of people from the tribe of Bakr bin Wael
apostated from Islam and joined the mushrikeen and so they were
110
killed in battle. When I later came to Umar ibn al-Khattab to give him
the news of the opening of Tastur, he said, 'What happened to the
people of Bakr bin Wael?’ He (the narrator) said, I engaged him in
another topic in order to distract him from them. He said again, 'What
happened to the group of Bakr bin Wael?' I responded, 'They were
Killed, O Commander of the Faithful!' He replied, “If I had taken them in
surrender, it would have been more beloved to me than the yellow [i.e.
gold] and white [i.e. silver] upon which the sun rises.” He (the narrator)
said, I said, 'O Commander of the Faithful, and even if you took them,
the only course of action to take would be to kill them. They were a
people who apostated from Islam and joined the mushrikeen.' He
replied, 'I would have offered them to enter the door which they exited
from. If they did that I would accept it from them, and if they refused I
would have imprisoned them." [Musnaf Ibn Abi Shaybah]

This narration of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab was reported by Saeed Ibn
Mansour in his Sunan with an authentic chain of narration, and Umar
said this regarding (the tribe of Al-Bakri'een), whose apostasy from
Islam was proven individually. Then the Companions killed them, and it
was reported to Umar that the Companions had killed them, and he
wished that he had offered them the chance to repent before killing
them, by offering them to enter the door through which they had left
Islam, and their repentance was dearer to him than what is on the face
of the earth of yellow and white, meaning gold and silver.
111
▪️ 13 - Muhammad bin 'Abd al- 'A'lā told us, he said Mu'tamir narrated
to us, he said, “I heard Bahz bin Hakeem narrate from his father, on the
authority of his grandfather, he said, "I said: 'O Prophet of Allah, I did
not come to you until I had sworn more than this many times.." [the
number of fingers on his hands], "..that I would never come to you or
follow your religion. I am a man who does not know anything except
that which Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, and His Messenger teach me.
I ask you by the Revelation of Allah, with what has your Lord sent your
to us? He said: "With Islam.' I said: 'What are the signs of Islam?' He
said: 'To say, I submit my face to Allah and give up (Shirk), and to
establish the Salah and to pay the Zakah.’ " [Narrtaed by an- Nasāi]

Ibn al-Qattan stated in (Al- Wahm wal-Ihāmh) (5/6) in criticism of Abu
Hatim's statement regarding Bahz ("It is not to be used as evidence"),
he said, rather, 'It should not be accepted from him except as
evidence.'
- (Khatt 4) Bahz bin Hakim bin Muawiya bin Haidah, Abu Abd al-Malik
al-Qushayri, said about him: “Saleh, but he is not well-known.” [Ad-
du'afā li Abi Zur’a 3/851]
Bahz bin Hakim bin Muawiyah Al-Qushari is truthful and his hadiths are
Hassan, and Ibn Al-Madini, Ibn Mu'in and An-Nasa'i considered him
trustworthy and Abu Dawud said his hadiths are authentic. Abu Hatim
however, said his hadiths are not to be used as evidence. Abu Zaraa
said his hadiths are Salih, and Al-Hakim said that it is not used, even if it
was sahih because he was alone in (narrating) it. [Al- Mughni fi ad-
du'afā 116/1]
112
1325 - Bahz ibn Hakim [..] bin Mu'awiya bin Hida, Abu 'Abdul Malik al-
Qushayri al- Basri, on the authority of his father, on the authority of his
grandfather, and it was narrated to him from Zurara bin Aufa, on the
authority of Sufyan and Hammad bin Zaid and Yahya al-Qattan, and
Makki and Khalq.
Ibn al-Madini, Yahya, and an-Nasa’i considered him trustworthy.
Abu Hatim said: It is not to be used as evidence.
Abu Zara'a said: Saleh.
Al-Bukhari said: They differ regarding it. [Mizan al I'tidāl 353/1].
Conclusion: Bahz bin Hakim is considered a weak narrator in himself

and has munkar (disapproved) hadiths. He narrated alone from his
father with narrations that are not used as evidence unless a
trustworthy narrator also (narrates) it.
113
■ Credible statements regarding the method of dealing with mursal
(form of) hadiths.
#A continuation of [the research]; revealing the misconceptions [8-9]
▪️ Linguistically: Mursal means: itlaq, 'To set free/release', as though the

mursal is releasing the chain of narrators without restriction to a
specific narrator, or without restriction to any narrator.
Literally: It is a hadith which has an omission of anyone after the

tabi'een at the end of the isnad (chain of narrators.)
Its form: A tabi’i, whether junior or senior reports that 'The Prophet ‫ﷺ‬
said, did, or another one did in the presence of the Prophet, such and
such a thing.'
An example: What was mentioned in Sahih Muslim, (chapter):

“business transactions,” in the hadith of Saeed bin Al-Musayyib, who is
one of the senior tabi'een: that the Messenger of Allah ,‫ ﷺ‬forbade the
transactions by Muzabana and the Muhaqalah) ...
Hadith al-mursal includes what the Tabi’i raises to Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬with the
omission of some men from the end of the sanad (chain of narrators),
without knowing their number or their condition.
As for marāseel (plural of mursal) which are reported by the Sahabah
(Companions), they are all hujja (absolute proof) because all the
Sahabah are 'adūl (pious and have taqwa)..
114
Al-Sarakhsi said in his “Usool” (1/359): "There is no disagreement
among the scholars regarding the Mursal hadith that have been
narrated from one of the Companions, (may Allah be pleased with
them), that they (are used as) evidence because they (the Companions)
accompanied the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. Therefore, what they report on
the authority of the Messenger of Allah is absolutely implied that they
heard from him, or from another companion, and all were people of
truth and adàlah/taqwa."
Ibn al-Qayyim said: "The ummah has agreed on the acceptance of the
narrations of Ibn Abbas and his peers from among the companions,
even though they are generally in a mursal form, on the authority of the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and none of the Salaf, nor the people of hadith, nor the
fuqahā/jurists disputed that." [Tahdheeb Sunan Abi Dawood (1/177)]
Regarding not using mursal hadiths as evidence - which is a hadith

narrated by a tabi’i, on the authority of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬or he narrated
what occurred in the era of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬while he did not witness
the era, without mentioning the mediator (narrator) between them, we
will convey to you the following statements of the scholars of
knowledge and hadith, (may Allah have mercy on them all) regarding
mursal hadiths:
1- Imam Muslim said in the introduction to his Sahih (1/30): "According

to our original view and that of the scholars of knowledge in khabar (i.e.
hadiths from the prophet and others), the mursal narrations are not
used as proof." [End of quote]
115
2- Ibn Abi Hatim said regarding al-Maraseel (p. 7): "I heard my father
and Abu Zur’a say: "Arguments/hujja cannot be established using
mursal hadiths, and arguments are not established except with sound
and connected asāneed (connected chains of transmission)." [End of
quote]
3- Al-Hakim stated in Ma`rifat Ulum Al-Hadith (p. 33): "According to the

sheikhs of the people of Kufa, anyone who narrates a (mursal) hadith
from the tabi'een, the followers of the tabi'een and those who came
after them from among the scholars, is accepted as hujja/proof.
However, as for us, it is not the same, (i.e. not accepted as proof).Then
he evidenced this with the statement of Allah:
‫( َو َما كَا َن ٱۡل ُم ۡؤ ِم ُنو َن ِلیَن ِف ُروا ك َۤا َّف ࣰة َف َل ۡو َل نَ َف َر ِمن ُك ِل فِ ۡر َقة ِم ۡنهُ ۡم َط ۤاىِٕفَة ِلیَتَ َف َّقهُوا فِی ٱ ِلدی ِن َو ِلیُن ِذ ُروا‬
.‫َق ۡو َمهُ ۡم إ ِ َذا َر َجعُ ۤوا إ ِ َل ۡی ِه ۡم َلع َ َّلهُ ۡم یَ ۡح َذ ُرو َن‬
{And it is not (proper) for the believers to go out to fight (Jihâd ) all
together. Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that
they (who are left behind) may get instructions in (Islâmic) religion,
and that they may warn their people when they return to them, so
that they may beware (of evil)."} [Surah At-Tawbah 122] He then said,
"In this text there is evidence that the knowledge (which is used as)
proof is what been heard and not mursal." [End of quote]
4- Ibn Abd al-Barr stated in (Al-Tamheed) (p. 1/5): "All the people of
Islamic Fiqh (jurisprudence) and the people of al-hadith in all regions
which I know of said: "The disconnection in an athar/narration (of the
hadith) prevents it from being obligatory to act upon, whether a
muttasil (chain with connected narrators) contradicts it or not." They
116
also said: "If a narration with a connected chain contradicts a narration
which is disconnected, we do not pay attention to the disconnected one
with the presence of the connected one, and it is correct to use the
chain with the connected narration." [End of quote]
5 - Al-Hafiz Ibn Rajab quoted in (Sharh Al-Illal) (p. 180) on the authority
of Al-Daraqutni that he said: "Al Mursal does not establish
hujja/argument." [End of quote]
6 - Ibn al-Salah said in “Introduction to the Sciences of Hadith” (p. 53):

"Then know that the ruling of the mursal hadith is that it is
da'eef/weak". [End of quote]
And he said: "And what we have mentioned with regards to the absence
of ihtijaj/establishing arguments (and proof), using mursal hadiths, and
the ruling of it being da'eef, is the madhab upon which the view of the
majority of hadith memorizers, and critics/reviewers of hadith have,
which is circulated in their works." [End of quote]
With these words of pearls from the scholars, the majority of your
narrations by which you present your arguments have been defeated
and have become scattered dust.
To establish hujja using the meaning of a mursal hadith, whose

correctness (in meaning) is evidenced by verses or other sahih hadiths
which hold the same meaning, or hadiths which are mawquf to the
sahabah, or are maqtu'/disconnected to the tabi'een is a matter (which
is different than to accept the mursal itself).
117
1-Ash-Shafi'i, [may Allah Azza Wa Jal be pleased with him], said, "So he,
[i.e. the debater] said, 'Does a munqati'/ disconnected hadith establish
hujja for the one who knows (that it is disconnected), and do the
munqati'/disconnected hadiths differ or are they and others alike?'
Ash-Shafi'i said, "So I said to him, the munqati'/disconnected hadiths
differ. Whoever witnessed (the era) of the Companions of Prophet ‫ﷺ‬
from the tabi'een and reported a haith disconnected from the Prophet
‫ ﷺ‬it is to be considered acceptable (after) a few matters. From them is
to look at what was narrated in the hadith. If trustworthy memorisers
(of hadith) share (the narration) with him, and attribute its sanad to the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬with the same meaning as he narrated, then this is a sign of
the soundness of his acceptance and memorization. But if he is the only
one in narrating this (mursal hadith), which no other (narrators) share
with him of what he narrated prior to him being alone in that, then to
consider it (acceptable) one must look into (some matters): Whether
another mursal hadith, (narrated by those) whom knowledge is
accepted from, has the same meaning, other than his men (narrators).
If he finds that it does agree, then this is a sign which strengthens his
mursal hadith, but it is weaker than the first type. But if he finds it does
not, then he must look into some of what was narrated by the
Companions of the Prophet - ‫ ﷺ‬,of their statements. If he finds that it
is in agreement with what was narrated from the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬then this is
a sign that he did not take his hadith except from a valid and a sound
source- In Sha Allah. Likewise if he finds that the common scholars are
giving fatwa with the same meaning as what has been narrated from
the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬Ash-Shafi'i said, "Then he considers it acceptable (after)
looking into (the matter further). That the one he narrated from is not
called a majhool/unknown nor disliked (to be narrated from) by the
scholars, then this is evidence on the soundness of the one he narrated
from, and it becomes as such only if any of the hadith memorizers which
118
shared the narration did not disagree with him. But if they disagree,
then his hadith is lesser (in authenticity), and found his hadith to be less
(in wording), then this is a sign of the soundness of the mukhraj of the
hadith. Whenever it violates that which I described, it harms the
(authenticity) of his hadith, until none consider his mursal hadith
acceptable." [Al-Risālah 465- 461]
Conditions for the acceptance of mursal hadiths according to [Imam]

Ash-Shafi'i. He stipulated that the mursal be narrated from the senior
tabi'een, then on the condition that the mursal [i.e. text] and mursil
[i.e. narrator] is considered acceptable.
To consider the mursal acceptable, the matn (i.e. text of the hadith
where the sanad ends) [must comply with the following]:
1- It must come with a sanad (chain) from another route, due to his
statement: “..he must look into what was narrated from the (mursal)
hadith. If the trustworthy preservers (of hadith) share (the narration)
with him, and they attributed it to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬with the
same meaning as what he narrated."
2- That another mursal agrees with it, provided that it is from other
men/narrators of the first mursal, due to his statement, “..It is
considered acceptable if another mursal hadith, (narrated by those)
whom knowledge is accepted from, has the same meaning, other than
his men (narrators)."
119
3 - That it agrees with the sayings of some of the Companions – [may
Allah be pleased with them], due to his statement, "..If he does not find
this, then he must look at some of what has been narrated on the
authority of the some of the companions of the Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬of their
statements."
4 - That the fatwa of the majority of the scholars is in agreement of

what his narration quotes, due to his statement, "..Likewise, if he finds
that the common scholars are giving fatwa with the same meaning as
what has been narrated from the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬.
■ As for considering the mursil [i.e. narrator] acceptable [he must

comply with the following]:
1 - That the one on whose authority he narrated, is not called majhool/

unknown or disliked to be narrated from (by the scholars), due to his
statement, "..Then it is considered acceptable (after looking into), if the
one on whose authority he narrated is not called..", [like in the original
(manuscript), by the affirmation of the (long) vowel, which is replaced
with a jàzm (i.e. a letter with no harakah/short vowel), and this is used
a lot in the language of Al-Shafi’i.], “..that he is not majhool/unknown
nor disliked to be narrated from (by the scholars), then he is reliable
and only narrates from the reliable ones.”
120
2 - That if someone from the hadith memorizers share with him (a
narration) and it does not disagree with (his narration), he is
(considered) an established memorizer, due to his saying, "..it becomes
as such only if any of the hadith memorizers which shared the narration
did not disagree with him. But if they disagree, then his hadith is lesser
(in authenticity), and found his hadith to be less (in wording), then this
is a sign of the soundness of the mukhraj of the hadith." He stipulated
that the narrator (of the mursal) hadith be a reliable memorizer, and a
completely retentive (narrator), and that he only narrates from those
like himself, and if he narrates from the da'eef/weak or
majhool/unknown, his mursal (hadith) is not accepted.
■ Establishing Hujja using mursal hadiths, as though they are sound

authentic hadiths with a connected chain of transmission is another
matter in itself, and this is what the scholars have tried to abolish. So
there is a difference between establishing hujja with the meaning of
the mursal [narration] and establishing hujja with the mursal in itself.
The hujja is only established by a hadith which has a connected chain of

transmission, not with the hadiths which have a disconnection in the
chain of narration.
Regarding the narrations of Al-Sir wal Al-Maghazi, the people of

knowledge are lenient in accepting the narrations of those who
121
narrated because they are narrated for the purpose of knowledge and
not hujja.
But if they intended to establish hujja for a matter using a narration

from Sir wal Maghāzi, then they are strict in that, and they do not
accept it for establishing hujja/argument, except when the conditions
of a Sahih hadith [sound and authentic hadith] are fulfilled, such as the
following:
1/ connected sanad: [Every narrator must have reported directly from

the one prior to him, all through the sanad from beginning to end.]
2/ The narrators must have 'adālah and dhabt: ['Adālah: every narrator
is Muslim baaligh (mature) āqil (of sound mind) and not a fasiq (open
sinner) and not makhroom al- muroo'ah (of compromised integrity.
Dabt: every narrator is tammam ad- dabt (completely retentive),
whether it be dabt as- sadr (by heart) or dabt al- kitāb (by writing).]
3/ It is free from shuthooth: [shuthooth occurs when a thiqah/reliable

narrator contradicts an even more reliable one.]
4/ It is free from 'illa: [an 'illa is an inconspicuous obscure defect that

impairs the authenticity of a hadith, though it appears to not have any
such defect.]
122
The consensus reported regarding this is that the da'eef hadith is not
used as hujja according to the scholars, regarding [actions and
statements which fall under] the five rulings: Wajib/Obligatory,
mustahab/desirable, mubāh/permissible, makrooh/disliked and
harām/forbidden). Reported by Ibn Hazm, Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Laknawi
and others.
■ Hujja may be established using the meaning of a da'eef hadith, but

not with the da'eef hadith itself. If its correctness (in meaning) is
evidenced by verses or other sahih hadiths which hold the same
meaning, or hadiths which are mawquf to the sahabah, or upon whose
meaning there is a consensus of the scholars..this is called (hadith
maqbool/acceptable). This is like the hadith; "There is no marriage
without a guardian”, and the hadith; "The intentional murderer does
not inherit anything", and the hadith; "No bequest must be made to a
heir", and others.
All of these hadiths are da'eef, but their meanings are correct, either
because verses and other authentic hadiths indicate the same meaning,
or due to the consensus of the scholars who agreed on the meaning of
the hadith. This is why the scholars acted upon them. So the hujja is not
in the hadith itself, nor is it the hadith itself upon which hujja is based,
but rather its meaning is correct.
Therefore, do not exhaust yourselves by claiming the authenticity of

the da'eef and mursal hadith without understanding the term. So all
that you mentioned (in evidence) is invalid, all Praise is for Allah, and all
123
that was mentioned of mursal hadiths, and from the reports regarding
mursal (form of narrations) or the munqati"/disconnected (narrations)
are not used as hujja.
■ All that which you have presented as evidence is invalidated due to

one matter, which is the ruling of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬upon the hypocrites,
with regards to the worldly rulings. The hypocrites uttered it
[testimony] but did not comply with any of the conditions of laa ilaha
illallah, neither knowledge of it which requires action, nor yaqeen
[certainty], nor love, nor ikhlas [sincerity], nor qabul [acceptance].. and
the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬knew the condition of each and every individual and
named them to Hudhayfah.
But since kufr and Shirk were not openly proven against them, thus, the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬treated them as Muslims and judged them based on the two
testimonies and rituals [they displayed].
Evidence must be collected and used together (to compliment each

other) as proof and not parts of it used as evidence while the rest of the
texts from Quran and Sunnah are abandoned, but rather, they are
collected together to (strengthen) each other, and are to be used as
evidence collectively.
As is the statement of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬, “He who professes La ilaha

illallah (There is no true god except Allah), and denies everything which
124
the people worship besides Allah, his property and blood become
inviolable, and their affairs rests with Allah". This is the narration of
Ahmad in his Musnad.
Furthermore, in the narration of Sahih Muslim, on the authority of the

prophet ‫ﷺ‬, “He who professed that there is no god but Allah and made
a denial of everything which the people worship beside Allah, his
property and blood become inviolable, an their affairs rest with Allah.
The evidence: that whoever utters laa ilaha illallah with his tongue, and
outwardly avoids shirk, he is to be judged with Islam, as was the
apparent state of the hypocrites and their judgment in worldly rulings.
So do not use only parts of the texts [of Quran and Sunnah] as evidence
to fit your desires, without bringing the texts together.
■ Kufr-bit-tāghut, which is sufficient to rule one with apparent Islam in

this world, is to avoid shirk and the nullifiers of Islam only.
This is what the hypocrites came with and thus, were treated as
muslims in this world.. Allah [Azza Wa Jal] says, {But those who have
avoided ṭāghūt, lest they worship it, and turned back to Allah - for
them are good tidings. So give good tidings to My servants. Who
listen to speech and follow the best of it. Those are the ones Allah has
guided, and those are people of understanding.} [Zumar:17-18]
125
However, those who withheld Zakah were a powerful resistant [armed]
group. Each individual from them showed loyalty and support with
weapons towards those who withheld zakah. The Companions only
ruled those who fought against them for the payment of Zakah, with
kufr, meaning, it was a group with power and they did not rule them
with apostasy only because of them refraining from giving the Zakah,
because not paying zakat out of miserliness is not kufr, as indicated by
the texts of Shari'a.
In summary, without rational evidence:
What evidence is there from the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah
which eliminates action upon the Shahadatayn and the rituals, [for the
one who presents them], and to disregard them when ruling the
mukallaf [sane and mature one] with Islam in the first place, unless it is
proven to us that he is one of those who committed a nullifier with
Shar'i proof, in the time where kufr and Shirk is widespread, or in dar
al-Islam and not dar al-kufr. Present to us absolute [general] evidence
from the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬which is not specific [to a certain matter]??!
I request evidence from the Book [of Allah] and the authentic Sunnah,
for I do not accept the understanding of your minds!
It is reasonable to say that you do not have a single piece of correct and
explicit evidence from Shar'ia which disqualifies the recognition and
regard given for the Shahādatayn and the rituals, in ruling upon the
mukallaf [mature and sane one], in the time when kufr and Shirk is
126
widespread, until a nullifier has been proven against him. Where is the
[evidence for the] restriction and limitation of these general Shar'i texts
of the Prophet ‫!? ﷺ‬
Do you make takfeer of the people by limiting the general Shar'i texts
from the Book and the Sunnah to your own understanding and
reasoning??! The rule of usool/principle states: [“The statement of the
Companion does not limit the general text (of Qur'an and Sunnah).”]
Then how do you intend to limit the general and absolute texts [of
Quran and Sunnah] to your understanding and your minds??!!
127
fitnah [strife].
■ Misconception - 10: The confliction of the original principle [i.e. to

rule with Islam] for the one who displays Islam al- hukmi, against the
apparent [situation of today], which is the prevalence of Shirk!
They claim that the apparent matter in today's era is the spread of shirk
and the involvement of the general public in that, as they follow the
taghut and the absence of their separation and disassociation from
them, and that this is the general majority, and minority/rare have no
ruling.
A perception of the mas'alah: We state that the original [condition] of

the one who displays Islam is that he is a Muslim, until he willingly and
intentionally commits a nullifier which must be proven against him.
However, the deviant heretics claim that the asl [origin] in all people is
kufr, until Islam is evident from them, and that this principle is based on
the spread of shirk and kufr, and due to the involvement of people in it
128
and due to they following the taghut, and that this is the apparent
(condition) considered on behalf of the general people.
To begin with, their statements are based on rational philosophical talk

which has no value and no consideration is given to this in Shar'i
rulings, as it is based on conjecture, doubt, probabilities and upon a
testimony of ignorance. The original principle is that we deal with the
people according to what each individual displays of himself, and that
which outwardly appears from them in ruling, which is Islam, then this
is the original definite principle which remains [of the ruling], and is not
eliminated until a nullifier (is committed). The supposed apparent
(ruling) according to the heretics [khwarijis] annuls this principle, but
rather, it must be that the apparent (ruling) be (based) on a definite
principle, and not on probability.
So we say, did you yourselves witness all those who displayed Islam al
hukmi [Islam of judgement] commit a nullifier with certainty? It is
known in the chapter of Shahadah [testimonies] that the truthful
testimony can only be given with knowledge [of the issue], and if it is a
testimony based on ignorance, then it is a false testimony, rather, it is a
forged testimony.
Allah the Most High says, {Return to your father and say, 'O our father,
indeed your son has stolen, and we did not testify except to what we
knew. And we were not witnesses of the unseen.} [Yusuf:18]
And He the Most High says, {And [they are] those who do not testify
to falsehood, and when they pass near ill speech, they pass by with
dignity.} [Furqan:72]
129
It has been narrated on the authority of Umm Salamah, the wife of the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬that the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said, "You will have rulers, some of
whom you approve and some of whom you will disapprove. He who
dislikes them will be safe, and he who expresses disapproval will be
safe, but he who is pleased and follows them (will be indeed sinful)". His
audience asked: "Shall we not fight them?" He replied, "No, as long as
they establish Salat amongst you.” [Narrated by Muslim]
It has been narrated on the authority of Tāriq bin Shihāb, and this is a
hadith from Abu Bakr, he said, "It was Marwan who initiated (the
practice) of delivering khutbah (address) before the prayer on the 'Eid
day. A man stood up and said: "Prayer should precede khutbah." He
(Marwan) remarked, "This (practice) has been done away with." Upon
this Abu Sa'id remarked: "This man has performed (his duty) laid on
him. I heard the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬say, “Whosoever of you sees an
evil, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then
[let him change it] with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then
with his heart — and that is the weakest of faith.”
Sheikh Abdul Latif bin Abdul Rahman said: “The issue of showing enmity
to the disbelievers, is other than [the matter] of it's existence. As for the
first, he is excused due to inability and fear, because of the statement of
Allah: {except when taking precaution against them in prudence}, and
the second; no doubt, it must be present because it enters into Kufr bit-
tāghut.” [Al-Durar: Part 8/pg. 359].
130
So the absence of declaration does not mean it's non-existence,
because the hadith which we have presented clearly states, (“and if he
is not able to do so, then with his heart — and that is the weakest of
faith.”), so he ‫ ﷺ‬called him a mu'min [believer].
It is known that if an individual is found to be following a taghut in

reality, whereby he entered into this sect and believed in what it calls
towards and supported the kufr it brought, then he has come with an
action which negates the asl [i.e. Islam], and this is considered a new
occurrence that gives a new ruling, and replaces the previous ruling,
which was the original (ruling), and this apparent nullifier negates Islam
al - hukmi [Islam of judgement], if it has been proven with clear
conclusive evidence which the individual has been involved in, and not
by suspicions, doubts and forged testimonies.
Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Al-Hassan bin Badina said, "I asked Abu
Abdullah Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Hanbal, I said, 'O Abu Abdullah! I
am a man from the people of Mosul. The people of our country are
predominantly Jahmiyya, and among them are a small minority from
the people of Sunnah, a people weak and few. The issue of al-Karabisi
occurred and has caused fitnah [dissention], and al-Karabisi says that
the words and letters of the Qur’an are created. So Abu Abdullah said to
me: “Beware! Beware! Beware! Beware! This man Karabisi, do not
speak to him, and do not speak to those who speak to him", (four
times). I said, 'O Abu Abdullah, in your opinion, is this statement derived
from the saying of Jahm?' He replied, “This is all from the statement of
Jahm.” It was reported by Al-Harbi in a document which states the
Qur’an is not created. (No. 36), Ibn Battah Fi Al-Ibanah (1/329, No. 129),
Al-Khatib fi Tarikh al Baghdad (8/65) and Ibn Abi Ya’la in Tabaqat al-
131
Hanbali. (1/288), and Ibn Uday reported it completely via another route
of narration (2/365).
▪️ Point of evidence: This is a man who spread the kufr of creation [of
Quran] in his country. Then why did they not make general takfeer of
the people, and why did [Imam] Ahmad not make takfeer of them all by
dependency upon the general people. In addition, he did not even
verify his condition before hearing the issue from him in the first place.
Rather, he accepted what appeared from him, but if something
appeared from him which contradicted his apparent, then it would be
considered kufr.
Rather, in the trial of the creation of the Qur’an, the ruler and many
people along with the scholars disbelieved. Also, their supporters from
the judges, leaders, soldiers and others also became apostates, and the
matter became worse and it became widespread, the fitnah became
great and the sermons intensified. Nevertheless, neither [imam]
Ahmad, nor any other scholars of hadith said of making general takfeer,
and Imam Ahmad would only say, 'Do not pray except behind those you
know’, which was when the Jahmiyyah predominantly spread, but
where is the [evidence] of general takfeer here!!
Ibn al-Qayyim said, "The people all parted (ways) during the time of
Ahmad ibn Hanbal, except a few individuals, and so they were the
jamā'ah/group. The judges at that time, the mufti, the caliph and his
followers all went astray, and Imam Ahmad was a one man group on
his own, and since this was beyond the scope of the minds of the
people, they said to the Caliph, 'O Commander of the Faithful! Is it
132
possible that you, and your judges, your governors, the jurists, and the
muftis, all are upon falsehood, while Ahmad alone is a group on his own
[upon truth]." [I'lām al- mawqi'een 2/297]
Point of evidence: In the time of the Jahmiyyah, the lands were lands
of kufr, as in the words of Imam Ahmad, where he stated in a report
mentioned by Ibn Abi Ya’la, that if the statement of 'Qur'an is created'
appears in a land, it becomes a land of kufr. However, has it ever been
reported from him, or from any one of the imams who lived through
this period, that they said of the kufr of all people (generalising), except
for those who displayed Islam to them according to specific conditions
and declared general takfeer of the people?!
Did any of them make an addition in the principles of the Sunnah, that
the origin in the people in these times is kufr???
If it is found, then inform us of their books so that we know who
preceded us in that!!
Rather, the situation [the claim that the Quran is created] persisted
during the time of al-Barbahari, who these recent Kharijis quote in
argument, and this is surprising, as the majority of the Jahmiyya were
the ones ruling and the ruler and those with him (were all Jahmiy), and
none disputes this, except the one who is ignorant of history, and
despite that, Ahl al-hadith did not place this rule as a principle at the
time, (making general takfeer)!!
133
They also lived in a worse era than that of Imam Ahmad after them, like
Ibn Battah, Al-Ājri, Al-Lalkai and many others from the imams of the
Ahlus- Sunnah [may Allah have mercy on them all], and the matter
continued as the majority of the rule belonged to the Jahmiyyah, until
they became characterized by the name Asha'iriyya, and the majority of
the Shafi’is, the Malikis, and the Hanafis were upon this belief of
tajahhum, except a small group of those whom Allah protected and also
from the Hanbalis, for centuries!!
▪️ It is for us then to ask you, where is the principle of general takfeer

which you claim, by which you make takfeer of the Muslim mastoor
[i.e. one who has/wears signs of Islam], by dependency on those known
for kufr! Either you make takfeer of Ahl al- hadith, as you made takfeer
of us because we did not follow your ways, or either you return back to
our saying!! Since none of the imams in their time made takfeer on
every individual, except those who were Jahmiy, and they did not
declare people to be disbelievers in general, rather they generalised
(the type) and said: 'Whoever says the Qur’an is created is a
disbeliever', and we know that these people were on established
misguidance, and so the matter is the same, and whoever claims that
there is a difference, let him bring evidence and that is impossible!!
Then you are the ones who are required to bring clear evidence from
the Qur’an or the Sunnah, regarding general takfeer of those who
entered Islam, on the pretext of the spread of shirk and kufr and due to
many people committing it, and we ask Allah for safety. We do not
deny that most of the people of the earth are upon kufr and Shirk, and
this is the clear from the Words of Allah, as the Most High said: {And
134
most of the people, although you strive [for it], are not believers.}
[Surat Yusuf 103]
And the Most High said: {And most of them believe not in Allāh except
while they associate others with Him.} [Surat Yusuf 106]
This is why it is necessary for us to stop where the texts (of Quran and
Sunnah) have stopped, and affirm the trait (of Islam) and grant
protection for the one to whom Islam al- hukmi is proven, and we must
entrust the secret affairs to the one who made their reckoning upon
Himself, the Mighty and Sublime, which was not even entrusted to the
Prophet ‫ﷺ‬. Woe to you, Woe to you, what did you get yourselves
involved in, and how will you present yourselves before your Master
the Most High, while He said, Glorified be He, {Do not follow what you
have no ˹sure˺ knowledge of. Indeed, all will be called to account for
˹their˺ hearing, sight, and heart.} [Al- Isrā:36]
135
The pure guidance regarding the judgement of apparent Islam 84
fitnah [strife].
■ Misconception - 11: If shirk becomes widespread and appears

amongst a people, then the ruling [of takfeer] descends on all
individuals, without exception.
They alleged that the ruling upon a specific person is attached to him
due to what is widespread among his people, and that it is a ruling
according to the Qur’an and the Sunnah, while they cite narrations
which speak about the tāifa Mumtani'a [resistant armed groups], such
as the saying of the Mother of the Believers Aisha, (may Allah be
pleased with her), “..and the Arabs apostated.” So they practically put
that into reality, whether they found them to be displaying armed
resistance and affiliation to dar al-harb in support of shirk and kufr or
not!!
Rather, they claimed that the ruling of the cities in Rafidha Iran, such as
Karbala, Najaf, Nusayriyyah and Druze areas hold the same ruling as the
Sunni areas, due to the spread of secularism and democracy and other
such blasphemous/kufri issues among the people without objection.
136
After demonstrating the weakness of the narrations these people used

in argument for their claims, which were previously refuted in the
section; “#Revealing the [true interpretation] of the āthār", which was
done by explaining the weakness [of narrations used] and it not being
correct to use them as evidence, we further respond to the deceivers in
detail, so we say with reliance upon Allah Alone:
All the groups mentioned were apostate groups who gathered in unity
upon a principle of kufr, and strengthened it by giving support to one
another, and were associated with the (specific) land holding power in
dar al- harb. So a specific individual is not ruled with Islam there, except
after declaring his innocence [from that which nullified his faith], and
entering through the door [of Islam] from which he left. This ruling
applies to all regions, such as Qom, Najaf, Karbala, Qatif, the southern
suburbs, Tartous, As-Suwayda, Salamiyah, Al-Houthi areas, etc.
In addition, the Raafidis do not testify to the Shahadatayn as we testify

