Excusing Ignorance and Interpretive Error
The Ruling on the Ignorant and on One Who Errs by Interpretation
Translated from the Arabic: العذر بالجهل والتأويل


[Page 1]

(Excusing Ignorance and Interpretive Error)
(Introduction) One of the reasons for this study is to bring about reconciliation among groups of Muslims: between the group that does not excuse someone who, despite having testified to the two testimonies of faith and embraced faith in general terms, interprets the matter in a way that has some basis in the Sharia or the Arabic language, and therefore declares such people disbelievers and declares those who excuse them disbelievers; and the other group, which excuses those who interpret matters in this way among Ahl al-Sunna, but nevertheless does not excuse the first group for declaring such people disbelievers, accusing them of being Kharijites and applying to them the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) concerning the Kharijites. Is someone from among the people of the qibla who makes every effort in interpretation truly a disbeliever? And is someone who declares him a disbeliever and does not excuse him a Kharijite? This is what the researcher seeks to answer. As for any error in reasoning in this study, I retract it, in my lifetime and after my death. I seek only to set things right as far as I am able, and my success is only through Allah.
Among the great deeds that Islam encourages and urges people to undertake is reconciliation between people. Islam is a religion of love, unity, and harmony among Muslims. Allah, Exalted is He, says: ﴾There is no good in much of their private conversation, except for those who enjoin charity, kindness, or reconciliation between people. Whoever does this, seeking Allah's pleasure, We shall grant him a great reward.﴿ [al-Nisa: 114].
Imam al-Tabari, may Allah have mercy on him, said regarding "or reconciliation between people": "It is reconciliation between those at odds or in dispute, in a manner that Allah has permitted, so that they may return to what brings affection and unity of purpose, in accordance with what Allah has permitted and commanded." (1)


[Page 2]

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) also informed us that whoever reconciles people will be granted a tremendous reward. Imam Ahmad narrated in his Musnad, from the hadith of Abu al-Darda (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Shall I tell you what is better in rank than prayer, fasting, and charity?" They said, "Yes." He said, "Reconciling people, for discord among people is the shaver." (2) In another narration: "I do not mean that it shaves hair; rather, it shaves away religion." (3)

Through reconciliation, the brotherhood of Islam is realized. Allah, Exalted is He, says: ﴾The believers are but brothers, so make peace between your two brothers, and fear Allah so that you may be shown mercy.﴿ [al-Hujurat: 10].
I ask Allah to envelop us all in His mercy. There is no power nor strength except through Allah.

Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful, Master of the Day of Judgment. O Allah, bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You blessed the family of Abraham, and bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You blessed the family of Abraham. You are indeed Praiseworthy, Glorious. O Allah, guide us by Your permission to the truth concerning which people have differed; indeed, You guide whom You will to a straight path.
The scholars differed concerning the ruling on the ignorant person. We shall begin by mentioning their views. There is no power nor strength except through Allah.


[Page 3]

First, some held that ignorance is never an excuse in matters of belief. They based this on the fact that Allah created people upon the religion of Islam, namely, monotheism. By this, they meant singling out Allah in worship, which is obedience, as well as the forms this obedience takes. For example, in their view, the ugliness of prostrating to anyone other than Allah is established by reason and by innate disposition. Likewise, some of Allah's attributes, such as knowledge, power, and life, are, in their view, known by innate disposition. Some included hearing and sight among what is known by innate disposition, while others, such as al-Tabari, did not. Although this group, which has a hadith-based strand, includes attributes of Allah such as hearing and sight among what is known by innate disposition, they did not declare al-Tabari an unbeliever for this, since he excused ignorance of the attributes of hearing and sight. In their view, one who is ignorant of an attribute known by innate disposition is an unbeliever; yet they did not declare him an unbeliever. Rather, they often cited his statements in support of the view that ignorance is no excuse. This is one of the contradictions that emerged among them, for al-Tabari says: "Al-Tabari said in his book al-Tabsir...
((Abu Ja'far said:
As for that without knowledge of which, in our view, no one's profession of faith is valid, and without which the ruling of disbelief is not removed from him, it is what we have already mentioned. (He had mentioned that He is the Creator and Disposer of affairs, that there is nothing like Him, and that He is powerful, speaking, and knowing.)
That is because no one who has reached the age of legal responsibility is excused for being ignorant of the attributes we mentioned earlier, whether a messenger from Allah, Exalted is He, has come to him or not, and whether he has seen any of creation besides himself or has seen no one but himself.
Allah, exalted is He, has names and attributes that His Book has stated and with which His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) informed his community. No one among Allah's creation for whom the proof has been established—that the Quran was revealed with them and that the Messenger of Allah's statement concerning them has been authentically established through the reports transmitted from him—may contradict them. If he does so after the proof has been established against him through the reports, in the manner I have explained concerning that whose true nature there is no way to know


[Page 4]

The one ignorant of it is excused on account of his ignorance, for knowledge of this cannot be attained through reason, reflection, or thought.
This includes what Allah, Exalted is He, has informed us: that He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing, and that He has two hands, as He says: {Rather, both His hands are outstretched}; and that He has a right hand, as He says: {And the heavens will be folded in His right hand}; and that He has a face, as He says: {Everything will perish except His face}, and: {And there will remain the face of your Lord, Possessor of majesty and honor}; and that He has a foot, as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Until the Lord places His foot in it"—meaning Hell.
And that He laughs at His believing servant, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said of the man who was killed in the path of Allah: "He met Allah, Mighty and Majestic, while He was laughing at him."
And that He descends every night to the lowest heaven, according to the report of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).
And that He is not one-eyed, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said when mentioning the Dajjal: "He is one-eyed, but your Lord is not one-eyed." And that the believers will see their Lord on the Day of Resurrection with their eyes, just as they see the sun when no cloud veils it, and just as they see the full moon, according to the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). And that He has fingers, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "There is no heart except that it is between two of the fingers of the Most Merciful."
These meanings that have been described, and others like them, are among the things with which Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has described Himself, or with which His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) has described Him. Their true nature cannot be grasped through thought or reflection. We do not declare anyone an unbeliever for being ignorant of them unless they have been conveyed to him.


[Page 5]

"If the report transmitted concerning that is one by which proof is established, taking the place of seeing and hearing, then the listener is obliged to affirm its truth and testify that the report conveyed it, just as he would testify to the truth of what he saw and heard."
Therefore, according to them, one who is ignorant of an attribute is an unbeliever if that attribute is known by innate disposition (fitra). They did not set a limit on what is known by innate disposition as opposed to what is not, and this led to their differing over whether one who is ignorant of some attributes is to be declared an unbeliever. For these people, the innate disposition upon which people were created encompasses, more or less, the religion of Islam and its branches. They hold that Allah fashioned the intellect to deem monotheism good and polytheism bad. I say "its forms" because some have said that only monotheism itself is established by innate disposition, meaning that Allah alone has the right to be worshipped—that He alone is to be obeyed. But, in their view, the forms of monotheism and the forms of polytheism are not established by reason, but by transmitted evidence. For example, prostrating to someone other than Allah is not, in their view, polytheism unless there is a textual proof, since prostration to Adam and Joseph is established, yet it was neither polytheism nor unbelief. This group held that proof is established against people by innate disposition, while some of them restricted what is known by innate disposition to the matter of monotheism and polytheism. As for other practical matters, and likewise some less apparent matters of unbelief, these are not established by innate disposition in their view, so one who is ignorant of them is excused. Among the proofs they cite is the hadith that every newborn is born upon the innate disposition, and in one narration, "upon this religion." Thus, they say, proof was established against people in this way. They also said that Allah, Exalted is He, judged the Prophet's father and mother, Ibn Jud'an, and Amr ibn Luhayy to be unbelievers, even though they lived during an interval between messengers, in light of His saying, "so that you may warn a people whose forefathers were not warned, and so they are heedless," and His saying, "We sent no warner to them before you." This indicates that they were held accountable on the basis of innate disposition or reason. There is no difference between an original polytheist and someone who became Muslim and then committed polytheism: neither is excused. Allah, Exalted is He, also said, "Are your unbelievers better than those, or have you been granted immunity in the scriptures?" There is likewise no difference in the ruling between one unbeliever and another. They also said that reason recognizes the repugnance of things before the advent of the revealed law. Thus, anyone who commits a sin, whether in the matter of


[Page 6]

Beliefs or actions. Some restricted it to beliefs, in which case one is punished for it and has no excuse. Others restricted this to the matter of divine oneness and what pertains to it. As for actions, these are not deemed obligatory by reason, according to them, but only through revealed texts; one who commits them is excused until he is able to obtain the legal proof, or until the legal proof actually reaches him.


[Page 7]

Among their proofs was that Allah called certain sins sins and wrongdoing before sending the messengers. The Exalted said: (And if any of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah.) Thus He called him a polytheist before he had heard the words of Allah. Likewise, Allah's saying: (And when your Lord took from the children of Adam, from their loins, their descendants, and made them testify against themselves: "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes indeed; we testify"—lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, "We were unaware of this.") (172) The fact that He, Exalted is He, said to them what means, "so that you do not say on the Day of Resurrection, 'We were unaware of this,'" is proof that He did this so it would be evidence against them, which they would recall on the Day of Resurrection. This included all the descendants of Adam: Allah brought them forth from his loins and made them testify against themselves. Their testimony that He is their Lord means that they knew He is the Creator, Provider, Giver of life and death, and Disposer of affairs; and that He is also Living; and that there would also be a Day of Resurrection, as indicated by His saying before them, "the Day of Resurrection." These divine attributes, and others understood from the verse, were therefore known to them at the time of this testimony. Hence, no one has an excuse for being ignorant of them, and whoever is ignorant of them is an unbeliever and is not excused on account of ignorance, because there is no ignorance in the first place.
This group included Allah's attributes in this category, so they did not excuse anyone ignorant of an attribute, nor anyone who interpreted an attribute figuratively. In their view, such an interpreter is merely doubly ignorant, so his excuse is of no avail. Thus they declared all the groups that interpret the attributes figuratively, including the Ash'aris and others, to be unbelievers, because they say that Allah's attributes are apprehended by innate disposition. They likewise declared to be unbelievers all those who excuse people who interpret the attributes figuratively. In their view, whoever excuses the Ash'aris is an unbeliever, because he has called an unbeliever a Muslim; and this is unbelief, since whoever does not declare an unbeliever to be an unbeliever is himself an unbeliever.
They argued that reason can discern what is reprehensible even without a messenger being sent, citing several proofs, including: ({And when your Lord called Moses: "Go to the wrongdoing people, the people of Pharaoh. Will they not be mindful of Allah?"}) and His saying: ({Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and divided its people into factions, oppressing a group among them, slaughtering their sons and sparing their women. Indeed, he was one of the corrupters.}) He called them wrongdoers, transgressors, and corrupters before sending the messenger. And He, Exalted is He, said: (Go to Pharaoh; indeed, he has transgressed.) His saying that he and his people were wrongdoers, transgressors, and corrupters is a condemnation of their actions, and condemnation applies only to evil, reprehensible actions. This shows that actions can be reprehensible and blameworthy before a messenger comes to them, and thus proves that they are held accountable by innate disposition or by reason.


