Abu-Silaah
05-01-2018, 05:08
By ash-Shaykh al-‘Allāmah ‘Alī al-Khudayr fakk Allāhu asrah
The third nullifier: Whoever does not make takfīr on the mushrikīn, doubts their kufr or thinks their mathhab is correct, disbelieves. This consists of three issues:
١. That he does not make takfīr on the mushrikīn after [knowing] their clear kufr and this is included in the author’s statement and this is from the angle of when he is shown and informed of their shirk.
٢. That he doubts their kufr and it indicates another category when [he] added “or”, doubt being that the things in question are equal or no preference given over another.
٣. “Thinks their mathhab is correct”, which is the most common because the first and second would fall under this because the first is related to belief and the second is related to belief but this third category on top of it relating to beliefs attributes soundness to their beliefs. This is the one who says, “their beliefs are correct” or that “they are on the truth” or “every din except theirs’ is false.”
Two conditions are required before making takfir on the one who did not make takfīr on the mushrikīn:
١. The evidence of their kufr is established from the Book and the Sunnah; if he is then shown their kufr and he does not make takfīr on them he disbelieves as stated by ash-Shaykh Sulaymān Ibn ‘Abdillāh in “Majmū Tawhid”.
٢. He was not ignorant of their kufr; if he was not like those who did not know of their kufr, and if he is aware and does not make takfīr, he disbelieves. A mention of the ijmā’ on the kufr of the one who does not make takfīr on the mushrikīn is found in al-Qādī ‘Iyyad’s book “Shifā” (2/281), ash-Shaykh Sulaymān Ibn ‘Abdullāh in his treatise “Awthaq ‘Urah al-Īmān (p. 126), as well in his Majmū Tawhid, and Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah’s fatāwā (2/363).
Those kuffār you must make takfīr on are divided into two types:
١. Those from whom the ‘Ulamā have an ijmā’ on their kufr and it is all those who are not from ahlul-Qiblah, like the yahood or nasārā or majus or sikh and other than them.
٢. Those claimants of Islām from ahlul-Qiblah and they have in them clear kufr and the ‘Ulamā have an ijmā’ on performing takfīr upon them; like the ijmā’ with regards to the groups similar to the Nusayriyyah. Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said regarding them, “Indeed their kufr is greater than that from the (aslī) mushrikīn.” As well when the senior ‘Ulamā issued a fatwā on the kufr of Qādiyāniyyah (in our time) and as well the Pakistani government declared them kuffār; refer to “Fatawa al-Lajnah” collected by ad-Duwaysh (2/1116). A fatwa was also issued by the Muslim world league pertaining to their kufr. Similar to them are the Drūz, Bahā’iyyah, Bābiyyah, Rāfidah and Bātiniyyah; refer to Majmu’ al-Fatawa (2nd volume) and the sharh of al-Bassam “Nayl al-Ma’raib” in the chapter on the ruling of the apostate (p. 14).
The fatwā for the kufr of the Bahā’iyyah and Bābiyyah was issued at the Islamic fiqh council in Makkah and they declared them kuffār. The Tijaniyyah were declared kuffar by the Lajnah in fatwa #5553 (p. 229). The Lajnah also mentioned the Druz are kuffar in #11800 (2/228). In the present day the secularists are kuffār, having committed a nullifer from the Din; viewing the Din as insufficient, backwards and separating it completely from politics. Similar to them are the masonic movements, the communists, and the Ba’thist as well as the Rāfidah and all groups who claim Islām but come with clear kufr that the ‘Ulamā formed an ijmā’ making takfīr on them. Another group is the Jahmiyyah and from the ‘Ulamā that said there is an ijmā’ in takfīr on the Jahmiyyah is Ibnul-Qayyim who mentioned in his “Nuniyyah” that 500 scholars, like Ibn Mubārak and others, made takfir on them.
Where the difference in takfīr [comes from] on these is with regards to the general laymen of the groups that claim Islām but have clear kufr in them. For instance, the general layman of the Bātiniyyah, Rāfidah, Jahmiyyah and other than them from the different groups [that were just mentioned].
The ruling on the one who does not make takfīr is explained in three sections;
١. Those [groups] the ‘Ulamā have Ijmā’ on their kufr who are not from ahlul-Qiblah such as the yahood, nasārā and the hindus. So whoever does not do takfīr on them then he is a kāfir. Ibn Taymiyyah stated an ijmā’ in his Majmu’ (2/383) and said, “Whoever doubts in the kufr of the yahood, nasārā or the mushrikīn then he is a kāfir.” As well an ijmā’ was stated by al-Qādī ‘Iyyād in “Shifā” (2/281) and he said, “Whoever does not make takfīr on anyone from the yahood or nasārā and does not think they are in kufr or doubts their kufr is a kāfir.”