to it. Rather, they add to it that 'Ali is the khalil/friend of Allah', and
they do not pray as we do, and in many instances, they do not face our
Qiblah.
Therefore, whoever testifies to the two testimonies and prays our

prayers and faces our Qiblah amongst them, then he is a mastoor al-
hāl Muslim, until his kufr and (actions of) Rafidhis becomes clear when
he is able to do so.
137
It has been reported in Sahih al Bukhari, he said, Nu'aym narrated to
us, he said ibn al-Mubarak narrated to us on the authority of Humayd
al- Taweel, on the authority of Anas ibn Malik, who said that Allah's
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬said, "I have been ordered to fight the people until they
say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so,
and pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter,
then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not
interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with
Allah."
Ali bin Abdullah reported that Khalid ibn Hārith narrated to us, he said
that Humayd narrated to us, he said that Maimun bin Siyah asked Anas
bin Malik: "O Abu Hamzah, what makes the blood and wealth of a
Muslim forbidden (to spill)?" He said: "Whoever bears witness to La
ilaha illallah (there is none worthy of worship except Allah), faces our
Qiblah, prays as we pray, and eats our slaughtered animals, he is a
Muslim, and has the same rights and obligations as the Muslims."
As for the one whose condition [of religion] is unknown, and a person is
unable to ask him directly about his religion, or is unable to ask others
about him, then his ruling is that of a disbeliever, by dependency upon
the majority and the minority [or rare] have no ruling.
As for the (Islamic) greeting and recitation of Qur’an, they are apparent
circumstantial signs, by which the one who comes with this (type) is not
ruled with Islam, unless it is a specific distinct sign of Muslims, which
distinguishes them from the Raafidis in those places. If these signs are
138
not specifically for the Muslims, and do not distinguish them from the
Rawafid -meaning that they are shared (rituals), then they are not to be
used as evidence for the mukallaf [i.e. a sane and mature person
charged with Islamic ordains].
Therefore, it is necessary to differentiate between the one who

performs the rituals which the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬stipulated in texts, specifying
that the one who perform them is a Muslim whose blood and wealth is
infallible, until a nullifier has been proven against him - and between -
ruling by signs and evidences such as the siwaak, wearing white,
keeping the beard, beginning the salaam, and recitation of the Qur’an,
as these are amongst those matters which the shariah did not stipulate
that its doer becomes a Muslim. However, they are used in ruling when
it is a distinguished sign in a specific area for Muslims only, other than
the sects of kufr. If they are shared and joint actions, then ruling by it
falls and is not considered in that specific place.
This is what the heretics call [“proof of apostasy, due (to it being)
widespread”], while there is no text in the Qur’an and Sunnah that
proves the apostasy of a specific individual [in this way], and there is a
disagreement among the scholars regarding it being a considered factor
or not.
And the correct view is that [this rule] is not acceptable because there
is no evidence to prove or affirm apostasy of an individual whose Islam
was proven with certainty, by him performing the actions which the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said makes one a Muslim; which are the two testimonies
139
and what it entails in their meanings, or the prayer, or attributing
oneself to Islam.
So the claim of widespread [involvement of kufr] regarding a particular

individual is conjecture, as it maybe that the widespread [news] may be
correct but may also be incorrect.
Just like in the time of the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬, word had spread among the
people that he divorced his wives, and the Qur’an came to deny that,
and just like word spread of the story of Al-Ifk, and revelation came to
defend the innocence of the mother of the believers, may Allah be
pleased with her.
In addition, the displaying of the two testimonies, the prayer, and

attribution to Islam is a matter of certainty in the right of the specific
individual, that he is a Muslim, so one cannot abandon a matter of
certainty for conjecture
Allah [Azza Wa Jal] said, {And most of them follow not except
assumption. Indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all.
Indeed, Allāh is Knowing of what they do.} [Yunus:36]
For us is to now ask these heretics, what is the shar'i limit for [a matter
to be considered] widespread?! And what is the evidence from the
Qur’an and the Sunnah to prove the apostasy of specific individuals,
whose Islam al hukmi [Islam of judgement] is proven by their
140
declaration of the two testimonies, or the prayer or they attributing
themselves to Islam, due to (kufr being) widespread??!
■ Know may Allah have mercy on you, the land in which shirk has
become prevalent and has become widespread, falls under two
categories:
The first: If we know from its condition that no Muslim who manifest
Islam remains safe therein without being involved in committing a
nullifier, and has become such that the muslimeen have to conceal
their Islam, and whoever manifests the rituals among them, such as the
two testimonies, the prayer and the attribution to Islam in accordance
to the Sunnah, and does not show them agreement with what they are
upon of disbelief nor the nullifier they are involved with, except that
they kill him or expel him from among themselves, as is the case in
some Rafidi neighbourhoods and villages in Iraq, then undoubtedly, the
ruling of the people in this condition is that the people of this
neighbourhood, village or town are disbelievers, unless the Islam of a
person is proven with certainty, by displaying the rituals of Islam which
the Prophet judged the doer to be of those belonging to Islam.
The second: If the person is safe therein while displaying the two
testimonies, prays, and attributes himself to Islam [while he remains]
among them, but their number is few and they are rare, or the Muslims
in that town have distinct signs that distinguishes them from the
disbelievers by the apparent way [of the people] in that town, such as
clothing, siwak, commencing the salam, keeping the beard, and
141
wearing short clothing [above the ankles], while the majority of those
therein display kufr and Shirk, with or without performing the rituals,
then the ruling of it's people is according to the following:
1 - The one amongst them who displays Islam and its rituals, such as the
two testimonies, prayer, and attribution to Islam, and there is no
evidence established against him of individually having committed a
nullifier, then he is a Muslim.. until kufr is proven against him with
certainty.
2 - The one who display distinct signs of the Muslims which

distinguishes him from the disbelievers - if there is a sign that
distinguishes them in a town - then he is a Muslim.. until kufr is proven
against him with certainty.
3 - The one who displays kufr and shirk in a town while performing
rituals such as the two testimonies, prayer, and attributes himself to
Islam, or has another type of sign which distinguishes the Muslims
therein, then he is ruled a kafir mushrik, and the rituals are not
recognized nor considered in his right since he displayed a nullifier.
4 - The majhool al hāl, the one whose condition of religion is unknown,

who neither has any apparent signs of Islam and its rituals, nor does he
have signs of kufr in order for him to be judged by it, and it is not
possible to ask him [directly] about his religion or to enquire about him
from others, then he is ruled a kafir, by dependency upon the majority,
and the minority have no ruling, until his Islam is proven with certainty.
142
▪️ Thereafter we ask these heretics, what is the limit in accepting the
ruling based on rituals, or not to recognise them in such towns in which
the nullifiers have become widespread and common?!
Is the limit:
a) Increase of kufr and Shirk amongst the people.
b) Or their hostility to Islam and its people.
If you say:
The limit is based on the increase of kufr and shirk amongst the people,
then there is no evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah to take this
ruling into consideration which would override the rulings by rituals for
the one who displayed them in that town.
And if you say:

The limit is based on their enmity to Islam and its people, then if this
enmity reaches the situation of the Muslims therein, to the point where
they are unable to display the rituals of Islam except with the display of
kufr which has spread among them, otherwise he would not be safe,
then your statement is correct, of not taking these rituals and the
situation into consideration because they did not display the rituals
except with a nullifier, so there is no regard given for them, until
disagreement is shown for what the disbelievers are upon, along with
the rituals.
143
And if their hostility to Islam and its people did not reach to the extent
that the Muslim therein have to conceal the rituals, or are forced to
reveal the rituals along with the display of a nullifier, then there is also
no evidence here that rituals are not to be taken into consideration
when judging a people because in this case, that which distinguishes
the Muslims from the disbelievers is the display of a nullifier.
▪️ Know, may Allah guide us to the truth, you have [strayed] far from the
truth, and this is due to your wicked way of understanding, whether it
is the way you construct evidence for general takfeer, or you are
confused and do not understand the speech of those who oppose you,
and what you presented is a result from your worn-out bag, neither
more nor less, for the following reasons:
1 - Our disagreement with you on the issue of generalising [takfeer], is

regarding your ruling of kufr upon the mastoor al hāl Muslim because
you include him in the ruling of the majority, while there is no display of
a nullifier considered [by shar'ia], which was not proven against him
individually, due to the widespread of shirk as you allege, by which you
have passed the ruling of takfeer upon the mastoor. If you had said of
this ruling regarding the unknown one, whose religion cannot be known
in dar al kufr tari', you would have been correct. Therefore, it is
necessary for us to ask you about the ruling of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and
those with him before the declaration of the message, since the
condition of the mastoor is like their condition as he didn't openly
declare his innocence, as you require, in order for him to be judged
with apparent Islam.
144
2 - Your statements are applicable to lands like Najaf and Karbala and
the likes, from when its people resisted with power and strength, or
united upon a principle of kufr and supported it, like the areas of Al-
Huthah, Nusayriyah, Druze and others. Thereafter, you made this a
persistent rule in all the lands of dar al kufr tari', wherein the people did
not resist, nor did they unite upon a principle of kufr, where the
common and the learned [people] support each other in unity as one
body, like in the lands of the Ahlus- Sunnah in which secularism,
democracy, and grave [worshippers] and other such matters have
become manifest, [while the Ahl-Sunnah do not support this], and you
pass your wicked rulings by judging the common people of the Sunnah
with apostasy due to the widespread of shirk. Statements which you
bought to a level as though it is like the evidence of a testimony
considered credible by Shar'iah for the one against whom kufr is proven
individually. So you passed the ruling for the ma'loom bil- kufr [one
known to be a disbeliever with certainty], and the majhool [one whose
religion is unknown], upon the mastoor al-hāl [one whose religion is
known by signs of Islam.]
3 - Your istidlal is from the statements of the Companions which were

regarding the resistant armed groups, and you passed that ruling upon
the common Muslims in the lands of dar al kufr tari', and this is
evidence of your lack of understanding of the masāil.
Furthermore, ruling groups and individuals with apostasy based on the

widespread of kufr and attributing that to the Companions, (may Allah
be pleased with them), is due to your poor understanding of the facts,
so you have slandered them and made them seem as though they
made takfeer based on assumptions and possibilities. However, in
145
reality, the evidences are concerted and strengthen each other, and
show that the Companions made takfeer of those who resisted [them]
with strength and power, who attributed themselves to land of
harb/war in support of it, withholding the payment of Zakah, or they
were those who gathered upon a principle of kufr and supported it and
attributed themselves to that land in support, with strength, like the
followers of Musaylma did. Thus, the Companions ruled those groups
and individuals with apostasy, which was considered valid by Shari'a,
not merely based on the widespread of kufr of a people upon whom
they had authority. There is a vast difference between their judgment
and between what your false interpretations necessitate.
4 - Whenever apostasy is confirmed, whether against a sect or an

individual, then it is known that entry into Islam is only attained by
returning from the door from which the exit [apostasy] was made. So if
the apostasy of an individual was made by nullifying the two
testimonies, or one of them, then he must return [to Islam] by the
acknowledgment of what he nullified, and whoever apostates by
denying a wajib/obligatory matter, or by permitting a forbidden matter,
he must return [to Islam] by the acknowledgement of what he
contradicted [or rejected]. Thus, there is no way for you to confuse the
servants with phrases which you did not understand from the
arguments, upon which you built evidence for rulings and questions, all
formed by your thoughts.
5 - We do not rule an individual who is a member of a resistant armed

group with Islam, except after his declaration of innocence from what
he committed of the nullifier.
146
As for those who live amongst those apostates, who resist with
strength and power in their land, then if he is mastoor al-hāl, and is safe
therein while displaying the rituals of the Shahadatayn, Prayer, and
attribution to Islam without having to display signs of kufr alongside
enforced by the resistant armed group, and he did not show allegiance
to the taifa Mumtani'a, then he is upon Islam.
As for the ones we know, who cannot display the Shahadatayn, rituals,
and attribution to Islam, except that they are forced to display a
nullifier alongside, or they expel them from amongst themselves or kill
them, then there is no consideration given to the Shahadatayn and
rituals in their right, due to the displaying of a nullifier.
6 - Thereafter it is said; what has been proven with certainty is not

removed by doubt, and whoever proves to us Islam by which he must
be ruled, then this name [Muslim] is not removed from him, nor it's
ruling, to the name and ruling of kufr, except according to the rules set
by Shari’ah.
Allah [Azza Wa Jal] said, {And we did not testify except to what we
knew. And we were not witnesses of the unseen.} [Yusuf:81]
And He the Most High says, {except those who testify to the truth
knowingly.}
Regarding the issue of shar'i proof of the kufr of a specific individual,
there is no evidence from the Qur’an and the Sunnah which proves the
147
kufr of a particular individual who displays the Shahadatayn and rituals,
based on what is called “widespread kufr”. Rather, kufr of a particular
is proven by means of proof stipulated by divine revelation, which are:
1-The testimony of two righteous Muslims

2- Or the confession of a sane adult upon himself, without being under
ikrah/compulsion.
1 - Testimony with its conditions: If two witnesses testify and they are
qualified to testify, which means they meet the required conditions,
that they must be sane, adults, free, just, and must be males, and must
not retract their testimony. The apostasy is proven against the one they
testify against, and if he denies and says, 'I am still upon my conversion
to Islam' then it is accepted and the validity of his claim is taken into
consideration. Thereafter, if that by which an individual becomes a
Muslim becomes apparent, then he and his matter is left alone. If his
behaviour is that of a disbeliever, then this confirms the testimony of
the witnesses, and he is ruled an apostate.
The evidence for this is the hadith in the Sahihayn, narrated by Zaid bin
Arqam: "While I was taking part in a Ghazwa, and I heard Abdullah bin
Ubai (bin Abi Salul) saying. "Don't spend on those who are with Allah's
Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬that they may disperse and go away from him. If we
return (to Medina), surely, the more honourable will expel the meaner
amongst them." I reported that (saying) to my uncle or to Umar who, in
turn, informed the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬of it. The Prophet ‫ﷺ‬called me and I
148
narrated to him the whole story. Then Allah's Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬sent for
Àbdullah bin Ubai and his companions, and they took an oath that they
did not say that. So Allah's Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬did not believe my saying and
believed his. I was distressed as I never was before. I stayed at home
and my uncle said to me. "You just wanted Allah's Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬to
disbelieve your statement and hate you." So Allah revealed (the Sura
beginning with) 'When the hypocrites come to you.' (63.1) The Prophet
‫ ﷺ‬then sent for me and recited it and said, "O Zaid! Allah confirmed
your statement."
Point of evidence: The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬did not affirm the apostasy and
kufr of Ibn Salul by the testimony of only one trustworthy man, he
being Zaid bin Arqam, may Allah be pleased with him.
Hence, the minimum number by which apostasy is proven is two or

more witnesses, as mentioned by Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy
on him, in Al-Mughni.
Commentary: We must witness a particular individual commit kufr, or

hear him say [words of kufr] before passing a ruling. This is because by
seeing and hearing certain knowledge is attained, with regard to a
specific individual falling into kufr. This is upon which our testimony
must be based, [i.e. on certain knowledge], which makes one a
disbeliever after his conversion to Islam, but only if there are no
barriers which prevent the hukm of takfeer to be passed. So
testimonies are formed on certain knowledge.
149
The evidence for this is what was mentioned in the Sahihayn on the
authority of Ubadah bin Al-Samit, may Allah be pleased with him, from
the words of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬regarding the imams [leaders] of the
Muslims and not to revolt against them; ("unless you see evident
infidelity regarding which you have a proof from Allah.”)
Kufr of the one involved in it is established against him by means of

witnessing and hearing. However, he is not named an apostate
according to the rulings of this world, and it is not permissible to pass
the ruling of apostasy upon him until two witnesses testify to that, or
he himself confesses, and his killing must be authorised by the wali al-
amr [i.e. ones appointed in authority.]
2 - To confess of having committed a nullifier himself: If the Muslim

confessed that he apostated from Islam to kufr, then the ruling of
apostasy has been established against him. However, it is necessary
that he be qualified to confess [i.e. meet the conditions], that he be an
adult, sane, acknowledges by choice and isnot under compulsion..
If he retracts his confession, it is accepted from him based on the

evidence of the story of Ma’az, who confessed to adultery, but when
the Companions took him to stone him, he fled. So they chased after
him and caught him and stoned him until he died. When news of this
reached the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬he said; "Why did you not leave him alone". This
was regarding the right of Allah [in fulfilment of hudud], but with
regard to individuals, it is not acceptable to withdraw from the
confession.
150
Abu Sa'id reported that, “A person belonging to the clan of Aslam, who
was called Mā'iz bin Malik, came to Allah's Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬and said: "I
have committed immorality (adultery), so inflict punishment upon me.
Allah's Apostle ‫ ﷺ‬turned him away again and again. He then asked his
people (about the state of his mind). They said: "We do not know of any
ailment of his except that he has committed something about which he
thinks that he would not be able to relieve himself of its burden but with
the Hadd being imposed upon him." He (Ma'iz) came back to Allah's
Apostle ‫ ﷺ‬and he commanded us to stone him. We took him to the
Baqi' al-Gharqad (the graveyard of Medina). We neither tied him nor
dug any ditch for him. We attacked him with bones, with clods and
pebbles. He ran away and we ran after him until he came upon the ston
ground (al-Harra) and stopped there and we stoned him with heavy
stones of the Harra until he became motionless (lie dead)." [Narrated by
Muslim]
These are the methods according to Shari'ah, of establishing kufr

against the one whose ruling of Islam is proven in this world, and none
other.
No clear, authentic Shar'i evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah have
ever been proven to rule a particular person with kufr, whose Islam has
been affirmed to him after his presenting the Shahadatayn, based on
what is called 'the widespread of kufr in people'.. because ruling in this
way in the right of a particula is based on [conjecture and doubt], by
which we do not remove the certainty of Islam.
151
fitnah [strife].
■ Misconception - 12: There is no difference between the takfeer of

Muslim individuals and the original disbelievers [kuffar asli].
They allege: that the takfeer of a particular Muslim is an insignificant

matter before Allah, and what has been revealed of evidence regarding
the kafir asli/original kafir equally applies to Muslims, and no
consideration is given to the conditions nor the preventatives [of
takfeer] set by shari’ah.
We say in response that this is going to extremes and transgression,

because just as the embracing of Islam of a kafir is a great matter, then
making takfeer of a Muslim is also a great matter in the sight of Allah
and His messenger ‫ﷺ‬, but you are indeed an ignorant people.
It has been reported on the authority of Abu Dhar, that he heard the
Prophet ‫ﷺ‬say, "If somebody accuses another of Fusuq (by calling him
152
'Fasiq' i.e. a wicked person) or accuses him of Kufr, such an accusation
will revert to him (i.e. the accuser) if his companion (the accused) is
innocent." [Narrated by Bukhari]
It has been reported on the authority of Ibn 'Umar that the Messenger
of Allah (may peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Any person who
called his brother: "O kafir" (has in fact done an act by which this
disbelief) would return to one of them. If it were so, as he asserted (then
the unbelief of man was confirmed but if it was not true), then it
returned to him (to the man who labelled it on his Muslim brother.)
[Narrated by Muslim]
Then we follow up with a request, that you prove with evidence that
the Shari'ah does not differentiate between passing the ruling of
takfeer upon a Muslim who has committed a nullifier, and between
passing it upon kuffar asli [original infidels]. Allah (Azza Wa Jal) has,
with regards to takfeer of a Muslim, and his being ascribed to apostasy,
set conditions which must be met, and the absence of preventatives
[mawāni']. So let no delusive one come and claim that the one who
commits a nullifier has disbelieved and there are no conditions and
preventatives in affirming the takfeer. Indeed you have gone to
extremes and have transgressed in what you have sent forth to Allah
and His Messenger ‫ﷺ‬.
Is Shirk [i.e. the name mushrik] affirmed to a child under the age of
tameez [usually age of six], or to an insane person of Muslim parents,
or to a sane person who is forced to commit a nullifier, or someone
whose tongue preceded him and he made a mistake, not intending
153
what he said, [i.e. his words were uttered hastily while he did not
intend what he said]? O ignorant ones, do you deny that ikrah
[considered credible by Shari'a], lack of intent, being a child, and the
absence of mind are credible preventatives in the right of particular
Muslims, whom Allah has specified due to the sanctity and greatness of
Islam, for those who are pleased with the religion [of Islam], by which
He, Glory be to Him, is worshipped.
Allah says, {whoever disbelieves in [i.e., denies] Allāh after his

belief, except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his
heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to
disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allāh, and for them is a great
punishment.} [Nahl:106]
Muslim reported a hadith, he said Ishāq bin Abdillah bin Abi Talha
narrated to us, that Anas bin Malik narrated to us, [and he is his uncle],
he said, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said, "Allah is more pleased with the
repentance of His servant when he turns penitently towards Him than
one of you would be if his riding-beast which was carrying his food and
drink escaped from him in a waterless desert and he, despairing of
recovering it, went and lay down in the shade of a tree, then suddenly
saw it standing beside him and, seizing its halter, said from excess of
joy, ‘O God, Thou art my servant and I am Thy lord’, making a mistake
from excess of joy.”
It has been reported that Musa bin Isma'eel Narrated to us, that
Wuhayb narrated to us, on the authority of Khalid, on the authority of
Abi Duha, on the authority of Ali (may Allah have mercy on him), that
the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said: "There are three (persons) whose actions are not
154
recorded: a sleeper till he awakes, a boy till he reaches puberty, and a
lunatic till he comes to reason." [Sunan Abi Dawud]
▪︎ One of the matters that disturb the people of innovation, the recent
rogues [khwarijis], is that if one of them reads about the conditions and
preventatives, he will immediately occupy you with the preventative of
ignorance!!
So we say, ease your feeble mind and your heart which is filled with
desires, doubts and whims, because ignorance in the asl/foundation
(Asl ad-din) is kufr, and whoever nullified the meaning of the
Shahadatayn and then excuses himself for ignorance is a kafir and has
no honour, and this is evidenced by the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the
consensus of the Salaf.
Allah the Most High said: {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?"} [Tawbah: 65]
And He the Most High said, {O you who have believed, do not raise
your voices above the voice of the Prophet or be loud to him in speech
like the loudness of some of you to others, lest your deeds become
worthless while you perceive not.} [Al-Hujurat:2]
And The Most High said, {Indeed, they [i.e., the latter] had taken the
devils as allies instead of Allāh while they thought that they were
guided.} [Al- A'raf:30]
155
And He the Most High said, {Say, [O Muḥammad], "Is it other than
Allāh that you order me to worship, O ignorant ones?" And it was
already revealed to you and to those before you that if you should
associate [anything] with Allāh, your work would surely become
worthless, and you would surely be among the losers. Rather, worship
[only] Allāh and be among the grateful. They have not appraised Allāh
with true appraisal.} [Zumar:64-66]
Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: "The Prophet
‫ ﷺ‬said, "A man utters a word pleasing to Allah without considering it of
any significance for which Allah exalts his ranks (in Jannah); another
one speaks a word displeasing to Allah without considering it of any
importance, and for this reason he will sink down into Hell." [Bukhari]
▪︎ Point of evidence from the aforementioned: Divine revelation has

ruled the one who nullifies the asl/foundation with kufr, and did not
excuse him with ignorance. This is not the place to detail the mas'alah
of the establishment of the Hujjah for the inflicting of the punishment,
nor whether the ignorant mushrik will be tested in the Hereafter or not,
as everything has its place.
156
fitnah [strife].
■ Misconception - 13: The ruling of individuals is attached to the

ruling of the majority.
They allege: that the Companions made takfeer of all the weak and
oppressed Muslims who remained in Makkah, and they included Abbas
[may Allah be pleased with him] to be among the mushrikeen, even
though he displayed Islam.
Allah says, {They are the ones who disbelieved and obstructed you
from al-Masjid al-Ḥarām while the offering was prevented from
reaching its place of sacrifice. And if not for believing men and
believing women whom you did not know - that you might trample
[i.e., kill] them and there would befall you because of them dishonour
without [your] knowledge - [you would have been permitted to enter
Makkah]. [This was so] that Allāh might admit to His mercy whom He
willed. If they had been apart [from them], We would have punished
157
those who disbelieved among them with painful punishment.} [Al-
Fath:25]
Abdullah bin Yazid al-Muqri narrated to us, he said Haywa and others
narrated to us, they said, Muhammad bin Abdul Rahman Abu al-Aswad
narrated to us, he said; "An army unit was being recruited from the
people of Medina and my name was written among them. Then I met
Ikrimah, amd when I informed him about it, he discouraged me very
strongly and said, "Ibn Abbas told me that there were some Muslims
who were with the pagans to increase their number against Allah's
Messenger ‫( ﷺ‬and the Muslim army), so arrows (from the Muslim
army) would hit one of them and kill him or a Muslim would strike him
(with his sword) and kill him. So Allah revealed: {'Verily! As for those
whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves
(by staying among the disbelievers).'} [4.97] [Narrated by Layth, on the
authority of Abi Aswad. [Narrated by Bukhari]
Point of evidence: The ones whom the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and his

companions made takfeer upon were those who left with the army of
Quraysh to fight the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬in Badr.
“In Makkah, both men and women embraced Islam and became mixed
and mingled with the mushrikeen, and their places [of residence] were
unknown, so Allah Azza Wa Jal said, 'And if it were not for them’,
meaning the people whom we mentioned, {whom you did not know-
that you might trample [i.e. kill] them}, meaning you would have
158
predictably killed or hurt them without knowing, had you entered as
fighters in pursuit of killing (the mushrikeen). And His statement, {And
there would befall you because of them dishonour without [your]
knowledge}, meaning, insults, and it is also said, reproach and blame,
and its meaning is that the disbelievers would have reproached them
and say that they kill people of their own religion. It is also said
regarding 'dishonour', that it is the obligation of payment of blood
money when one has killed another soul [wrongfully].” [Tafseer as-
Sam'āni 5/205]
“In Makkah, there were Muslims living who were mixed and mingled
with the mushrikeen and were not distinguishable, and their places
were unknown. So when the disbelievers obstructed the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬
from entering masjid al-Haram and prevented the offering (sacrificial
animal) from reaching its place of sacrifice, Allah Subhānahu wa ta'āla
said: if it was not for the believing men and believing women in
Makkah, whom you do not know, you would have trampled [i.e. killed]
them had you entered, meaning you would have killed them, but Allah
would have entered them into His mercy. And if you did so, then
dishonour would befall you due to your killing them without knowing,
meaning; the mushrikeen would reproach you for that and say, they
killed and tortured people of their own religion just as they did to us,
and you would be obligated to pay the blood money. Then Allah said, {if
they had been apart [from them]}, meaning, if they could be
distinguished from the mushrikeen, We would have punished the
disbelievers with the sword, a painful punishment; so the statement of
Allah, {We would surely have punished the disbelievers with a painful
punishment} becomes a response to both statements, one of them, {if
159
not for the believing men and believing women}, and the second, {if
they had been apart [from them]}.” [Ta'weel Mushkil al-Quran 1/216]
Imam Malik said: "Allah Azza Wa Jal said in His Book to the people of
Makkah, {If they had been apart [from them], We would have
punished those who disbelieved among them with painful
punishment.} [Al-Fath:25], meaning, the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬was turned away
from the people of Makkah due to the Muslims [residing] therein, and if
the disbelievers could have been separated from the Muslims, the
disbelievers would have been punished, meaning, this is the
interpretation of this verse, wallhu a'lam." [Al- Mudawwinah 1/513]
A mention of those who said that: "Ibn Hameed narrated to us, he said
Salamah narrated to us on the authority of Ibn Ishāq [regarding the part
of the verse], {there would befall you because of them dishonor
without [your] knowledge} [Al-Fath:25], (then you would pay their
blood money but they would not have been accounted for the sin (for
this act)). And ma'arrah/dishonour is a verb (from the original Arabic
term 'ar) which is scabies, so it would mean, dishonour would befall you
through the disease, because of them, and because of that you would
be liable for the expiation of wrongfully killing, and that is to free a
Muslim slave for the one who is able, and for the one who is unable to
do so, to fast two months. I have chosen this opinion rather than that of
ibn Is'haq because Allah has obligated expiation and not the blood
money for the one who kills a believer in dar al-harb if he did not
emigrate from there, providing his killer didn't know of his Iman, as He
said, {But if he [i.e., the deceased] was from a people at war with you
160
and he was a believer - then [only] the freeing of a believing slave.}
[Nisa:92]. So the one who killed wrongfully was not obliged to pay the
blood money, and this is why we said, the meaning of dishonour in this
instance would be expiation." [Tafseer At-Tabari 21/306]
“It has been narrated on the authority of ibn Abbas, he said, the one
who imprisoned Abbās was Abu Yasar Ka'b bin 'Umru, and Abu Yasar
was a [round] built man, and Abbas was a [tall] built man, and so the
messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said to Abbas, "O Abbas, free yourself and the
son of your brother 'Aqeel bin Abi Harith bin Fihr, because you are a
man who owns wealth." He said, "O Messenger of Allah, I used to be a
Muslim but the people forced me." He replied, "Allah knows of your
Islam, and if what you say is the truth, Allah will reward you, but it is
upon us to take from your apparent, so free yourself. In another
wording, "and he said to Abbas, "O Abbas, free yourself, and the son of
your brother 'Aqeel bin Abi Talib and Nawfil bin Harith, and your ally
'Utbah bin Jahdam, one of Bani Harith bin Fihr". [He said], he refused
and said, "I was a Muslim before this but they forced me,". He replied,
"Allah knows of your affair. If what you claim is true then Allah will
reward you for that, as for what is apparent from your matter, that is
upon us (to take), so free yourself." [Narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad
(3310), and bin Sa'd in Tabaqāt, (4/12), and At-Tabari in Tarikh (2/463)
and others, and it has been narrated through many different routes, by
which the da'eef strengthens the others.]
Point of evidence: this is evidence for us [in our favour], while the
heretics, due to their foolishness, have surprisingly used it as an
argument against us!! Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) did not
originally announce his Islam, and the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬didn't know that he
161
was a Muslim, and he also marched out with the kuffar of Quraysh on
the day of Badr - with their armies - even if he was compelled, this is
what was outwardly witnessed, with regard to the Muslims in the
battle. So by Allah, how do you rule the Muslims using this as evidence?
Where is the evidence in this for these heretics, for the takfeer of the
weak oppressed Muslims who live amongst the disbelievers, who
display Islam al-hukmi (Islam which necessitates the ruling of Islam),
and no credible nullifier is evident from him!!
This is further evidence that Abbas did not display his conversion to
Islam in Makkah, and the child is dependant [in religion] upon the
parent who has the superior religion, and the name of Islam is not
removed due to weakness as long as the Muslim manifests the rituals
of his religion, without concealing his faith and does not share the signs
of the disbelievers. [Further evidence] as follows:
It has been narrated in Sahih al- Bukahri/ The book of

funerals/chapter: “If a child embraces Islam and dies, is he prayed
over?”
Chapter: If a child embraces Islam then dies, is he prayed over? And is
Islam presented to a child? Hassan, and Shurayh, and Ibrahim and
Qatadah said: "If one of them embraces Islam, then the child is
(considered) with the Muslim (of the parent). And Ibn Abbas (may Allah
be pleased with them) was with his mother among the weak and
oppressed, and he was not with his father, nor upon the religion of his
people," and he said, “Islam is always superior and should never be
surpassed.." Sufyan narrated to us, he said that Adullah bin Abi Yazeed
said that he heard ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) say: "My
162
mother and I were among the weak and oppressed. I from among the
children, and my mother from among the women."
1006, Qutaybah narrated to us, he said Mugheera bin Abdul Rahman

narrated to us, on the authority of Abi Zanad, on the authority of A'raj,
on the authority of Abu Hurayra, "Whenever the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬lifted his
head from the bowing in the last rakah, he used to say, O Allah! Save
'Ayāsh bin abi Rabià. O Allah! Save Salama bin Hisham. O Allah! Save
Walid bin Walid. O Allah! Save the weak faithful believers. O Allah! Be
hard on the tribes of Mudar and send (famine) years on them like the
famine years of (Prophet) Yusuf ." [Narrated by Bukhari]
Point of evidence: The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬called the weak and oppressed