[Page 8]

Likewise, He related that Hud said to his people: (Worship Allah; you have no god other than Him. You are only fabricators.) He thus called them fabricators before issuing a ruling that they would contravene, because they had set up another god alongside Allah. Likewise, His saying, Exalted is He: (Say, "Allah does not command indecency. Do you say about Allah what you do not know?" (28)) shows that indecency is known by reason. Otherwise, if indecency meant only what Allah has forbidden—since indecency could be known only through textual revelation, not reason—the verse would mean, "Allah does not command what He has forbidden," and this is false. This shows that abominations, the greatest of which is associating partners with Allah, are known by innate disposition and reason before a prohibition comes in revelation, so no one who is ignorant of them has an excuse. The Noble Quran frequently argues from the disbelievers' acknowledgment of His lordship, Exalted and Glorified is He, to the obligation of singling Him out in worship. Thus, when addressing them about the oneness of lordship, He asks them a question that elicits their affirmation. Once they acknowledge His lordship, He uses it as proof against them that He alone deserves to be worshipped, and rebukes them, condemning their association of others with Him despite their acknowledgment that He alone is the Lord. For whoever acknowledges that Allah, Exalted is He, alone is the Lord must also acknowledge that He alone deserves to be worshipped. Examples of this include His saying, Exalted is He: (Say, "Who provides for you from the heaven and the earth, or who controls hearing and sight?") up to His saying: (They will say, "Allah.") When they acknowledged His lordship, He rebuked them, condemning their association of others with Him, saying: (Then say, "Will you not be mindful of Allah?") Another example is His saying, Exalted is He: (Say, "To whom belong the earth and all who are in it, if you know?" They will say, "To Allah.") When they acknowledged this, He rebuked them, condemning their association of others with Him, saying: (Say, "Will you not then reflect?") Then He said: (Say, "Who is the Lord of the seven heavens and the Lord of the Mighty Throne?" They will say, "Allah.") When they acknowledged this, He rebuked them, condemning their association of others with Him, saying: (Say, "Will you not be mindful of Allah?") Then He said: (Say, "In whose hand is the dominion of all things, and who protects, while none can protect against Him, if you know?" They will say, "Allah.") When they acknowledged this, He rebuked them, condemning their association of others with Him, saying: (How, then, are you deluded?) Another example is His saying, Exalted is He: (Say, "Who is the Lord of the heavens and the earth?" Say, "Allah.") When their acknowledgment was established, He rebuked them, condemning their association of others with Him, saying: (Say, "Have you then taken protectors besides Him, who have no power to benefit or harm themselves?")
And His saying, Exalted is He: (If you ask them, "Who created the heavens and the earth and subjected the sun and the moon...")


[Page 9]

"They will surely say, 'Allah.'" Once their acknowledgment was established, He rebuked them, denouncing their associating partners with Him, saying: "How, then, are they turned away?" And His saying, Exalted is He: "If you ask them, 'Who sent down water from the sky and thereby brought the earth back to life after its death?' they will surely say, 'Allah.'" Once their acknowledgment was established, He rebuked them, denouncing their associating partners with Him, saying: "Say, 'Praise be to Allah.' But most of them do not reason." And His saying: "If you ask them, 'Who created the heavens and the earth?' they will surely say, 'Allah.'" Once their acknowledgment was established, He rebuked them, denouncing them, saying: "Say, 'Praise be to Allah.' But most of them do not know." And His saying, Exalted is He: "Is Allah better, or what they associate with Him? Or who created the heavens and the earth and sent down water for you from the sky, with which We caused gardens of delight to grow? You could not have caused their trees to grow." There is no doubt that the only answer they could possibly give is that the One capable of creating the heavens and the earth, and all that He mentions alongside them, is better than an inanimate object incapable of doing anything. Once their acknowledgment was thus established, He rebuked them, denouncing their associating partners with Him, saying: "Is there a god alongside Allah? Rather, they are a people who deviate." There are very many verses of this kind. For this reason, we have stated elsewhere that all questions concerning the oneness of lordship (tawhid al-rububiyya) are interrogative questions intended to elicit acknowledgment; once they acknowledge it, they are then rebuked and censured on the basis of that acknowledgment, because one who acknowledges lordship must necessarily acknowledge divinity (uluhiyya), as in His saying, Exalted is He: "Is there any doubt about Allah?" And His saying: "Say, 'Shall I seek a lord other than Allah?'" End quote. They likewise said that Allah rebuked the polytheists for failing to acknowledge divinity despite acknowledging lordship.
But this group differed among themselves. One faction declared those who committed polytheism to be unbelievers and said that they are punished in this world by being fought, and in the Hereafter they will remain forever in the Fire of Hell, since proof was established against them by reason and innate disposition, even if no messenger came to them or a messenger's message did not reach them. This is based on the aforementioned punishment of Amr ibn Luhayy and the Prophet's father (peace and blessings be upon him), despite His saying, Exalted is He: "No warner had come to them before you." The other faction said: We apply the terms polytheism and unbelief to them in this world, just as Allah applied them to these ignorant people to whom no messenger came; but punishment in this world and the Hereafter occurs only after messengers have been sent, and after the test on the Day of Resurrection, as in the hadith of al-Aswad ibn Sari.


[Page 10]

Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said (vol. 4, p. 24): Ali narrated to us; Muadh ibn Hisham narrated to us; he said: My father narrated to me, from Qatada, from al-Ahnaf ibn Qays, from al-Aswad ibn Sari: The Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: "There are four on the Day of Resurrection: a deaf man who hears nothing, an imbecile, an elderly man, and one who died during an interval [between prophets]. The deaf man will say, 'My Lord, Islam came, but I could hear nothing.' The imbecile will say, 'My Lord, Islam came, while the children were pelting me with camel dung.' The elderly man will say, 'My Lord, Islam came, but I could understand nothing.' And the one who died during the interval will say, 'My Lord, no messenger of Yours came to me.' He will take their pledges that they will obey Him, then send word to them: 'Enter the Fire.' He said: By Him in whose hand is Muhammad's soul, if they entered it, it would be coolness and safety for them."
Ali narrated to us; Muadh ibn Hisham narrated to us; he said: My father narrated to me, from Qatada, from al-Hasan, from Abu Rafi, from Abu Hurayra, something similar, except that at the end he said: "Whoever enters it, it will be coolness and safety for him; and whoever does not enter it will be dragged to it."
This is an authentic hadith; its narrators are among the narrators of the Sahih collections." They said: "That is, the people before the sending of a messenger and the establishment of proof are excused with regard to some rulings, but not excused with regard to others.
They are excused in that they are not punished in this world or the Hereafter until the prophetic proof is established against them—and this is from Allah's mercy and grace.
They are not excused for committing polytheism and the rulings that follow from it, such as not burying them in Muslim cemeteries, not praying over them, and not tending their graves.


[Page 11]

and seeking forgiveness for them; their slaughtered animals are not to be eaten, their women are not to be married, and they will not enter Paradise until they are tested. Likewise, fighting and jihad against the polytheists may take place only after the proof has been established, though before that they are polytheists." Thus, as you can see, they distinguished between merely applying the name and the rulings concerning punishment in the Hereafter and worldly punishment by killing. Another group said that the name entails punishment in the Hereafter, but not worldly punishment by killing and captivity. They said that as long as the name applies, its rulings in the Hereafter apply: they will be punished in the Hereafter. As for the words of the Exalted, "We would never punish until We had sent a messenger," what is meant is their punishment in this world. Al-Shawkani transmitted this view from the majority. As for the Hereafter, they will be punished in the Fire, because the Prophet's father was punished, despite the words of the Exalted, "No warner had come to them before you."
Another group distinguished between someone who was originally a polytheist and someone who entered Islam and then committed polytheism. They said: an original polytheist is called a polytheist and is punished in this world by being treated as one; as for the Hereafter, his case depends on whether a messenger came to him or not. If no messenger came to him, he will be tested on the Day of Resurrection—as stated in the hadith—with a fire into which he will be commanded to enter. Whoever enters it will find it cool and safe, and whoever does not enter it will be dragged into it." This is based on the hadith, "No one from this community, whether Jew or Christian, hears of me and then fails to believe in me without being among the people of the Fire." As for someone who has testified to the two testimonies of faith, believed in general terms in everything the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) brought, and has not neglected seeking knowledge, then exercised his judgment and erred in committing one form of polytheism or disbelief, he is excused in that, because the issues


[Page 12]

Shirk, disbelief, and their forms, according to this group, are not known through reason; they are known only through the Sharia. Reason has no role here at all. Thus, reason provides no proof here for knowing what constitutes disbelief and what constitutes shirk. In their view, these people are excused if they have not been negligent in seeking knowledge and have some kind of interpretation concerning an aspect of shirk or the divine attributes. This is due to a special quality of this community: the sin of error has been lifted from it, as in the verse, {There is no blame upon you for what you do by mistake}, and the hadith, "If a judge exercises independent judgment and is correct, he receives two rewards; if he exercises independent judgment and errs, he receives one reward." In the language, a judge is anyone who issues a ruling on a matter and then believes it or acts upon it. Thus, it includes anyone who acts or holds a belief, and so encompasses error in action or belief.
Among their proofs were the hadith of Dhat Anwat, the man who scattered his own ashes, and also the hadith of Aisha: "Whatever people conceal, Allah knows it." He said, "Yes." When they were asked, "Why did you distinguish between an original polytheist and a Muslim from whom shirk has occurred, when they are the same?" they replied, "Allah is the one who distinguished between them in what has already been mentioned, and reason has no role here." This is like what some have said: that committing shirk under coercion was not excused, based on their saying, {If they discover you, they will stone you or force you back into their religion}. They did not present a third option, which indicates that coercion was not considered in the case of shirk. But in our Sharia, committing shirk by word or deed under coercion incurs no sin and is excused. Likewise, error in this matter is also excused for this community in particular. This is also suggested by the hadith: "Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'Allah has pardoned my community for error…'"