٢. Those [groups and sects] that say “there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah” that come with clear kufr that the ‘Ulamā declared an ijmā’ on performing takfīr on them; and this has a tafsil (explaination) attached to it:
He knows of their (i.e., the sects who affiliate themselves to Islām) kufr, and he does not make takfīr on them even after gaining that knowledge, then he is a kāfir. An ijmā’ was stated by Ibn Taymiyyah in his book “Sārim Maslūl” and he mentioned, “Whoever did not declare the kufr of those who attributed divinity to ‘Alī, disbelieved.” There is no doubt in the kufr of those who didn’t declare their kufr and that is evident based on the Hadīth of Malik al-Ashja’i that, “Whoever says there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah and disbelieves in everything else that is worshipped besides Allāh, his blood and wealth become harām,” and this is narrated in Muslim. The significance of the Hadith is that the wealth, blood and the honor of an individual does not become harām until he disbelieves in everything that is worshipped other than Allāh and from [all] kufr, along with that making takfīr on its people.
٣. Those where a difference of opinion occurs regarding the general laymen of the different groups of bid’ah like the Jahmiyyah [and the others mentioned]. An example of this is one has knowledge of the adillah (proofs) showing their kufr then it is wājib on him to declare their kufr and if he does not this nāqid (nullifier) applies on him. But, if he does not declare their kufr because he looked and weighed their kufr and he believes that there is a barrier that prevents from making takfīr [straight away], such as them being laymen or they a ta’wil present or were confused or they are ignorant (i.e., hujjah not established on them), then this one it is not allowed to make takfīr and this nāqid isn’t applied on him.
The author’s statement “al-mushrikin” indicates based on the usage of the “alif” and “lam” here is referring to “al-“ahd” (i.e., the mushrikin that regularly comes to mind) and included in the categories of the mushrikīn are two:
١. The mushrik by asl and he was never attributed to the Qiblah.
٢. The mushrik murtadd and he came with an established act of kufr and was from those who said “there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah”.
(Taken from his sharh of the nullifiers of Islām)
The third nullifier: Whoever does not make takfīr on the mushrikīn, doubts their kufr or thinks their mathhab is correct, disbelieves. This consists of three issues:
١. That he does not make takfīr on the mushrikīn after [knowing] their clear kufr and this is included in the author’s statement and this is from the angle of when he is shown and informed of their shirk.
٢. That he doubts their kufr and it indicates another category when [he] added “or”, doubt being that the things in question are equal or no preference given over another.
٣. “Thinks their mathhab is correct”, which is the most common because the first and second would fall under this because the first is related to belief and the second is related to belief but this third category on top of it relating to beliefs attributes soundness to their beliefs. This is the one who says, “their beliefs are correct” or that “they are on the truth” or “every din except theirs’ is false.”
Two conditions are required before making takfir on the one who did not make takfīr on the mushrikīn:
١. The evidence of their kufr is established from the Book and the Sunnah; if he is then shown their kufr and he does not make takfīr on them he disbelieves as stated by ash-Shaykh Sulaymān Ibn ‘Abdillāh in “Majmū Tawhid”.
٢. He was not ignorant of their kufr; if he was not like those who did not know of their kufr, and if he is aware and does not make takfīr, he disbelieves. A mention of the ijmā’ on the kufr of the one who does not make takfīr on the mushrikīn is found in al-Qādī ‘Iyyad’s book “Shifā” (2/281), ash-Shaykh Sulaymān Ibn ‘Abdullāh in his treatise “Awthaq ‘Urah al-Īmān (p. 126), as well in his Majmū Tawhid, and Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah’s fatāwā (2/363).
Those kuffār you must make takfīr on are divided into two types:
١. Those from whom the ‘Ulamā have an ijmā’ on their kufr and it is all those who are not from ahlul-Qiblah, like the yahood or nasārā or majus or sikh and other than them.