men in Makkah, mu' mineen, while it was dar al-kufr. Do you then
refute the ruling of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬or do you claim to have additional
knowledge which did not reach him, for indeed you have failed and lost
miserably, may Allah not increase the likes of you.
[The situation of the muslimeen when they fight the enemy while their
children are with them]. (Regarding this), Abu Hanifa said, "If the
Muslims besiege their enemy, and the enemy rise on their walls with the
children of the Muslims as shields, he said, "They may throw arrows and
catapults, while intending with it the people of war (i.e. Fighters) and
not the children of the Muslims." Al-Awza’i said, “The Muslims should
refrain from throwing at them, but if one of them emerges (i.e. a
disbeliever) then he may throw, as Allah ‫ عز وجل‬said, {And had it not
been for believing men and believing women} [Al-Fath: 25], until he
163
finished the verse and said, "How can the Muslims throw while they do
not see the mushrikeen." [Kitab al-Umm 7/369 Al-Shafi’i 204H]
Ash-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said, “As for what is used as
the hujja/argument, with regards the killing of the mushrikeen,
including children, women, monks, and those whose killing is forbidden,
it is that indeed Allahs Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬attacked Banu al-Mustalaq, who
were heedless in their luxuries, and he was asked about the people of
the house who stay there overnight, in relation to some of their women
and offspring who would be injured (during the attack), and he said,
“They are from among them.” The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬meant that the house is
permissible (to attack) because it is a place of shirk, and fighting the
mushrikeen is permissible, and blood is only made forbidden by a
believers faith/Iman, meaning that of a believer in dar al-harb or dar al-
Islam, and Allah Almighty has set for it expiation if he kills. Also that
which would prevent the land from being attacked is dar al-Islam, or a
dar al amān/land of peace treaty/truce, which was concluded by the
Muslims, which no one has the right to change.” [Kitab al-Umm 7/369
Ash-Shafi'i 204H]
Ash-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The interpretation

which Al-Awza’i said of, bears the possibility of that which was
interpreted, and it is also possible that it be interpreted that he said to
refrain from them due to what he had previously known, that a group
from among them embraced Islam and were obedient. And what al-
Awza’i said is more preferable to us had it not been necessary for us to
fight the besieged people if we had the option to fight other than the
besieged people, that is if there are no Muslims among them, then [in
this case] to leave them alone would be a broader [option] and closer
164
[to being correct] than the sin of injuring the Muslims among them. But
if we were compelled for fear of them against ourselves had we ceased
war with them, then we may fight them and not kill a Muslim
intentionally. And if we injure him, (i.e. the Muslim), then we must make
the expiation for it, and if this was not a necessity, then abandoning to
fight them is closer to safety and more beloved to me.” [Kitab al-Umm
7/370 ash- Shafi’i 204H]
He also said, regarding the verse, “{But if he [i.e., the deceased] was
from a people at war with you and he was a believer - then [only] the
freeing of a believing slave.} Meaning, regarding a people, especially in
dar al-harb, He did not allocate for them retribution nor blood money if
he killed him while he didn't know of him to be Muslim, and that is (in
the case) if he turns on him, or he kills him in a military expedition, or
meets him alone while he has signs/dress code of the mushrikeen and
in their lands or similar to that.” [Tafseer Ash-Shafi'i 2/642]
▪︎ Point of evidence: The ruling of a Muslim does not change, whether

he is in dar al-Islam or dar al-harb, as long as Islam is apparently evident
and the signs of the Muslims appear on him. In the situation of war, it is
obligatory to be wary from killing him if it's possible, except in the case
where one is unable to differentiate between him and the mushrikeen
from his signs, and all this which is mentioned is in reference to not
facing him directly in battle. However, if he is able to face him in battle,
he is killed upon kufr and apostasy and one does not differentiate
between him and others, and ikrah is not taken into account in this case
because we are only liable to rule by what is apparent, and what is
apparent from him is that he allied with the mushrikeen in their war
against the Muslims.
165
A doubt which branches out from this:
It has been mentioned in Tafsir al-Nisaburi - (2/17): [And when were

the people in agreement upon kufr?] They said, "From the (time of)
death of Adam to the time of Noah, (peace be upon him). They were
disbelievers based on the rule of the majority, even if there were some
Muslims among them, such as Habil, Sheeth and Idris, peace be upon
them, as it is said, "It is dar al-kufr, even if there are Muslims therein.")
[End of quote]
They claimed: the evidence from the report is that the people unified
upon kufr from the death of Adam to the time of Noah, peace be upon
him. And this is kufr [based on the rule of the majority], although there
were some Muslims among them, such as Habil, Sheeth and Idris, peace
be upon them.
3612 Abu Zakaria Al-Anbari told us, he said Muhammad bin Abd al-
Salam narrated to us, he said, Ishaq narrated to us, he said, Abd al-
Samad ibn Abd al-Warith informed us that Hammam narrated to us on
the authority of Qatada, that Ikrimah narrated to us, on the authority of
Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, who said: "There were ten
centuries between Adam and Noah, all of them upon the true Shari'ah.
When they differed, Allah sent the prophets and messengers and
revealed His book, and they were one nation.” This hadith is sahih
166
according to the condition of Bukhari but he did not report it. [Al-
Mustadrak on the Two Sahihayn - 3612]
15184 - My father narrated to me, he said, Abdullah bin Imran

narrated to us, he said, Abu Dawood narrated to us, he said Hammam
narrated to us, on the authority of Qatada, on the authority of Ikrimah,
on the authority of Ibn Abbas, he said: "There were ten centuries
between Adam and Noah, each nation of them upon the shariah of
truth.” Also, similar was narrated by Akrama. [Tafseer of Ibn Abi Hatim
8/2696]
Muhammad bin Bashar narrated to us, he said, Abu Dawood narrated

to us, he said, Hammam bin Munabbih narrated to us, on the authority
of Ikrimah, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, he said: “There were ten
centuries between Noah and Adam, all of them were on the Shari'a of
truth, then they differed, {then Allāh sent the prophets as bringers of
good tidings and warners.}” [Al-Baqarah: 213]
He said: "Likewise this is in the recitation of Abdullah, {Mankind was
[of] one religion [before their deviation]}. [Tafsir al-Tabari 3/621]
Regarding the statement the Most High: {And mankind was not but
one community [united in religion]}, there are two opinions. One of
them is the opinion of Mujahid, and that is, "the people were upon
Islam at the time of Adam, until one of his sons killed the other, {but
then they differed.}
167
And the second opinion; the Arabs were on the religion of Ibrahim, until
they differed. And it is well known that the first person from the Arabs
to change the religion of Ibrahim was 'Umru bin Luhy, and it has been
proven that the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬said, "I saw 'Amr bin Luhayy dragging his
Intestines in the Fire."
And it is said regarding the verse, that the intended meaning of
"nation" is the people on the ship of Prophet Nuh (may Allah's peace
and blessings be upon him.) [Tafseer as-Sam'āni 2/372]
It has also been mentioned in Mabsut - (3/76), Sarkhasi, "Do you not
see that the one who is in dar al-harb and one doesn't know of his
condition, he is made to be from one of those of dar al-harb [i.e. in
ruling], contrary to the one who is in dar al-Islam, as he is made to be
from the muslimeen if his condition is not known." [End of quote]
▪️ This is the intended meaning of general takfeer based on the
apparent, for those [majhool al-hal] where shirk or kufr is prevalent, or
to generally rule with Islam based on what is apparent, for those
[majhool al-hal] where Islam and tawheed is prevalent.
In dar al-kufr, wherein shirk and its people have prevailed, it is

necessary to display bara [i.e. disassociation] from shirk and its people
[to oppose them] as Thumama bin Athal did, may Allah be pleased with
him, and [in this case] Islam is not affirmed by mere rituals.
At- tabi’i Ahnaf bin Qays (may Allah have mercy on him) said, "Indeed
taking the slave and the booty is from the disbelievers who are in dar al-
kufr, and kufr in their right and in the right of their progeny is collective,
168
but we are not like that, for indeed it is dar al- Iman, wherein tawheed is
called, and there is the truthful testimony and the establishment of the
Salah." [The history of Damascus, likewise [the book] Jalees Salih al Kafi
Wal Anees ash- Shafi]
169
fitnah [strife].
■ Misconception - 14: Whoever is from a Dār [land] is [considered] to

be one of it's people, until it appears from him otherwise.
They alleged: the ruling must be based on the prevalent, in

accordance to the principle, 'ruling is for the majority and the
minority/rare have no ruling'.
A detailed response to that from a few aspects:

The first aspect: The original principle is to give precedence to the
original ruling over ruling by dependency, and accordingly, the principle
is that one must rule another based on his condition and not by
dependency to others, whether it be parents, country or the prevalent
people. The asl/original principle is that whoever manifests Islam is a
Muslim, whether in reality or only by [worldly] ruling, in any given land
or time. And whoever manifests kufr is a disbeliever in any given land at
any given time. Furthermore, one whose condition is known with kufr
or Islam, his ruling does not depend upon the land by consensus.
170
Rather, the one whose ruling is dependent upon dar/lands is the one
whose condition is unknown, and he is the one who does not display
kufr nor Islam.
The second aspect: The principle in mention; 'ruling is for the majority
and the minority have no ruling', is based on speculation, [i.e.
uncertainty] in the right of the mukallaf who displays Islam al-
hukmi/Islam of judgement, who has not clearly displayed a nullifier
with evidence [considered credible] by Shari'ah, because certainty is
not removed with doubt, as Allah Azza Wa Jal said, {Whoever is guided
is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul. And whoever errs only errs
to their own loss. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of
another. And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.}
[Isrā:15]
The third aspect: To give precedence to the prevalent, which is the

extensive spread of shirk and kufr among people, over the minority
who are ruled by Islam al-hukmi/Islam of judgement because they
display it [especially upon his own self], without evidence or
acknowledgment from the mukalafeen [sane adults] of having
committed a nullifier is disregarded in relation to takfeer. This is
because in order to pass the ruling of takfeer upon a particular
individual who attributes [himself to Islam], it is necessary it be proven
by valid shar'i evidence with the fulfilment of the conditions and the
absence of the preventatives [of takfeer], as Allah said, {And Allāh
would not let a people stray after He has guided them until He makes
clear to them what they should avoid. Indeed, Allāh is Knowing of all
things.} [Tawbah:115]. Hence, [based] upon this then, to disregard the
conclusive signs of kufr in the right of the one who displays Islam al-
171
hukmi is from the principles of shari'ah, and this is why the condition of
the one under ikrah is not taken into account [i.e. he being compelled ]
when embracing Islam, against his uttered statement, thus the name
and ruling of Islam is passed upon him.
It has been reported in Al-Farūq and Hawāshim (Hāshim al-Maliki]

4/240: "What is evident is that taking the [ruling] of the majority [or
prevalent] into consideration when it conflicts with the asl/original
[ruling] or the rare, is that it is restricted with three conditions: the first;
that the majority repetitively violates the asl/original, like [in the case]
of the impurity of the water of the one who runs hurriedly from the
place of relieving nature, due to the continuous [flow] of urine therein.
The second; that the causes of the majority [or prevalent] have
increased, but if they've become rare, then it is definitely not taken into
account, and from that is if one is certain of being in [the state] of
purity while being in the state of impurity is the prevalent thought. The
third: that the rare and the asl/original doesn't contain that which
strengthens it, otherwise acting in accordance to the strongest
statement is imperative.
Hence, based on these restrictive conditions, Zarkashi divided the

situations in which the prevalent [ruling] is taken into account in the
case that the asl conflicts it, into four divisions:
1- What they decisively defined, by giving precedence to the apparent,

like a clear [matter], because the asl [ruling] is acquittal of the accused
one, and with that he is required to pay for that which is testified
172
against him because the prevalent [matter] is the truthful evidence and
it is hujjah which one is obligated to accept in Shar'iah.
2- What they decisively said, by giving precedence to the asl and to

disregard what is displayed by his condition, like if he was certain of
being in the state of purity and doubted or thought that he is in the
state of impurity, then he must base [his ruling] on the certainty of
purity, acting upon the asl.
3- That in which there is disagreement, and here it is most correct to

give precedence to the majority [prevalent], just like if he was to doubt
after the Salah that he left out an obligated ordain from it, then this
does not affect the known matter.
4- That in which there is disagreement, and it is more correct to give

precedence to the asl, just like if he was to have doubt regarding the
Salah of one of the past days, whether he prayed it or not?
▪️ From the evidence for this principle [i.e. the principle that ruling by
what is specifically apparent upon an individual takes precedence over
ruling by dependency], is the following:
1- The Muslims have unanimously agreed that it is obligatory to compel

the harbi [i.e. one at war] and the apostate with the sword to
[embrace] Islam, and that if he displays Islam under the sword, he is
ruled with Islam. There is no doubt that regarding the majority of such
cases there is no conformity between the uttered statements and the
173
apparent condition, but the majority [of such cases] which affects the
obvious apparent condition is not taken into account in Shariah, but
rather it is sufficient from the individual that which he displayed of
apparent Islam.
Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdasi - 620 AH said in Al-Mughni 9/23: "And the

difference of the harbi [i.e. one at war] and the apostate is that it is
permissible to kill them both and to compel them to Islam by saying to
say to them: 'either embrace Islam or we will kill you.' If he embraces
Islam, he is ruled with Islam based on the apparent, and if he dies
before his condition of ikrah ends, then he is ruled as the Muslims,
because he was rightfully compelled [to the truth], so he is ruled with
the validity of what he presented.”
Shaykh al-Islam said: "There is no disagreement among the Muslims

that if the harbi [i.e. one at war] embraces Islam after seeing the sword,
whether it is general or restricted, there is no difference and his Islam is
valid, and his repentance from kufr is accepted even if his condition
leads [one to believe] that his inward opposes what he outwardly
displays.” [The drawn sword against those who insult the Messenger ‫ﷺ‬
31/5 -]
Point of evidence: in the majority of such cases, there is no

truthfulness and sincerity, as they tend to embraced Islam because of
fear of being killed, being captive, concealing (their real conditions) and
to seek shelter, but these prevalent (factors) are not taken into account
in shari'ah with regards to takfeer of the one who displays Islam, upon
174
whom kufr was not visually seen, so contemplate and do not be of
those who are destroyed.
Yes, the signs of his condition [his uttering the Shahadatayn under the
sword] indicates Islam outwardly, while [he may be] concealing [the
reality] and remains upon kufr, but these signs are not relied upon in
this case, but rather the sign of the statement [i.e. uttering the
Shahadatayn] is given precedence over what his condition indicates, so
contemplate O brother in Islam.
In addition, similar to what was mentioned above, it is said regarding

the display of Islam in a country where shirk has increased, in the case
that what is indicated by one's condition and what is indicated by one's
uttered statement is encountered at the same time, then the former
rules him to be one from the mushrikeen, while what is indicated by his
uttered statement rules him with Islam based on what he displayed of
Iman which is taken into account in shari'ah, which is in accordance to
what the texts and the understanding of the Salaf prove, and that is to
give precedence to the apparent uttered statement over the prevalent
original [matter], with regards to ruling one with Islam who hasn't
displayed a nullifier or that which contradicts Islam.
2- What has been proven by the consensus of the muslimeen, which is

to give precedence to what is indicated by the uttered statement over
the prevalent [matter], and is evidenced by the Sunnah of the prophet
‫ ﷺ‬as is mentioned in the hadith of Usama bin Zayd [may Allah be
pleased with them] when he relied on what was indicated by his
175
condition and killed a man while he didn't take into consideration what
was evident from his statement, so the prophet ‫ﷺ‬disapproved of him
and said, "Did you kill him after he had made the profession, ‘There is
no god but Allah?’ "What would you do with regard to (the utterance)
of La ilaha illallah, when it comes (before you) on the Day of
Resurrection?" And when Usama said with regards to giving
precedence to the indications of his condition over what was indicated
by his uttered statement, saying, "O Messenger of Allah, he did it only
as a shelter," the Prophet repeatedly observed: "Did you kill him after
he had made the profession that there is no god but Allah?", until he
wished he hadn't embraced Islam before that day.
Additional evidence is the hadith of Al-Miqdad bin al-Aswad [may Allah

be pleased with him], he said, “Tell me, O Messenger of Allah,
supposing I meet an infidel and we fight together and he strikes one of
my hands with his sword and cuts it off, then flies for refuge from me to
a tree and says he has submitted himself to Allah. Shall I kill him after
he has said it O Messenger of Allah?” He replied, “Do not kill him.” He
protested, “But, Messenger of Allah, he cut off one of my hands.” Allah's
Messenger then replied, “Do not kill him, for if you do so, he will be in
the position in which you were before you killed him, and you will be in
the position in which he was before he made his testimony.”
Point of evidence: from both the hadiths, it is understood that

whoever displays Islam is ruled with Islam, and the ruling is not
withheld from him until that which contradicts Islam appears from him,
or he commits a nullifier and one must not pay attention to [what
seems to be] the prevalent matter of the soul [i.e., inward] in the right
of the one who displays Islam.
176
Imam Ash-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said in reference to
the hadith of Miqdad bin Al-Aswad (may Allah be pleased with them):
"So the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬informed that Allah has forbidden the
blood of this individual due to his displaying Iman while he was under
the condition of fear for his blood [i.e., life], and he didn't permit it
because of [what seemed to be] the prevalent (matter), that being he
only embraced Islam to seek shelter from being killed as is in Islam." [Al-
Umm 6/170]
Point of evidence: because inward [true] Islam is a hidden matter like

pleasure, so Allah Subhānahu has severed the matter so that it is not
investigated with regards to passing the ruling of Islam upon the people
in the world. Also, the evidence of not investigating his affair is that the
one who is under ikrah and under the shade of the sword and is from
the original kuffar at war or the murtaddin/apostates, after the
Muslims have authority over them, if they utter the kalimah of
tawheed, they are ruled with Islam while having knowledge of what the
signs of his condition reveals, that being he made Islam a shield for
himself against being killed.
3- Also from the evidence for this principle [i.e. the principle that ruling
by what is specifically apparent upon an individual takes precedence
over ruling by dependency] is: that the prophet ‫ ﷺ‬ruled the hypocrites
with Islam even though the evident signs from their condition would
have lead one to [rule them with] kufr or riddah.
177
4 - Further evidence is the consensus of the Sahābah, of ruling with
Islam the ones who displayed Islam in the lands of murtadeen, like in
the lands of Musaylamah, and they didn't give precedence to what was
indicated by their conditions nor [what seemed to be] the prevalent
matter over the indications of the uttered statement and the display of
Islam.
5 - Also from this is that the Salaf ruled the youth with Islam at the time
when kufri innovation became widespread in the lands and [among]
the people in the time of Ma'mun and Ubaydiyeen and others.
6 - An individual being in dar al-kufr asli or a land of apostates or a land

of Islam doesn't affect his ruling if one knows of his condition regarding
what he displays of Islam or kuf. Otherwise, the statement of
Harāqasah would necessitate the takfeer of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and his
companions before hijrah, due to their being in a land where shirk was
prevalent and tawheed was rare - [that being] Makkah - and the ruling
was for the prevalent according to them in this case!
Ash-Shafi'i also said in (Al-Umm 170/6): "The Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬

made it clear that Allah preserved the blood of the one who displays
Iman after kufr, that they have the [same] rulings as the Muslims do,
regarding inheritance, marriage and other such rulings of the Muslims.
Thus, he made it clear regarding the ruling of Allah ‫ عز وجل‬for the
hypocrites, then also the judgement of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬upon
them. Therefore it is not for anyone to rule another contrary to what
they display of themselves, and Allah has made for the servants to rule
[each other] based on what is apparent because no one knows the
178
unseen except that which Allah ‫ عز وجل‬has allowed them to know, so
the one who has understood this from Allah is obliged to demolish all
these false doubts regarding rulings so that one doesn't rule another
with conjecture." [End of quote]
7 - The claim that the [rituals] were distinctive in the time of the
Sahabah does not benefit them because Allah didn't make distinction
[of rituals] a condition for passing the ruling of Islam in any situation.
Rather, He made the cause of it the display of Islam and without having
knowledge that one committed a nullifier. If [having] distinctive rituals
and not mixing [with the kuffar] was a condition [of entry into Islam],
then the Islam of many of the companions wouldn't be valid before the
hijrah and even after it. So what is necessitated here is false and that
with which it is necessitated, [i.e. reasoning] is just like it.
8 - This claim also necessitates the rogues to rule the Jews and their
likes in Madina with Islam due to they being in a land in which the
prevalent religion was Islam and kufr was rare, as the ruling is for the
prevalent, not for the minority, according to them in this mas'alah!
9 - And from the evidences of the principle is the statement of Allah:

{And do not say to one who gives you [a greeting of] peace, "You are
not a believer,"}. The verse, [Nisa:94]
179
Point of evidence: Anyone who says to the one who displayed Islam
that he is not a Muslim has indeed opposed the verse and is averse to
the texts and has rejected this asl/principle; thus, it is obligatory to rule
with Islam every individual who displays Islam in any given place, until
he displays a nullifier with clear shar'i evidence.
Ibn Abbas [may Allah be pleased with them] regarding the tafseer of
this Ayah said; "Allah has forbidden the believers to say to those who
say laa ilala illallah [i.e. the testimony] that you are not a believer just
as He made the dead (meat) forbidden, so his wealth and blood is safe,
so do not reject his statement." At- Tabari and Ibn Hātim reported it
with a good isnad, and the verse is in reference to the one who displays
Islam in lands of kufr.
180
A Summarized clarification on how to pass [the ruling] of this
principle:
The principle [ruling is for the majority and the minority/rare have no
ruling] is in reference to the majhool al-hal [one whose condition is
unknown] not the mastoor al-hāl [one who has signs of Islam] while he
has openly displayed them, so we rule upon him with the Shahadatayn,
Salah and his attribution to Islam.
The companions in the early stages of da'wah were under the ruling of
the minority in Makkah, and the mushrikeen were under the ruling of
the prevalent. So was the ruling of the companions and the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬
in the early stages of the da'wah in Makkah the ruling of the prevalent
??!
Or is it that their ruling was that they were Muslims according to what
they displayed of the Shahadatayn and the rituals, and they were not
ruled according to the ruling of the majority?? So in the case that the
apparent is absent, with regards to the majhool al-hāl upon whom we
need to pass a ruling and we are unable to ask him about his deen or
ask others regarding him, then we attach him to the ruling of the
majority.
As for the mastoor al-hāl, he is not attached to the [ruling of the]

majority, but rather we rule upon him based on what he displays of the
Shahadatayn, Salah and his attribution to Islam because he is a Muslim,
until kufr is proven to us against him, with certainty, which means it
must be done by the testimony of two just witnesses or
acknowledgment.
181
fitnah [strife].
■ Misconception - 15: The ruling of Islam is only to be passed after

examining [the individual]; when he displays separation from the
people with regards to all the widespread nullifiers.
▪️ They based this [misconception] on the following evidence:
1- The statement of Allah the Most High: {O you who have believed,
when the believing women come to you as emigrants, examine [i.e.,
test] them. Allāh is most knowing as to their faith. And if you know
them to be believers, then do not return them to the disbelievers; they
are not lawful [wives] for them, nor are they lawful [husbands] for
them. But give them [i.e., the disbelievers] what they have spent. And
there is no blame upon you if you marry them when you have given
them their due compensation [i.e., mahr]. And hold not to marriage
bonds with disbelieving women, but ask for what you have spent and
let them [i.e., the disbelievers] ask for what they have spent. That is
the judgement of Allāh; He judges between you. And Allāh is Knowing
and Wise.} [Mumtahana:10]
2- It has been reported on the authority of Mu'āwiya bin Hakam As-

Sulamiy, he said: "..I said, and among us there are men who draw lines.
182
He replied: "There was a prophet who drew lines; so if the line of
anyone tallies with this line, that might come true." I said: "A slave-girl
of mine used to tend goats before (the mountain) Uhud and al-
Jawaniyyah. Once when I reached her (suddenly) I found that a wolf had
taken away a goat of them. I am a human being; I feel grieved as others
do. But I slapped her. This greived the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬. I asked:
"Should I set her free ?" He replied: "Bring her to me." So I brought her
to him. He asked (her): "Where is Allah?" She said: "In the heaven." He
said: "Who am I?" She replied: "You are the Messenger of Allah." He
said: "Set her free, for she is believer." [Narrated by Muslim 2/70 no.
537 (33)]
3- It has been narrated on the authority of Nu'aym ibn Mas'ud Al-

Ashja'iy, on the authority of his father Nu'aym, he said; "I heard the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬say when they (i.e. the messengers sent by
Musaylimah) read the letter of Musaylimah: "What do you believe
yourselves?" They said: "We believe as he believes." He replied: "I swear
by Allah that were it not that messengers are not killed, I would cut off
your heads." [Abu Dawud 3/131 no. 2761]
4- The companions [may Allah be pleased with them] tested the people
to know of their beliefs regarding the one who claimed prophet hood..
like Musaylimah the liar and Tulayha al Asdi and their asking his wife
regarding him [i.e., his beliefs] and their request for her to make barā
from him and to make takfeer upon him.
183
5 - Statements of the Salaf regarding that:
1- It has been reported on the authority of Abdul Rahman bin Mahdi,

he said, “It was conveyed to me that Shu'bah said to his partner, ‘Why
do you not accept the testimony of the murji'a?" He replied, "How shall I
accept the testimony of the murji'a people while they claim that Salah is
not from Iman?" [Narrated by Abdullah bin Ahmad 1/334 and Khillal
3/585]
2 - Ibn Sireen said (Died 110 AH): "They didn't used to ask about the
isnad [chain of transmission], and when fitnah occurred, they said name
your men [i.e., narrators], then they would look to Ahlus Sunnah and
accept their hadiths, and look to the people of bid'ah and not accept
their hadiths." [Imam Muslim narrated this in the introduction of his
Sahih 1/14]
3 - Hisham bin 'Ammār said, "I met Shahāb and I was in the year 74 and
he said to me, "If you're not from the Qadariyya nor the Murji'a I would
narrate to you hadiths, otherwise not." So I replied, "I am neither of
these two." [Az- Zahabi narrated it in As-Sayr 8/285]
4 - Imam Barbahari [may Allah have mercy on him] said, "To examine
[ones aqeeda] is bid'ah in Islam, as for today they test [their agreement
with] the Sunnah." [End of quote] [Sharh As-Sunnah for Barbahari 123]
5 - Abu Abbas Siraj would test [the aqeeda] of his students by defaming
the kilābiyya [i.e. a sect of innovators] before narrating hadiths to them,
184
as was mentioned by Az-Zahabi in Sir A'lam Nubalā (395/14) from Abi
Sa'eed bin Abi Bakr, he said, "When the matter of the kilābiyya occurred
in [the city of] Naysabur, Abu Abbās Siraj would investigate [the beliefs]
of the children of the people and he wouldn't narrate hadiths to the
children from [the sect of] Kilabiyya. So once he made me stand up, and
he said, "Say, I disassociate myself before Allah from the killabiyya." So I
said, "If I say that, my father won't feed me bread." He laughed and
said, "leave this one alone".
6 - This was not limited to the matter of narrating hadiths only, but
rather, they would use this [method of examination] with those who
they wanted to appoint as governors. Even Umar bin Abd Aziz
commanded his servant to test Ibn Abi Musa when his signs [from his
clothing] impressed him, as he intended to appoint him as a governor.
[Majmoo' Fatāwa 15/329]
▪︎ They alleged: one must not affirm the name Islam to a particular
individual who is mastoor al-hāl by Islam, [i.e. one who has signs of
Islam evident] until after testing [his beliefs], and that without this
[examination], he is from among the people and follows them in Shirk
and kufr, and even if he displays barā from the taghūt, he must display
barā from every nullifier which is widespread among the people.
185
▪️ An Introduction and preparation:
Know may Allah have mercy on us and you that kufr bit-taghūt and
Iman billah is a branch from Asl al-Iman al-Wajib, and if it is not
performed by the mukallaf, he becomes a disbeliever.
And Asl al-Iman al-Wajib according to us includes all the branches of

Iman, which if abandoned without the mukallaf being under ikrah is
considered kufr and shirk. From it is that which is [performed] upon the
heart, and from it is that which is performed upon the tongue and also
that which is performed upon the limbs.
The apparent branches from Asl al-Iman al-Wajib, by which the

mukallaf is named a Muslims according to the worldly rulings are as
follows:
1 - Profession of the Shahadatayn (two testimonies), which is the

Shahadah of 'Laa ilaha illAllāh' (kufr bit-taghūt [i.e., to disbelieve in the
taghut] and Iman billah [i.e., to affirm belief in Allah] and the Shahadah
that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.
2 - To avoid all the apparent nullifiers of Islam upon the tongue and
limbs.
186
3 - The obligatory prayers, which the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said of its
abandonment to be kufr and shirk, as is mentioned in the hadith in
Sahih Muslim. This is the least amount by which a mukallaf becomes a
Muslim according to the worldly rulings, and consequently, he is
treated as the Muslims are treated with regards to the worldly rulings
[being applied to him], i.e., they are ruled with Islam al hukmi.
This is the same level [of Islam] which the munafiqeen presented at the
time of Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and were thus named Muslims according to the
Prophet and his companions in relation to the worldly rulings, and they
were treated and dealt with as Muslims were, as long as a nullifier
wasn't clearly proven against them [individually], and they left their
secret affairs to Allah.
As for the remaining branches of Asl al-Iman al-Wajib, which are upon
the heart, like knowledge belief and certainty in Allah and His Angels,
Books, Messengers, the Last Day and Qadr, the good and the bad of it,
and the conditions of laa ilaha illallāh upon the heart, and love for
Allah, His Messenger and His Shari'ah, and to hate whom Allah hates
and those whom Allah hates from the tawagheet, and to hate the
[false] lords, partners and deities set [as rivals] with Allah and their
worshipers, we do not enquire about these matters according to the
worldly rulings, nor do we rule the people by them, nor do we test the
[beliefs of the] people whether they have knowledge of these matters
[or not], but rather, their affair rests with Allah in this regard, the Day
when secrets shall be disclosed.
187
And whoever presents this branch has actualized Asl al-Iman al-Wajib
completely upon the heart, the tongue and the limbs, which is the
achievement of the true Islam which benefits one in the Hereafter and
saves one from everlasting punishment of Hellfire.
This branch of Asl al-Iman al-Wajib upon the heart wasn't actualized by
the munafiqeen and they didn't present it, therefore they are
disbelievers in the Sight of Allah on the Day of Judgment and shall
reside in the lowest depths of Hellfire.
We are not charged to know of this in the world, and the knowledge of
whether it was actualized by the people prior to ruling them with Islam
al hukmi, because we are not charged with knowing the affairs of the
heart, and this is why the munafiqeen were kuffar in the sight of Allah
and according to the wordly rulings, they were considered Muslimeen.
This is what Allah has charged us with; to make kufr bit-taghūt and
Iman billah, which is the branch of Laa ilaha illallāh and is a branch from
the branches of Asl al-Iman al-Wajib. It is insufficient for the mukallaf,
bāligh, sane individual to achieve this upon entering the religion of
Allah [Islam] which He has chosen for His servants so that he carries the
name Muslim, mu'min, muwahhid, hanif and is dealt with like the
muslimeen, until he presents the remaining branches of Asl al-Iman al-
Wajib along with it, like the Shahadah of Muhammad Rasulullah, and to
avoid all the apparent nullifiers of Islam. With that, the name [Muslim]
and the ruling [of Islam] is affirmed to him which continues [for him] by
his performance of the apparent rituals like the obligatory Salah if the
time has entered and he has knowledge of it and the ability to perform
188
it. This is the Deen of Islam which Prophet Muhammad bin Abdillah ‫ﷺ‬
was sent with, which is the Deen Allah is pleased with and is not
pleased with any other Deen from His servants. Whoever presents this
as Allah has commanded in His shari'ah - not how the mind alone
desires - then we name him a Muslim according to the worldly rulings,
and whoever doesn't present this is a kafir, or a mushrik, or a murtad or
a zindeeq [i.e., one of major hypocrisy].
▪️ We shall respond to the heresies with detail, seeking help from the
Knower of the unseen and the witnessed:
Firstly, to test [the beliefs] of the people to know what is in their hearts
before passing the ruling of Islam or kufr upon them is from bid'ah and
misguidance and is a newly invented matter in the religion of Allah
which is not from it.
It has been reported on the authority of Ayesha [may Allah be pleased
with her] she said, the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said: “If anyone introduces into this
affair of ours anything which does not belong to it, it is rejected.”
[agreed upon - Bukhari and Muslim]
Hence, we are not charged except to accept what is outwardly
apparent from the people according to the worldly rulings and to leave
the affairs of their hearts to Allah.
Secondly, all the mentioned conditions of Laa ilaha illallah which the
scholars have thoroughly examined are conditions [performed] upon
189
the heart, except the condition of apparent inqiyad [compliance] which
is indicated by [the Shahadah], by avoiding all that nullifies it.
So, the conditions of Laa ilaha illallah, like knowledge, truthfulness,

certainty, sincerity, love, acceptance and inward inqiyad (compliance)
are all conditions (performed) upon the heart..
As for the condition of apparent compliance which is indicated by

avoiding all that which nullifies it, is what concerns us according to the
worldly rulings.
Consequently, regarding the conditions performed upon the heart, we

are not made responsible to know them, nor to investigate them, nor
to ask regarding them before passing the ruling of Islam al hukmi upon
them, or the ruling of kufr.
Rather, the individual who presents them will benefit by it in the