[Page 13]

"...and forgetfulness and what they were compelled to do." They said that earlier nations were held accountable for their mistakes and called to account for all their actions, with neither ignorance nor forgetfulness serving as an excuse for them or a reason to pardon them. But these burdens have been lifted from this nation in response to their supplication and as a mercy from Allah to them, as Allah, Exalted is He, made clear in His words: {Our Lord, do not take us to task if we forget or make a mistake. Our Lord, do not place upon us a burden as You placed upon those before us. Our Lord, do not burden us with what we have no strength to bear} (al-Baqara: 286), and His words: {There is no blame upon you for what you do by mistake, but only for what your hearts intend. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful} (al-Ahzab: 5). It is thus clear that there is no problem in distinguishing between an original disbeliever and a Muslim who has committed a form of shirk. However, the first group, who do not excuse shirk or any of its forms, responded to this group on this particular point by saying that as soon as a Muslim engages in a form of shirk, he is a polytheist at the moment he engages in it, and is called a polytheist for the reasons already mentioned. Consequently, none of the preceding verses or hadith applies to him. Rather, the preceding verses and hadith apply to someone who has committed something short of shirk, or something obscure among matters of disbelief; yet they did not set a limit for this obscure disbelief. Therefore, those who excuse people on grounds of ignorance have held that someone who commits a form of shirk or disbelief on the basis of an interpretation is not thereby deemed a disbeliever, because the forms of shirk are not established by reason: sometimes prostrating to someone other than Allah is shirk, and sometimes it is merely a greeting. In this case, the ruling of Islam remains applicable to him, and the preceding verses and hadith apply to him. However, this group that excuses the latter ignorant person...


[Page 14]

He laid down conditions for this excuse. The first is that the ignorant person must not have been negligent in seeking knowledge or turned away from it, for in that case he is not called ignorant or mistaken. Rather, he knows the path of truth but does not follow it, and deliberately turns away from the evidence. The verse therefore applies to him: {And those who disbelieve turn away from that of which they were warned.} He is subject to the punishment of a polytheist if he commits an act of polytheism, as judged by the rulings of this world. The punishments reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) for those who died during the interval between prophets, such as the punishment of his father, peace be upon him, and the punishment of Amr ibn Luhayy, can be understood in two ways. The first is that remnants of the religion of Abraham had reached them, but they turned away from it. There was someone living among them, Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufayl, who died following the religion of Abraham; he sought it and found it. So they have no excuse. The second is that the religion of Abraham had not reached them, but they turned away from seeking it. Their ignorance was thus due to their turning away, and one who turns away is not excused—especially since Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufayl had sought the truth and found it. Likewise, whoever died during the interval without knowledge and then embraced polytheism was, in reality, fabricating lies about Allah, for he merely followed his forefathers in their beliefs based on conjecture, and conjecture is the most false of speech. Their conjecture was a lie about Allah for which they are held accountable. Since they found no one to teach them, they should have remained firm in what they were certain of: that Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, alone is divine. They should have said, "O Allah, if we knew of a religion better than this, we would follow it," as Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufayl said something similar. Either they fabricated about Allah what they did not know, following conjecture without proof—in which case they deliberately committed polytheism and spoke lies about Allah—or, as Allah Most High said: {And whoever calls upon besides ...}


[Page 15]

…another god alongside Allah, for which he has no proof. His reckoning is with his Lord. Indeed, the disbelievers do not prosper." Thus, He declared anyone who invokes anyone besides Allah without proof to be a disbeliever. In this respect, they are not excused. Those mentioned in the hadith as being punished, such as the Prophet's father (peace and blessings be upon him) and Amr ibn Luhayy, belong to this group; these conditions were met in their case, so punishment was due to them.
However, this group that excuses them split into two groups. One group said that it is sufficient for the proof to be established that a person has the ability to learn. If a person is able to acquire knowledge but falls short in doing so and commits an act of shirk, then he is a disbelieving polytheist, because he is no longer considered ignorant or mistaken, but rather one who turns away from the truth and commits disbelief through turning away. As you can see, this criterion is not well-defined, since the ability to acquire knowledge is relative. Thus, they said that a recent convert to Islam and someone raised in a remote desert are not deemed disbelievers, because they are unable to acquire knowledge. Since this criterion is not well-defined, rulings on declaring some people who engage in major shirk to be disbelievers have differed in certain countries, depending on whether or not they are considered to have had the ability to acquire knowledge. As for the other group that excuses them, they said that the ability to seek knowledge is not sufficient for the proof to be established; rather, the proof must reach the person legally accountable before he can be declared a disbeliever. If one of them is able to acquire knowledge but turns away from it, then falls into shirk while being a Muslim, he is not judged to be a polytheist, because the proof did not reach him. He is only sinful for falling short in learning what is obligatory for him. They said, "Failing to seek knowledge of the details despite being able to do so does not, by itself, entail disbelief, unless its cause is aversion to what one has previously learned, contempt for it, or arrogance toward it."


[Page 16]

At that point, a violation of submission is joined to it. As for failure to learn in itself, it does not entail denial, since it may be due to inattention, never having turned one's thoughts to the question, or culpable negligence that does not indicate hatred or arrogance—as is the case with many Muslims regarding many details. If it were said that the criterion is the ability to learn, then the masses would have to be declared unbelievers merely because they are ignorant despite being able to acquire knowledge. Indeed, the Companions' knowledge during the Prophet's lifetime did not encompass every detail; otherwise, they too would have to be declared unbelievers, even though Allah has declared them upright and is pleased with them. Likewise, one who enters Islam—with a general understanding of the two testimonies of faith and a readiness to submit to the details—would be an unbeliever until he learned those details. He would remain an unbeliever for a period until he learned them, because he could learn them immediately after uttering the two testimonies, without any interval. And if he learned them over a period of time, he would be an unbeliever because he could have learned them in a shorter period but did not! End quote. However, their words apply to someone who has embraced faith in general and uttered the two testimonies, then remained ignorant of the details and refrained from speaking about them until he learned them, without speaking about what he did not know. For example, Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufayl believed in Allah in general and that He alone deserves worship, and stopped there. He did not speak about Allah without knowledge, nor did he falsely attribute anything to Allah by entering into polytheistic rites without knowledge, for by doing so he would falsely attribute to Allah an act of worship that He had not prescribed. In such a case, he would outwardly appear to be excused. The discussion, rather, concerns someone who turns away from learning, then follows conjecture in attributing to Allah what he does not attribute to Himself, through various forms of polytheistic worship or other kinds of unbelief, or denies something of what Allah has revealed without knowing it, following conjecture or desire. Whether he is excused in this situation is questionable, because here he has transgressed, for he…


[Page 17]

Allah has stated that whoever cannot produce sound evidence for what he says or does is following his own desires. He, Exalted is He, says: ((Say, "Then bring a Book from Allah that is a better guide than these two, and I will follow it, if you are truthful." 49 But if they do not respond to you, then know that they are only following their own desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his own desires without guidance from Allah? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people." 50)) Thus, He, Exalted is He, called the one who brings no evidence for what he says a follower of his own desires, declared that none is more astray than him, and described him as one of the wrongdoers. All of this entails declaring him an unbeliever.
And He says: ((Indeed, those who dispute concerning the signs of Allah without any authority that has come to them have nothing in their hearts but pride, which they will never attain. So seek refuge in Allah; indeed, He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing. 56)) Thus, He, Exalted is He, described the one who disputes without knowledge as having pride: by Allah's description, he is arrogant, a wrongdoer, and astray.
And He, Exalted is He, says: ((They say, "Allah has taken a son." Glory be to Him! He is the Self-Sufficient; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth. You have no authority for this. Do you say about Allah what you do not know? 68 Say, "Indeed, those who fabricate lies about Allah will not succeed." 69 A brief enjoyment in this world, then to Us will be their return; then We will make them taste the severe punishment for their disbelief. 70)) Thus, He, Exalted is He, declared that those who fabricate lies about Allah will not succeed, and indicated that by doing so they disbelieve.
And He, Exalted is He, says: ((And among the people is one who disputes about Allah without knowledge, guidance, or an illuminating Book, (8) turning his neck aside to lead others away from the way of Allah. For him there is disgrace in this world, and on the Day of Resurrection We will make him taste the punishment of the Burning Fire. (9))) Thus, He, Exalted is He, made clear that the one who disputes without knowledge is punished and burdened with sin.
And he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "And a man who did not know the truth and judged among people out of ignorance is in the Fire." Thus, he declared that the ignorant person who speaks without knowledge is in the Fire.
And He said: ((These are our people; they have taken gods besides Him. Why do they not bring clear authority for them? Who is more unjust than one who fabricates a lie about Allah? (15))) He called the one who brings no authority or proof a fabricator of lies about Allah, and declared that none is more unjust than him; this indicates his unbelief.
And He said: ((Those who dispute concerning the signs of Allah without any authority that has come to them: it is greatly hateful to Allah and to those who believe. Thus Allah seals the heart of every arrogant tyrant.)) Thus, He called the one who disputes without authority hateful.
And he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Whoever relates a hadith from me, believing it to be a lie, is one of the liars." Thus, he called the person who thought the hadith was false and transmitted it, attributing it to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), a liar—even if he was not certain—and called him a liar.
And He, Exalted is He, says: ((Those who dispute concerning the signs of Allah without any authority that has come to them: it is greatly hateful to Allah and to those who believe. Thus Allah seals the heart of every arrogant tyrant.)) Thus, He called the one who disputes out of ignorance hateful.
From this, you can see that there are two men: one who has secured his general faith, then remains silent about what he does not know, saying, "If Allah and His Messenger said it, then I believe it." He has not invented anything about Allah or any religious law and attributed it to Allah, whether he invented it himself or followed someone else in it, because one who follows another is himself speaking without