٢. Those claimants of Islām from ahlul-Qiblah and they have in them clear kufr and the ‘Ulamā have an ijmā’ on performing takfīr upon them; like the ijmā’ with regards to the groups similar to the Nusayriyyah. Shaykhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said regarding them, “Indeed their kufr is greater than that from the (aslī) mushrikīn.” As well when the senior ‘Ulamā issued a fatwā on the kufr of Qādiyāniyyah (in our time) and as well the Pakistani government declared them kuffār; refer to “Fatawa al-Lajnah” collected by ad-Duwaysh (2/1116). A fatwa was also issued by the Muslim world league pertaining to their kufr. Similar to them are the Drūz, Bahā’iyyah, Bābiyyah, Rāfidah and Bātiniyyah; refer to Majmu’ al-Fatawa (2nd volume) and the sharh of al-Bassam “Nayl al-Ma’raib” in the chapter on the ruling of the apostate (p. 14).
The fatwā for the kufr of the Bahā’iyyah and Bābiyyah was issued at the Islamic fiqh council in Makkah and they declared them kuffār. The Tijaniyyah were declared kuffar by the Lajnah in fatwa #5553 (p. 229). The Lajnah also mentioned the Druz are kuffar in #11800 (2/228). In the present day the secularists are kuffār, having committed a nullifer from the Din; viewing the Din as insufficient, backwards and separating it completely from politics. Similar to them are the masonic movements, the communists, and the Ba’thist as well as the Rāfidah and all groups who claim Islām but come with clear kufr that the ‘Ulamā formed an ijmā’ making takfīr on them. Another group is the Jahmiyyah and from the ‘Ulamā that said there is an ijmā’ in takfīr on the Jahmiyyah is Ibnul-Qayyim who mentioned in his “Nuniyyah” that 500 scholars, like Ibn Mubārak and others, made takfir on them.
Where the difference in takfīr [comes from] on these is with regards to the general laymen of the groups that claim Islām but have clear kufr in them. For instance, the general layman of the Bātiniyyah, Rāfidah, Jahmiyyah and other than them from the different groups [that were just mentioned].
The ruling on the one who does not make takfīr is explained in three sections;
١. Those [groups] the ‘Ulamā have Ijmā’ on their kufr who are not from ahlul-Qiblah such as the yahood, nasārā and the hindus. So whoever does not do takfīr on them then he is a kāfir. Ibn Taymiyyah stated an ijmā’ in his Majmu’ (2/383) and said, “Whoever doubts in the kufr of the yahood, nasārā or the mushrikīn then he is a kāfir.” As well an ijmā’ was stated by al-Qādī ‘Iyyād in “Shifā” (2/281) and he said, “Whoever does not make takfīr on anyone from the yahood or nasārā and does not think they are in kufr or doubts their kufr is a kāfir.”
٢. Those [groups and sects] that say “there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah” that come with clear kufr that the ‘Ulamā declared an ijmā’ on performing takfīr on them; and this has a tafsil (explaination) attached to it:
He knows of their (i.e., the sects who affiliate themselves to Islām) kufr, and he does not make takfīr on them even after gaining that knowledge, then he is a kāfir. An ijmā’ was stated by Ibn Taymiyyah in his book “Sārim Maslūl” and he mentioned, “Whoever did not declare the kufr of those who attributed divinity to ‘Alī, disbelieved.” There is no doubt in the kufr of those who didn’t declare their kufr and that is evident based on the Hadīth of Malik al-Ashja’i that, “Whoever says there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah and disbelieves in everything else that is worshipped besides Allāh, his blood and wealth become harām,” and this is narrated in Muslim. The significance of the Hadith is that the wealth, blood and the honor of an individual does not become harām until he disbelieves in everything that is worshipped other than Allāh and from [all] kufr, along with that making takfīr on its people.
٣. Those where a difference of opinion occurs regarding the general laymen of the different groups of bid’ah like the Jahmiyyah [and the others mentioned]. An example of this is one has knowledge of the adillah (proofs) showing their kufr then it is wājib on him to declare their kufr and if he does not this nāqid (nullifier) applies on him. But, if he does not declare their kufr because he looked and weighed their kufr and he believes that there is a barrier that prevents from making takfīr [straight away], such as them being laymen or they a ta’wil present or were confused or they are ignorant (i.e., hujjah not established on them), then this one it is not allowed to make takfīr and this nāqid isn’t applied on him.
The author’s statement “al-mushrikin” indicates based on the usage of the “alif” and “lam” here is referring to “al-“ahd” (i.e., the mushrikin that regularly comes to mind) and included in the categories of the mushrikīn are two:
١. The mushrik by asl and he was never attributed to the Qiblah.
٢. The mushrik murtadd and he came with an established act of kufr and was from those who said “there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah”.
(Taken from his sharh of the nullifiers of Islām)