Akhirah with Allah, when he actualizes the true Islam which saves one
from eternity in Hellfire on the day of Judgment, which is the Islam by
which the Muslim enters Jannah.
▪️ They didn't achieve the condition of having knowledge of laa ilaha

illallāh, which obligates one to act upon what is indicated by it:
Knowledge, which is a condition from the conditions of Laa ilaha

illallāh: it is the knowledge which obligates action upon what is
190
indicated by it. This doesn't mean to have knowledge of the meaning of
its words in the Arabic language only, because if the mukallaf knows the
meaning of Laa ilaha illallah in the Arabic language - i.e., none has the
right to be worshipped - and doesn't act in accordance to what it
indicates, then he is ignorant of the meaning of laa ilaha illallāh and
hasn't presented the condition of [knowledge which necessitates
action]. It is also [not the case] that the mere ignorance of the words
and construction of actions upon it means that one is ignorant of the
true reality of the shar'i meanings of it, which obligates action.
It has been narrated on the authority of Mu'adh bin Jabal (May Allah
be pleased with him), he said: "I was riding a pillion with the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬
on a donkey. He ‫ﷺ‬said, "O Mu'adh, do you know what is the right of
Allah upon His slaves, and what is the Right of His slaves upon Allah?" I
said: "Allah and His Messenger know better". Upon this the Messenger
of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said, "Allah's Right upon His slaves is that they should
worship Him Alone and associate nothing with Him; and His slaves' right
upon Him is that He should not punish who does not associate a thing
with Him." He (Mu'adh) added: I said to the Messenger of Allah: "Shall I
give the glad tidings to people?" He ‫ ﷺ‬said, "Do not tell them this good
news for they will depend on it alone". [Bukkhari]
In addition, knowledge of the words and the meaning of the testimony

doesn't necessitate having knowledge of the true shar'i meaning which
obligates action, because the mushrikeen of Quraysh knew the
meaning of Laa ilaha illallāh in the Arabic language and what the
prophet ‫ ﷺ‬wanted from their utterance of it, which is evidenced by the
statement of Allah the Most High, on the tongue of the mushrikeen of
Quraysh: {Has he reduced ˹all˺ the gods to One God? Indeed, this is
191
something totally astonishing.”} [Sād:5]. However, even though they
had knowledge of the meaning of its words, but because they didn't act
upon it and upon what is indicated by it, nor complied to it [in
submission], Allah named them ignorant because they failed to present
the condition of knowledge which obligates action, and this is
evidenced by the verse of Allah: {Say, [O Muḥammad], "Is it other than
Allāh that you order me to worship, O ignorant ones?"} [Zumar:64]
As-Sum'āni said in his tafseer 4/479, regarding the statement of Allah,

{Say, [O Muḥammad], "Is it other than Allāh that you order me to
worship, O ignorant ones?"}; It has been reported that that the
mushrikeen said to the prophet " ‫ﷺ‬Believe in some of our gods and we
shall believe in you", and it has also been reported that they said, "We
will worship your lord for year and you worship our gods for a year",
thus Allah revealed the verse in discussion. Regarding His statement, {O
ignorant ones}, it means, ignorant of Allah and His Sovereignty, His
Qudrah (ability) and His Greatness. [End of quote]
Therefore, this is the meaning of possessing the condition of having

knowledge of Laa ilaha illallah, and it doesn't necessarily mean to have
knowledge of the meaning of its terms in the Arabic language alone,
but rather, it is to have knowledge which obligates action upon what is
indicated by it.
Accordingly, the hypocrites, despite having knowledge of the meanings

of the words, “laa ilaha illallāh” in the Arabic language, but due to the
fact that they did not act upon what is indicated by it with their hearts
and only displayed it outwardly due to hypocrisy, showing off to the
192
people and deceiving the believers, they were categorized as being
from those ignorant of it and of Iman, which is obligatory to have for
Allah and His Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬,and they did not present the condition of
knowledge in Laa ilaha illallāh which necessitates action, but because
they displayed compliance outwardly, they were ruled with Islam and
were granted protection.
Thus, Allah named them: 'foolish', 'they do not know' and 'they do not
understand', and this is evidenced by the following:
1 - The statement of Allah in reference to the munafiqeen: {That is

because they believed, and then they disbelieved; so their hearts were
sealed over, and they do not understand.} [Munafiqun:3], in addition
to other verses in which Allah described them as not possessing
understanding [or comprehension].
At- Tabari said in his tafseer: "Regarding His statement, {and they do
not understand}, Allah said, they do not understand the correct from
the incorrect and the truth from falsehood because Allah has sealed
their hearts.”
Furthermore, Qatadah once said regarding that, he said, “Bashr
narrated to us, he said Yazeed narrated to us, he said Sa'eed narrated
to us on the authority of Qatādah, {That is because they believed, and
then they disbelieved; so their hearts were sealed over, and they do
not understand.}; they recognized Lilaha illallāh and that Muhammad is
Allah's messenger, yet their hearts were in denial refusing to comply to
that." [End of quote]
193
Baghawi also said in his tafseer, [regarding the verse]: {That is because
they believed}, i.e., they professed with the tongue when they saw the
believers, {then they disbelieved}, i.e., when they were alone with the
mushrikeen, {so their hearts were sealed over}, i.e., with kufr, {and
they do not understand}." [165 chapter Iman] [End of quote]
2 - His statement regarding the hypocrites: {And when it is said to

them, "Believe as the people have believed," they say, "Should we
believe as the foolish have believed?" Indeed, it is they who are the
foolish, but they know [it] not.} [Al- Baqarah:13], so the foolish are
ignorant.
At- Tabari said in his tafseer, "Abu Ja'far said: 'sufahā is plural of safeeh
(fools), just as ulema is plural of 'aleem and hukamā is plural of hakeem,
and the safeeh/fool is the ignorant one, of feeble judgement, has poor
knowledge of what is beneficial and harmful." [End of quote]
Al- Baghawi said in his tafseer: "{And when it is said to them}, i.e., to
the hypocrites and the Jews. {"Believe as the people have believed},
i.e., as Abdullah bin Salam and others from the believers of the people
of the Book [have believed], and it is also said, as the Muhajireen and
Ansar have believed. {Should we believe as the foolish have believed},
i.e., the ignorant ones. And if it said how can it be nifaq [hypocrisy]
while it was openly said, by their statement; {'Should we believe as the
foolish have believed}, then it is said in response; they would openly
display this speech only among themselves and not before the believers.
So Allah informed His Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and the believers of that, and Allah
194
refuted them in His statement, {Indeed, it is they who are the foolish,
but they know [it] not.}.”
Here, we ask this question:
Since we have proven that the hypocrites didn't present the condition
of having knowledge of Laa ilaha illallāh which necessitates action., and
this is why Allah called them "foolish", - i.e., ignorant - , "they do not
know" and "they do not understand."
Then what is the ruling of the munafiqeen who were in the time of the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬according to the worldly ruling, who were ignorant of Laa
ilaha illallāh and didn't present the condition of having knowledge of
it?! Are they Muslimeen or kuffar according to the rulings in this
world??!
▪️ With regards to the correlation between what is outward and the

inward, we say; whoever's apparent [affair] is good and of
righteousness as Allah has commanded, then his inward is like that, and
whoever's outward [affair] is evil and corrupt, then his inward is like
that.
195
▪️ As for the rulings of Iman and kufr:
Whoever displays clear explicit shirk and kufr according to the worldly
rulings, we decisively rule him with kufr, both his inward and outward,
and we do not say as the Jahmiyya say, that he is outwardly a kafir yet
inwardly a believer who would be granted salvation by Allah in the
Hereafter.
Whoever displays Islam, it's rituals, tawheed and Iman, we do not

search to know what's in his heart. Rather, we leave his inner secret
affairs to Allah and deal with him based on what is apparent from him.
- Either he is a Muslim both inwardly and outwardly, saved by Allah on

the Day of Judgment from eternity in Hellefire ..
- Or he is a munafiq (i.e. hypocrite) who displayed tawheed, Islam and
its rites, so he is a muslim according to the wordly rulings, and a
disbeliever in the sight of Allah.
And this correlation doesn't contradict the outward and the inner,
because this Munafiq displayed kufr before the munafiqeen who are
just like him, and he concealed it and didn't display it in the presence of
the believers. Consequently, both his outward and inward are
consistent.
▪️ However, when we intend to pass a ruling upon a mukallaf regarding a

matter pertaining to [actions of the] heart, like ignorance in laa ilaha
196
illallāh, this doesn't necessitate that his ignorance in laa ilaha illallāh
must be made apparent to us upon his tongue or limbs, because he has
indeed displayed Islam to us, and his kufr is inward and is concealed
from us according to the worldly rulings.
This is the meaning of statement of Allah the Most High , {They say
with their tongues what is not within their hearts. Say, "Then who
could prevent Allāh at all if He intended for you harm or intended for
you benefit? Rather, ever is Allāh, of what you do, Aware.} [Fath:11]
And His statement: {saying with their mouths what was not in their
hearts. Allah is All-Knowing of what they hide.} [Al-Imran:167].
▪️ They also didn’t actualize the condition of yaqeen [certainty] in laa

ilaha illallāh and what is indicated by it..the opposite of which is doubt
and uncertainty.
And Allah said regarding the Munafiqeen: {Only those would ask
permission of you who do not believe in Allāh and the Last Day and
whose hearts have doubted, and they, in their doubt, are hesitating.}
[Tawbah:45]
▪️ They also didn't actualize the condition of sidq [truthfulness] with

regards to its utterance, and they were liars in their testimonies..
Allah the Most High said, {When the hypocrites come to you, [O
Muḥammad], they say, "We testify that you are the Messenger of
197
Allāh." And Allāh knows that you are His Messenger, and Allāh
testifies that the hypocrites are liars.} [Munafiqeen:1]
▪️ Add to that, they didn't actualize the condition of love for it [i.e., for
the testimony] and what is indicated by it. Rather, they had enmity
towards its people and would plot against them.
Allah said about the Munafiqeen regarding the promises they made to
the Jews to kill the prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and the companions with him: {Have
you not considered those who practice hypocrisy, saying to their
brothers [i.e., associates] who have disbelieved among the People of
the Scripture, "If you are expelled, we will surely leave with you, and
we will not obey, in regard to you, anyone - ever; and if you are
fought, we will surely aid you." But Allāh testifies that they are liars.}
[Hashr:11]
▪️ They also didn't actualize the condition of qabūl [acceptance] of the

testimony and what is indicated by it.
Allah said regarding the Munafiqeen: {And when they meet those who
believe, they say, "We believe"; but when they are alone with their
evil ones, they say, "Indeed, we are with you; we were only mockers."}
[Baqarah:14]
▪️ Likewise, the same applies to the remaining conditions of this great
statement [i.e., the testimony], which the munafiqeen didn't actualize,
so they were kuffar in the Sight of Allah in the Hereafter, and shall
198
reside in the lowest depths of Hellfire because they didn't actualize the
true Islam which benefits one before Allah. Allah (Azza wa Jal) said
regarding the Munafiqeen, {And what prevents their expenditures
from being accepted from them but that they have disbelieved in
Allāh and in His Messenger and that they come not to prayer except
while they are lazy and that they do not spend except while they are
unwilling.} [Tawbah:54]
Despite all this, they were considered Muslims [Islam al- hukmi, i.e.,
they were ruled with Islam] according to the worldly rulings [which
were applied to them], due to their utterance of the Shahadatayn and
because of their apparent compliance and submission to what is
indicated by it, by avoiding the apparent nullifiers. This is what
benefited them so they were granted protection of blood and wealth
and were treated like the Muslims were, with regards to the remaining
worldly rulings.
Consequently..
Whoever, in this world utters the Shahadatyn and presents with it

apparent compliance of what is indicated by it, we rule him with Islam
and treat him as the Muslims are treated according to the worldly
rulings, and we don't innovate matters in the Deen of Allah by saying he
must be tested to know what is in his heart with regards to the
remaining conditions because Allah [Azza wa Jal] didn't charge us with
that in order to apply the wordly rulings..
199
This is why when ignorant ones like yourselves ask, "What is the ruling
of the one who is ignorant of laa ilaha illallāh?! Is he a Muslim or a
kafir?! Then it is necessary that we know whether his ignorance of Laa
ilaha illallāh upon the heart was made apparent to us upon his tongue
and limbs or not.
The response in accordance to the evidences is as follows:
1 - Whoever is ignorant of Laa ilaha illallāh but it wasn't evident upon

him by clear kufr, with certainty, and he outwardly professed the
Shahadatayn and didn't display any nullifier upon his tongue or limbs,
then he is a Muslim according to worldly rulings and a disbeliever in the
Hereafter in the Sight of Allah like the Munafiqeen.
2 - Whoever is ignorant of Laa ilaha illallāh and it was made evident

upon him by clear kufr, with certainty, then this one is a disbeliever.
200
Masalah of examining the muhajirat:
1- The verse is evidence against you and in opposition to you, not in

favour of your argument because the verse states, {when the believing
women come to you..}, so Allah [Azza wa Jal] judged them with Iman
before the examination and that they are believers, which means that if
they died before being tested, the Muslims would be obligated to pray
the funeral prayer over them, and the funeral prayer is only offered
over Muslims. And that is the testimony of Allah [Azza wa Jal] for them.
If you say, 'The condition of the people today is not as it was before.'
We would reply to you, 'You have seceded and transgressed in what
you have sent forth before your Lord and you have distorted the
Shari'ah of your Prophet regarding the ruling of the people based on
what is apparent and in leaving their hidden matters to Allah [Azza wa
Jal].
2 - Allah, Glory be to Him, equalled both men and women with regard
to the original takleef [charge of Islamic obligations] which is to worship
Him alone, without partners.
The Most High said: {And I did not create the jinn and men except that
they should worship Me.} [Al-Dhariyat 56]
And it hasn't been proven, neither by evidence nor by ijmā', nor from
the statements of the Salaf, that the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬tested the male
emigrants. Therefore, it is known that there was a reason for the
201
examining [of the female muhajirat] other than what your devils dictate
to you.
An interpretation regarding the statement of He the Most High: {O you

who have believed, when the believing women come to you as
emigrants, examine [i.e., test] them. Allāh is most knowing as to their
faith. And if you know them to be believers, then do not return them
to the disbelievers; they are not lawful [wives] for them, nor are they
lawful [husbands] for them.} [Mumtahinah:10] Allah says when
mentioning the companions of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that when the
believing muhajirat women come from dar al-kufr to dar al-Islam, then
examine (i.e., test) them, and their testing by the messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬,
if the muhajirat came, was performed in the following manner:
It has been narrated to us by Abu Karíb, he said Yunus bin Bakeer

narrated to us on the authority of Qais bin Al-Rabi’, on the authority of
Al-Aghar bin Al-Sabah, on the authority of Khalifa bin Haseen, on the
authority of Abu Nasr Al-Asadi, he said: "Ibn Abbas was asked, 'How did
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬test the women?' He replied: "He would test
them [by asking them to say], 'By Allah, I didn’t come out of hatred for a
husband, and by Allah, I didn’t leave out of desire from a land to
another land, and By Allah, I didn't leave seeking worldly [matters], and
By Allah I didn't leave except for the love for Allah and His Messenger."
[Tafseer Jāmi' al-Bayan 22/575 At-Tabari 310]
Regarding His statement the Most High: {Then examine (i.e. test
them.}:
202
18867 - It has been reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, (may Allah
be pleased with him), regarding Allah's statement, {when the believing
women come to you as emigrants, examine [i.e., test] them.}, he was
asked, 'How did the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬test the women?'
He replied, 'When a woman would come to the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬, Umar [may
Allah be pleased with him] would make her swear an oath and say; 'By
Allah I didn't leave desiring a land over another land, By Allah, I did not
leave out of hatred of a husband, and By Allah, I did not come out
seeking worldly pleasure, By Allah, I only came out for the love of Allah
and His Messenger.'" [Tafseer Qur’an al-Atheem 10/3350 by Ibn Abi
Hatim 327h]
{O you who have believed, when the believing women come to you as
emigrants, examine [i.e., test] them.} This was pertaining to the
women of the people of covenant from among the Mushrikeen. Their
examining in the tafseer of Qatādah is mentioned that they would be
made to swear by Allah that they didn’t leave out of ill conduct [to their
husbands] and they didn't leave except for the love of Islam and for
their diligence for it. {Allah is most knowing as to their faith.}, i.e., if
they are truthful or liars. {And if you know them to be believers}; that
is if they admit that it was for Islam and they swear by Allah that they
didn't come out of ill conduct, and they didn't leave except out of love
for Islam and their concern for it. [Tafseer Qur’an Al-Aziz 4/379 by ibn
Abi Zamnin 399h]
Point of evidence from the aforementioned: the reason of the

examination was to know the truthfulness of the women regarding
their hijrah and their concern for Islam and this was the way practiced
203
before, that the women would be tested individually regarding their
hijrah to know of their truthfulness for departing from their lands and
family, and whether it was done desiring Islam and love for it [or not],
and nothing further was requested of them, neither open declaration of
kufr bit-taghūt, nor general takfeer, nor anything else which the rogues
of today have invented.
Masalah of examining the slave girl
1- A mention of which proves that the one who acknowledges tawheed

by pointing towards the sky, that Allah is in the Heavens and not on
earth and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬is called a
believer. [Al-Tawhid 1/240 by Ibn Mundah 395h]
Then he derived hadith No. 91

In his compilation, [may Allah have mercy on him], it has been
reported that tawheed is affirmed by a gesture towards the sky when
asked about where Allah is, and then acknowledging the Message of
Muhammad ‫ﷺ‬. This is from the ruling based on the apparent because
the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬didn't investigate further to confirm if what she
displayed was true [or not] and he ordered the companion to free her.
204
Furthermore, the original ruling regarding the slaves is that they are
disbelievers, and the freeing of the slave here was to be made of a
believing slave only, so it was necessary to investigate the matter to
know if she was a Muslim.
2 - The questioning took place to know if she was from the people of
Iman. Therefore, if there is a need to do so in the case one deals with
another, then he may take precaution by asking him, in order to get to
know him regarding matters one needs to know, like the justice of
witnesses, narrators, marriage, manumission, hijrah, and general
wilayah/jurisdiction.
So we say to you, when you eventually wear the armour of war and
you take to jihad in the path of Allah and you end up taking slave girls,
and if you're faced with a situation which obligates you to free a
believing slave girl, then it is upon you to test her faith as did the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬, by asking her to acknowledge the 'Uluw [i.e. transcendence
of Allah/His being above His creation] and that He is in the heavens,
and acknowledgment of the Prophet hood of Muhammad ‫ﷺ‬.
3 - It is said to you O heretics, the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬examined [the people]

regarding a matter which was evident from a statement, in order to
affirm the Iman of a kafirah, and there is no perspective of drawing
analogy here and applying this to a Muslim who displays Islam al-hukmi
and we don’t know of him to have committed a nullifier.
205
Shaykh al-Islam Abu Uthman as-Sabuni said: "And our Imam Abu
Abdullah Muhammad bin Idrees Ash-Shafi'i [may Allah have mercy on
him] stipulated in his book 'Mabsut' regarding the mas'alah of freeing a
Muslim slave in expiation, and the fact that freeing other than a
muslimah for expiation is not correct, due to the information from
Mu'āwiya bin al-Hakam, when he intended to free the black slave-girl
for expiation, and he asked the prophet ‫ ﷺ‬regarding freeing her. So the
prophet ‫ ﷺ‬tested her and asked her, "Who am I?" She pointed towards
him and the sky, which meant that you are the Messenger of Allah (the
One) who is in the Heavens, so he ‫ ﷺ‬said, "Free her for she is a
believer," and the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬ruled her with Islam and Iman when she
acknowledged that her Lord is in the Heavens and knew her lord with
the attribute of 'Uluw [i.e., above His creation], high." [End of quote]
[Aqeeda of the salaf and the scholars of Hadith 188]
Masalah regarding the followers of the one who claimed prophet hood
A response to that:
2632 - Abu Nasr Ahmad bin Sahl bin Hamdawiyya, a Faqih (in the city
of) Bukhara informed us, that Ibrahim bin Ma'qal an-Nasfi narrated to
us, that Muhammad bin 'Umru Rāzi and is also nicknamed Zaneej,
narrated to us that Salamah bin Fadhl al - Abrash narrated to us that
Muhammad bin Is'haq narrated to me, he said, "Musaylama [the liar]
wrote to the Messenger of Allah, and indeed Ibn Is'haq narrated to me
on the authority of Sa'd bin Tariq al-Ashja'i on the authority of Salamah
bin Na'eem bin Mas'ud bin al-Ashja'i, on the authority of his father
Na'eem (may Allah be pleased with him), he said, 'I heard the
206
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬say to the two messengers of Musaylamah when
they read the book of Musaylamah; "What do you two say (regarding
this)?" They replied, "We say the same as he said." (i.e. in agreement)
He ‫ﷺ‬replied, "If it wasn't for the fact that messengers are not to be
killed, I would have struck your necks." This hadith is authentic
according to the condition of Muslim but he didn't report it. [Narrated
by Al-Hākim in his Mustadrak]
The examination made by the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬of the two messengers of

Musaylamah was an examination of those whose apparent [condition]
was of apostasy, and the reality of their falling into apostasy or not was
made clear. Likewise the case of the Sahabah, when they tested those
who became captives at their hands from those people who belonged
to a people who claimed Prophet hood and who resisted with power
and strength, and this is an examination in order to make the condition
of those who fell under their authority clear, with regards to the true
reality of the matter, while their apparent condition of the matter was
of apostasy. If Islam and opposition to their people was made apparent
by them, it was accepted from them and further enquiry into knowing
the reality of their aqeeda (beliefs) was not made.
207
Masalah regarding the Salaf examining people at the time when
innovations have become widespread
A response to that:
1 - We assert that the examining of the people by the Salaf at the time
when innovations became widespread was done to know whether they
were in agreement to the Sunnah or not, and was not a prejudgment to
make general takfeer and to test their Islam.
The evidence and narrations are clear regarding the treatment of each
person according to what he displays. So whoever displays Islam and
it's rituals and does not display a nullifier, or a bid'ah, or agreement of a
contradictory [matter in Islam], then he is judged to be upon Islam.
And we repeat the challenge that you present to us evidence or a

reliable statement of a companion or an earlier or later Imam from
among the Imams of Ahl Sunnah, who made general takfeer and tested
a people who displayed Islam while he believes them to be kuffar,
whether in the trial of the claim that the Qur’an is created, or the time
of the Ubaidiyeen, or the time when the Ashā'ira were dominant, and
you will not find that.
2 - There's a very clear and obvious difference between the type of

examination [permitted in Shar'iah] in some situations in order to know
208
whether the Muslim who is ruled with Islam is in agreement to the
Sunnah [or not], and between the innovated type of examination of the
rogues [khawarijis] which is based on making takfeer of the people of
Islam, the purpose of which is to affirm the true inner Islam, by
requesting one to reveal their underlying belief by asking them fifty,
seventy or maybe even hundred innovated questions which differ from
one sect of the heretics to another, may Allah not increase the likes of
them.
Ibn Sireen said: "The questioning of a man to his brother, 'Are you a
believer?', is an innovated matter just like how the Khawarij test (the
people)." [Reported by Al-alka'i in Shar'h I'tiqad Usul Ahl-Sunnah
(5/1060) No. 1804]
When it was conveyed to Ibn 'Awn (Died 150) that Sulayman at-Taymi
would test the people of Basra, he said, "What is this examination of
the people!?" [Al-Qadar lil- Faryabi No. (322)]
Similar to this is what has been reported on the authority of Ibrahim

bin Husayn - known as ibn Dizil (Died 281) - when it was said to him,
"Indeed Abu Hātim al-Rāzi doesn't narrate hadiths until he examines
the person." He replied, "Abu Hātim is [considered] the Ameer al-
Mu'mineen of hadith among us, and examining [the beliefs of the
people] is from the religion of the khawarij. Whoever attends my
gathering and is from Ahl Sunnah shall hear what will delight him, and
whoever is from the people of bid'ah shall hear that which will make
him miserable.” [Sayr A'lām Nubalā 13/189]
209
3 - The heretics generalize the examination of [the beliefs of] the
general Muslims who display Islam, and continue to use this in masāil
and in recently occurring matters. Rather, even in speculative matters
and at times in some issues of jurisprudential disagreement like the
examination [of the beliefs of the people] that takfeer is from Asl ad-din
and chain takfeer, and [beliefs] regarding the issue of the earth being
sphere, and marriage to a mushrikah [female polytheist].
Perhaps their role model in this is al-Ma’mun and those who followed
his way in the past regarding the examination of the people at the time
[of the fitnah of the claim] that Qur’an is created, and enforcing the
scholars and common Muslims to that by the authority of the sultan.
Ibn Taymiyyah says: “Likewise the people of whims, for they innovate
heresies and declare those who oppose them to be infidels, as do the
Rafidah, the Mu'tazila, the Jahmiyyah and others, and those who tested
the people regarding the claim that Qur'an is created were among
these. They innovated bid'ah and declared takfeer upon the one who
opposed them, and they considered it lawful to suppress their rights and
to punish them.” [Majmoo’ al-Fatawa 17/311]
There are some masāil which call for the need to ask one about their
religion, which is done by investigating [his religion] in order to rule him
as a Muslim in the event that there are dhimmis present in dar al-Islam,
thereafter to verify whether [his beliefs are in] agreement with Ahl al-
Sunnah wal-Jama’ah in the event that bid'ah has become widespread:
210
Confirming the Islam of the witnesses:
This is because the testimony of a disbeliever is not valid. Ibn Qudamah

said in Al-Mughni: {(8248) Chapter: al - Qādhi said: "It is necessary to
know the Islam of the witness [who testifies], and this is achieved by
one of the four following ways:
▪︎ The first: That he himself informs that he is a Muslim, or presents the

statement of Islam which is the testimony that ‘There is no god but
Allah and Muhammad is His servant and Messenger’; because if he
wasn't a Muslim prior to that, he would become a Muslim by that.
▪︎ The second: The acknowledgment of the one witnessed against, with

regards to the Islam of the witness because that is a right he has over
him.
▪︎ The third: The awareness and expertise of the judge [regarding the
people in a particular land], and because we were content with his
adālah [i.e., his justice and righteousness], then likewise with his Islam.
▪︎ The fourth: Proof [e.g. documents] which one presents. It is necessary

to know regarding freedom of an individual in a situation in which it is
taken into account [in order to pass a ruling], and one of the following
three matters are sufficient for that: proof [e.g., documents], or the
statement of the one witnessed upon, or the expertise of the judge.
The statement of the witness [upon himself] however, is not accepted
because since he doesn't possess the right to become a free person,
211
then he doesn't possess the right of declaring that, contrary to [when
embracing] Islam. (i.e., It is insufficient for the witness to say about
himself that he is free because he does not posses this right by a mere
statement, like he would have, had he uttered the two testimonies by
which a disbeliever becomes a Muslim.)
Nikah [marriage contract] and the wilayah [i.e., guardianship of the

wali] regarding that:
It is impermissible for a Muslim to marry a kafirah [female disbeliever]
except that she be from the People of the Book, and it is not
permissible for a Muslimah to marry a kafir asli [original disbeliever] nor
an apostate.
Allah (Azza Wa Jal) said, {And if you know them to be believers, then
do not return them to the disbelievers; they are not lawful [wives] for
them, nor are they lawful [husbands] for them. But give them [i.e., the
disbelievers] what they have spent. And there is no blame upon you if
you marry them when you have given them their due compensation
[i.e., mahr]. And hold not to marriage bonds with disbelieving
women..} [Mumtahana:10]
This is why it is permissible for the wali of the woman to ask regarding
the Deen of the one who requests her hand in marriage.
212
Zakah expenditure:
Zakah is not spent except on a Muslim, and that is why one is obligated
to search for a mastoor al-hāl Muslim and Zakah cannot be given to a
kafir, nor to a majhool al-hāl, until [his condition] is made clear.
It has been reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas [may Allah be

pleased with them], that the prophet ‫ ﷺ‬sent Mu'ādh [may Allah be
pleased with him] to Yemen, and he said: The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬appointed
Mu'adh [May Allah be pleased with him] as governor of Yemen, and at
the time of his departure, he instructed him thus: "First of all, call the
people to testify 'La ilaha illallah' (there is no true god except Allah) and
that I (Muhammad) am the Messenger of Allah, and if they accept this
(declaration of Faith), then tell them that Allah has enjoined upon them
five Salah during the day and night; and if they obey you, tell them that
Allah has made the payment of Zakat obligatory upon them. It should
be collected from their rich and distributed among their poor."
[Narrated by Bukhari]
Manumission and the freeing of a slave (as expiation):

When Allah [Azza wa Jal] obligated the freeing of a believing slave, as
He said, {then the freeing of a believing slave}, then it is invalid to free
a kafir slave [in some instances], and at other times there is a difference
[of opinion] in its validity, but it is generally makruh [disliked] for fear
that he will join dar al-harb/a land of war) and fight against the
Muslims.
213
Blood money for killing in some situations:
Due to the statement of Allah, {And it is not lawful for a believer to
kill a believer except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by
mistake - then the freeing of a believing slave and a compensation
payment [diyah] presented to his [i.e., the deceased's] family [is
required], unless they give [up their right as] charity. But if he [i.e., the
deceased] was from a people at war with you and he was a believer -
then [only] the freeing of a believing slave; and if he was from a
people with whom you have a treaty - then a compensation payment
presented to his family and the freeing of a believing slave. And
whoever does not find [one or cannot afford to buy one] - then
[instead], a fast for two months consecutively, [seeking] acceptance of
repentance from Allāh. And Allāh is ever Knowing and Wise.} [Nisa:92]
So the kafārah [i.e. expiation] and the blood money is obligated upon
the killer if the awliyā [i.e. guardians] of the killed one are Muslims, and
the expiation alone is obligated upon the killer if the killed one is
Muslim and his wali are disbelievers. However, blood money is not
obligated if the killed one is an apostate or a disbeliever, so there is no
blood money nor expiation for him because his blood is permissible [to
spill].
214
To conclude: The examining [i.e., testing ones aqeeda] upon which
there is specific evidence from the texts of [Quran and Sunnah] is in the
following conditions:
- Either, in the case one is ignorant of the condition of a particular

individual and has a need to deal with him in a situation where
one is obliged to differentiate in dealings between a Muslim and a
kafir, and an example of that would be to know the permissibility
of a slaughtered animal or when freeing a slave.
- Or to enquire regarding a particular individuals' agreement to the