[Page 18]

This is speaking about Allah without knowledge, and it is forbidden; its perpetrator has no excuse. The blind following of those who cited their forefathers did not avail them at all.
Allah, Exalted is He, says: {Thus We did not send before you any warner to a town without its affluent people saying, "We found our fathers following a way, and we are following in their footsteps."} (23)
Thus, there is a difference between someone who has embraced faith in general terms and then does not invent anything—whether deliberately or by blind following—that contradicts that faith, thereby speaking about Allah without knowledge; and someone who remains silent about that and says, "I believe in everything the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) brought, and I do not speak about Allah's religion without knowledge." These are two different things.
Ibn Hazm said: ("Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam by Ibn Hazm" (6/12):
"Among the things that utterly invalidate their position are the words of Allah, Exalted is He: {And do not say, as to what your tongues falsely describe, 'This is lawful and this is forbidden,' in order to fabricate lies against Allah. Indeed, those who fabricate lies against Allah will not prosper.} And His words, Exalted is He: {Say, 'Have you considered the provision Allah has sent down for you, of which you have made some forbidden and some lawful?' Say, 'Has Allah given you permission, or are you fabricating lies against Allah?'} These two verses establish that anyone who declares lawful or forbidden something without permission from Allah, Exalted is He, to forbid or permit it, has fabricated a lie against Allah. We are certain that Allah, Exalted is He, has made lawful for us everything He created on earth, except what He explicitly specified as forbidden, in accordance with His words, Exalted is He: {And why should you not eat of that over which Allah's name has been mentioned, when He has clearly explained to you what He has forbidden you, except when you are compelled to do so? Indeed, many lead others astray through their desires, without knowledge. Your Lord knows best those who transgress.} These two clear texts thus invalidate the forbidding of anything by anyone on the pretext of precaution or fear."
And he said: ("Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam by Ibn Hazm" (1/22):
"He praised the People of the Cave: {We relate to you their story in truth. They were youths who believed in their Lord, and We increased them in guidance. And We strengthened their hearts when they stood up and said, 'Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth. We will never call upon any god besides Him, for then we would have uttered an outrageous falsehood. These people of ours have taken gods besides Him. Why do they not bring clear proof for them? Who, then, is more unjust than one who fabricates a lie against Allah?'} Allah, Mighty and Majestic, praised them for rejecting what their people said, since their people had not established clear proof for their claim; and He affirmed as true their statement that whoever claims ...


[Page 19]

A statement without evidence is a fabrication of lies against Allah, Mighty and Majestic.

And He, Exalted is He, said: {Rather, those who do wrong follow their desires without knowledge. So who can guide those whom Allah has led astray? They will have no helpers.} Thus, as you hear, He, Exalted is He, declared that whoever follows a statement and agrees with it without knowing that it is sound is a wrongdoer, and that whoever does not return to the truth he hears is among the people of the Fire. And He, Exalted is He, said: {If they do not respond to you, then know that they only follow their desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.}
Allah, Exalted is He, condemned a person for denying what he does not know, saying: {Rather, they denied what they had not encompassed in knowledge, and whose interpretation had not yet come to them. Thus did those before them deny; so see what was the end of the wrongdoers.} Thus, all that we have mentioned establishes the duty to refrain from what we do not know and to return to what the proof requires once it has been established. Allah, Exalted is He, also said: {And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie about Allah or denies the truth when it has come to him? Is there not in Hell a dwelling for the disbelievers?} Abu Muhammad said: This verse is sufficient to establish that no one should affirm anything for which no proof has been established, nor do anything that the proof has established. Who is more unjust than one who knows what we have mentioned, yet follows a whisper arising within himself, or a report for which no proof has been established that it must be believed, or blindly follows a person like himself, who may, in the sight of Allah, Exalted is He, be mistaken in what he supposes? In any case, that person is not infallible: he may err or be right. Allah, Exalted is He, also said: {And they said, "None will enter Paradise unless he is a Jew or a Christian." Those are their wishes. Say, "Produce your proof, if you are truthful."} Thus, Allah, Exalted is He, required that whoever is truthful in his claim produce proof; and if he does not produce it,
On the basis of proof, he is a liar and a falsifier, or an ignoramus. Allah, Exalted is He, said: {Here you are, disputing about that of which you have knowledge; why then do you dispute about that of which you have no knowledge? Allah knows, and you do not know.} Thus, He, Exalted is He, permitted disputation only on the basis of knowledge and prohibited it without knowledge. } ))
From the foregoing, it is clear that there is a difference between a believer whose faith is general and who suspends judgment about what he does not know, and one who fabricates lies against Allah and speaks without knowledge. The ruling on the latter is different. There is no room here for the objection that a person does not have enough time to learn all the sciences, because we say to him: Suspend judgment, do not fabricate lies against Allah, and say, "I believe in everything that has come from Allah"; otherwise, you will be punished as a fabricator. Allah called those who brought three upright, just witnesses to a crime of adultery, but were unable to bring a fourth, liars. He, Exalted is He, said: ((Why did they not produce four witnesses against it? Since they did not produce the witnesses, then in the sight of Allah they are the liars.)) Their backs are thus made liable to be flogged; indeed, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) flogged Mistah al-Badri, whom Allah had forgiven, for this very reason: slandering a woman—any woman, even if she were the most immoral of the Muslims, so long as she kept her chastity and had not committed adultery.
It is stated in "Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa wa al-Nihal" (3/140):
"Abu Muhammad said: We say to anyone who declares a person an unbeliever merely for his statement, before proof has been established against him and he has defied the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), finding distress in himself over what he brought: Tell us, did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) leave out anything of Islam such that whoever does not affirm it is an unbeliever, except ..."


[Page 20]

He made it clear and called all people to it, so there must be agreement. Whoever denies this is an unbeliever, without disagreement. Once he acknowledges that, he is asked: Did it ever come from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he refused to accept the faith of the people of a village or a locality, or of any person who came to him, free or enslaved, man or woman, unless they first affirmed that ability precedes the act or accompanies it, that the Quran is uncreated, that Allah, Exalted is He, will be seen or will not be seen, or that He has hearing, sight, life, or any of the other superfluous matters of the theologians, which Satan introduced among them to sow enmity and hatred between them? If he claims that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never invited anyone to Islam without first explaining these matters to them, he has lied, by the consensus of the Muslims on earth, and said what he knows to be false. He has also claimed that all the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) colluded to conceal this aspect of the Prophet's conduct. This is naturally impossible; moreover, it imputes unbelief to them, since they concealed something without which no one's Islam could be complete. If they say that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never invited anyone to any of these matters, but that they are contained in the Quran and in his words, it is said to them: You have spoken truly. This confirms that if ignorance of any of all these matters were unbelief, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would not have neglected to explain them to free and enslaved men and women. Whoever considers this possible has said that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not convey the message as he was commanded to do; this is outright unbelief on the part of whoever permits it. It is therefore necessarily established that ignorance of all this does no harm at all. Discussion of these matters becomes obligatory only when people engage in them; then it is obligatory to clarify the truth from the Quran and Sunnah, in accordance with the words of Allah, Mighty and Majestic is He: {Be steadfast for Allah, bearing witness with justice}, and His words, Mighty and Majestic is He: {You shall make it clear to the people and not conceal it}. Whoever, after the truth has been clarified, stubbornly persists is an unbeliever, because he has not accepted the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) as judge, nor submitted to his ruling. It is authentically reported from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that a man who had never done any good said, when death came to him, to his family: "When I die, burn me, then scatter my ashes on a windy day, half in the sea and half on land. By Allah, if Allah, Exalted is He, has power over me, He will punish me with a punishment unlike that of anyone among His creation." Allah, Mighty and Majestic is He, gathered his ashes and brought him back to life, then asked him, "What made you do that?" He replied, "Fear of You, my Lord." And Allah, Exalted is He, forgave him for this statement.
Abu Muhammad said: "This was a man who remained ignorant until he died that Allah, Mighty and Majestic is He, is able to gather his ashes and bring him back to life. Yet He forgave him because of his acknowledgment, his fear, and his ignorance."
This passage makes clear the difference between someone who believes in a general way, then remains silent and submits, without fabricating lies about Allah, and someone who does not remain silent, but instead fabricates lies about Allah by asserting some form of polytheism, unbelief, or sin without proof, and falls short in seeking knowledge of the matter. The discussion of this latter type will come later, in a passage from Ibn Hazm, God willing.
Here are some quotations from scholars showing that one who is negligent in seeking knowledge and speaks about Allah without knowledge is not excused. Some of them also show that not being excused does not mean that he is punished only for his negligence in seeking knowledge; rather, he is punished for the act he himself committed. According to the position of the scholars cited below, he is punished for the very forbidden act or act of polytheism, not merely for falling short in


[Page 21]

Seeking knowledge only ((Here is a selection of statements by scholars explaining the criterion for being able to learn:
Some of them will mention circumstances in which ignorance is excused and those in which it is not, as examples of being able or unable to learn. These are the circumstances I mentioned above.
1 - Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him
He said: "I have seen people who hold that the religious laws do not bind someone who is ignorant of them, or someone to whom they have not been conveyed."
Abu Muhammad said: "This is false. Rather, they do bind him, because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was sent to all human beings, all jinn, and everyone not yet born, once they reach maturity after birth."
(Ability to learn) Abu Muhammad said: "Allah Most High said, commanding him to say: {I am the Messenger of Allah to you all} (al-A'raf: 158). This is a general statement from which no one may be excluded. And He Most High said: {Does man think that he will be left neglected?} (al-Qiyama: 36). Thus, Exalted is He, denied that anyone could be left neglected. The neglected person is one who is left without being commanded or forbidden. He, Mighty and Majestic, denied that this could be so. But a person is excused for his ignorance and for being unable to attain knowledge alone. As for someone to whom news of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has reached, wherever he may be, even in the farthest reaches of the earth, it is incumbent upon him to seek him out. Once his warning has reached him, it is incumbent upon him to believe in him and follow him, seek the religion that is binding upon him, and leave his homeland for that purpose. Otherwise, he has incurred disbelief, everlasting residence in the Fire, and punishment, as stated explicitly in the Quran. Everything we have mentioned refutes the claim of those Kharijites who say that at the time of the sending of the...