Sunnah or his righteousness and adherence [to the religion], and
examples of this is to know the justice and righteousness of a
witness or of the one proposing for marriage.
- Or to clarify his motives, his purpose and his objective [for a

particular action], and an example of that was when clarifying the
purpose of the muhajirat.
We are not aware of any specific or general evidence regarding the

examination of the [beliefs of] one who is ruled as a Muslim [due to his
display of it], to investigate his affair, whether he openly declared kufr
bit-taghūt and made takfeer of the tawagheet rulers or not, and
regarding his bara from all the widespread nullifiers in the lands.
Rather, indeed the evidence of divine revelation have confirmed that
one must recognize the Islam of a particular individual when he displays
215
that, especially upon himself and he having committed a nullifier hasn't
been proven against him by way of clear valid shar'i evidence.
216
fitnah [strife].
■ Misconception - 16: To disregard the rituals as an indication of Iman

and to consider them shared actions with the mushrikeen.
They claim: that the rituals (of Islam) today are commonly shared
(among the muslims and the apostates), and that they no longer
indicate to one's Islam in reality.
The response by which the false madhab [beliefs] of the heretics shall
be demolished, and which will compel them to openly admit the
contradiction [of their beliefs], is the following:
The first : As for our statement regarding that which invalidates the
false beliefs of the rogues [i.e., khawarijis], it is that the scholars have
unanimously agreed that if the cause disappears without affecting the
result, then it becomes known that it is an invalid cause which has no
value. Therefore, the cause [for this ruling] is invalidated due to the
217
display of the rituals by the people of disbelief and hypocrisy in the era
of the Prophet and the Khulafā (caliphs), and many of them knew of
their disbelief, yet despite that, the rituals obligated them to rule them
with Islam. Hence, the Haruri belief is invalidated and the madhab of
Ahl Sunnah is correct. If it is said that this is regarding differentiating
between the original
kafir and the Muslim through rituals, because the kafir didn't used to
display the rituals, then:
We answer to that with the following:
1- This is absurd differentiation because it is a mere claim which isn't

based on any evidence.
2- To deny the recognition of rituals in any given era as a hukm shar'i

requires evidence and there is no evidence regarding this, therefore it is
absolutely invalid.
3- The companions at the time when apostasy was widespread, in the

time of Abu Bakr, would recognize rituals and take them into account
[when passing rulings] and they considered them a distinctive factor
between a Muslim and an apostate. Likewise, the Salaf in the time
when kufri bid'ah became widespread like jahmiyya beliefs and
mu'tazilah beliefs, they continued to regard the rituals valid, until kufr
was affirmed against an individual.
218
The second: As for our statement which most certainly abolishes their
falsehood it is that we admit that the rituals are commonly shared in
our time, but we don't accept that there is no way to differentiate
between the Mushrik and the Muslim, because one of them displays
shirk while he attributes himself to the religion [of Islam], while the
second only displays Islam. So whoever displays Islam and is not known
to have displayed shirk, he is a Muslim by what is apparent, and
whoever displays the rituals along with involvement with shirk is a
Mushrik.
Therefore, based on that, if you do not consider the rituals a

differentiating factor [between Muslims and Mushriks], and you turned
away from the manhaj of the Ahlus- Sunnah and the Salaf, then you
shall not reside in comfort, because we shall consider the signs of kufr a
determining factor between them, so whoever displays kufr we make
takfeer of him, even if he displays the rituals [of Islam].
And whoever displays Islam and doesn't display kufr, we rule him with
Islam. Then what? Either you make the rituals of Islam a differentiating
factor, or we shall make the signs of kufr a differentiating factor.
▪️ 4 - A mention of the one who reported that: Muhammad bin A'lā

narrated to us, he said, Mu'tamar bin Sulayman narrated to us on the
authority of his father, on the authority of Hassan, he said, Ziyad
narrated to me that: "The Sabians would pray towards the Qiblah and
pray the five (daily prayers). He said, "So he intended to waive the jizya
from them." He said, "Then he was informed that they worship Angels."
219
And Bishr bin Mu'adh narrated to us, he said Yazid narrated to us, he
said, Sa'eed narrated to us on the authority of Qatādah, regarding
Allah's statement, {And the Sabians..} [Baqarah:52], that the Sabians
are a people who worship the Angels, and pray towards the Qiblah and
they recite the Zabur (Psalms). [Tafseer Jami' al-Bayan 2/37 Tabari
310H]
They differed regarding its meaning. Ibn Abbas said they are a people
from the Jews and Christians, while Qatadah said, they recite the Zabur,
worship the angels and they pray towards the Ka'bah, [those of them
who believed]. If it is said, it [i.e., the term believers] has been
mentioned collectively, {Indeed those who have believed}, then how
can it be correct that “those of them who believe” be other than the
believers. It is said, this is regarding Salman [al-Farsi, may Allah be
pleased with him] and his followers who believed in Muhammad before
his Message, who then acknowledged it after his message. It is also
said, the ones intended here are those who remained steadfast on
Iman, and it is also said that the ones intended here by 'those who have
believed' are the munafiqeen who believed by the tongue only. [Tafseer
Qur’an 1/88 Sum'āni 489H]
The point of evidence: Here, [in this narration], there is evidence

which invalidates the claim of the ghulat, that if the rituals are
commonly shared [by the kuffar and Muslims], then the apparent is not
considered [when passing a ruling]. Here is Ziyād bin Abih, as narrated
by Al-Basri, intended to waive the jizya from them and their matter
confused him, but he dealt with them based on what was apparent,
and that was their Salah towards our Qiblah. However, when it was
made clear that they committed a nullifier, he ruled them with Kufr.
220
To conclude:
Whoever displays [signs] which are specific to Islam and the individual
isn't known to have displayed kufr, then it is Wajib to pass the ruling of
Islam upon him.
Also, with regards to the commonly shared rituals [of Islam] between a
mushrik who attributes himself to Islam and a muwahid,, then this
doesn't affect the ruling until the shirk of the one who attributes
himself to Islam is clearly and visibly displayed, or is affirmed against
him with clear definitive proof.
The original mas'alah is that the mixing of the munafiqeen with the
believers in the period when Revelation was still being revealed, and
the murtad and Muslim displaying shared rituals in the era of the
Companions, and the rituals of Islam being commonly shared by the
innovating kafir and the Ahlus Sunnah in the time of the Salaf, yet
despite that the fuqahā of the religion of Islam never said what the
Hururiyya of today claim [i.e., that today, the rituals of Islam must be
disregarded since they are commonly shared by the murtadeen.] Thus,
in accordance to the teachings of the Salaf, regarding the communities
which display the rituals or signs of Islam, we rule them with Islam
collectively, and likewise the individuals, we rule them with Islam until
they display kufr, and we don't investigate the beliefs of anyone except
the majhool al-hāl, who neither displays signs of Islam nor kufr.
And whoever says to us that the Islam nor the Shahadah of the
communities is valid!
221
We say to him as the Prophet of Islam said to the one who sought
permission to kill the one who was blamed for committing kufr of nifaq:
"Doesn't he testify to Laa ilaha illallāh?"
The Ansari said, "Yes indeed O Messenger of Allah but he hasn't really
done so. The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said, 'Doesn't he testify that Muhammad is the
Messenger of Allah?' The Ansari said, 'Yes indeed O Messenger of Allah,
but he hasn't really done so.' He said, 'Doesn't he pray?' He replied,
'Yes, but he doesn't really do the prayer.' Then the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said,
'Those are the ones whom Allah has forbidden me (to kill).' "
We say, "Do they not say Laa ilaha illallāh Muhammad- Rasulullāh?"
"Do they not pray and give the Zakah and perform the Hajj and fast?"
"Did you see this particular individual commit kufr or shirk, or are you
slandering him?"
▪︎ A principle:
That which is considered to be the most likely thought [regarding an
individual], without visibly witnessing [a matter] or without proof, is
considered invalid in matters pertaining to takfeer when it conflicts
with the asl ruling [i.e., the ruling of Islam for the one who attributes
himself to Islam and doesn't display a nullifier], or with what is
evidently apparent [i.e., the one who displays the signs of Islam and
doesn't display a nullifier.] Then how if the asl and the apparent both
contradict the most likely [thought], as is the case with our mas'alah?
222
And this is from the tolerance of Islam and its great virtues, but the
Haruris, by nature, are secluded from the virtues of Islam.
The evidence for this principle is unlimited, but in a brief response, we

refer to some:
- The Muslims have unanimously agreed [by ijmā'] that one is obliged to
compel the harbi [i.e. one at war with the Muslims] and the apostate,
to [embrace] Islam under the threat of the sword, and if he displays
Islam under the sword, he is ruled with conversion to Islam because it is
a valid form of ikrah [i.e., for the truth] which doesn't change the ruling,
[i.e., he remains a Muslim]. There is no doubt that regarding the
majority of such cases, there is no conformity between the apparent
condition [i.e., proclamation of the testimony] and between the inner
state [of the heart]. However, this strong apparent condition [i.e., of
him only accepting Islam in order to save himself] is not taken into
account in Shariah because it conflicts with the apparent, [i.e., the
proclamation of the Shahadatayn.]
- If the harbi is made to accept Islam under ikrah and he uttered the
Shahadatayn under the threat of the sword, he is ruled to be a Muslim,
and since this ikrah is for the truth [i.e., and is valid], then the ruling
doesn't change, and the narrations which reached us regarding this are
in agreement to this meaning, even though there is ambiguity in the
matter. This is because the two testimonies of the Shahadah come in
the form of a declaration, and are to be regarded valid based on what is
apparent, even though he may be lying due to his fear of the sword.
223
And ibn Taymiyyah said, “There is no difference of opinion among the
Muslims that if the harbi accepts Islam when he sees the sword,
whether he is free or tied, his Islam is valid and his repentance from kufr
is accepted even if his condition reveals that his inward state is contrary
to what he displays outwardly.” [Sārim al Maslūl 2/619]
Evidence from the Book and Sunnah:
1- From the Book of Allah, it is the statement of Allah, {And do not say
to one who gives you [a greeting of] peace, "You are not a believer,"}
[Nisa:94]
2- From the Sunnah it is the hadith of Usamah bin Zayd, and Miqdad bin
al-Aswad, Abdullah bin 'Uday, [may Allah be pleased with them], and Ali
bin Abi Talib.
3- From the works of the Salaf, it is that which has been narrated by the
tabi'i 'Ubaydullah bin Rawāha, who said: "I was with Masruq and he
narrated to me that a man from the non-Arabs embraced Islam and
Jizya would be taken from him. So he came to Ameerul Mu'mineen and
said, 'O Ameer al Mu'mineen, I've embraced Islam yet the Jizya is taken
from me.' So Umar said, 'Perhaps you only embraced to seek refuge,
[i.e., in the rulings], to which he replied, "Is there something in Islam
which will grant me refuge?' He said, 'Yes indeed.' He [the narrator]
said, 'So he wrote that jizya must not be taken from him."
224
[It was reported by Abu Abeed in Amwal (126) and ibn Zanjwiyyah in
Amwal (155) and Bayhaqi (9/199). Abu Abeed said, Shu'ub are the non
Arabs". [Isnad is Sahih or hassan).
4 - Umar bin Abdul Aziz wrote, 'Whoever testifies to our Shahadah,

prays towards our Qiblah and circumsizes, then do not take the Jizya
from him.' [Reported by Abu Abeed in Amwal (129) with a sound Isnad.]
The heretics, in adhering to some of the statements of the later

scholars in order to disregard the consideration given to the
Shahadatayn, claim that they [i.e., signs and rituals of Islam] are not
specific [to the Muslims] anymore. However, I didn't find anything,
except that they put forth their evil innovated beliefs, and the response
to them is taken from their own words, by which they serve their
desires:
Husayn al - Baghawi (Died:516 AH) said in Sharh Sunnah (1/66): "The

Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said, "I have been commanded to fight people
until they say 'La ilaha illallah' [none has the right to ne worshipped
except Allah], and if they say this, their blood [i.e. life] and property are
protected except when justified by law, and their reckoning is with
Allah." Regarding his statement, "..until they say 'Laa ilaha illallāh'," he
meant, the idol worshippers and not the People of the Scripture because
they say Laa ilaha illallāh, so the sword isn't lifted off of them until they
testify to the prophet hood of Muhammad ‫ ﷺ‬or they must give Jizya
because Laa ilaha illallāh on its own isn't taken into account.”
225
- [Imam] Al- Baghawai stated in Sharh Sunnah 1/70: "In the hadith,
there is evidence that the affairs of the people with regards to their
dealings with each other, are based on what is apparently evident from
their conditions, and is not based on their inward hidden matters.
Therefore, whoever displays the rituals of the Deen, then it's ruling will
be passed on him, and his inner [hidden matter] is not investigated. And
if the circumcised are found among the uncircumcised dead ones, they
are to be separated at the time of burial, and if the stray is found in a
land of the Muslims, he is ruled with Islam.
▪︎ Point of evidence: Here he is, the man himself acknowledges that

rulings are based on what is apparent with regards to the individual
who displays the rituals of the Deen.
- [Imam] Al-Baghawi said, "If a kafir is a pagan or one who worships

more than one God who doesn't acknowledge the oneness [of Allah],
and if he says, 'Laa ilaha illallāh' , then he is ruled with Islam, [i.e., he is
a Muslim]. Thereafter, he is obliged to accept all the laws of Islam and is
made to disavow all religions which contradict the religion of Islam. As
for the one who acknowledges the Oneness of Allah, but rejects the
prophet hood [of Muhammad ‫ ]ﷺ‬, then he isn't ruled with Islam until
he says "Muhammad al- Rasulullāh". And if he believes that the
message of Muhammad ‫ ﷺ‬is specifically for the Arabs, then he must
say, "He is sent to all of mankind." And if his kufr pertains to the denial
of a Wajib, or permitting a prohibition, then he must retract [the kufr]
226
which he believes [i.e., in order for his Islam to be valid.]" [End of quote]
[Fath al-Bari:12/279]
Point of evidence: Most definitely the one who doesn't acknowledge

the prophet hood of Muhammad ‫ﷺ‬, or displays the belief that he was
sent to the Arabs only, then his first Shahadah doesn't carry the affect
of passing the ruling of Islam upon him due to his display of the denial
of the prophet hood of Muhammad ‫ﷺ‬.
We close with the hujjah from the Sunnah of Mustafa ‫ ;ﷺ‬it has been
narrated on the authority of Anas [may Allah be pleased with him], he
said, "A young Jewish boy who was in the service of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬fell
ill. The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬went to visit him. He sat down by his head and said to
him, "Embrace Islam." The little boy looked at his father who was sitting
beside him. He said: "Obey Abul-Qasim [i.e., the Messenger of Allah] ‫ﷺ‬.
So he embraced Islam and the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬stepped out saying, "Praise
be to Allah Who has saved him from Hell-fire." [Bukhari]
Point of evidence: This Jewish boy entered Islam with the wording
'Aslam', ["So he embraced Islam"], and it hasn't been mentioned here
that he uttered the Shahadatyn. Then this necessitates the heretics to
nullify his Islam too because he didn't openly declare the Shahadatayn,
and Islam was affirmed for him with the acknowledgment of the
Prophet ‫ﷺ‬.
227
In brief, it is because Islam indicates to the acknowledgment of them
[i.e., of the Shahadatān], thus the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬didn't request more than
what he acknowledged. Now where is the falsely alleged specificity
without the means necessitating it, as we previously explained.
We conclude by clarifying the crooked understanding of the heretics,

may Allah not increase their likes nor leave their remembrance:
Ibn Najeem said (Died 970 AH): A need to mention what they stated,
that if a disbeliever performs ablution or tayammum, he is not
considered a Muslim by that alone. Likewise is [their saying] regarding
the one who wears the ihram, [i.e., a sacred state into which a Muslim
must enter/dress in order to perform the Hajj.] If a kafir wears the
ihram for the Hajj and then embraces Islam, he must renew his ihram
as his entering ihram doesn't necessitate that he had become a Muslim,
in the case that he makes talbiyya [i.e., he says, "labbayk Allahumma
Labbayk.."] but doesn't perform the rites [of Hajj]. However, if he
makes the talbiyya and performs all the rites with the Muslims, then he
is ruled a Muslim, as he stipulated in Al-Muheet. [Al-Bahr Rāiq Sharh
kanz Daqāiq 1/160]

Ibn Najeem said, (Died 970 AH): "The original principle is that whenever
a kafir performs an Ibādah, if it is present in all other religions, he is not
considered a Muslim by preforming it, just like if he was to perform the
Salah alone, or fast or perform an incomplete Hajj, or pays Zakah.
228
However, when he preforms that which is specific to our Shari'ah, which
is a means to it [i.e., to a ritual], like the tayammum, then he is not
considered a Muslim by it. If it is from an intended ritual itself [and isn't
a means to other rituals], or is from the rituals itself like Salah in
jamā'ah, or Hajj in accordance to the complete prescribed method, or
the Adhan in the Masjid, or the recitation of the Quran, then he is ruled
a Muslim by it”, as he stated in his works al-Muheet and others in kitab
as-Sayr. [Al-Bahr Al-Ra'iq Sharh kanz Daqāiq 1/160]
The point of evidence: The problem with these people is that they
only imitate without contemplation and this doesn't save them [from
the grave mistake they have committed], because the Salah is a distinct
ritual for the people of Islam. Likewise Hajj, as it has been authentically
reported from the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, in
which he said, "On the Day of Nahr, Abu Bakr sent me along with other
announcers to Mina to make a public announcement:, "No pagan is
allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed
to perform the Tawaf around the Ka`ba." [Sahih Muslim] So Hajj to the
Ka'bah became a distinct ritual of Islam through the text of Divine
revelation.
■ So the rogues produced something trivial in extreme ignorance, and

they ask; 'Does the Salah distinguish the Muslims [from the kuffar] so
that we may pass rulings by it? Or do the mushrikeen commonly share
these actions with them, like the Democrats and others.
229
The response to that, with the facilitation from Allah Alone, is that the
difference between the Salah of the Muslim who is ruled with Islam and
the Salah of the Democrat, is that the former prays with the display of
Islam [with certainty], while the latter prays with the display of kufr
[with certainty]. Therefore, the Salah of the Muslim al hukmi [who is
ruled with Islam due to his display of it] is distinct for him and is taken
into account in his right, but isn't a differentiating factor in the right of
the Mushrik and neither is it taken into account, until he repents and
returns to Islam from the door [of apostasy] from which he left. [i.e., he
repents from the shirk which was the cause of his exit from Islam.]
From that which they base their argument on, is the statement of Ibn
'Ardūn:
- Ibn 'Ardūn reported from Imam Abdil Wāhid bin Ahmad al-Wansharisi
the Qadhi of [the city of] Fās and its mufti, (955 AH) that he said; "As for
the one who is from the Muqallideen [i.e., one who follows another in
religion without evidence], who doesn't know the meaning of the
kalimah of tawheed, and neither what it entails and doesn't
differentiate between the Messenger and the One Who sent him , then
this one has no share of Islam according to what the well-known
scholars have said." [Nawazil Al-'Ilmi' (213- 3/212) Muqna' Muhtaj fi
Adaab Azwaj 1/219).
Ibn 'Ardun stated regarding the prohibition of marriage with the

disbelieving women: "This includes the one who is born among the
Muslims, and she says 'Laa ilaha illallāh Muhammad Rasulullāh ‫ﷺ‬,
prays, fasts and performs majority of the rituals, except that she doesn't
230
know what the kalimah of tawheed entails and doesn't know who Allah
is nor His messenger, and perhaps even thinks that the prophet is the
deity of worship and she says I heard the people say this kalimah soI
said it but I don't know what its true meaning is, then there is no
disagreement that she is from the group of the wicked kuffar.”
The response to what was previously reported, which these feeble

minded [khawarijis] fail to understand, is found in the very words they
quote. The man is speaking regarding the one who is known to be
ignorant of what the kalimah of tawheed entails, and whoever doesn't
know the difference between Allah and His Messenger and thinks that
the Messenger is the deity worshiped, is a mushrik from among the asli
kuffar who shall not smell the fragrance of Islam.
And the statement of the man resembles that of Hamd bin Nasir who
said, "As for the one who said, ‘Laa ilaha illallāh Muhammad Rasulullāh,
yet he is firm in his shirk, supplicates to the dead and asks them to fulfil
his needs and to relieve him of troubles, then this one is a mushrik
whose blood is halal [to spill] and his wealth halal [to confiscate], even if
he said ‘laa ilaha illallāh Muhammad Rasulullāh’, and prayed, and
fasted and claimed to be a Muslim, as stated previously." [Kashf
Ghayahab Thulām 'an Awhām Jalā al -Afhām pg. 54]
231
fitnah [strife].
■ Misconception - 17: If we affirm the Islam [of an individual] by the

mere profession of the Shahadatayn, we would then have to affirm
the Islam of Pharaoh [may Allah curse him].
Allah Azza wa Jal said: {When drowning overtook him, he said, "I
believe that there is no deity except that in whom the Children of
Israel believe, and I am of the Muslims."} [Yunus:90]
The alleged that the one who says that an individual may be ruled with
Islam by the mere utterance of the kalimah of tawheed, this
necessitates him to attribute Islam to Pharaoh, and if he does so, then
he has denied and disbelieved in clear texts of the Quran, and if he
doesn't, then he is contradicting himself. Therefore, the one who claims
this is a kafir and is from the callers to the gates of Hell.

“The statement regarding Pharaoh: {When drowning overtook him..},
and when death approached him and he saw him, [i.e., the angel of
death], {he said, "I believe that there is no deity except that in whom
232
the Children of Israel believe, and I am of the Muslims."}, then at that
point, after the angel of death was visible to him, having Iman didn't
benefit him, but if he had embraced Islam before he was overtaken by
drowning, then embracing Iman would have benefited him, just like
that of the people of the Book who believed in Prophet Isa, as He said:
{And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will
surely believe in him [i.e., Jesus] before his death..}, which means
none shall die except they believe in him. However, to accept Iman
when one sees the angel of death and when death approaches him will
not benefit him because he is unable to utter it [i.e., the Shahadah] like
those [living humans] are able to, and regarding that, is His statement
in surah Nisa, {But repentance is not [accepted] of those who
[continue to] do evil deeds..}, meaning Shirk, {..until, when death
comes to one of them..}, meaning when death approaches him and he
sees his good and evil deeds before him, when the creatures of the
earth cannot hear his words, {he says, "Indeed, I have repented now."}
He said, ‘there is no kafir except that he repents when death
approaches him, but it will not benefit him. He also doesn't pardon
{those who die while they are disbelievers}. He said, {For them We
have prepared a painful punishment.}” [At-Tasāreef li Tafseer al Qur'an
1/305 by Yahyā bin Salam 200h]
Abu Ja'far said: "In this hadith, Usama killed the man after he had
professed laa ilaha illallāh, and we see the disapproval of the Prophet
‫ ﷺ‬for that, and [yet] Usamah had a status in Islam [i.e., among the
Muslims]. Then if one claims that this proves the hadith has no basis,
because if that wasn’t the case, then he [i.e. Usama] wouldn’t have
continued to have a status [of acceptance] with the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬like he
did previously, due to having committed the grave crime. Our response
to that would be, with the facilitation and help from Allah (Azza Wa Jal):
233
‘Indeed it is possible that the reason for which Usama’s status remained
with the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬, after he did what he did, was because
there was something that excused him for what he did, which is that
whoever says similar to what that man had said [i.e., embraces Islam]
after the punishment of Allah had descended upon him, for what he had
believed prior to that [i.e., kufr], then that statement [of the Shahadah]
doesn't remove the punishment from him, and regarding that, is the
statement of Allah: {And when they saw Our punishment, they said,
"We believe in Allāh alone and disbelieve in that which we used to
associate with Him." But their faith was of no benefit to them when
they saw Our torment.} [Ghafir:84-85], So Allah (Azza Wa Jal) informed
that acknowledgment of tawheed for Him [Azza Wa Jal] after seeing the
torment, is a void statement and doesn't necessitate the removal of the
punishment from the one who believes in His oneness in a condition like
that. Then Allah (Azza Wa Jal) said: {This has ˹always˺ been Allah’s way
˹of dealing˺ with His ˹wicked˺ servants.}, i.e., for those who passed
before that era, like Pharaoh and others, as was the case, that when
drowning overtook him, he said, {"I believe that there is no deity
except that in whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am of the
Muslims."} [Yunus:90]
So he said regarding that, it was said to him: {˹He was told,˺ “Now ˹you
believe˺? But you always disobeyed and were one of the corruptors.}
Which means that what you present now, after the descent of what you
used to be warned of, will not benefit you now. So Usama (thought
similar to that, [regarding the one who said, 'Laa ilaha illallāh'], after
the punishment of Allah had descended upon him, by using it in the
same situation, so he (i.e., Usama) didn't think that the statement [i.e.
the Shahadatyn], would remove that which Allah sent [as punishment
by the sword], by using it in the same situation as if he hadn’t said it,
until the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬explained that the punishment [upon
234
them] which descends from Allah is contrary to that which descends[
upon the people] through His servants, and that acknowledgment of
tawheed for Allah after the torment descends doesn't remove that
torment. However, when a form of punishment comes to them through
His servants, their statement [of Shahadah] removes the punishment,
[i.e., is accepted and he is granted the rulings and protection of a
Muslim]. Therefore, Usama was excused by that which we have
mentioned.” [Sharh mushkil āthār 8/264 li-Tahāwi 321h]
Point of evidence from the aforementioned: We do not know

whether it is due to heedlessness that they neglect one of the most
important principles of Ahl-Sunnah wal Jamā'ah, which is that evidence
[of Qur'an and Sunnah] does not contradict each other. Likewise the
understanding of the scholars in this matter, which the heretics don't
posses since they lack understanding, is that the position which
Pharaoh, [may Allah curse him] was in [i.e. when he uttered the
Shahadatayn], occurred when he was cut off of any hope and death had
indeed approached him and he saw it. Then there was no repelling of
Allah’s' punishment after it had descended, and there was no
acceptance of repentance after the sending of the punishment.
However, what is sent down as punishment by our hands, there is
repentance and return [to Islam], be it under the fear of the sword. This
is what is indicated by the words of the one who did not speak from his
own desire ‫ ﷺ‬in many hadiths, such as the hadith of Usama and the
hadith of Al-Miqdad, among other evidence. Then was the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬
heedless of what you understood O wicked evil ones, or are you unique
in understanding the texts which the companions and those who
followed them in goodness were incapable of understanding?! Indeed
evil is that which you judge.
235
fitnah [strife].
■ Misconception - 18: If rituals alone affirm the ruling of Islam upon

an individual, then Allah [Azza Wa Jal] would not have reprimanded
it's people.
Allah says, {Have you made the providing of water for the pilgrim and
the maintenance of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām equal to [the deeds of] one
who believes in Allāh and the Last Day and strives in the cause of
Allāh? They are not equal in the sight of Allāh. And Allāh does not
guide the wrongdoing people.} [9:19]
They allege that Allah Subhānahu reprimanded those who perform

rituals [i.e. from the people of Islam] because of their adhering to the
apparent rituals and that when they proudly boasted with the rituals, it
didn't benefit them because shirk was widespread among them.
Muthannā narrated to us, he said, Abdullah bin Salih narrated to us, he

said, Mu'āwiya narrated to us on the authority of Ali, on the authority
of ibn Abbas, regarding His statement, {Have you made the providing
of water for the pilgrim and the maintenance of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām
236
equal to [the deeds of] one who believes in Allāh and the Last Day },
[Tawbah:19], that Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib said, when he was
captured on the day of Badr, 'If you preceded us in (embracing) Islam,
Hijrah, and Jihad, then indeed we are the maintainers of al- masjid al-
Haram, provide water for the pilgrims, and free the slaves. Thereupon
Allah said, {Have you made the providing of water for the pilgrim..},
until His statement, {..the wrongdoing people..} [Tawbah:19], meaning,
that was when you were involved in Shirk, and I don't accept what is
done upon shirk. [Tafseer Jāmi' al-Bayan 11/378 At-Tabari 310 h]
1- Regarding His statement: {and the maintenance of al-Masjid al-

Haram..} 10062- Muhammad bin Sa'd told us- in what he wrote to me -
that my father narrated to me, he said my uncle narrated to me, on the
authority of my father on the authority of my grandfather, on the
authority of Ibn Abbas regarding His statement, {Have you made the
providing of water for the pilgrim and the maintenance of al-Masjid
al-Ḥarām..}, and that was because the mushrikeen said that the
maintenance of al- Masjid and to provide water for the pilgrims is
better than the one who believes in Allah and performs Jihad, and they
used to proudly boast because of al- Haram, and were arrogant due to
the fact that they were its people and those who maintained it. So
Allah mentioned their arrogance and their turning away, He said to the
mushrikeen of Ahl al-Haram [the people of Masjid al-Haram]: {My
verses had already been recited to you, but you were turning back on
237
your heels. In arrogance regarding it, conversing by night, speaking
evil.} [Tafseer Qur'an 6/1767 ibn Abi Hatim 327h]
2- 131 - Ali bin Muhammad al-Masri narrated to us, he said, Jabrūn bin
Isa narrated to us, he said, Yahya bin Sulayman al-Qurayshi al -Hafri
narrated to us on the authority of Ubād bin Abdus- Samad Abi Ma'mar,
on the authority of Anas bin Malik, that he said: "Abbas bin Abdul
Muttalib, the uncle of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was sitting with
Shaybah, the keeper of the house [i.e. ka'bah], and they were boasting,
so Abbas said to him, ‘I am more honourable than you as I am the uncle
of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and his guardian by his fathers will, and I
provide water for the pilgrims.’ Shaybah replied to him, ‘I am more
honourable than you, I am the trustee of Allah over His house and the
keeper [of the key], then why did he not entrust them with you as he did
with me?’ They were disputing regarding that until Ali came to them, so
Abbas said to him, 'Are you pleased with his ruling?' He replied: 'Yes, I
am.' When he came to them, he greeted them, and al-Abbas said to
him: "Go easy, my nephew." Ali stopped, and Abbas said to him:
"Shayba is boasting, claiming to be more honourable than me." He
asked: "So what did you say, uncle?" He said: "I told him I am the uncle
of the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and his guardian by his father’s will, and
provide water for the pilgrims, therefore I am more honourable than
you." Then he asked Shayba, 'What did you say O Shayba?' He replied: I
told him that I am more honourable than you as I am the trustee of
Allah over His house and the gate keeper, then why did he not entrust
them with you as he did me? (He said): So he (Ali) said to them, ‘Do you
allow me to add my pride to that?' They told him: "Yes". He said: "I am
more honourable than both of you. I am the first among the males of
this nation to believe in the Warning, to emigrate and to make jihad."
The three of them went to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and knelt before
238
him, and each one of them told him what they were proud of, but the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬did not respond to them with anything, so they
dispersed from him. After a few days Revelation was revealed regarding
them, and he sent for the three of them and when they came, the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬recited to them: {Have you made the providing of water for
the pilgrim and the maintenance of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām equal to [the
deeds of] one who believes in Allāh and the Last Day.} [Tawbah:19],
until the ten [following] verses. Abu Ma'mar read it. So Ali was
distinguished with these virtues, which no one else shared.” [Sharh
Madhāhib Ahl Sunnah 1/185 by ibn Shaheen 385]
3 - A mention of that which proves that Jihad fee-sabilillah [Azza wa Jal]

is from Iman. Allah [Azza wa Jal] said, {And those who strive for Us - We
will surely guide them to Our ways. And indeed, Allāh is with the
doers of good.} .. [Ankabut:69]
243 - Ali bin Ibrahim bin Mu'āwiya informed us, that Abu Hatim
Muhammad bin Idrees narrated to us, he said, Abu Tawbah al-Rabee'
bin Nafi' narrated to us, he said Mu'āwiya bin Salam narrated to us on
the authority of Zayd bin Salam that Aba Salam said that Nu'man bin
Basheer narrated to me, he said, "I was near the pulpit/Minbar of the
Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, and a man said, 'I don't care if I don't do
anything after embracing Islam except that I provide water to the
pilgrims,' and another said, 'I don't care that I don't do anything after
embracing Islam except that I maintain al-Masjid al-Haram.' Another
said, 'Jihad in the path of Allah is better than what you both have said,'
so Umar reprimanded them and said: "Don't raise your voices near the
239
minbar of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬while it is the Day of Jumu'ah, but after I pray
the Jumu'ah prayer, I shall ask the messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬upon which
Allah [Azza wa Jal] revealed: {Have you made the providing of water
for the pilgrim and the maintenance of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām equal to
[the deeds of] one who believes in Allāh.} The verse.” [Tawbah:19]
Yahya bin Hassan and others narrated it from Mu'āwiya bin Salam.
[Iman 1/400 Li ibn Mundih 395h]
4 - Regarding the statement, {Have you made the providing of water

for the pilgrim and the maintenance of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām..} Mujahid
said: "They were commanded with Hijrah, so Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib
said: 'I provide water to the pilgrims.' Talha, the brother of Bani Abd Dār
said: 'I clothe the Ka'bah, so we won't emigrate, upon which this verse
was revealed until the statement of Allah, {Indeed with Allah is a great
reward}, and this took place before the conquest of Makkah. Surah
Tawbah from verse (23) to verse (24).” [Tafseer Quran Al-Aziz 2/198 by
Ibn Abi Zamneen 399h.
5 - Then He said while invalidating that which the mushrikeen said, with
regards to the maintenance of al- Masjid al-Haram and the providing of
water to the pilgrim, in comparison to their stance on kufr: {Have you
made the providing of water for the pilgrim and the maintenance of
al-Masjid al-Ḥarām equal to [the deeds of] one who believes in Allāh
and the Last Day and strives in the cause of Allāh?} [Tawbah:19] So, in
this verse, after having Iman in Allah, the desirable matter called for is
Jihad fee-sabilillah, and He said thereafter, in praise of the ones who
obeyed His command, {Indeed, those who have believed and
240
emigrated and fought in the cause of Allah.} Then He mentioned,
{with their wealth and their lives}. So here, it was mentioned first in
order to give it more importance than the other [matter] which
contradicts His statement in Surah Anfal, so He preceded here what He
delayed there, so know this, may Allah facilitate for you.” [DurraTanzeel
wa Ghurra Ta'weel 2/698 Khateeb Iskāfi 420h]
6 - Regarding His statement, {Have you made the providing of water

for the pilgrim and the maintenance of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām equal to
[the deeds of] one who believes in Allāh and the Last Day and strives
in the cause of Allāh? They are not equal in the sight of Allāh..}, the
majority of the mufasireen are of the opinion that this verse was
regarding Ali and Abbas - may Allah be pleased with them - and the one
who would criticize Abbas for abandoning Islam and hijrah was Ali -
may Allah be pleased with him - so Abbas said, we are the maintainers
of Masjid al-Haram and the ones who provide water to the pilgrims,
upon which Allah revealed; {Have you made the providing of water for
the pilgrim}, and the meaning is: have you made the providing of water
for the pilgrims and the people who maintain al- Masjid al-Haram like
that of the one who believes in Allah. And even if it is read [according to
another way of recitation]; {Have you made the people who provide
water for the pilgrim and the maintenance of al-Masjidal-Ḥarām"},
then even in this manner of recitation, the mention of the term
"ahl/the people" [i.e. who provide water] is not necessary, [because it
evidently refers to them anyway]. {They are not equal in the sight of
Allāh}. This means that the one who worships Allah and is a believer,
and the one who maintains the Masjid and is a mushrik are not equal,
{And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.} [Tafseer al-Quran
2/295 Li-Sum'āni 489h]
241
Point of evidence from the aforementioned: Even your argument
based on the tafseer of at-Tabari does not benefit you because the
speech and the context it is regarding is obviously clear, as the scholars
of tafseer said, that this verse is regarding the people of hypocrisy and
shirk who didn't enter Islam.
242
#Holding fast onto the Book and the Sunnah to demolish the
fitnah [strife].
■ Misconception - 19: The inflicting of punishment upon a land in

which the majority were mushrikeen is [evidence for] takfeer of those
therein collectively, without exception.
Allah the Most High said, {And if not for believing men and believing
women whom you did not know - that you might trample [i.e., kill]
them and there would befall you because of them dishonour without
[your] knowledge - [you would have been permitted to enter
Makkah]. [This was so] that Allāh might admit to His mercy whom He
willed. If they had been apart [from them], We would have punished
those who disbelieved among them with painful punishment.} [48:25]
They claimed: that the evidence of the general collective punishment

and its descent on a kafir nation, among whom there were few
Muslims, is evidence for the takfeer of the Muslims by dependency
upon the kuffar majority!!
243
These verses mention the general descent of the Punishment and
torment [of Allah] on the kuffar people - and here, the Punishment is
through the hands of the Muslims by Jihad - and that was when the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬intended to enter Makkah forcefully by fighting, and the
companions gave him the pledge of death under the tree, as it has been
mentioned in the Sahihayn. Then Allah prevented him by His decree,
when He restrained the she- camel of the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬, Al-Qaswa, which
he intended to ride on into Makkah, as it has been mentioned in Sahih
Al-Bukhari and others. So the prophet ‫ ﷺ‬abandoned the matter of
entering Makkah by fighting, and the treaty of Hudaybiyya took place
later.
And Allah [Azza wa Jal] explained the reason of that decreed

prevention, which was the presence of a Muslim people therein, but
they were majhool al-hāl [i.e., their condition of religion was unknown]
to the companions. So Allah destined this prevention of the Muslims
entering Makkah by way of fighting, so that they don't trample [i.e., kill]
the Muslims by their swords for which dishonour would have befallen
them - i.e., sin, or expiation for the killing by mistake, and it is also said
otherwise - as mentioned in the books of tafseer.
Consequently, it is incorrect to use the verse as proof for this mas'alah,

with regards to ruling the one who is mastoor al-hāl, for the following
reasons:
a) The verse in discussion is in reference to those who are majhool al-

hāl according to the Sahabah, meaning, the fact that those Muslims [in
244
Makkah] testified to the Shahadatayn, or prayed, or attributed
themselves to Islam wasn't proven to the Companions.
And our mas'alah is regarding ruling the mastoor al-hāl [i.e., who
displays signs of Islam], meaning, a specific individual whom we know
has testified to the Shahadatayn, or prays like the prayer of the
Muslims, or attributes himself to Islam, and the evidence have come to
affirm Islam for the one whom we know this of, as it has been
mentioned previously.
b) These verses are regarding collective punishment, not passing

general ruling of kufr!! And the descent of collective punishment upon
a nation doesn't necessitate that each and every individual from among
the nation is ruled with kufr!!
Indeed a Muslim who is ruled with Islam may be killed among them
unintentionally, as is the case with regards to the permissibility of killing
[the human shields] for necessity - and they are the ones whom the
kuffar use as human shields by which they protect themselves against
the attacks of the Muslims - while they intend to strike the kuffar,
which generally causes great destruction, and this is from the well
known masāil in Fiqh..
And this is the way of Allah regarding His punishment upon a nation
who He intends to punish, that they are collectively punished, then
they will be resurrected upon their intentions and their deeds, whether
the punishment is from Allah through a thunderbolt, or they are
245
swallowed by the earth, or another etc., or whether it is a punishment
by the hands of the believers in jihad.
As it has been narrated in the Sahihayn, on the authority of Ibn Umar

[may Allah be pleased with them], he said the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
said, "If Allah afflicts punishment upon a nation, it befalls the whole
population indiscriminately and then they will be resurrected and
judged according to their deeds." [End]
It has been reported in the Sahihayn, from the hadith of Umm al-
Mu'mineen Ayesha, she said, "The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said, 'An army
will raid the Ka'bah and when it reaches a desert land, all of them will
be swallowed up by the earth.' She asked; "O Messenger of Allah! Why
all of them?" He answered, "All of them will be swallowed by the earth
but they will be raised for Judgement according to their intentions."
[End]
This is why one is obliged to differentiate between sin, being seized and
the descent of Punishment and between the rulings of Iman and kufr.
Furthermore, based on the principle, a statement cannot be attributed
to a silent individual as long as he doesn't openly display agreement
and approval, and if Allah [Azza wa Jal] sends a punishment and
destruction upon a nation, he generalises them collectively, and this is
clarified in the hadith of Zaynab bint Jahsh [may Allah be pleased with
them], that the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬came to her in a state of fear saying, "None
has the right to be worshiped but Allah! Woe to the Arabs because of
evil that has come near. Today a hole has been made in the wall of Gog
and Magog as large as this." pointing with two of his fingers making a
246
circle. Zainab said, "I said, 'O Allah's Messenger ‫ !ﷺ‬Shall we be
destroyed though amongst us there are pious people? ' He said, 'Yes, if
evil increases." [Narrated by Bukhari] .. and the evidence from this is his
description of them as 'righteous people', i.e., they are better than the
mastoor al-hāl person, if only you comprehend..
This is regarding the general descent of Punishment on the nations,

even though they're not all the same .. as they're actions and their
intentions are different.. so the general punishment doesn't necessitate
that their ruling is all the same as the rogues understood, may Allah not
increase their likes..
Likewise, the verse in discussion is in reference to the general descent

of Punishment upon Ahl-Makkah and doesn't discuss the rulings of
Islam and kufr, so this doesn't relate to our mas'alah.
247
fitnah [strife].
■ Misconception - 20: The hadith ["He who prays our prayers.."] is

general, but the verse {"And whoever supplicates with Allah another
deity.."} specifies it's meaning, and accordingly, the apparent rituals
which are common between the muwahideen and the mushrikeen
are disregarded.
They alleged: One is required to display barā by way of action, due to

the statement of Allah: {"Indeed, we are disassociated from you and
from whatever you worship other than Allāh. We have denied you,
and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred
forever until you believe in Allāh alone" } [Mumtahinah:4] This verse
specifies the generality of the ahadith which indicate to the kufr of
those who live among the mushrikeen and remain under their
authority.
Their statements were the following:

Whoever mixes with a mushrik and lives with him is just like him,
except the one who displays bara from the mushrik people, and this is a
combination of the general and specific texts, and barā [from the
248
kuffar] is known by every statement or action which clearly indicates it.
Then they passed what is indicated in the ahadith upon the mastoor al-
hāl muslim, against whom no involvement in a nullifier had been
affirmed.
As for their saying that the hadith is general and the texts of the verse
[among others] have specified its meaning, by Allah this is the truth by
which they [the ghulat] intend falsehood, because the Shari'ah al-
haneef has attached the providing of evidence when passing ruling
upon particular individuals, and we pass the ruling of apparent Islam for
the one who presented what is contained in the hadith, because this is
based on certainty which cannot be removed except with the certainty
of his involvement in a nullifier, either by us witnessing that ourselves,
or his own confession, or by the testimony of just witnesses.
The evidence from the hadith clearly indicates that the name 'Muslim'
is affirmed in the right of a mastoor al-hal individual and the ruling [of
the sanctity of blood and giving muwalat etc.,] is granted, and this is the
apparent condition evident which we are required to act upon, and
Allah [Azza Wa Jal] did not charge us to act based on conjecture and on
the possibility of the existence of a nullifier. Therefore, if it is proven to
us that a particular individual committed a nullifier, by Shar'i proof,
then the evidence of the verse becomes certain evidence against him,
because he has now become one who is ma'loom al-hal, [one whose
condition is known], that he is an apostate, and the performance of the
249
rituals along with kufr don't benefit him, nor will the Shahadah benefit
him except when he pronounces it with the intention of repenting and
returning to Islam through the door from which he exited, [i.e. repents
from the apostasy which caused his exit from Islam].
And the evidence for affirming the kufr of a particular individual by his
acknowledgment of it, is the verse in the Book of Allah, His statement,
{So let him write and let the one who has the obligation [i.e., the
debtor] dictate.} [2:282], and this is evidence for the acceptance of his
acknowledgment. The evidence from the Sunnah is what has been
reported that he ‫ ﷺ‬stoned Mā'iz after his acknowledgment [of zina]..
[Muslim 1312/3]
The evidence for affirming kufr against an individual by witnesses [and

the least amount being two] - is what has been reported in the
Sahihayn in the story of the testimony of Zayd bin Arqam [may Allah be
pleased with him], against Abdullah bin Salul, that he said about the
Prophet ‫ﷺ‬, {If we return to al-Madīnah, the more honoured [for
power] will surely expel therefrom the more humble."} but the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬didn't accept the testimony of one man, he being Zayd bin
Arqam [may Allah be pleased with him].
Then it is said to these people, establish the base then expand [your
speech]. First affirm the kufr of a mastoor al-hāl who presents the
rituals of Islam, by Shar'i evidence, either by witnesses, or by his own
confession, so that we may say that they are excluded from the
generality of the hadith of the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬, “Whoever witnesses that
250
none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, prays as we pray and
faces our qiblah...") The hadith.
As for their use of the [following] ahādith as evidence:
▪️ 1_ The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said: "I am free from every Muslim that lives
among the mushrikeen. They should not see each other's campfires."
Narrated by Abu Dawud (2645), and Tabarani in al-Kabeer 2/303,
(2264), and at-Tirmidhi (1605, 1604), from the hadith of Jareer bin
Abdullah, (may Allah be pleased with him), and Nasā'i narrated it,
(4780) in a mursal form, and it is Sahih as Bukhari and Tirmidhi said.
Please refer to: (al-Mughni 'An Hamal al-Asfar) 1790.
-Imam at-Tirmidhi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his book 'Al-
'Ilall al-Kabeer: (pg.264), "I asked Muhammad regarding this hadith,
and he said "It is authentic on the authority of Qays bin Abi Hāzim in a
mursal form", .. so I said to him, "Indeed Hammad bin Salamah
narrated this hadith from Hajjāj bin Arta'ah, on the authority of Ismaeel
bin Abi Khalid on the authority of Qays bin Abi Hāzim on the authority of
Jareer, but he didn't consider it to be known among the memorizors of
hadith."
- Also Abu Dawud said in his Sunan after he reported this hadith (no.
2645): "Hasheem and Ma'mar and Khalid al-Wasitiy and a group didn't
mention 'narrated from Jareer' in (the narration).
- Ibn Abi Hatim said in His (book of) 'Illal: (371-370/3) 0: "It is more likely
to be a Mursal [form of narration) ." Wallahu A'lam.
251
1604 - Hannād narrated to us, he said, Au Mu'awiyya narrated to us
on the authority of Isma'eel bin Abi Khalid, on the authority of Qays bin
Abi Hazim on the authority of Jareer bin Abdullah, that the Messenger
of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬sent a military detachment of troops to some people of
Khath'am, who sought to protect themselves by prostrating [to
demonstrate that they were Muslims], but they were killed. The
Messenger of Allah ruled that half the Diyah should be paid, and said: "I
am innocent of any Muslim who [lives with] a Mushrik.' They asked,
"Why O Messenger of Allah?" He replied: "Their fires should not be
visible to one another."
1605 - Hannād narrated to us, he said 'Abdah narrated to us on the

authority of Isma'eel bin Abi Khalid on the authority of Qays bin Abi
Hāzim similar to the hadith of Abi Mu'awiya, and didn't mention
'narrated on the authority of Jareer' in the narration and this is more
correct, and he mentioned it in the chapter on the authority of
Samurah. Also the majority of the Companions of Isma'eel said: "It has
been reported on the authority of Qays bin Abi Hāzim, that the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬sent a detachment of troops, and didn't mention
in the narration 'on the authority of Jareer'. Hamad bin Salamah
narrated it on the authority of Hajjāj bin Arta'ah, on the authority of
Isma'eel bin Abi Khalid on the authority of Qays on the authority of
Jareer a similar hadith of Abi Mu'awiyyah. And I heard Muhammad say:
"What is correct is the narration of Qais from the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬in a Mursal
form." And Samurah bin Jundab reported from the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬that he
said: "Do not live among the mushrikeen, and do not assemble with
them, for whoever lives among them or assembles [in their gatherings]
with them then he is similar to them."
252
▪️ 2_ 2450 Muhammad bin Dawud bin Sufyan narrated to us, he said,
Yahya bin Hassān narrated to us, he said, Sulayman bin Musa Abu
Dawud told us, that Ja'far bin Sa'd bin Samra bin Jundab narrated to us,
he said, Khubayb bin Sulayman narrated to me on the authority of his
father Sulayman bin Samurah, on the authority of Samurah bin Jundab,
he said: "To proceed, the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬said: Whoever mixes
and lives with a mushrik, then he is like him. (Sunan Abi Dawud - - 2450)
6879 Abdan bin Ahmad narrated to us, he said Dahim narrated to us,
he said, Yahya bin Hassān narrated to us, he said Ja'far bin Sa'd bin
Samurah narrated to us, he said, Khubayb bin Sulayman told me on the
authority of his father Sulayman, on the authority of Samurah, he said:
"The Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬would say: 'Whoever conceals the theft of a
ghāl (one who steals the spoils of war) is just like him, and whoever
mingles with a mushrik and lives with him is like him.” [Mu'jam kabeer
by Tabarani - - 6879)
The rulings of the hadith: It is weak and cannot be used as evidence

due to continuous majhool narrators, Ja'far bin Sa'd bin Samura bin
Jundab and Khubayb bin Sulayman Al-Fazari and Sulayman bin Samra
Al-Fazari.
▪️ 3_ The hadith: "Whoever increases the number of a people, then he is

one of them." It was narrated by Abu Ya’la, as Al-Busayri transmitted it
in (Ithaf Al-Khaira. 3295), and it was transmitted by Ibn Hajar (Nasab
Rāyah 346/4) (Li- Matālib al-'Āliya 1660).
253
1704 Abu Ya’la said: Abu Hammam narrated to us, that Ibn Wahb
narrated to us that Bakr bin Mudar told me on the authority of 'Umru,
“A man invited Abdullah bin Mas'ud to a walima (feast), and when he
came, he heard the sound of amusement and distraction [of idle talk] so
he didn't enter. He asked him: "What is the matter with you?" He
replied: "I heard the Messenger of Alllah ‫ ﷺ‬say, 'He who increases the
number of a people (i.e. by remaining with them) is one of them. And
whoever is satisfied with an action of a people is a partner with the one
who does it', and the hadith of 'Umar will be mentioned in the Book of
Ashribah *. (Al -Matālib 'Āliya by Ibn Hajar - - 1660)
Abu Ya’la al-Mawsili narrated in his Musnad that Abu Humām

narrated to us that Ibn Wahb narrated to us that Bakr bin Mudar told
me on the authority of 'Umru bin al-Harith, “A man invited Abdullah bin
Mas'ud to a walimah [feast]. When he came to enter the place, he
heard amusement [i.e. idle talk], so he did not enter. Then he asked him:
"Why did you return back?" He replied, 'I heard the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬say, 'Whoever increases the number of a people is one of them, and
whoever is satisfied with the action of a people is a partner in that with
the one who does it." [End]
It was narrated by Ali bin Ma’bad in the book, “Ta'ah wal Ma'siyya, in
which Ibn Wahb narrated to us with the sanad [chain] and the matn
[i.e. text] (of the hadith)”. [Nasb Al-Raya 4/346]
Ruling of the hadith: Its isnad [chain of transmission] is weak due to

the disconnection in the chain between 'Umru bin Al-Harith bin Yaqoub
254
bin Abdullah bin Al-Ashaj, who was born in the year 92 AH, which
means he was born after the death of Ibn Mas'ud, who died in the year
32 AH, (may Allah be pleased with him).
It has been reported in a mawquf form on the authority of Abi Dhar

from [the book of Zuhd] by Ibn Mubarak (Zuhd 12/2), that, "Khalid bin
Hameed narrated to us on the authority of Abdul Rahman bin Ziyad bin
An'am that Abu Dhar al-Ghaffāri was invited to a walimah, and when
he approached the place, there were some noise, so he returned. So it
was said to him: "Will you not enter?" He replied, 'I hear amusement
(i.e. idle talk) from within, and whoever increases the number of a
people [by remaining among them] is considered from its people and
whoever is pleased with an action of a people is a partner in his action."
The ruling of this narration: its sanad is weak as Abdul Rahman bin
Ziyad bin An'am is African and ibn Hajar said regarding him: "He is weak
in memory but was a righteous man." And Ibn Hibbān in 'ad-Du'afā' said
that he was a mudallas and Darqutni described him the same.
Ibn Abbas said: "There were some Muslims who were with the pagans
to increase their number against Allah's Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬so arrows [from
the Muslim army] would hit one of them and kill him or a Muslim would
strike him [with his sword] and kill him. So Allah revealed: {'Verily! As
for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging
themselves (by staying among the disbelievers).}' [4.97] [Bukhari
4596]
255
It has been reported in the Sahihayn, from the hadith of Umm al-
Mu'mineen (Ayesha), she said; "The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said, 'An
army will raid the Ka'bah and when it reaches a desert land, all of them
will be swallowed up by the earth.' She asked; "O Messenger of Allah!
Why all of them?" He answered, "All of them will be swallowed by the
earth but they will be raised for Judgement according to their
intentions." [End] [Bukhari 2118/Muslim 2884]
Al-Muhlib: "In this hadith is the mention that whoever willingly

increases the number of a people in sin, then he is deserving of the
punishment along with them." [Fath al-Bari 341/4]
If we wanted to mention the directive of the ahadith despite the fact

that it is a weak narration as we mentioned, then it would be in the
following manner: that the ruling of barā/disassociation from the
Muslim who remains among the mushrikeen is a disassociation from
[the liability of] his blood and of whatever harm befalls him, but not
bara from the Muslim himself. The difficulty to be able to differentiate
between him and the ones he has mixed with among the kuffar is the
reason for his exposure to harm or to his killing. Therefore, his mixing
among the mushrikeen is the reason which prevents him the right to be
entitled to the full diya [blood money] for himself.
▪️ 4_ From what they use as evidence is the following hadith,

Muhammad bin Qudāma informed me, he said, Jareer narrated to us
on the authority of Mansoor on the authority of Abi Wāil, on the
authority of Abi Nukhayla al-Bajali, he said that Jareer said: "I came to
the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬when he was accepting [the people's] pledge, and said:
256
'O Messenger of Allah, extend you hand so that I may give you my
pledge, and state your terms, for you know best.' He said: 'I accept you
pledge that you will worship Allah, establish Salah, pay the Zakah, be
sincere toward the Muslims, and separate from the mushrikeen."
[Narrated by Nasā'i]
The ruling of the hadith: it is authentic without the extra wording of

("and separate from the mushrikeen") in the hadith narrated by Jareer
bin Abdullah al-Bajali. The one with the extra wording is a weak
narration, rejected and is not authentic.
The hadith was narrated by Qays bin Abi Hāzim and Sha'bi and Ziyad bin
'Alāqah all narrate from Jareer the same hadith, but they didn't narrate
it with the extra wording, as it has been mentioned in the Sahihyan and
others, and Abu Wāil Shaqiq bin Salamah narrated it from Jareer once,
with the extra wording and once without it, as is reported in Nisā'i and
others..
And the error in it is from Bishr bin Khalid who narrated it from
Ghundar on the authority of Shu'bah on the authority of Sulayman on
the authority of Abi Wāil on the authority of Jareer with the extra
wording, and he was mistaken in it, and he is trustworthy but reports
ghareeb narrations. Therefore this extra wording is a Shath hadith [i.e.
a form of a weak hadith] and rejected which is unauthentic .. and which
opposes the trustworthy [narrators].. And Allah knows best.
257
The point of evidence: Frankly, I don't know how they deal with the
evidence and how they made the abandonment of a wajib action of
Iman as kufr and apostasy!!! Then present to us a fatwa regarding the
ruling of the one who doesn't advise the Muslims [because the hadith
says to advise the Muslims], then is he kafir according to your beliefs??
- Then come and give us a fatwa regarding the statement of Allah: {But
those who believed and did not emigrate - for you there is no support
of them until they emigrate. And if they seek help of you for the
religion, then you must help, except against a people between
yourselves and whom is a treaty. And Allāh is Seeing of what you do}.
[Anfal:72]
And what has been authentically reported is the hadith narrated by

Sulayman bin Burayda, on the authority of his father, he said: "When
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬appointed anyone as leader of an army or
detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good
to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: "Fight in the name of
Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in
Allah. Make a holy war, do not steal the spoils; do not be treacherous
[betray your pledge]; and do not mutilate [the dead] bodies; do not kill
the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite
them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you
must accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite
them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and
desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from
their lands to the land of the Muhajireen and inform them that if they
do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the
Muhajireen. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the
258
status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of
Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils
of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims [against
the disbelievers]. [Narrated by Muslim].
Point of evidence: Allah described the ones who don't emigrate as

Mu'min, and the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬called them the "Bedouin Muslims", and
he dropped their entitlement of support against the ones who have a
treaty with dar al-Islam, and waived their right to fay' [i.e., spoils of war
gained without fighting] except if they participate in jihad with their
brothers from the muhajireen and ansar. If the abandonment of hijrah
was kufr, Allah wouldn't have excused the weak and oppressed men,
women and children merely due to weakness and oppression as is
mentioned in the verse, because one is not excused for kufr, except
under ikrah..
259
fitnah [strife].
■ Misconception - 21: An oppressed and weak mastoor al hāl Muslim

[one who displays signs of Islam], is not [ruled] a Muslim until he
openly disagrees with that which his people are upon, with regards to
the nullifiers.
▪️ They alleged 1: the one who doesn't display enmity, hatred, barā and
takfeer of the mushrikeen who surround him, and if he is in dar al-kufr
and Shirk, then he is considered to be from among them - meaning he
is one of these kafir mushrik groups, whether he likes it or not.
And [they further claim], that because displaying the religion [i.e.
tawheed] is from the requirements of the Shahadah of tawheed, then it
is not possible to achieve it except by way of this enmity which is
divided into two categories, which are:
1- To display enmity towards a group or sect.

2- To display enmity towards an individual who is [residing] between a
mushrik people.
260
And this is evidenced in the statement of Allah: {Say, "O disbelievers.}
[109:1]
And [they also falsely claim] that whoever doesn't display enmity, this
means that he is pleased with what the kuffar are upon, of kufr and
shirk and zandaqah [hypocrisy], and one is not able to differentiate
between the Muslims and kuffar, except by the display of the Deen;
which is the bara of the muslimeen from the mushrikeen.
- The display of enmity is a wajib from the levels of kamal al-Iman al-
Wajib which is dropped due to inability to perform it, and the one who
abandons it without a Shar'i excuse is a fasiq and not a kafir. If the
abandonment of its display was kufr, then Allah wouldn't have ruled
the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and the Companions with Iman during the period of the
early message, when da'wah was made in secret. Then the ruling of the
excused weak and oppressed people who weren't able to openly
declare barā and display enmity would be that of kufr, bur rather, when
Allah addressed them, He referred to them as people of Iman, as Allah
said: {And if not for believing men and believing women whom you did
not know - that you might trample [i.e., kill] them..} [The verse]. So He
called them mu'mineen (believing men] and mu'minat [believing
women], despite the fact that they were residing in Makkah among the
mushrikeen.
261
-The Sunnah clarifies and explains the Quran. Then where do we find in
the Sunnah that the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬stipulated a condition upon those who
intended to embrace Islam, and for them to openly declare takfeer of
the mushrikeen at the beginning in order to enter Islam. Why would he
‫ ﷺ‬leave a matter in which the understanding of the people differ??
- Surah kafirun is a declaration of bara from all types of shirk, and

likewise we declare our innocence before Allah from every kafir asli or
murtad. But how has it entered your beliefs, that a Muslim who is ruled
with Islam is included in its meaning, while he entered the protection of
his Lord Subhanahu wa ta'āla and of His Messenger ‫ ﷺ‬as long as he
doesn't commit a nullifier?
- Abu Sa'eed stated: "As for this, indeed he fulfilled his duty, for I heard
the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬say, "Whosoever of you sees an evil, let him
change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then [let him
change it] with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his
heart — and that is the weakest of faith.” [Muslim]
Point of evidence: Not being able to display enmity or hatred doesn't

necessitate approval of the kufr and of what the kuffar are involved in
with regards to Shirk. Indeed a weak and oppressed Mu'min may
conceal his Iman, yet despises them and despises their shirk with his
heart and disapproves of it. For indeed the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬called the mere
disapproval with the heart; Iman.
262
-It has been reported on the authority of Abi Rāfi', on the authority of
Abdullah ibn Mas'ud that the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬said, "Never a
Prophet had been sent before me by Allah to his people but he had,
among his people, (his) disciples and companions, who followed his
ways and obeyed his command. Then there came after them their
successors who proclaimed what they did not practise, and practised
what they were not commanded to do. And (he) who strove against
them with his hand is a believer; he who strove against them with his
heart is a believer; and he who strove against them with his tongue is a
believer ; and beyond that there is no grain of Faith". [Muslim]
Point of evidence: The gravest sin and oppression, and the greatest
evil is Shirk with Allah, or as the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said, 'To set equals with
Allah while He alone created you,' and the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬affirmed Iman
for the servant as long he disapproves of an evil with his heart.
Furthermore, it is known to the most simplest student of knowledge
that Jihad is the highest level of separation from the kuffar and
mushrikeen, as one openly manifests tawheed and barā from Shirk with
his limbs, his tongue and his heart. Then is the one who abandons jihad
a kafir according to what you falsely necessitate. Rather, you don't even
have evidence for it. Present to us authentic evidence regarding the
takfeer of one who doesn't display takfeer of the kuffar and
barā/disassociation from them, as long as he is a weak and oppressed
individual who displays that which rules him with Islam.
If you claim that his silence is a sign of his approval of it, then we say
this necessitates that you make takfeer of the Sahabah before the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬was divinely commanded to openly declare tawheed and to
separate from them. Rather, the Companions would perform the rituals
263
of Islam while the mushrikeen of Quraysh would make the tawaf
[perform circumambulation] around the idols. Then do you claim that
the Companions were kuffar due to their silence, or do you now
humble to the truth and repent to Allah from what you have brought
and said in His Deen in pursuit of your desires, out of ignorance, a
matter you are ignorant of, by which you have declared the Muslim
servants of Allah as kuffar.
- Ash-Shafi'i stated in Al-Umm (6/170): "The Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬

made clear that Allah [Azza Wa Jal] protected the blood of those who
show belief [Islam] after disbelief, and that they must be ruled by the
[same] rulings as the muslimeen such as inheritance, intermarriage and
other such rulings. So it has been made clear in the judgment of Allah
[Azza Wa Jal] upon the hypocrites, thereafter the judgment of the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬that none has the right to judge another Muslim
contrary to what he displays of himself. In addition, Allah [Azza Wa Jal]
instructed the servants to judge between themselves by what is
apparently displayed, as no one knows the unseen except that which
Allah [Azza Wa Jal] has made known to him. Therefore, it is obligatory
upon those who understand the words of Allah to diminish all doubts in
relation to rulings [upon individuals], so that they don’t rule upon
another by conjecture". [End of quote]
▪︎ Point of evidence: The individual being in dar al-kufr Asli or a land of

ridda, or even in dar al-Islam doesn't affect his ruling if you know that
he displays signs of Islam or kufr. Otherwise your claim necessitates the
takfeer of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and his companions prior to Hijra, due to the
fact that they were in Makkah, which was a land in which shirk was
264
prevalent and tawheed was rare. Is the ruling here then based on the
majority according to you!
We continue to rebuke this group, who have the most ignorant of

hearts and minds, we say: None of you found evidence for this claim
except that you convey to us words from here and there, and from it is
the statement of Hamad ibn Ateeq, but is Hamd ibn Ateeq more
knowledgeable of the religion of Allah than the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, O
you loathsome ignorant ones. For the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬remained
in a state of weakness and oppression in Makkah, until he was
commanded to openly proclaim tawheed and separation from them,
thereafter Hijra and qital..
And where do you stand with regards to what has been authenticated
in the ahadith? Was the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬heedless regarding the hudood of
Allah sent upon him in this mas'alah? O how hideous has Allah made
ignorance! How it ruins and perishes! So is the one who abandons jihad
without an excuse a kafir according to your beliefs because Jihad is the
peak of displaying the Deen and making bara from the mushrikeen? We
further add to this reprimand; give us a fatwa, regarding the ruling of
the Sahabi who the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬commanded to return back to his
people and feared for him and said to him: "You can not do that now.
Do you not see my situation and that of the people? Go to your people,
and when you hear that my cause has prevailed, come to me". Did he
make takfeer of him when he returned as he was residing among the
mushrikeen in dar al-kufr?
265
It has been reported on the authority of Abi Amamah, he said, 'Amr bin
'Abasah [may Allah be pleased with him] said: "In the Pre-Islamic Period
of Ignorance, I used to think that people who used to worship idols were
deviated and did not adhere to the true religion. Then I heard of a man
in Makkah who was preaching a message. So I mounted my camel and
went to him. I found that (this man who was) Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬
remained hidden because of the persecution by his people. I had
entered Makkah stealthily and when I met him I asked him, "Who are
you?" He ‫ ﷺ‬said, "I am a Prophet." I asked; "What is a Prophet?" He
said, "Allah has sent me (with a message)". I asked, "With what has He
sent you?" He said, "He sent me to strengthen the ties of kinship, to
destroy idols so that Allah alone should be worshipped and nothing
should be associated with Him". I asked, "Who has followed you in
this?" He said, "A freeman and a slave". (At that time only Abu Bakr and
Bilal (May Allah be pleased with them) were with him). I said, "I shall
follow you". He said, "You can not do that now. Do you not see my
situation and that of the people? Go to your people, and when you hear
that my cause has prevailed, come to me". So I went back to my people,
and while I was with my people, the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬emigrated to
Al-Madinah. I continued to ask people about him till some of my people
visited Al- Madinah. On their return, I asked them, "How is that man
who has arrived in Al-Madinah faring?" They said, "People are
hastening to him. His own people had planned to kill him but did not
succeed." Then I went to Al-Madinah and came to him and said, "O
Messenger of Allah, do you recognize me?" He ‫ ﷺ‬said, "Yes, you are the
one who met me in Makkah." I said, "O Messenger of Allah, tell me of
that which Allah has taught you and of which I am unaware.” [Narrated
by Muslim 2/208]
266
Here is the statements of Ibn 'Ateeq which you use to make takfeer of a
Muslim who is mastoor al-hāl [and resides] in dar al-kufr, which reveals
the confused perspective from which you understood his statement:
“As for the fourth mas'alah, which is the mas'alah of [openly]