[Page 22]

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) obligates those in the farthest reaches of the earth to believe in him and learn his laws. If they die in that state, they die as unbelievers and go to the Fire. This contradicts the words of Allah, Exalted is He: {Allah does not burden any soul beyond its capacity. It will have what it has earned, and it will bear what it has acquired} (al-Baqara: 286), for no one is capable of knowing the unseen.
If they say, "This is the proof of the group who hold that no one is bound by any of the religious laws until they reach him," we say: They have no proof in this, because everything people are charged with is within their capacity and what their constitution can bear. However, they are excused because it has not reached them, and they have not been charged with it in a way that would bring punishment if they failed to do it. Rather, they have been charged with it in a way that does not bring punishment until it reaches them. "Whoever learns from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that a ruling has been prescribed for him, whether in general terms or without its specific text reaching him, is obliged to exert himself in seeking that ruling; otherwise, he is disobedient to Allah, Exalted is He. Allah, Exalted is He, says: {So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know} (al-Nahl: 43)." (1)
Ibn Hazm also said: "Allah, Exalted is He, says: {We would never punish until We had sent a messenger} (al-Isra: 15). Thus it is established that no unbeliever is punished at all until the warning of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) reaches him. As for one to whom mention of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and what he brought has reached, but who can find no one in his land to tell him about it, he is obliged to leave it for a land where he can investigate the facts. Were it not for his statement, peace be upon him, that there is no prophet after him, we would be obliged to do this with everyone we hear claiming prophethood." Then he said: "Anyone among us who is in a remote place where he can find no one to teach him the laws of his religion, whether man or woman, is obliged to travel to a place where they can find ..."


[Page 23]

a jurist to teach them their religion, or that they be sent a jurist to teach them the affairs of their religion. If the imam knows this, let him send them a jurist to teach them] (And said
((Ali, Allah Most High has enjoined upon every group that it warn its people, and has enjoined upon their people that they accept its warning, in His saying, Exalted is He: {The believers should not all go forth. Why, then, should not a group from every faction go forth, so that they may gain understanding of the religion and warn their people when they return to them, so that they may beware?} He has thus warned against opposing the warning of a group. In Arabic, the word "group" applies to a part of something, as we have explained. No two Muslims would disagree that if a trustworthy Muslim entered the land of unbelief, called a people to Islam, recited the Quran to them, and taught them the religious laws, they would be obliged to accept it, and proof would thereby have been established against them. The same would apply if the caliph or an emir sent a messenger to a king among the unbelievers or to a nation among the unbelievers.
He called them to Islam and taught them the Quran and the laws of religion. There is no difference, and no Muslim has ever said that the people of Yemen were required to say to Muadh and to those whom the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent to every region as teachers, jurists, and Quran reciters: "Yes, you are the Messenger of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)," and that the pledge of faith was binding.
We have, however, what you have given us as a legal opinion and taught us of the rulings of prayer, the cases arising in zakat, and the rest of the religion, from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and what you have taught us of the Qur'an from him, peace be upon him: we will neither accept it from you nor take it from you, because lying is possible and conceivable on your part, until there comes to us, for all of that, sufficient corroboration and mass transmission. Indeed, if they were to say that


[Page 24]

they would be non-Muslims. Nor do two people differ over the fact that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent those of his messengers whom he sent to distant lands only so that they might convey to their people the Quran, the Sunnah, and the laws of religion; he did not send them to institute for them a religion that he himself had not brought from Allah, Exalted is He. It is therefore established by all this that everything reliably transmitted by one trustworthy person from another, reaching back to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), whether from the Quran or the Sunnah, must be accepted, acknowledged, affirmed, believed in, and followed as religion. And anything reliably reported from a Companion, a Successor, or anyone after them, whether a recitation not traced back to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), or a legal opinion not traced back to him (peace and blessings be upon him), may not be accepted, for neither Allah, Exalted is He, nor His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) made it binding. All such reports have indeed been authentically transmitted from individual Companions and Successors. Their virtue does not make it obligatory to accept their opinions, nor does it preclude the possibility that they may have erred in what they said based on their own judgment. Rather, their virtue covers every error they made and outweighs it, and entails that they be revered and loved. And Allah, Exalted is He, is the source of success. Another proof is that it has been established with certainty and is known necessarily that all the Companions, from the first to the last, agreed, with none of them dissenting, nor any of the Successors who lived in their time, that whenever any one of them faced a new case, he would ask a Companion about it and follow his opinion. They would ask him only about what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had made binding in religion from Allah, Exalted is He, concerning that particular case; no one ever asked any person …
Among them was the introduction into religion of a law that Allah Most High had not authorized. The same applies to every generation after them, generation after generation; we exclude no one. There is absolutely no disagreement between believer and unbeliever that


[Page 25]

Every Companion and Successor who was asked by someone seeking a legal ruling about a religious matter never once told him, "You may not act on what I have told you from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) until the soothsayers tell you the same," as they said to them regarding what they had reported seeing from them, without requiring them to accept it. If it is said, "Then make this very argument proof for accepting a mursal report," we say: That is not so, for there was never any consensus, either in early times or later, on accepting a mursal report. Among the Successors were those who did not accept it, such as al-Zuhri and others. They would ask those who informed them who had informed them, until they traced it back to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
That requirement was waived only for those who lacked the ability to understand and know the chain of transmission. Al-Zuhri said to the people of Syria, "Why do I see that your hadiths have neither halters nor reins?" They then followed his instruction. There were many others besides al-Zuhri. Thus it is established that the entire Muslim community agreed to accept the report of a trustworthy individual from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Every group followed this in its own learning, including the People of the Sunnah, the Kharijites, the Shi'a, and the Qadariyya, until the Mu'tazilite theologians arose after the first century and opposed the consensus on this matter."
He said: "Allah, Exalted is He, praised the Companions of the Cave: {We relate to you their story in truth. They were youths who believed in their Lord, and We increased them in guidance. 13 And We strengthened their hearts when they stood up and said, 'Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth. We will never call upon any god besides Him; if we did, we would indeed have spoken outrageously. 14 These...}


[Page 26]

"Our people have taken gods besides Him. Why do they not produce clear proof for them? Who is more unjust than one who fabricates a lie against Allah?" Thus Allah, Mighty and Majestic, praised them for rejecting what their people said, since their people had no clear proof for their claim, and He affirmed as true their statement that whoever claims...
A statement without evidence is a lie fabricated against Allah, Mighty and Majestic.

Allah, Exalted is He, says: {And who is more unjust than one who is reminded of the signs of his Lord, then turns away from them? Indeed, We will take retribution from the criminals.} No one is more unjust than one against whom proof has been established from the Book of Allah, Exalted is He, and the words of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), yet turns away from it, though it is the decisive proof and the clear argument. Allah, Exalted is He, says: {Those who consume usury will not stand except as one stands who is being beaten by Satan into madness. That is because they say, "Trade is just like usury." But Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury. So whoever receives an admonition from his Lord and desists may keep what is past, and his affair rests with Allah. But whoever returns to it—those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein forever.} And He, Exalted is He, says: {Rather, those who do wrong follow their desires without knowledge. So who can guide one whom Allah has led astray? They will have no helpers.} Thus, as you hear, He, Exalted is He, has informed us that whoever follows a statement that accords with his view without knowing that it is sound is an unjust person, and that whoever does not return to the truth he hears is among the people of the Fire. Allah, Exalted is He, says: {If they do not respond to you, then know that they only follow their desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.} Allah, Exalted is He, condemned a person for denying what he does not know, saying: {Rather, they have denied what they have not comprehended...}


[Page 27]

By His knowledge, while its interpretation has not yet come to them. Likewise did those before them deny the truth. So see what was the end of the wrongdoers." Thus, everything we have mentioned makes it clear that one must refrain from what one does not know and return to what the proof requires once it has been established. Allah, Exalted is He, said: {Who is more unjust than one who fabricates a lie against Allah or denies the truth when it comes to him? Is there not in Hell a dwelling for the disbelievers?} Abu Muhammad said: This verse is sufficient to establish that no one should affirm anything for which no proof has been established, nor do anything for which proof has been established. Who is more unjust than one who knows what we have mentioned, yet follows a whisper arising within himself, or a report for which no proof has established that it must be believed, or imitates a person like himself, who may, in the sight of Allah, be mistaken in what he supposes? In any case, he is protected from error, yet he may be right or wrong. Allah, Exalted is He, said: {And they say, "None shall enter Paradise unless he is a Jew or a Christian." Those are their wishful fancies. Say, "Bring your proof, if you are truthful."} Thus Allah required that whoever is truthful in his claim must produce proof; and if he does not produce it,
By proof, he is a liar and a falsifier, or an ignorant person. Allah, Exalted is He, said: {Here you are, disputing about that of which you have knowledge; why then do you dispute about that of which you have no knowledge? Allah knows, and you do not know.} Thus, He, Exalted is He, permitted disputation only on the basis of knowledge and prohibited it without knowledge.
And the Exalted said: {They will say, "They were three, and their dog was the fourth"; and they will say, "They were five, and their dog was the sixth," guessing at the unseen; and they will say, "They were seven, and their dog was the eighth." Say, "My Lord knows best their number. None knows them except a few." So do not argue about them except with a clear argument, and do not ask any of them about them.} Abu Muhammad said: When we found that Allah, Exalted is He, had commanded in the verses we mentioned


[Page 28]

through argumentation and disputation, and required the acceptance of nothing except on the basis of proof, we were obliged to seek out the blameworthy disputation, as we have explained. We found that He said: {We send the messengers only as bearers of glad tidings and warners. But those who disbelieve dispute with falsehood in order to refute the truth by it, and they take My signs and the warnings given to them in mockery.} Thus, as you see, Exalted is He condemned disputation without proof and disputation in support of falsehood. By this, Exalted is He refuted the claim of the deluded: "Every person who is led astray is furnished with an argument." Exalted is He made clear that the deluded person is one who is not furnished with an argument, whereas the one who is right is, in truth, furnished with an argument; they are the people of truth. And Exalted is He said: {Those who dispute concerning the signs of Allah without any authority having come to them—it is greatly hateful in the sight of Allah and in the sight of those who believe. Thus does Allah seal the heart of every arrogant tyrant.} These verses together clarify both blameworthy disputation and praiseworthy, obligatory disputation. The obligatory kind is that in which the person disputing seeks to make the truth manifest. The blameworthy kind has two forms, as stated in the verses we have cited: first, disputing without knowledge; and second, disputing in support of falsehood through sophistry and deception after the truth has become clear to him. This makes clear that the truth is one, and that nothing is valid except what is established by rational proof. These are the blameworthy people of whom Allah, Exalted is He, said: {Have you not seen those who dispute concerning the signs of Allah? How are they turned away?} And His saying, Exalted is He: {Among the people are those who dispute concerning Allah without knowledge and follow every rebellious devil.} And His saying, Exalted is He: {Among the people are those who dispute concerning Allah without knowledge, guidance, or an illuminating Book, turning his neck aside to lead others astray from the path of Allah. For him there is disgrace in this world, and on the Day of Resurrection We shall make him taste the punishment of the Blaze.}
Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The ruling of a divine address is not established with respect to those legally responsible until they are able to know it; this is the soundest of the opinions." (3).