displaying the Deen. Many people think that if one is able to utter the
Shahadatayn and prays the Salah and isn’t forbidden to enter the
Mosques, then he has manifested his Deen even if he resides among the
mushrikeen or in a land of apostates. Indeed they erred in this matter
grossly. Know that kufr has levels and types, which vary due to the vast
number of kufri actions and statements, some of which has been
previously mentioned. So each group from the groups of kuffar are
known for the type of kufr it is involved in, and the Muslim will not be
considered as one who manifests his religion [i.e. his tawheed] until he
disagrees with that (kufr) which is well known from each group, and he
must openly declare his enmity and barā from it. Therefore, whoever’s
kufr was by making shirk, then for him, manifesting the Deen would be
to openly declare tawheed, or to prohibit shirk and to warn against it.
And whoever’s kufr is by denying the message [of the Prophet ‫ ]ﷺ‬, then
the display of the religion for him would be by the declaration that
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and to give da'wah to follow
him. And whoever’s kufr was by abandoning the prayer, then the
display of the Deen from him would be to perform the Salah and to
enjoin it. And whoever’s kufr was by giving muwalat [alliance] to the
Mushrikeen and being obedient to them, then the display of the Deen
by him would be through the declaration of his enmity, and his
innocence from them and [all] the mushrikeen. In summary, an
individual is not considered as one who has manifested his Deen [i.e.
tawheed], except if he declares his barā to those kuffar he resides
267
amongst, and he displays enmity for that particular matter by which he
became a disbeliever.” [Hidaya al-Tareeq min Rasāil, p. 63]
▪︎ We say in response, with the help of Allah [Azza Wa Jal]:
The discussion here is regarding the display of one's Deen [i.e. the
display of tawheed], which makes hijrah for a Muslim from dar al-kufr
to dar al-Islam mustahab and not wajib, and it is not in reference to the
display of the Deen [i.e. the display of tawheed] by which we rule him
with Islam. This is evidenced by the statements of the scholars of Najd.
Rather, it is evidenced by the statement of Hamd bin Ateeq [may Allah
have mercy on him] himself, [as follows]:
Shaykh Hamad bin Ateeq (1227 - 1301 Hijri) said: “The Asl ad-Din of all
the Messengers was the establishment of tawheed and love for it and
for its people, to have muwalat [loyalty] to them, to disavow Shirk and
to make takfeer of its people, to hate them and to display enmity
towards them, as Allah Ta'āla said: {You already have an excellent
people, “We totally dissociate ourselves from you.."} to His statement:
{"..and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred
forever until you believe in Allāh alone."}
And the meaning of {'has appeared'} means it has arisen and has
become apparent, and the intended objective is to continuously declare
enmity and hatred for the one who doesn't single out his Lord. So
whoever actualizes that, by both word and deed, and openly declares it
until the people of his land know this of him, then hijrah isn't wajib on
him no matter where he resides. As for the one who isn't like that, but
268
thinks that if they let him pray, fast and perform the Hajj, that the
obligation of hijrah has been waived from him, then this is ignorance in
Deen and heedlessness of the essence of the message of the
Messengers. This is because if the rule in a land belongs to the people of
falsehood, grave worshippers, and those who indulge in alcoholics, and
gamblers, then they are only pleased with the rituals of Shirk and the
rulings of the tawagheet. And regarding every place which is like that,
the one who has the slightest understanding of the Book and Sunnah
knows without a doubt that its people are not upon what the
Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬was upon. So the intelligent one must
contemplate, and let those who wants advise search within themselves
for the reason which caused Quraysh to expel the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and his
Companions from Makkah, while it was the most honoured land. It is
well known that they didn't expel them except after they began to
openly reproach and declare the deficiency of their religion and the
misguidance of their fathers. They wanted the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬to end all that,
and they promised to expel the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and his companions. And
when his companions complained to him regarding the harm caused to
them by the mushrikeen, he commanded them to bear patiently and to
follow and emulate those who came before them who were harmed. He
didn't tell them to stop openly declaring the deficiency and fault of the
mushrikeen and of belittling their dreams, but rather he chose to leave
with his Companions and to separate from the land despite the fact that
it was the most honoured land on the face of the earth. {Indeed, in the
Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example for whoever has
hope in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah often.} [33:21]
{And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allāh will find on the earth
many [alternative] locations and bountiful resources.}” [Ad-Durrar as-
Sanniyya 8/419]
269
Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdil Latif bin Abdul-Rahman bin Hassan said:
"So you erred regarding the matter of displaying the Deen, [i.e. to
openly declare tawheed], and you thought it was merely the (five)
prayers, the Adhan, fasting and the likes. Also when you sit in private
gatherings, you say these are kuffar and mushrikeen, and that they are
not upon anything of the Deen and that they know we hate them and I
am upon the way of Wahābiyya, and you thought that this is what the
display of the Deen is. You have abolished the obligation of hijrah by
this because the matter isn't as you claim, for Allah [Azza Wa Jal] has
mentioned the meaning of the display of Deen in His Book and it isn't
what you wrongfully thought, as he said to the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬, {Say, ˹O
Prophet,˺ “O you disbelievers! I do not worship what you worship.}
[109: 1-2] to the end of the Surah. So he ordered him to tell them clearly
that you are disbelievers and that he is disassociated from their idols
which they worship, and that they are disassociated from the worship of
Allah, which is His statement; {Nor are you worshippers of what I
worship.}, and His statement; {For you is your religion, and for me is
my religion."} This is the open declaration of barā from their deen,
which is of Shirk, and to hold onto his Deen which is Islam.” [Ad-Durrar
as-Sanniyya fi Ajwiba an-Najdiyya 8/433]
Ibn Sahman stated in Ad-Durrar as-Saniyya, from ibn kathir, in which

he reported an ijmā', he said: "Ibn Kathir said regarding the verse in
Surah Nisa - (meaning the statement of Allah, {The ones whom the
angels take in death [while] wronging themselves...} This verse is
general regarding all those who remain among the mushrikeen while
he is able to make hijrah and isn't capable of manifesting the Deen,
then he wrongs himself and is a perpetrator of a forbidden act by ijmā'
and according to the text of this verse, so it is impermissible to violate
270
the ijmā'." [Durrar as-Sanniya: Wujub al-Hijrah wal-Mu'ādat volume:8-
pg. 374]
Shaykh al-Imam Abdul Latif bint Abdul-Rahman bin Hassan said: "As for
the second mas'alah, which is your saying: regarding the [ruling of] one
who is under the authority of the sultan [king] of the mushrikeen, and
has knowledge of tawheed and acts upon it, but doesn't display enmity
towards them and neither separates from their lands? [The response is]:
This question was initiated by one who has not fully comprehended the
matter and doesn't understand the intended meaning of tawheed and
acting upon it, because it isn’t imaginable that one knows tawheed and
acts in accordance to it, yet he doesn't have enmity towards the
mushrikeen, because the one who doesn't have enmity towards the
mushrikeen, it cannot be said about him that he has knowledge of
tawheed and acts upon it. So the question is conflicting, and a good
question is the key to knowledge. I suppose what you intended [by your
question] was, what is the ruling of the one who doesn't display enmity
and doesn't separate from them. Know that the mas'alah of displaying
enmity is other than the mas'alah of the presence of enmity. As for the
former, he is excused due to fear and the inability to perform it due to
the statement of Allah, {except when taking precaution against them
in prudence.}, while the latter, undoubtedly must possess this aspect as
it is included in kufr bit-taghūt and it is a matter between him and the
love for Allah and His Messenger, which is a complete bond and doesn't
separate from the Mu'min. Whoever disobeys Allah by not displaying
enmity, then he is disobedient to Allah, but if the asl/foundation of
enmity is present, then he has the ruling of a sinner. Then if he adds to
that the abandonment of hijrah, then he has a share of the statement of
Allah, {When the angels seize the souls of those who have wronged
themselves.}, but he doesn't commit kufr by this, because the verse
271
contains a warning, not takfeer. As for the second, regarding the one
who doesn't have any enmity present in his heart, then the statement of
the questioner fits true to him: that he doesn't have enmity for the
mushrikeen, and know that this is a severe matter and a grave sin.
What goodness remains if one doesn't have enmity for the mushrikeen?
And fear for one's palm groves and dwellings isn't a matter which
requires one to abandon hijrah, Allah says: {O My servants who have
believed, indeed My earth is spacious, so worship only Me.} [Being
ignorant of the principles of Islam and revering its enemies] [Durrar as-
Saniyya fi Ajwiba Najdiyya 8/359]
It has been reported in 'Manāhij Ahl al Haq wal atbā' fi Mukhalafa

Ahlul Jahl wal Ibtidā' pg. 75 by Sulayman bin Sahmān Najdi [Died 1349
AH] [The eighteenth mas'alah]: “Regarding a country in which the
da'wah [of Najd] reached them, and some of them say regarding it that
this matter is indeed the truth, but he doesn't change an evil, and
doesn't command the good, nor [displays] enmity for the kuffar nor love
for the muwahideen, and neither acknowledges that he was upon
misguidance prior to this, and he disapproves of the muwahideen when
they say we make bara from the religion of our fathers and forefathers,
and some of them make takfeer of the Muslims openly, and insult the
Deen, and he says [in agreement] of the religion of Musaylmah. And
there are those who say this [da'wah of Najd] is a good matter but we
aren't able to openly speak about it. What is your view regarding the
people of this land, are they Muslims or kuffar. And what is the meaning
of the statement of the Shaykh and others that we don't make general
takfeer and what is the meaning of general [takfeer] and what is
specific [regarding it], to the end. [The response], “Regarding the people
of this land which have been mentioned, if the hujjah has been
established against them, who make takfeer of those who disagree with
272
them, their ruling is that of kufr. And the Muslim who is residing
amongst them who isn't able to display his Deen, it is obligatory upon
him to make hijrah if he isn't from those whom Allah has excused. If he
doesn't emigrate, then his ruling is like theirs, regarding killing and
taking the wealth." [End of quote]
From the response of the masāil which Hamad bin Nasir bin Ma'mar
was asked, he said after what has been mentioned of his statements
previously: “The seventh mas'alah, it is your statement that we say, if
an individual isn't able to command the good and forbid the evil in a
place, he must emigrate.
We say regarding this mas'alah as the scholars have stated, [may Allah
have mercy on them], that hijra is wajib upon any individual who is
unable to display his Deen in dar al-harb, but if he is able to display his
Deen, then hijrah is mustahab for him, not obligatory. Though others
have said it to be wajib due to the hadith from the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬, “I am free
from every Muslim that lives amongst the mushrikeen." If the land isn't
that of dar al-harb in which there is war, and kufr isn't manifested
therein, then hijrah isn't wajib if there is only sin [and not kufr]. This is
based on the hadith reported from the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬, “If any one of you
sees an evil, then he should change it with his hand.." (The hadith) [End
of the response of the Shaykh may Allah have mercy on him.] [Second
edition pg.581]
273
fitnah [strife].
■ Misconception - 22: A number of misconceptions based on weak

assumptions.
▪︎ They alleged [1]: That the Sahabah made takfeer of all those who
didn't openly display their religion, [i.e. didn’t openly declare tawheed].
The most clear evidence [they claim], regarding this is the story of
Khalid bin Waleed - may Allah be pleased with him - with Mujā'ah bin
Marārah al-Hanafi, when he claimed that he was still on the Deen of
Islam for which he gave the pledge to the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬but Khalid rejected
this and ruled him with kufr and riddah.
Firstly, the narration of the story of Mujā'ah is wweak.Then its sanad

isn't authentic, and even if we were to assume its authenticity, then it is
not as they mention it. We shall enlist and clarify the falsehood, with
regards to their way in establishing evidence using this story [as
follows]:
Abu Rabee' Sulayman bin Musa al-Kalā'i al-Andalasi said, when
recounting this incident in a detailed mention of this story:
274
]"And when Khalid bin Waleed travelled from al-Battāh and entered the
land of Bani tameem, he put two hundred horsemen [at the forefront of
the army], and made Ma'n bin Uday al-'Ajlani a leader over them, and
sent Furat ibn Hayyan Al-Ijliy with him as a guide for the road, and sent
Muknaf bin Zayd al-Khayl at-Tā'iy and his brother as spies before
them.”]
And Al-Wāqidi mentioned: “When Khalid entered the place called al-
Add, he sent two hundred horsemen and said, 'Whoever among you
capture from them, then take him'. So they set off and captured
Muja'ah bin Murara al-Hanafi and twenty-three men from his people,
who were going out with him in pursuit of revenge of a man from Bani
Numayr who had killed a person from them. So they left and didn't
know of Khalids advance [i.e. of his war against Musaylma]. They
[Khalids soldier] asked them: "Where are you from?" They said, "From
Bani Hanifa." The Muslims thought that they were messengers on
behalf of Musaylma to Khalid. When dawn broke and the people
gathered, they took them to Khalid and when he saw them, he too
thought that they were messengers on behalf of Musaylma. He asked
them, "O Bani Hanifah, what do you say regarding your companion?"
They all testified that he is the Messenger of Allah! Then he asked
Mujā'ah: "What do you say?" He replied, “Wallahi I did not leave except
in pursuit of a man from Bani Numayr in revenge, who has killed one
from among us, and I didn't near Musaylma, for indeed I had
[previously] gone forth to the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and embraced Islam.
Thereafter neither did I change nor did I convert from my religion".
Khalid took the people [from the captives] and struck their necks thus
killing them, until only Sariyah bin Musaylmah bin Amr remained, who
said to Khalid: "O Khalid! If you are in need of the people of Al
275
Yamamah, then spare this one, [i.e., Muja'a ibn Mara'a], for he shall be
for you a support in your war and at times of peace.”
“And Muja'ah was an honourable man and he [Khalid] didn't kill him,
and he appreciated the words of Sariyya and spared him. He ordered
that they both be tied with an iron chain. He would later call for
Muja'ah and he likewise would talk to him, but Muja'ah thought that
Khalid would kill him. So while they were both conversing, he said to
him: 'O ibn Mugheera! I am upon Islam. Wallah I didn't commit kufr.
Indeed I went forth to the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and departed him as a
Muslim. I didn't go out to fight [after my Islam]'. He repeated his
mention of leaving in pursuit of a man Numayri. Khalid replied: "There is
a position between killing and releasing [you] and that is imprisonment,
until Allah's Judgement comes to pass at the end of our war." Then he
sent him to his wife umm Mutammim, whom he married after he killed
her husband Malik bin Nuwayrah, and he ordered her to be kind to him
during his imprisonment. So Muja'ah thought that Khalid had
imprisoned him so that he may seek advise from him and to inform him
about his enemy [Musaylma], so he said, "O Khalid! He who fears you
today will fear you tomorrow. And whoever hopes [good] from you will
hope for it tomorrow. I was afraid of you, but I hope [for your
forgiveness]. Indeed you know that I had gone forth to the Messenger of
Allah ‫ ﷺ‬and followed him in Islam then I returned to my people. And
today I am upon what I was upon yesterday [i.e. Islam]. Regarding the
liar who has come out from among us, Allah says, {No bearer of
burdens will bear the burden of another.} Indeed you hastened in the
killing of my companions before, instead of being patient with them,
and you made a mistake in haste." So Khalid said: "O Mujā'ah. You
abandoned today what you was upon yesterday [i.e. your Islam] due to
your silence regarding the matter of this liar [Musaylamah] while you
276
are the most honourable from the people of Yamamah. Indeed the news
of my advance reached you, but your silence was approval for that
which he came with. Then why did you not present an excuse to me as
others did, for indeed Thamama bin Athāl spoke on behalf of himself
and denied [any affiliation to Musaylama], and al-Yashkari also spoke. If
you say you was afraid of my people, then why did you not come out to
meet me, or write to me [an excuse] or sent to me a messenger when
you knew that I had defeated the people of Buzakha and marched with
armies towards you." Then Muja'ah said, 'O ibn Mugheera, if you see to
forgive all this then do so.' Khalid replied, 'I have spared your blood, yet
I have a doubt within myself with regards to sparing you.’ Then Muja'ah
said, "If you've spared my blood then the rest I don't care about." And
whenever Khalid would visit his place and remained there, he would call
Muja'ah and they would eat and converse." [End of quote] [Al-iktafa fi
Maghazi Mustafa wa Thalatha Khulafa 91/95]
■ Point of evidence: It is very clear that Khalid [may Allah have mercy
on him] didn't rule him with apostasy. The purpose of his affair was to
imprison him in order to remain safe from his evil, since he was the
leader of his tribe, as Khalid [may Allah be pleased with him] had
advanced for war against the people of Muja'ah.
Al-Kala'i also said regarding the arrival of the delegation of Yamamah

with Khalid to Abu Bakr [may Allah pleased with them] - [he wrote]:
"Then he - Abu Bakr - approached Muja'ah and said, "O Mujā'ah. Did
you advance as a [military] detachment [on behalf of] Musaylma until
Khalid took you forcefully? He replied, "O Khalifah of the Messenger of
Allah. Wallah I did not do that. I left in pursuit of a man from Bani
Numayr who had killed one from among us, and the horsemen of Khalid
277
attacked us. I have previously already gone forth to the Messenger of
Allah. When he mentioned the Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr said: "Say
may the prayers and blessings of Allah be upon him." So he said: "May
the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him." [He continued], "Then I
returned to my people. By Allah. I was still detached from Musaylamas
matter from then until my presence before you now. I didn't fail to
advise Khalid in what he consulted with me with until this day. Indeed I
came to you so that you may be pleased with those who have wronged
and accept those who have repented, for indeed the people have
returned and repented." Abu Bakr said: "As for me, indeed I have
written to Khalid letter after another, instructing him not to leave
anyone [alive] from Bani Hanifa upon whom the pen has passed!"
Mujā'ah said: "What Allah has done for Khalid and you is good, by
bringing them to Islam." Abu Bakr said: "I hope that what Khalid has
done is good. O Mujā'ah, how have you been deceived by Musaylmah!"
He replied: "O successor of the Messenger of Allah, do not include me
among those people for Allah says: {No bearer of burdens will bear the
burden of another.}” [The previous source (143)].
■ Point of evidence: Why didn't Abu Bakr [may Allah be pleased with
him] disagree with Mujā'ah when he disassociated himself from the
apostasy. And why didn't he say to him that your silence was an
approval of the kufr of Musaylama the liar, but rather, he treated him
as a Muslim just as Khalid [may Allah be pleased with him] treated him
when he displayed [Islam] to them on behalf of himself.
- We mention this story to further affirm the falsehood which these

heretics have concluded: _ Alqama bin 'Alāthah Al-Amiri, [may Allah be
pleased with him] embraced Islam in the year of the Conquest [of
278
Makkah]. He later apostated after the conquest of Taif and went to Ash-
Sham. When the Prophet died, he hastily returned where he camped
with Banu Kilab bin Rabiàh. This news reached Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq,
[may Allah be pleased with him], so he sent a detachment to him and
placed al-Qa'qaa bin 'Amr as commander over it, who marched out with
the detachment and attacked the water area where 'Alqamah was
camping. When he saw the army advance, 'Alqamah ran away on his
horse and so the Muslims captured his family and the men who lived
with them. They told them to fear [the punishment] in Islam, and
brought them forth to Abu Bakr. The people of 'Alqamah denied they
ever supported him in his disbelief, even though they were residing in
the camp and in the land of the apostates. However, Abu Bakr didn't
hear anything evil concerning them [i.e. of apostasy], so he let them go,
because they said, 'What is our fault in that which 'Alqamah bin Alathah
committed!' And his wife said, 'If Alqamah disbelieved, then neither I
nor my daughter have disbelieved'. Later Alqamah embraced Islam
during the caliphate of 'Umar and became a good Muslim and returned
to his wife with the first Nikah.” [Musanaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (33272) wa
Tareekh Tabari (3/262) wa Sunan al-Bayhaqi (8/56)]
■ Point of evidence from the story: The Companions didn't make

takfeer of the family of the leader of apostates, even though they were
residing in the military camp of the apostates and in their homes.
Rather, they took into account the Islam which they displayed, until
kufr was affirmed with evidence and its causes.
279
-Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Al-Hassan bin Badina said, "I asked Abu
Abdullah Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Hanbal, I said, 'O Abu Abdullah! I
am a man from the people of Mosul. The people of our country are
predominantly Jahmiyya, and among them are a small minority from
the people of Sunnah, a people weak and few in number. The issue of al-
Karabisi occurred and has caused fitnah [dissention], and al-Karabisi
says that the words and letters of the Qur’an are created. So Abu
Abdullah said to me: “Beware! Beware! Beware! Beware! This man
Karabisi, do not speak to him and do not speak to those who speak to
him", (four times). I said, 'O Abu Abdullah, in your opinion, is this
statement derived from the saying of Jahm?' He replied, “This is all from
the statements of Jahm.” It was reported by Al-Harbi in a document
which states the Qur’an is not created. (No. 36), Ibn Battah Fi Al-Ibanah
(1/329, No. 129), Al-Khatib fi Tarikh al Baghdad (8/65) and Ibn Abi Ya’la
in Tabaqat al-Hanbali. (1/288), and Ibn Uday reported it completely via
another route of narration (2/365).
Point of evidence: This is a man who spread the kufr of the creation
of the Quran in his country. Then why did the people not make general
takfeer, and why didn't [Imam] Ahmad make takfeer upon them all by
dependency upon the general majority. In addition, he didn't even
verify his condition before hearing the issue from him. Rather, he
accepted what appeared from him, but if something appeared from
someone which contradicted his apparent, then he would regard it
kufr.
280
Rather, in the trial of the claim that the the Qur’an is created, the ruler
and many people along with the scholars disbelieved. Also, their
supporters from the judges, leaders, soldiers and others also became
apostates, and the matter became worse and became widespread, the
fitnah became great and the sermons intensified. Nevertheless, neither
[imam] Ahmad, nor any other scholars of hadith said of making general
takfir, and Imam Ahmad would only say, do not pray except behind
those you know, which was when the Jahmiyyah predominantly spread,
but where is the [evidence] of general takfeer here!!
- Ibn Sireen said: "A man asking his brother, are you a mu'min [believer]
is an innovated matter which is like what the Khawarij test the people
with." [Reported by Al-Lalkai fi Sharh usool I'tiqad Ahl Sunnah (5/1060)
no. 1804]
-It has been reported on the authority of Zayd bin Thabit [may Allah be
pleased with him], he said, "When the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬set out for the battle
of Uhud, some of those who had gone out with him, returned. The
companions of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬were divided into two groups. One group
said, "We will fight them (i.e. the enemy)," and the other group said,
"We will not fight them." So there came the Divine Revelation:-- {'(O
Muslims!) Then what is the matter within you that you are divided.
Into two parties about the hypocrites? Allah has cast them back [to
disbelief] Because of what they have earned.'} [4.88] On that, the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said, "That is Taiba (i.e. the city of Medina) which clears one
from one's sins as the fire expels the impurities of silver." [Narrated by
Bukhari]
281
▪️ They alleged [2]: the Companions [may Allah be pleased with them]
made barā from their brethren who had uttered the Shahadah but had
remained in Makkah and didn't make Hijrah, until Allah revealed:
{What is [the matter] with you [that you are] two groups concerning
the hypocrites, while Allāh has made them fall back [into error and
disbelief] for what they earned..} [Nisa: 88]
Regarding His statement, the Most High: {What is [the matter] with
you [that you are] two groups concerning the hypocrites..}, the
scholars differed into three opinions with regards to the reason it was
revealed. Zayd bin Thabit said, this is regarding those who remained
behind [from jihad] with the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬on the day of Uhud,
so some of the Companions told the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to forgive
them, for they had displayed Islam prior to that. Some said kill them for
they are Munafiqeen. So the following verse was revealed: {What is
[the matter] with you [that you are] two groups concerning the
hypocrites.}
Meaning: What is the matter with you that you have become divided
into two groups? He [Azza Wa Jal] reprimanded them for what they
disagreed in, and He ruled them with nifaq.
Mujahid said, “The verse is regarding a group of people from Makkah

who emigrated to Madinah and embraced Islam. Then they sought
permission from the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬to return to Makkah with
282
the excuse that they have goods there, so they returned and apostated.
So some of the Companions said they are Muslims as they had
previously displayed Islam, while others said they are hypocrites, upon
which Allah revealed: {What is [the matter] with you [that you are]
two groups concerning the hypocrites.} Mujahid narrated this from Ibn
Abbas. The third opinion is the second narration reported from Ibn
Abbas, that it is regarding a mushrikeen people who embraced Islam in
Makkah but they would aid and support the mushrikeen, so the
Companions differed regarding them [into two groups]. Then Allah
revealed, {What is [the matter] with you [that you are] two groups
concerning the hypocrites while Allāh has made them fall back [into
error and disbelief] for what they earned.} The terms in the Arabic
recitation of 'Arkasahum' {[i.e. made them fall back]} and 'Rakasahum'
has the same meaning. Ibn Mas'ud read, {Wallahu Rakasahum..} Az-
Zajaj said it means, He turned them upside down, and Nadr bin Shumeel
said it means he returned them to kufr for what they had earned. From
its meaning is 'Rakas' because it was food and then turned into vomit.
{Do you wish to guide those whom Allāh has sent astray?} Meaning,
do you wish to set upright the one Allah has misguided. {And he whom
Allāh sends astray..} meaning, the one He causes to stray, {never will
you find for him a way [of guidance].} Meaning, a path to the truth.”
[Tafseer Sum'āni 1/458]
“{What is [the matter] with you [that you are] two groups concerning
the hypocrites.}
Regarding the part of the verse "Fi'atayn", {[that you are] two groups},
Muhammad said it has come in the fatah position [i.e. the short (a)
vowel sound in Arabic], meaning, which matter makes you differ
regarding their affair? {..while Allāh has made them fall back [into
283
error and disbelief] for what they earned..}. This was regarding a
group from the munafiqeen who were in Madina, then left for Makkah,
and from there they left for Yamamah for trade, and then they
apostated from Islam and they revealed what was in their hearts of
shirk. When the Muslims met them, they became two groups i.e. two
parties - some of them said their blood is permissible to spill for they are
mushrikeen apostates, while others said their blood isn't permissible [to
spill] as they are a people who became exposed to fitnah. Thereafter,
Allah said; {What is [the matter] with you [that you are] two groups
concerning the hypocrites.} It doesn't mean that they were munafiqeen
due to what they displayed of Shirk, but rather He referred it to the evil
they had within their hearts of hypocrisy. Allah [Azza Wa Jal] said, some
of you said this and some of you said that, why are you not [one united]
group regarding them and not differ in their killing. Then He said,
{..while Allāh has made them fall back [into error and disbelief] for
what they earned..}, meaning, He returned them back to Shirk because
of the doubt and hypocrisy they had within their hearts. {Do you wish to
guide those whom Allāh has sent astray? And he whom Allāh sends
astray - never will you find for him a way [of guidance].}” [Tafseer
Quran al-Aziz li ibn Abi Zamneen]
“Regarding His statement: {They wish you would disbelieve as they

have disbelieved.}, meaning, the ones who returned to kufr wish that
you turn to kufr too, {..so you would be alike}, meaning in kufr. {So do
not take from among them allies..} Allah warned them against giving
them alliance, {..until they emigrate for the cause of Allāh.}, meaning,
until they accept Islam. But {But if they turn away [i.e., refuse]}, if they
turn away, meaning [remain] upon kufr, {then seize them..} meaning,
then capture them, and 'seize them' here means imprisonment. It is also
said to mean a prisoner, meaning, capture them, {..and kill them
284
wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or
helper.}” [Tafseer as-Sam'āni 1/459]
Point of evidence: Where is the evidence that the Sahabah made

takfeer upon the Muslim mastoor al-hāl. Had you followed what is
mentioned generally in the books of tafseer, you will not find what you
falsely claim and forge. This is not the place to mention all the opinions
which the scholars have mentioned for the cause of the revelation of
this verse, so we have sufficed with what we have mentioned above.
Whoever disagrees with what we have mentioned, then let him present
what he has of clear evidence, so that we may clarify [through debate],
his aggression against the texts [of Quran and Sunnah] and his evil
understanding of the narrations of the Salaf.
They alleged [3]: Regarding the statement of Allah, {Indeed, those

whom the angels take [in death] while wronging themselves..} [Nisa:
97-99], they claim it is the most significant evidence of takfeer of the
one who resides amongst the mushrikeen. And Dahāk said regarding its
tafseer, it was revealed regarding the munafiqeen who had professed
the Shahadah but didn't emigrate. They claim; see how they were ruled
with nifaq and kufr due to their remaining behind in Makkah without
openly displaying the Deen [i.e. tawheed].
285
The ones whom Allah said about, {Indeed, those whom the angels
take [in death] while wronging themselves..} [The verse], they are
those who fell short with regards to Hijrah from Makkah to Madinah.
Thereafter, during the fight of Badr, the Mushrikeen forced them to
take part in the fight against the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and his Companions, so
when the Muslims would throw their arrows towards the mushrikeen,
which would at times strike those of them [who remained behind from
hijrah], they would say; ("We have killed our brethren!") Thereupon the
verse was revealed, as it has been mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari from
the hadith narrated by Ibn Abbas [may Allah be pleased with them].
These people committed kufr by fighting with the mushrikeen against

the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and his Companions, and not because of not performing
hijra from amongst them, and they weren't excused with ikrah because
they caused themselves to fall into that situation by not emigrating
when they were able to.. as Sulayman bin Abdullah bin Muhamamad
bin Abdul Wahāb mentioned in his book; "The evidence of the ruling
regarding those who give muwalat to the people of Shirk" - So if the
abandonment of hijra was kufr, then Allah wouldn't have excused the
weak and oppressed men, women and children who couldn't devise a
plan nor find a way due to their weakness and oppression, as is
mentioned in the verse, because kufr is not excused except by ikrah.
Ash-Shafi'i said: "And the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allāh ‫ ﷺ‬proves

that the obligation of Hijrah for the one who is able to perform it is for
the one who may fall into fitnah in his Deen, in a country in which he
embraced Islam, because the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬allowed a group of
people to remain in Makkah after they embraced Islam, and from them
was Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib and others, that is, if they don't fear
286
fitnah. In addition, he ‫ ﷺ‬would order his [military] detachment to tell
the ones who embrace Islam, that if they perform hijrah, they will be
entitled to what the muhajireen [emigrants] are entitled to, but if they
remain behind, then they are like the bedouins, and that they shall only
get what the bedoins will acquire.” [Kitab al-Umm 4/170]
{But those who believed and did not emigrate - for you there is no
support of them until they emigrate.} [Anfal:72]
Then He mentioned those who believed in Makkah, who were

competent and capable of emigrating but remained behind, and Allah
didn't refer to them as people of Iman, but rather called them wrong
doers, and said a great thing about them when He said, {Indeed, those
whom the angels take [in death] while wronging themselves - [the
angels] will say, "In what [condition] were you?" They will say, "We
were oppressed in the land." They [the angels] will say, "Was not the
earth of Allāh spacious [enough] for you to emigrate therein?" For
those, their refuge is Hell - and evil it is as a destination.} [Nisa:97] All
this proves the invalidity of what the murji'a claim, who exclude the
obligatory actions from being a part of Iman and falsely claim that
immorality and major sins don't decrease Iman and doesn't harm it,
while Allah [Azza Wa Jal] said, {Indeed, He originates the [process of]
creation and then repeats it that He may reward those who have
believed and done righteous deeds, in justice.}” [Yunus:4] [Ibānah
Kubrā li ibn Batta 2/782]
287
Point of evidence: live through [the months of] Rajab [i.e. live long
enough] and you'll see wonders in their poor understanding of the
verses of the All-Wise. For indeed the scholars have explained that
hijrah from dar al-kufr to dar al-Islam is wajib upon the one who is able
to, who fears that he may fall into fitnah in his Deen, and a Wajib is
dropped due to inability, for the weak and oppressed ones. Yet you
have made the residing in dar al-kufr a nullifier which then necessitates
that weakness is a preventative from the preventatives of takfeer!!!
According to my humble knowledge, there are no Salaf who share this
[belief] with you, and the origin of your confusion is that you do not
differentiate between the one who lives among the mushrikeen and
imitates them in their appearances and ways until he becomes majhool
al-hāl [one whose religion is unknown] to us, so we judge him based on
dependency [of religion] upon the land, and between a mastoor al-hāl
who displays the rituals of Islam and hasn't committed a nullifier. There
is a great difference between the former and the latter.
288
■ A consolidation of the research and a conclusion, so be patient O

people of Islam.
All praise is for Allah Who established Himself above the Throne, The
Supreme, The One Who has made rulings in this world based on the
apparent, and may the peace and blessings be upon the one who
prohibited investigation into the affairs of the hearts and consciences,
and may He be pleased with his companions and the tabi’een, and
those who followed them from the people of Haqq in the past and
present..
To proceed:
Know may Allah guide us to the truth and make us steadfast upon it
until we meet Him; we do not deny the fact that Shirk and kufr has
become widespread among the people today, in this era or the
previous era, due to ignorance in the Deen of Allah, and also due to the
dominance of the tawagheet etc.
Allah says: {And most of the people, although you strive [for it], are
not believers.} [Yusuf:103]
289
And Allah says: {And most of them believe not in Allāh except while
they associate others with Him.} [Yusuf:106]
However, this doesn't mean that we disregard the validity of ruling by

the Shahadatyn [for the one who utters it], or by the Salah, or ones
attribution to Islam, or by distinguishable signs specific to the Muslims
in a particular area, when passing the ruling of Islam upon a mukallaf if
he displays them, until his involvement with a nullifier has been
established through shar'i evidence. Therefore, we rule a Muslim
mastoor al-hāl [i.e. one who displays signs of Islam] with Islam until his
involvement with a nullifier has been affirmed against him individually,
by Shar'i evidence, either by us witnessing him commit an action of
kufr, or say a statement of kufr, or by the testimony of two just and
trustworthy witnesses against him. Thereafter, we pass the ruling of
kufr or riddah, that is, if there are no valid preventatives of takfeer
present in the right of the individual, and if the evidence of it [i.e. kufr]
has been established against him individually, in which case the display
of Islam and its rituals do not benefit him.
Allah says: {But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakāh, then
they are your brothers in religion; and We detail the verses for a
people who know.}
It has been reported on the authority of Anas bin Malik, he said that
the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬said, “Whoever prays like our prayers, faces
our Qibla and eats what we slaughter, then that one is a Muslim who is
under the protection of Allah and the protection of His Messenger, so
do not betray Allah’s protection."
290
If you say that a mastoor al hāl Muslim - whose description has been
mentioned above, is a kafir, and you disregard the rituals he displays to
be from the signs which grant one the ruling of Islam, then by which
nullifier have you made takfeer upon him?
If you say it is because he resides amongst the majority who are

disbelievers!!!
Then we say to you in response: This isn't a nullifier unless it is
individually proven against him, that he agrees to their actions of kufr,
for indeed the weak and oppressed Mu'mineen in Makkah remained
among the majority who were disbelievers, yet this was not a cause for
the negation of their Iman, because Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'āla said:
{Every soul will be detained for what it has done.} [Mudathir:38] And
He said: {Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul.
And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of burdens will
bear the burden of another. And never would We punish until We sent
a messenger.} [Isra:15]
If you say that the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬declared his barā from every Muslim who
resides among the mushrikeen, and that barā is only made from a
kafir!!
Then we say to you in response: We have previously clarified the

weakness of these ahadith, and that none from among the Salaf
understood the hadiths as you have done, as you have ruled a mastoor
al-hāl muslim with kufr by dependency upon the land, just like the
Akhnasiyya and Al-'Awfiyya sects from the khawarijis have done.
291
If you say that the regard given to the validity of ruling by the
Shahadatayn, Salah and ones attribution to Islam is not taken into
account when judging a mukallaf who displays Islam and hasn't
displayed a nullifier, because they [i.e. the rituals] are now common
[actions] between them and the murtadeen!!!
Then we say to you in response: there is no evidence in the Quran nor

the Sunnah regarding the dismissal of validity of ruling by the
Shahadatyn, or Salah, or ones attribution to Islam in a time when its
practice becomes common among the Muslims and the apostates alike
in a particular place. Rather, the evidence which have been reported,
pertaining to the consideration given to the Shahadatayn, Salah and
one's attribution to Islam as signs which rule the one who displays them
with Islam, are all general and are not restricted to a particular time,
location or condition..
However, the Shahadatayn and the rituals are not considered valid in
the case of the apostate who display them, if it has been established
that he has committed a nullifier of Islam while displaying the rituals at
the same time. Then these are not considered valid in his right.
Then differentiation between the Muslims and the apostate in a

particular area is made by the display and proof of committing a
nullifier in the right of the apostates, and the absence of this evidence
in the case of the Muslim. But it is not done by disregarding the validity
of ruling by the Shahadatyn and the rituals for the one who displays
them, against whom a nullifier hasn't been proven individually.
292
If you claim: that the Islam of a specific individual cannot be affirmed
unless he makes barā from the taghūt and makes takfeer of their
worshipers.
Then we say to you in response: kufr bit-taghūt is to believe in the

invalidity of worship made to others besides Allah, and to make barā
[i.e. disassociate oneself] from [the worship itself, the one worshipped
and the worshiper], and to hate it and it's people, which is all from Asl
al-Iman al-Wajib and it takes place upon the heart. Also, to abandon it
[i.e. false worship to the taghūt], to avoid it and to distance oneself
from it is from Asl al-Iman al-Wajib, and it is performed upon the heart
and by action of the limbs. The display of barā to them, to openly
declare one's takfeer of them, to distance oneself from them, to
separate oneself from their places of worship and to separate from
their dwellings by emigrating [making hijrah] from it, is from Kamal al-
Iman al-Wajib, which are wajibat that are tied to one's capability, which
is why it may be dropped due to ones inability to perform them, due to
weakness and oppression.
Allah said: {That is because Allah ˹alone˺ is the Truth and what they
invoke besides Him is falsehood, and Allah ˹alone˺ is truly the Most
High, All-Great.} [Hajj:62]
Allah said: {But those who have avoided ṭāghūt, lest they worship it,
and turned back to Allāh - for them are good tidings. So give good
tidings to My servants.} [Zumar:17]
293
And Allah says: {You already have an excellent example in Abraham
and those with him, when they said to their people, “We totally
dissociate ourselves from you and ˹shun˺ whatever ˹idols˺ you worship
besides Allah. We reject you. The enmity and hatred that has arisen
between us and you will last until you believe in Allah alone.”}
[Mumtahinah:4]
And He the Most High said: {And [mention, O Muḥammad], when

from that which you worship. Except for He who created me; and
indeed, He will guide me."} [Zukhruf:26 - 27]
And He said: {"Then do you see what you have been worshipping. You
and your ancient forefathers? Indeed, they are enemies to me, except
the Lord of the worlds. The One Who created me, and He [it is who]
guides me.} [Ash-Shu'rā 75 - 78]
The Most High also said: {And I distance myself from ˹all of˺ you and
from whatever you invoke besides Allah, I will ˹continue to˺ call upon
my Lord ˹alone˺, trusting that I will never be disappointed in invoking
my Lord.” So when he had left them and those they worshipped other
than Allāh, We gave him Isaac and Jacob, and each [of them] We
made a prophet.} [Maryam:48 - 48]
And Allah said: {[The youths said to one another], "And when you
have distanced yourselves from them and that which they worship
other than Allāh, retreat to the cave. Your Lord will spread out for you
294
of His mercy and will prepare for you from your affair facility."} [Al-
Kahf: 16]
Allah said: {Those who believe fight in the cause of Allāh, and those
who disbelieve fight in the cause of ṭāghūt. So fight against the allies
of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak.} [Nisa:76]
Regarding the misguidance of the mushrikeen: it is the belief that

they are upon misguidance and falsehood and it is the belief which is a
part of kufr bit-taghūt.
Allah says: {Fight against those who do not believe in Allāh or in the
Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allāh and His
Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of
truth [i.e., Islām] from those who were given the Scripture - [fight]
until they give the jizyah1 willingly while they are humbled.}
[Tawbah:29]
'Amr bin 'Abasa Sulami reported: "In the state of the Ignorance (before
embracing Islam), I used to think that the people were upon
misguidance and they were not on anything (which may be called the
right path) and worshipped the idols. Meanwhile, I heard of a man in
Mecca who was giving news (on the basis of his prophetic knowledge) ;
so I sat on my ride and went to him. The Messenger of Allah ( )‫ﷺ‬was at
that time hiding as his people had made life hard for him. I adopted a
friendly attitude (towards the Meccans and thus managed) to enter
295
Mecca and go to him (the Holy Prophet) and I said to him: Who are
you? He said: I am a Prophet (of Allah). I again said: Who is a Prophet?
He said: (I am a Prophet in the sense that) I have been sent by Allah. I
said: What is that which you have been sent with? He said: I have been
sent to join ties of relationship (with kindness and affection), to break
the Idols, and to proclaim the oneness of Allah and that nothing is to be
associated with Him. I said: Who is with you in this (in these beliefs and
practices)? He said: A free man and a slave. He (the narrator) said: Abu
Bakr and Bilal were there with him among those who had embraced
Islam by that time. I said: I intend to follow you. He said: During these
days you would not be able to do so. Don't you see the (hard) condition
under which I and (my) people are living? Rather go back to your people
and when you hear that I have been granted victory, then come to me.
So I went to my family. I was in my home when the Messenger of Allah
‫ ﷺ‬came to Medina. I was among my people and used to seek news and
ask people when he arrived in Medina. Then a group of people
belonging to Yathrib (Medina) came. I said (to them): How is that
person getting on who has come to Medina? They said: The people are
hastening to him, while his people (the polytheists of Mecca) planned to
kill him, but they could not do so. I (on hearing it) came to Medina and
went to him and said: Messenger of Allah, do you recognise me? He
said: Yes, you are the same man who met me at Mecca. I said: It is so. I
again said: Prophet of Allah, tell me that which Allah has taught you."
[Muslim 2/208 no. 832]
The conclusion: Regarding what you request, that a mukallaf must

openly declare that 'I make barā from the taghūt and its worshipers and
I make takfeer of them', then it is a mustahab [i.e. recommended]
matter, and there is no evidence of it being Wajib when affirming Islam
at the beginning. It is from the wajibat which may be dropped due to
296
one's inability to perform it, let alone it being from the Asl [foundation
of the religion] as you claim. Rather, we assert that Islam is actualized
according to the worldly rulings, by the mere profession of the
Shahadah of ‘Laa ilaha illallāh’ along with the avoidance of displaying
anything which nullifies it, because it [i.e. the Shahadah] is the root of
the Deen and its foundation, and the name of Islam is affirmed to an
individual by it, its rulings are applied by it, protection is granted by it
and it is Salvation in the Hereafter for the one who understands its
meaning and acts in accordance to what is indicated by it.
Takfeer: It is a Wajib Shar'i ruling which is [understood] through

hearing [revelation], and the intellect has no share in it. It is the
attachment of the term 'kufr' and its ruling upon a particular individual
who deserves it, due to his committing what is considered kufr by the
Shari'ah, if there are no valid Shar'i preventatives present which
prevent the attachment of this name to him.
Al- Barbahari said (329 AH) in Sharh al-Sunnah 1/64: "Firstly, we do not
expel anyone from the people of the Qiblah from Islam, until he denies a
verse from the Book of Allah, or denies a narration of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬, or
slaughters for other than Allah, or prays to other than Allah. If he does
any of that, then it is Wajib for you to expel him from Islam [i.e. make
takfeer upon him]. But if he doesn't do any of that, then he is a Muslim
by name [i.e. according to the worldly rulings], not in reality. [i.e. as the
real inner Islam is only known to Allah]." [End of quote]
297
Know may Allah enlighten your insight, that the hujja has been
established against the servants regarding the obligation of tawheed
and prohibition of Shirk through the meaning of the Shahadah, and the
hujja was established against the majority of the people by the hujja of
the messengers and by the remnants [of previous prophets], which
indicates to their message in every era, from the time of Adam [may
Allah be pleased with him] until the seal of the Prophets and
Messengers, Muhammad ‫ ﷺ‬,until the pure wind shall blow. And those
who commits shirk with Allah, is upon misguidance and falsehood and
is not upon the ways of the hunafā Muslims who worship Allah Alone.
Allah said: {[We sent] messengers as bringers of good tidings and

warners so that mankind will have no argument against Allāh after
the messengers. And ever is Allāh Exalted in Might and Wise.}
[Nisa;165]
And Allah says: {And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger,
[saying], "Worship Allāh and avoid ṭāghūt." And among them were
those whom Allāh guided, and among them were those upon whom
error was [deservedly] decreed. So proceed [i.e., travel] through the
earth and observe how was the end of the deniers.} [Nahl: 36]
The Most High also said, {Indeed, We have sent you with the truth as
a bringer of good tidings and a warner. And there was no nation but
that there had passed within it a warner.} [Fatir:24]
298
If you say that it is necessary to excuse the one who has newly
embraced Islam, who hasn't read the verses which contain the takfeer
of the Christians, as the texts of the Quran wasn't conveyed to him.
We would say to you in response: Rather, it isn't necessary for him,

because that by which the Islam of an individual is valid from the
beginning, is the belief that whoever believes in any religion other than
the religion of Islam, is upon falsehood and misguidance and not upon
the truth, even if he doesn't know the Shar'i term for it, like 'kafir' or
'murtad', etc. This is exactly what is included in takfeer. However, if he
doesn't even know that whoever believes in a religion other than Islam
is upon misguidance, then his Islam wasn't valid from the start.
■ Differentiating between the belief that the taghut and their

worshipers are upon misguidance, and between making takfeer upon
their individuals.
It is necessary to differentiate between:
The belief that the taghut and its worshipers are upon misguidance and
falsehood and not upon the religion of truth, which is from Asl al-Iman
al-Wajib, and is that which is indicated by the Shahadah ‘Laa ilaha
illallāh’ and what is inclusive of its meaning. The true and real Islam
which benefits one and is accepted by Allah isn't valid nor correct
except with this belief, and it isn't a condition that a particular
individual be tested whether he believes that or not in order for us to
pass the ruling of Islam upon him in this world, because we are
299
commanded to accept what is apparent from an individual and to leave
the hidden affairs to Allah, and there is no evidence which states that a
particular individual must be tested with that prior to passing the ruling
of Islam upon him in this world.
Allah said: {That is because Allah ˹alone˺ is the Truth and what they
invoke besides Him is falsehood, and Allah ˹alone˺ is truly the Most
High, All-Great.} [Hajj:62]
And He the Most High said: {Fight against those who do not believe in
Allāh or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allāh
and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the
religion of truth [i.e., Islām] from those who were given the Scripture -
[fight] until they give the jizyah, willingly while they are humbled.}
[Tawbah:29]
It has been reported in Sahih Muslim, from the hadith narrated by

Umru bin Abasa, [may Allah be pleased with him], that he said: "In the
state of the Ignorance (before embracing Islam), I used to think that the
people were upon misguidance and they were not on anything (which
may be called the right path) and worshipped the idols..”[The hadith]
And differentiating between..
Naming the taghut and each individual from their worshipers, with
Shar'i names which have been mentioned in the Shari'ah, like the term
kafir, mushrik, murtad.. etc., which is a ruling [of takfeer], which is the
300
attachment of the term 'kafir' to a particular individual, and it has
limits, conditions and regulations. It is from Asl al-Iman al-Wajib, but it
is a matter [the knowledge of] which is delayed than what is indicated
by the Shahadatyn [alone], and to openly display it isn't a condition for
entering into Islam at the start, as it is necessary to have additional
knowledge than that which is indicated by the Shahadatyn alone, which
would indicate to these Shar'i names, and indicate when it's ruling is
passed upon an individual, and the causes of the nullifiers, and the
conditions of designating a particular individual with this name [i.e.
kafir], and the preventatives of naming a particular individual by it.
All this is known by additional Shar'i knowledge than what is indicated

by the Shahadatān, and this is why takfeer of particular individuals and
naming them with specific Shar'i names isn't a condition for the validity
of one's Islam at the start, which is the case with the Shahadatyn
originally [i.e. the Islam of an individual is valid by its profession alone],
along with what is indicated by the rest of the texts of Shar'iah
regarding ruling an individual with Islam, if he presents it.
Therefore, takfeer is a hukm Shar'i [a ruling in Shar'iah], just like the

rulings of halal and haram. So whoever makes permissible a haram
matter upon which there is ijmā or forbids a halal matter upon which
there is ijmā, is a kafir who has negated his Asl al-Iman al-Wajib,
because he belied the texts [of Qur'an and Sunnah], and the takfeer is
looked into, with regards to the observation of the conditions and
preventatives of takfeer for the particular individual. Likewise, whoever
rules a particular kafir as a Muslim, upon whose kufr there is ijmā, or
rules a particular Muslim with kufr upon whose Islam there is ijmā, is a
kafir who has negated his Asl al-Iman al-Wajib, because he has belied
301
the texts by doing so, and this individuals takfeer is looked into, with
regards to observation of the conditions and preventatives of takfeer.
Allah says: {And none reject Our verses except the disbelievers.}
[Ankabut:47] So barā from them comes after the belief that they are
upon falsehood and misguidance, and not after their takfeer. For
whoever doesn't differentiate between the two has gravely confused
between the two matters and will either fall into ghuluw or irjā.
▪️ If you ask, what is the cause of disagreement between you and those
who say takfeer of the mushrikeen is from Asl ad-din?
We would say to you in reposnse: our disagreement with those who

say takfeer of the mushrikeen is from Asl ad-din, is the following:
▪️ The definition of the mustalah [terminogy] ‘Asl ad-din’, and what it

includes and what isn't included in it, because according to the
majority, Asl ad-din is kufr bit-taghūt and Iman billah .. [to disbelieve in
the taghut and to have Iman in Allah] .. nothing else.
And that which we believe to be from the Deen, is that Asl ad-din is that
which is indicated by the Shahadah and what conforms with it and is
included in it, which in other words, is the tawheed of the servant for
Allah in accordance to the Shar'iah of the Messenger, and the
avoidance of all the nullifiers.
302
In general, it is the foundation of the level of [Asl al-Iman al-Wajib]
which includes every branch of Iman upon the heart, the tongue and
the limbs, which the abandonment of or fail to perform it removes the
asl/foundation of Iman, and the one who abandons it is a kafir, or a
mushrik, or a munafiq [hypocrite] [of major nifaq], or a
mubtadi'/innovator of a kufri bid'ah which causes one to exit the folds
of Islam..
These are [actions] like knowledge, belief and yaqeen [certainty] in the
six pillars of Iman, [which is the statement of the heart], and like having
love for Allah and His Messenger and His Shari'ah [which is action of the
heart], and like the utterance of the Shahadatyn and what is included in
its meaning for entering into Islam [which is the statement of the
tongue], and to avoid the nullifiers of Islam both outward and inner, all
of which enters into the meaning of [Asl al-Iman al-Wajib], i.e. it is from
Asl ad-din, in addition to the obligatory Salah when they become
obligated [upon an individual], which is action of the limbs.
Therefore, when they [i.e. khawarijis] say that takfeer of each

individual of the mushrikeen is from Asl ad-din, they mean what they
themselves took the term Asl ad-din to mean, i.e. kufr bit-taghūt and
Iman billāh, meaning the Shahadah of Laa ilaha illallāh, which is a
branch by which a mukallaf enters Islam at the beginning. As a result,
due to their use of the term Asl ad-din, it necessitates that:
-The Islam of the one who newly embraces Islam isn't valid at the
beginning unless he makes takfeer of each individual of the
mushrikeen, i.e. by attaching the name kafir to each of their individuals,
303
because [according to them], takfeer means to attach the name of kufr
to a particular individual and is a part of Laa ilaha illallāh by which one
enters Islam [according to them].. consequently due to what they
concluded as evidence, it necessitates that they say:
It is a necessary requirement to ask a mukallaf regarding the takfeer of

the mushrikeen individuals so that his Islam be correct according to
them, so that they may rule him with Islam al-hukmi [i.e. passing the
ruling of Islam upon him] from the beginning..!!! They will never find
evidence for this in the Book or Sunnah – Rather, the evidence are
contrary to that, and these are their innovations and falsehood which
have been made clear.
■ As for us, Ahl Sunnah wal Jama'ah..we say according to our definition
of the term (asl ad-din), what is mentioned above:
▪️Firstly: It is to believe that the taghut and their worshipers are upon
falsehood and misguidance and not upon a religion of truth, which is a
matter of the heart and is included in the Shahadah of Laa ilaha illallāh..
Whoever utters the Shahadatayn in this world, then this includes his
acknowledgment with the heart that the taghut and their worshippers
are upon falsehood and misguidance and not upon the true religion..
and this is why it is accepted of him and he is ruled with Islam according
to the worldly rulings if he utters it.
304
If he acknowledges it with his heart, along with the utterance of the
Shahadatyn, this will then benefit him as the true Islam in the Sight of
Allah, which shall save him from the eternity of Hellfire on the Day of
Resurrection.
As for the one who utters the Shahadatayn, thereafter he displays it by

words, that the taghut and their worshipers are upon a religion of truth
and their religion is correct and of guidance, then the Islam of this
individual wasn't correct nor valid from the start.
As for making takfeer of their individuals, it is a Shar'i ruling which is a

delayed matter [from when embracing Islam], which the mukallaf
learns after he embraces Islam and after the ruling of Islam has been
affirmed for him. After that, it is wajib upon him to name them as Allah
has named them.
If he names them with a name other than what the Shari'ah has
designated, so he calls a specific kafir upon whose kufr there is ijmā, a
Muslim, and calls a particular Muslim upon whose Islam there is a
consensus, a kafir, then he has committed a nullifier of Islam like the
other nullifiers, and to pass the ruling of takfeer upon this individual,
one must observe the conditions, preventatives and limits of takfeer..
With regards to the affirmation of Islam al-haqiqi [i.e. true inner Islam]
which is beneficial in the Sight of Allah on the day of Judgment for the
one who possesses it from the beginning when embracing Islam, it is
305
the belief that they are upon falsehood and misguidance and not upon
a religion of truth.
For the ruling of Islam to continue for the individual, according to

worldly rulings, it is wajib for him to make takfeer upon a kafir upon
whom there is ijmā [of his kufr], and likewise, he must rule a Muslim
with Islam, upon whose Islam there is consensus.
▪︎ Secondly: linguistically Barā [disavowal] means: to rid oneself from

something and to abandon it, and to sever ties with it.
Consequently, with regards to having barā from the taghut and their
worshipers and from their religion, it's meaning according to the
evidence of Shar'iah is: to rid oneself and to abandon the taghūt, their
worshipers and their religion. This is divided into the following:
1 - Part upon the heart: this includes the belief of a Muslim that he has
no religious ties with the religion of the tawagheet and their
worshipers, and their religion has no ties with the religion of Islam, and
for them is their religion and for him (i.e. the Muslim) is his religion.
And this part of barā upon the heart is a branch which is a subdivision
of [and falls under]: the belief that the taghut and their worshipers are
upon falsehood and misguidance and not upon a religion of truth.
306
Consequently, this part is from Asl al-Iman al-Wajib and what is
indicated by the testimony of Laa ilaha illallāh and what is inclusive of
its meaning. Since it is a branch of Iman upon the heart, this will benefit
the one who possesses it in the Hereafter in the sight of Allah, the One
who is in charge of the secrets and what is in the hearts.. i.e. the entry
into Islam al-haqiqi [the true inner Islam] which is accepted by Allah in
the Hereafter..
However, with regards to applying the rulings in this world, i.e., when
passing ruling of Islam al-hukmi [i.e. passing the judgement of Islam]
upon a mukallaf and treating him like a Muslim, for this we are not
charged with having to know what is in the hearts of the mukallafeen,
with regards to barā and other matters, but rather, we have been
commanded to pass rulings based on what is apparent from them and
Allah is in charge of the secrets..
Therefore, this part of barā upon the heart doesn't fall under, "making
takfeer upon them, i.e., by attaching the name of kufr to their
individuals," which is a Shar'i ruling, which is known by learning
additional Shar'i knowledge of the meaning of Laa ilaha illallāh.
Rather, it falls under "the belief that they are upon falsehood and
misguidance and not upon a religion of truth," and this is a very
important detail in this mas'alah which one should pay attention to,
which saves one from the net of the bid'ah of ghuluw [extremism] in
takfeer.
307
2 - Part which is the display of it upon the tongue: this is the display of
barā from the taghut themselves, their worshippers and from their
religion itself by the tongue [i.e. by words and statements], just like
Prophet Ibrahim al-Khalil and other prophets did [may Allah's prayers
and blessings be upon them].. and this part [of barā] is wajib from the
levels of Kamal al-Iman al-Wajib. Whoever doesn't perform it without a
valid shar'i excuse while he is able to, is a fasiq..
And whoever is incapable of performing it due to weakness, oppression

or fear, so he conceals his Iman and conceals his display of barā from
the taghūt, their worshippers and their religion, then this individual is
excused and has nothing against him of sin, as was the condition of the
Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and his companions in the early message and like the
mu'min from the family of Pharaoh.
▪︎Thirdly: What the Jama'ah of muslimeen intended has become clear

now, by our statement that: takfeer is a ruling, it is a Wajib action
according to the Shar'iah and isn't from its asl/foundation, and the
meaning of the phrase, ["the attachment of the name of kufr upon an
individual,"] is a hukm Shar'i, and it doesn't mean that it falls under and
is part of ["the belief that they are upon falsehood and misguidance
and not upon a religion of truth"], as this is from the foundation of it.
Thus it has been made clear to you, why we have said that barā from
the mushrik kafir is from the asl/foundation, while takfeer upon him is
wajib and barā which is from Asl ad-din, is the part which is upon the
heart.
308
Know may Allah guide us to the truth and keep us steadfast upon it,
use us for that which pleases Him and not replace us; this Deen is the
most precious thing we posses, and the one who firmly holds onto it at
the end of times, is like the one holding onto burning coal. Know that
fitan [trials] afflict the people of Islam and hit them like waves, and one
doesn't leave except another wave of fitnah comes, more severe and
more tough..
Hudhayfa said: I heard the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬say:

"Fitan/Temptations will be presented to men's hearts as reed mat is
woven stick by stick, and any heart which is impregnated by them will
have a black mark put into it, but any heart which rejects them will have
a white mark put in it. The result is that there will become two types of
hearts: one white like a white stone which will not be harmed by any
turmoil or temptation, so long as the heavens and the earth endure;
and the other black and dust-coloured like a vessel which is upset, not
recognizing what is good or rejecting what is abominable, but being
impregnated with passion." [Muslim 1/89 no. 144]
366 Qutayba narrated to us, he said Hammād bin Zayd narrated to us

on the authority of Ayub, he said, Abu Qalāba used to say, "Do not sit
with the people of whims [i.e. innovators] nor debate them because I
don't feel safe, as they might immerse you in misguidance, or cause you
confusion in your religion in matters which they themselves are
confused in." [Qadr 1/212 Lil-Firyābi 301]
Indeed, the steadfast one is he who Allah keeps steadfast, and the
infallible one is he who holds onto His strong rope and follows the
309
footsteps of the Messengers and pursues the methodology of the Imam
of the Muwahideen [may Allah's prayers and peace be upon them all],
then arms himself with knowledge and makes evidence an insight
which lightens up the path and holds onto athār [what has been
narrated] of those who have passed before, from the people of Ahlus-
Sunnah wal Jama'ah, and knows that there is no reform for the last of
this ummah, except with that which the earlier generations were
reformed by. Know that Allah Subhānahu has made us successors [to
authority] upon the earth and has commanded us to openly display His
Deen, and His ways have passed upon us regarding trials and
examination [which shall befall us], and He left us to decide which party
we choose to be from. Will he be if those who sells his religion for a
lowly price like the rogues [khawarijis] or like a disbeliever, or will he
sell himself and free it for a Paradise as vast as the heavens and the
earth, prepared for the believers. Know that Allah [Azza Wa Jal] fulfils
His promise and is The Helper of His Servants, Who will manifest His
religion over all religions even though the disbelievers may detest it.
Ibn Nāfi' said, I heard Malik say: "If a man commits all the major sins
but doesn't make shirk with Allah, and he was saved from the people of
bid'ah [heresy], I hope that he is of those who shall be in the highest
level of Firdaws, because every major sin is between the servant and His
Lord and he has hope of His [forgiveness], but for every matter of desire
[innovation] he has no hope [of forgiveness] because he has lead his
companions to Hellfire [with his bid'ah and misguidance].” [Tarteeb
Madārik wa Tarteeb Masālik 2/49 Qādhi 'Ayādh 544h]
310
474 - Al - Firyābiy informed us, he said Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah
narrated to us, he said, Mu'ādh bin Mu'ādh narrated to us, he said ibn
Awn narrated to us on the authority of Muhammad, meaning, “Ibn
Sireen that he used to view the people of desires [i.e. bid'ah] to be the
quickest to fall into apostasy." [Ash-Shari'ah 2/889 Lil-Ajiri 360]
***Poetry by the brother Nasir al-Sunnah al-Qurashi***
I don't see the truth except in the Manhaj of Muhammad..

Nor a justice in which I trust.
It's a shame on me as a Muslim that I be pleased..

With a Manhaj which deviates from the Book and corrupts.
I'm a Muslim, its shameful and insulting for me..

As I'm respected, that I flatter the rogue at the expense of my Deen.
Or that I exercise thoughts daily..

And let myself be driven by a talking donkey.
Like a parrot who says everything that is narrated to him..

Who imitates in ignorance and beautifies it.
311
Who changes depending on the circumstances..
A mu’min a day and a disbeliever zindiq another.
His nature doesn't remain stable on a decision..

But when was mercury ever stable.
Please note: Some of the Masāil were selected from the debates which
occurred with our Shaykh [Abu Bara'a as-Sayf] (may Allah preserve
him), which have been used for benefit, and some of the responses to
questions were sent to students of knowledge who are specialized in the
sciences of Ilm al-Usūl and Ulūm al-hadith.
This has been completed by the Grace and facilitation of Allah Alone;
this and whatever is granted of tawfiq and what is correct, is from Allah
Alone who has no partners, and whatever is of error or forgetfulness is
from the weak servant of Allah and from the Shaytan.
Written and compiled by one who is in need of the forgiveness of his

Lord, Nasir al-Sunnah al-Qurashi ‫حفظه هللا‬.
‫والحمد هلل رب العالمين‬
312
310 /3 _508 /5_676 /7
Telegram: ➥ t.me/rightway02
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100043627276574
313
314
315

The Pure Guidance (Part Two)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Pure Guidance (Part Two)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

A brief introduction of the author:

[Nasir al-Sunnah al-Qurashi]

*Takfeer: is the ruling upon an individual or a group, of their exiting the

Authors note: The misconceptions mentioned here are statements of

Compilation and arrangement by Nasir al-Sunnah al-Qurashi ‫حفظه هللا‬.

As for what follows:

As is the custom of the people of whims and innovations in every time

There is no contentment for any group of them, and no matter how

■ Misconception - 1: The prophets [peace be upon them] made

1- Allah the Most High says, {And [mention, O Muhammad], when

So based on these introductory matters [mentioned above], in which

Revealing the misconception and a response to it:

Ibrahim [peace be upon him] based his evidence on the perfect

So He established the hujjah [evidence] against them by sending them

So, we move onto the next question:

Al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih on the authority of Aisha, [may Allah be

So takfeer is not from the meaning of La-ilaha-ila-Allah which is

So this was the situation of the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬before the message. He

■ Point of evidence: This is the companion speaking about himself,

An explanatory example: Based upon the linguistic meaning, for

Further explanation to refute this misconception:

Firstly, the prophets' takfeer of their people is a truth which cannot be

Thirdly, there is no doubt regarding the statement of Yusuf [peace be

■ Misconception - 2: {"We reject you"}, meaning; we make takfeer

Further explanation of the introduction: There is no dispute between

1 - The statement of Allah [Azza WaJa]: {when they said to their

Thus we further follow on with the [statements] of the scholars of

He [Allah] said, {There has already been for you an excellent

Therefore, the first example is related to disassociation and disavowal

He the Most High also said: {Then We revealed to you, [O

It is necessary for the seeker of truth and salvation to worship Allah

▪️ In order for us to prove the validity of what we believe to be correct in

A summary of the events of Prophet Ibrahim [peace be upon him]:

2 - Disassociating [himself] from their idols with the tongue and

Allah the Most High said, {And [mention, O Muḥammad], when

3 - Showing [physical] enmity physically by the hand towards their idols

4 - Showing enmity towards the mushrikeen themselves after the idols,

5 - Complete separation [from the mushrikeen] by bringing together

And Allah the Most High knows best.

■ Misconception - 3: Surah Al-Kafirun is a declaration of takfeer of the

Allah [Azza Wa Jal] said: {Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “O you disbelievers! I do not

They claimed that as long as the speech is addressed generally, and

Revealing the misconception and a response:

As for you considering Sura Al-Kafirun as evidence, claiming that it

▪︎ And we follow up with statements from the scholars of tafseer:

Sura Al-Kafirun, {Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “O you disbelievers!} is a disavowal

His statement: {Say,[O prophet] O you disbelievers! I do not worship

1 - Allah [Azza Wa Jal] says: {Say, O disbelievers!}. Takfeer upon the

2 - Then it is said further, [in response]: The Sunnah is the explanation

3 - Why did the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬leave the people to their understanding,

5 - This verse is a disassociation from all [types] of shirk, and likewise

■ Misconception - 4: The statement of the friend of Allah [peace be

Ibrahim [peace be upon him] said, as mentioned in the Sahih, "O

Revealing the misconception and a response:

17251- Ali bin Al-Hussein narrated to us that Muhammad bin Isa

■ Point of evidence: Prophet Ibrahim, [peace be upon him] counted

■ Misconception - 5: The statement of Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail, "O

Revealing the misconception and a response:

Their adherence to [the statement] of Zaid bin Amr in considering the

They claim that the two hadiths contradict [one another]:

■ Point of evidence: the absence of declaring exception of the prophet

■ Point of evidence: Consider O Sunni, the treatment of the righteous