[Page 29]

He also said: [Allah says, "We would never punish until We had sent a messenger" (al-Isra: 15). The proof against people is established only on two conditions: that they are able to know what Allah has revealed, and that they are able to act upon it. As for one who is unable to know, such as an insane person, or unable to act, there is no command or prohibition for him. If knowledge of part of the religion is cut off, or one is unable to observe part of it, then for the person unable to know or act, that is like being cut off from knowledge of the entire religion or being unable to observe all of it, as in the case of an insane person, for example. These are times of interruption.] (4).
Ibn Taymiyya also said: [If this is clear, then whoever abandons some obligatory aspect of faith because he is unable to fulfill it, either because he is unable to acquire knowledge—for example, the message has not reached him—or because he is unable to act, is not commanded to do what he is incapable of, and that is not part of the obligatory faith and religion incumbent upon him, even though it is part of the religion and faith that are obligatory in principle.] (5).
He also said: [If religious obligation is conditional upon the ability to acquire knowledge, whose basis is reason, and upon the ability to act] (6).
(And Ibn Taymiyya also said: [This excuse is valid only when one is unable to remove it; otherwise, whenever a person is able to know the truth but falls short in doing so, he is not excused.] (7).
He also said: [In short, there is no disagreement among the Muslims that someone who is in a land of unbelief, has believed, and is unable to emigrate is not required to observe religious duties that he is incapable of fulfilling; rather, the obligation is according to one's ability. The same applies to what one does not know the ruling of. If, for example, he did not know that


[Page 30]

Prayer was obligatory upon him, yet he remained for a period without praying. He was not required to make up the prayers, according to the more apparent of the two opinions of the scholars. This is the position of Abu Hanifa and the literalists, and one of the two positions in the school of Ahmad—until he said: "The correct view in all of this is that a ruling is established only when one is able to know it, and that he is not required to make up what he did not know was obligatory." (8)
(The following statement is explicit that he is subject to the threat for committing what is forbidden, and that the matter is not merely the sin of his negligence in seeking knowledge.) He said: "This is because the threat applies to one who commits what is forbidden only if he knows that it is forbidden, or is able to know that it is forbidden. For someone raised in the desert, or someone newly entered into Islam, who does something forbidden without knowing that it is forbidden, does not sin and is not subject to the prescribed punishment, even if he has no legal evidence on which to base his belief that it is permissible. One who has not received the hadith prohibiting something, but relies on legal evidence in holding it permissible, is all the more deserving of being excused." Ibn Taymiyya also said: "As for one who deliberately distorts the Book, in its wording or meaning, or who knows what the Messenger brought and opposes it, such a person deserves punishment. The same applies to one who is negligent in seeking and following the truth, following his own desires and occupying himself with worldly affairs instead." (5)
Ibn al-Qayyim's words on the same issue.
(Being able to know is sufficient for the proof to be established.) He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "A servant's acknowledgment that Allah's proof has been established against him is among the requirements of faith, whether he obeys or disobeys. For Allah's proof has been established against the servant.final


[Page 31]

Through the sending of the Messenger, the revelation of the Book, its reaching him, and his ability to learn of it—whether he knows or is ignorant. Everyone who is able to learn what Allah has commanded and forbidden, but falls short and does not learn it, has had the proof established against him.] (1).
(Punishment is for the act, not for falling short) He also said: [If it is asked: Is this person excused for his misguidance if he thinks he is rightly guided, as Allah, Exalted is He, says: {And they think that they are rightly guided} (al-A'raf: 30)? The answer is: No. This person and others like him who are misguided have no excuse, for their misguidance stems from turning away from the revelation brought by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Even if he thinks he is rightly guided, he has fallen short by turning away from following the caller to guidance. If he goes astray, it is only because of his own negligence and turning away. This is unlike one whose misguidance is due to the message not reaching him and his inability to access it; such a person has a different ruling. The warnings in the Qur'an apply only to the former. As for the latter, Allah does not punish anyone until after the proof has been established against him.] (4).
(Punishment is for the act, not for falling short) Ibn al-Qayyim also said: [It is authentically reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, "Whoever calls to misguidance will bear a sin like the sins of those who follow him, without that diminishing their sins in the least." This indicates that the disbelief of those who follow them is due simply to following and imitating them. Yes, this matter must be explained in detail to resolve the difficulty: the distinction is between an imitator who is able to learn and know the truth but turns away from it, and an imitator who is in no way able to do so. Both kinds exist. The one who is able but turns away is negligent and has abandoned what is incumbent upon him; he has no excuse before Allah. As for one who is unable to ask or learn, who does not


[Page 32]

Those who are capable of understanding the truth are also of two kinds. The first seeks guidance, prefers and loves it, but is unable to attain it or seek it because there is no one to guide him. His case is like that of those who lived in an interval between prophets and those to whom the message did not reach. The second turns away, has no desire for guidance, and does not even consider anything other than the way he is on. The first says, "My Lord, if I knew of a religion better for You than the one I follow, I would follow it and abandon what I am on. But I know nothing other than what I am on, and I am unable to do anything else. This is the utmost of my effort and the limit of my knowledge." The second is content with what he is on, prefers nothing else to it, and seeks nothing beyond it. To him, there is no difference between being unable and being able; both are equally beyond his reach. The latter should not be classed with the former, given the difference between them: the first is like someone who sought the religion during an interval between prophets but did not find it, and so turned away from it after exhausting every effort to seek it, out of inability and ignorance; the second is like someone who did not seek it at all, but died in his polytheism, even though he would have been unable to attain it had he sought it. There is a difference, then, between the inability of one who seeks and the inability of one who turns away. Reflect on this point. Allah will judge His servants on the Day of Resurrection with His judgment and justice, and He will punish only those against whom His proof has been established through the messengers. This is certain with regard to people in general. As for whether the proof was established against a particular person, Zayd or Amr, that is not something one can intrude upon between Allah and His servants. Rather, a servant must believe that everyone who follows a religion other than Islam is an unbeliever, and that Allah, Exalted is He, does not punish anyone until the proof has been established against him through a messenger. This is the general rule; determining individual cases is entrusted to Allah's knowledge and judgment. This concerns the rulings on reward and punishment. As for the rulings of this world, they are


[Page 33]

It follows the apparent meaning of the ruling: the children and the insane among the unbelievers are unbelievers in the rulings of this world, and are treated like their guardians. With this distinction, the difficulty in the matter is resolved.] (1).
Al-Qarafi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: ["The ninety-fourth distinction: between the principle of what ignorance is not an excuse for and the principle of what ignorance is an excuse for." Know that the Lawgiver has been lenient regarding certain forms of ignorance in the Sharia, pardoning those who commit them, while in other cases He has taken people to account for their ignorance and has not pardoned those who commit them. The criterion for the forms of ignorance that are pardoned is that they are ones that it is ordinarily impossible to guard against. As for what it is possible to guard against without hardship, it is not pardoned.] (2).
Al-Qarafi also said: [The principle of the Sharia indicates that any ignorance which a legally responsible person can dispel is no proof for the ignorant person. For Allah, Exalted is He, sent His messengers to His creation with His messages and made it obligatory upon all of them to learn them and then act upon them. Thus, knowledge and acting upon it are obligations. (Punishment is for the act, not merely for negligence.) Whoever neglects learning and acting, and remains ignorant, has committed two acts of disobedience by neglecting two obligations. If he learns but does not act, he has committed one act of disobedience by neglecting to act. And whoever learns and acts has attained salvation.] (3). The commentator said: [Because the principle of the Sharia indicates that any ignorance a legally responsible person can dispel is no proof for the ignorant person, especially when a long time has passed and the days have continued, for what is not known today will be known tomorrow.] (4). His words, ["especially when a long time has passed"], are supported by the words of Allah, Exalted is He: (Did We not grant you a life long enough for whoever would take heed to take heed, and did the warner not come to you? So taste the punishment, for the wrongdoers will have no helper.) Fatir: 37.


[Page 34]

5 - Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
[What is meant is that one who intends good by committing an act of disobedience out of ignorance is not excused, unless he has only recently embraced Islam and has not yet had sufficient time to learn. Allah, Exalted is He, has said: {So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know} (al-Nahl: 43] (5).
(Punishment for the act, not merely for negligence) Ibn Qudama said: "If a fornicator claims ignorance of the prohibition, and it is plausible that he could have been ignorant of it, as in the case of someone who has only recently embraced Islam or was raised in a remote desert, his claim is accepted, since he may be telling the truth. But if he is someone from whom this would not be unknown, such as a Muslim raised among Muslims and people of knowledge, his claim is not accepted, because the prohibition of fornication is not unknown to someone like him, and so his lie is known. If he claims ignorance that an invalid marriage is unlawful, his claim is accepted, because Umar accepted the claim of someone who said he was ignorant of the prohibition on marrying during the waiting period, and because this is something many people may be ignorant of and which is unknown to those who are not people of knowledge." (1).
7 (Punishment for the act) - Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
[If someone raised in the abode of Islam among Muslims commits fornication and claims ignorance of its prohibition, his claim is not accepted, because what is apparent belies him, even though the presumption is that he did not know of it] (2). By "what is apparent," he means that he was raised among Muslims, which makes it possible for him to know of the prohibition. His statement, "the presumption is that he did not know," is because the presumption regarding a person is ignorance, as I mentioned in the first chapter of this book.
8 - Al-Suyuti, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
[(Who is accepted as claiming ignorance, and who is not) Anyone ignorant of the prohibition of something that most people have in common will not have his claim accepted, unless he has only recently embraced Islam,


[Page 35]

Or if he grew up in a remote desert region where such matters are unknown, such as the prohibition of adultery, murder, theft, wine, speaking during prayer, and eating while fasting] (3).
9 - Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
[According to us, if someone lives far from the Muslims, such that his failure to come to their lands to learn is not attributable to negligence, or if he has only recently embraced Islam, he is excused for his ignorance and should be taught what is correct. If he returns to what he said after that, he is an unbeliever. The same is said of one who considers that good or approves of it.] (4).
10 - Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, may Allah have mercy on him.
He said: [This is astonishing: how can you doubt this when I have explained it to you repeatedly? The person against whom proof has not been established is one who has only recently embraced Islam, or who grew up in a remote desert region, or where the matter concerns a subtle issue such as currency exchange or love magic. Such a person is not declared an unbeliever until he has been informed. As for the fundamentals of religion, which Allah has made clear and firmly established in His Book, Allah's proof is the Quran; whoever has received the Quran has received the proof.] (5). His statements in which he grants an excuse on account of ignorance are qualified by these words of his.
11 -
12 - Shaykh al-Shinqiti, Professor Abd al-Qadir Awda, may Allah have mercy on him.
(Punishment for the act) He discussed in detail the criterion for being able to acquire knowledge when he said: [One of the basic principles of Islamic law is that an offender is not held accountable for a prohibited act unless he has full knowledge that it is prohibited. If he is ignorant of the prohibition, liability is lifted from him. The possibility of knowing that it is prohibited is sufficient for knowledge; whenever a person has reached


[Page 36]

A rational person for whom it was possible to learn what was forbidden to him, either by consulting the texts that establish its prohibition or by asking the people of knowledge, is deemed to know the prohibited acts. He may not plead ignorance or claim that he did not know. Hence the jurists say: "In the abode of Islam, an excuse based on ignorance of the rulings is not accepted." A legally accountable person is deemed to know the rulings when it is possible for him to know them, not only when he has actually acquired that knowledge. Accordingly, a text establishing a prohibition is considered known to everyone, even if most people have not encountered it or know anything about it, so long as it was possible for them to learn of it. The Sharia did not require actual knowledge, because that would cause hardship, throw the door wide open to claims of ignorance, and obstruct the implementation of the texts. This is the general rule in Islamic law, and it has no exceptions. If the jurists consider it acceptable to plead ignorance of the rulings for someone who lived in a remote desert region without contact with Muslims, or for someone who had only recently embraced Islam and did not live among Muslims, this is not, in reality, an exception. Rather, it is an application of the original rule, which prevents a person from being held accountable for not knowing that something is forbidden until knowledge becomes accessible to him. Such people had no access to that knowledge and are not deemed to know the rulings of the Sharia. But if someone claiming ignorance grew up among Muslims or people of knowledge, his claim of ignorance is not accepted.] (1).
May Allah have mercy on him.
He said: [As for one who is able to learn but neglects to do so, and gives precedence to the opinions of men over what he knows from revelation, he is not excused] (2)


[Page 37]

A group has now emerged, a new group whose theory, as the researcher has distilled it by examining the books of one of their shaykhs, called Abu Ubayda al-Jazairi, may be summarized as follows. First: They say, "We take our creed from the early generations." According to the statements of theirs that I have traced, they mean by this: "What is meant by knowledge is the Book, the Sunnah, and the reports of the Companions. The statements of the Successors follow the reports of the Companions, as a second rank. As for the words of those who came after them, they are not truly called knowledge among the hadith scholars and the early generations in general." (The Book of Knowledge.) They said, "The statements of the Companions are authoritative in everything, in creed and jurisprudence; likewise, the statement of a Successor is authoritative in matters of creed, reports, divine attributes, and jurisprudence," and they attributed this to the early scholars!!! Second: Even weakly transmitted statements of the Companions are authoritative. He said, "The early generations relied on weak statements of the Companions"??!!! Third: They also considered weak statements of the Successors authoritative if they appear in one of these books. Their leading theorist said, "If you find a report in the books of Ibn al-Mubarak and Ahmad, namely their books on asceticism, or in Ibn Abi Hatim's Tafsir, or in Abdullah's al-Sunna, or in Ibn Abi Shayba's Musannaf, these authors, even when they transmit through a weak chain, do not transmit texts containing objectionable material. The fact that a hadith is mentioned by the well-known authorities I have named is of benefit, even if its chain is weak: it indicates that it has a basis, and its being well known among them means it is sound"??!!! Third: This led them to accept statements attributed to the early generations declaring anyone who denies certain attributes or beliefs to be an unbeliever, and declaring him an unbeliever in absolute terms, as well as declaring anyone who does not declare him an unbeliever to be an unbeliever in absolute terms. These statements are either weakly transmitted from them, God willing, or are general and do not identify anyone in particular, such as, "Whoever says that is an unbeliever." They interpreted these texts to mean that the early scholars who declared those who denied certain attributes to be unbelievers intended every person who said such a thing, with no excuse for anyone who said it, even though most of their statements, as will be shown, are either weak or general. On the basis of the foregoing principles, they said that this was the doctrine of the early generations; so they declared those who interpret the attributes to be unbelievers, and declared those who excuse them to be unbelievers. On this basis, they declared anyone who excuses someone on grounds of ignorance to be an unbeliever, categorically, despite the existence of explicit statements in the very same books on which they relied, transmitted from other early scholars, which stipulate that a person must possess knowledge for the proof to be established against him. There are also other statements from them excusing those who interpret the texts, and consequently excusing those who excuse such interpreters. But they have ignored these, as we shall explain, God willing. On the basis of this chain of principles, they declared all Ash'aris to be unbelievers, including their scholars, even well-known figures such as al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, and others. Then they declared as unbelievers those who did not declare these individuals to be unbelievers and excused them, such as Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim, and Ibn Kathir. After that, they moved on to another issue: they made certain questions of interpretation, such as whether the earth is spherical or flat, matters of definitive doctrine, relying on some earlier statements that it is flat, while also ignoring statements attributed to the early generations that it is spherical, in a highly arbitrary manner. They ruled that the earth is flat, not spherical, and made this one of the definitive doctrines that cannot be interpreted otherwise. Consequently, anyone who disagrees is an unbeliever. Thus they declared most Muslims today to be unbelievers, since they say that the earth is spherical, as do the majority of scholars, and


[Page 38]

of the earlier Muslims, because they say that the Earth is spherical. Consequently, no one remains a true Muslim except them. Regardless of the intention of the person who devised and established this way of thinking, was his aim to spread division, discord, excommunication, and killing among Muslims in order to weaken them? Is he malicious and cunning in this, with evil intentions, so that no scholar remains respected by Muslims and scarcely any Muslim remains on Earth, leaving no one whose reports can be trusted and no history that is valued? Or was he well-intentioned, with his independent reasoning leading him to this conclusion? I speak only of the person who established this way of thinking, not its followers, since I have found many of its followers whom I consider well-intentioned, but who misunderstand the matter and are excused on that account. To discuss these people, it is necessary to examine some of the important issues on which this way of thinking is based.

First: their claim that the opinion of a Companion or Successor is authoritative. As for the opinion of a Companion, yes, some scholars held that it could be relied upon, but only when there was no explicit evidence to the contrary in the Book and the Sunnah, and when it was not known that another Companion had disagreed with him. In that case, the matter is akin to tacit consensus. Others rejected it outright. But as for holding it authoritative when another Companion disagrees with it, I know of no one who held that view.

Ibn Taymiyya said: "Those scholars who held that a Companion's opinion is authoritative only said so when no other Companion disagreed with him and no text was known to contradict it." End quote from Majmu al-Fatawa (1/283).

Indeed, al-Hazimi, their shaykh, said in the thirtieth recording of Mufid al-Mustafid: "Scholars have differed over whether a Companion's interpretation is authoritative or not. This is a separate issue from whether a Companion's opinion in matters of legal verdicts is authoritative. Some of them even considered a Companion's interpretation to be a Prophetic report, as did al-Hakim and others, but the correct view is that it is not a Prophetic report." Thus, the issue is disputed. It is astonishing and suspicious of them to present it as one of the definitive matters, especially when they add the Successors to the Companions in claiming authority for their opinions; particularly when they rely on the opinions of some of the early Muslims despite the fact that other early Muslims disagreed with them, and especially when they rely on those opinions even if they are weak, as their own proponent has said, and use them in a grave matter such as disbelief and faith. Does all of this not give cause for suspicion?

This is the issue of whether a Companion's opinion is authoritative or not. Someone has summarized it as follows: "The fourth issue: The correct view is that a Companion's opinion is not authoritative. Some have said that it is authoritative without qualification, while others have made distinctions and mentioned several positions: (First) that it is authoritative if it contradicts analogy. (Second) that only the opinions of Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) are authoritative. (Third) that the opinions of the four caliphs are authoritative. Our evidence is the text, consensus, and analogy. As for …"


[Page 39]

The text is His saying, Exalted is He: {So take a lesson, O people of insight} [Surat al-Hashr, part of verse 2]. This is incompatible with the permissibility of following another's opinion without evidence. As for consensus, the Companions agreed that it was permissible to disagree with any individual Companion. Abu Bakr and Umar did not object to those who disagreed with them, nor did either of them object to the other in matters over which they differed. As for analogy, a person is able to ascertain the ruling by a method of his own, and therefore following another's opinion without evidence must be forbidden to him, just as it is in matters of the fundamentals of religion."(1)
Al-Shawkani added the following evidence from those who deny that a Companion's opinion is authoritative: "The truth is that it is not authoritative. For Allah, Glorified is He, sent to this community no one but our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). We have only one Messenger and one Book, and all of this community are commanded to follow His Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet. In this respect, there is no difference between the Companions and those who came after them. Whoever says that proof in the religion of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is established by anything other than the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and what refers back to them, has spoken about Allah's religion without proof and established as part of this Sharia a law that Allah did not command. This is a grave matter." He attributed this position to the majority.(2)
In general, those who hold the opposing view have cited several proofs that might suggest that a Companion's opinion or action is authoritative. Those who hold this view maintain that, in this case, one acts on the Companion's opinion in the specific matter where it differs from the apparent meaning of the text, because the Companion has reported the Prophet's intent (peace and blessings be upon him) concerning that apparent meaning.(3)
Evidence cited by those who regard the opinions and actions of the Companions as authoritative:
First: What was narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), that he said: "My Companions are like stars; whichever of them you follow, you will be guided." Ibn Hazm said: "As for the hadith mentioned, it is false and fabricated."(4)
Al-Shawkani said: "This has never been established."(5) Al-Albani said: "Fabricated."(6)
Second: What is reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), that he said: "You must follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs after me."(7) Abu Dawud narrated it. Al-Albani said: Al-Tirmidhi called it "a hasan sahih hadith"; al-Harawi said, "This is among the finest hadiths of the people of Syria"; al-Bazzar said, "It is an established, sahih hadith"; and al-Hakim said, "It is sahih and has no defect."(8)
(Response): First, the Companions themselves did not understand this hadith to mean that it was obligatory to follow the practices of the four caliphs even when they contradicted the text. Al-Razi said: "They agreed that it was permissible to disagree with any individual Companion. Abu Bakr and Umar did not object to those who disagreed with them, nor did either of them object to the other in matters over which they differed."(9) Moreover, at most, the hadith calls for following the Sunnah of the caliphs, and no one else's, if we grant that this is what the evidence establishes.
Accordingly, we say: Whoever wishes to follow the Sunnah of the caliphs, which they agreed upon, should not object to someone who departs from their Sunnah and method because the text has become clear to him to the contrary. More than that, the four caliphs agreed that the text takes precedence over the opinion of any one of them. Following their Sunnah collectively means giving precedence to the text over the opinion of each of them. This is made clear by the following examples.
1- Abu Bakr's disagreement with Umar over the text:
__________
(1) Al-Razi (Muhammad ibn Umar ibn al-Hasan), al-Mahsul, Mu'assasat al-Risalah, 3rd ed., 1418 AH–1997 CE (6/130).
(2) Al-Shawkani (Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Muhammad), Irshad al-Fuhul ila Tahqiq al-Haqq min Ilm al-Usul, Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, 1st ed., 1319 AH–1999 CE (2/182–188).
(3) Ibid. (1/162).
(4) Ibn Hazm, al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam, cited above (5/64).
(5) Al-Shawkani, Irshad al-Fuhul, cited above (2/188).
(6) Al-Albani (Muhammad Nasir al-Din), Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Daifah wa al-Mawduah wa Atharuha al-Sayyi fi al-Ummah, Dar al-Maarif, Riyadh, 1st ed., 1412 AH–1992 CE (1/144).
(7) Abu Dawud, Sunan Abi Dawud, cited above, hadith no. (4607).
(8) Al-Albani, Irwa al-Ghalil, cited above (8/108).
(9) Al-Razi, al-Mahsul, cited above (5/130).


[Page 40]

Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) reported: When the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) died, and Abu Bakr succeeded him, some of the Arabs apostatized. Umar said, "Abu Bakr, how can you fight the people when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, 'I have been commanded to fight the people until they say, "There is no god but Allah." Whoever says, "There is no god but Allah" has protected his property and his life from me, except by its due right, and his reckoning is with Allah'?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah, I will fight whoever makes a distinction between prayer and zakat, for zakat is the due right of property."(10) Here, Umar opposed the caliph by citing the text, and the caliph argued against him by interpreting the text as well. If Umar's opposition had been impermissible, and he had been giving precedence to his own opinion over the text, Abu Bakr would have rebuked him. We therefore know that Abu Bakr's practice was to give precedence to the text over Umar's statement.
2- A woman's disagreement with Umar on the basis of the text:
In the presence of the Companions, no one rebuked her—not even Umar himself—when he prohibited excessive dowries. She countered him with the verse, "And you have given one of them a great amount" [Surat al-Nisa, part of verse 20].(11) Had Umar believed that his opinion could not be opposed by citing the text, he would have rebuked her. Rather, Umar accepted what she said. We therefore know that Umar's practice (may Allah be pleased with him) was to give precedence to the text over the statement of the caliphs, one of whom was himself.
3- Ali's disagreement with Uthman on the basis of the text:
Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib reported: Ali and Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them both) met at Usfan. Uthman was prohibiting tamattu or combining umrah with the pilgrimage, so Ali said, "Why do you prohibit something that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did?" Uthman said, "Leave us alone." Ali replied, "I cannot leave you alone." When Ali saw that, he entered ihram for both rites together.(12) Al-Qasim ibn Sallam added: "Uthman said, 'Do you see me prohibiting the people while you do it?' He replied, 'I would not abandon the practice of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) for the statement of anyone.'"(13) We therefore know that Ali's practice was to give precedence to the text over the statement or action of the caliphs. Al-San'ani says: "Sixth: Among the proofs cited by those who follow others blindly is their saying: 'You must follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs after me, Abu Bakr and Umar; follow the guidance of Ammar and hold fast to the covenant of Ibn Umm Abd.' The answer is that being guided by them means following the Book and the Sunnah, accepting what they contain, calling people to them, and prohibiting blind imitation, for no such practice is reported from them. It is authentically reported from Ibn Mas'ud, who was Ibn Umm Abd, that he prohibited blind imitation and said, 'A man should not be an unthinking follower with no insight.' Moreover, it is well known that none of them would abandon the Sunnah for the statement of anyone. The practice and way of the rightly guided caliphs was to follow the Book and the Sunnah; thus, following their practice is following the Prophetic Sunnah and the Quran."(14)
Third: They said that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) witnessed the revelation, so they knew best what they had witnessed, and praise of them has been given.
(Response): Ibn Hazm said: "The obligation to praise them does not entail that they be followed blindly, since the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) stated that Abu Bakr and Umar were the best of their men after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), yet they made mistakes, as ... Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr reported to them that a delegation from Banu Tamim came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Abu Bakr said, 'Appoint al-Qa'qa ibn Ma'bad ibn Zurarah,' while Umar said, 'Rather, appoint al-Aqra ibn Habis.' Then this was revealed: ﴾O you who believe, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak loudly to him as you speak loudly to one another, lest your deeds come to nothing while you are unaware...﴿
__________
(10) Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, cited above, hadith no. (1399).
(11) Al-Ghazali (Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Tusi), al-Mustasfa, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1st ed., 1413 AH/1993 CE, 1/361.
(12) Muslim, Sahih Muslim, cited above, hadith no. (1223).
(13) Al-Adawi (Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam), al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh fi al-Quran al-Aziz, Maktabat al-Rushd, Riyadh, 1418 AH, hadith no. (338).
(14) Al-San'ani (Muhammad ibn Isma'il ibn Salah), Irshad al-Nuqqad ila Taysir al-Ijtihad, al-Dar al-Salafiyya, Kuwait, 1st ed., 1405 AH, 1/166.


[Page 41]

"...you do not perceive." [Surat al-Hujurat, verse 2] Ibn al-Zubayr said: "After that, whenever Umar related a hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he would relate it to him as one whispering a secret." Abu Muhammad said: "Whoever makes a mistake, it is not permissible to accept his opinion without proof that establishes its validity. As for his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying, 'You must adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs,' we know that he (peace and blessings be upon him) does not command what is beyond one's capacity. We found that the rightly guided caliphs after him (peace and blessings be upon him) differed greatly. There must therefore be one of three possibilities, with no fourth: either we accept everything over which they differed—which is impossible and beyond our capacity, since it would entail accepting a thing and its opposite—so this possibility is invalid; or it is permissible for us to accept whichever of their views we choose. This would be a departure from Islam, because it would mean that the religion of Allah, Exalted is He, is left to our discretion. Moreover, if this were so, then by accepting the view of one of them, we would necessarily have abandoned the view of another. In that case, we would not be following their Sunnah, and would thus have contradicted the hadith cited. Only the third possibility remains: to accept what they unanimously agreed upon. This applies only to what all the other Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, agreed upon along with them in following the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and affirming it."(15)
(("Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam by Ibn Hazm" (2/12):
"We found that a Companion among the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) would hear a hadith and interpret it in a way that took it beyond its apparent meaning. We also found that they (may Allah be pleased with them) acknowledged and admitted that many of the Prophetic practices had not reached them. Such is the well-known report from Abu Hurayra: 'My brothers among the Emigrants were occupied with trading in the markets, while my brothers among the Helpers were occupied with tending to their property.' Al-Bara also said: Muhammad ibn Sa'id ibn Nabat told us, saying: Ahmad ibn Awn told us, saying: Qasim ibn Asbagh told us, saying: Muhammad ibn Abd al-Salam al-Khushani told us, saying: Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna al-Anazi told us, saying: Abu Ahmad al-Zubayri and Sufyan al-Thawri told us, from Abu Ishaq al-Sabi'i, from al-Bara ibn Azib, who said: 'Not everything you relate did we hear from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him); rather, our companions related it to us, for we were occupied with tending the camels.' Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) did not know the prescribed share of inheritance for a grandmother, whereas Muhammad ibn Maslama and al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba knew it. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) also asked Aisha how many pieces of cloth the Messenger of Allah had been shrouded in. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said regarding the hadith about seeking permission: 'This matter from the Messenger of Allah was hidden from me; trading in the markets distracted me.' He was also unaware of the ruling concerning a woman who miscarries, while others knew it. He became angry with Uyayna ibn Hisn until al-Hurr ibn Qays ibn Hisn reminded him of the words of the Exalted: {Accept what is readily offered, enjoin what is right, and turn away from the ignorant.} The Messenger of Allah's command to expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula remained unknown to him until the end of his caliphate, and it had also remained unknown to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) before him throughout his caliphate. When Umar learned of it, he ordered them expelled, and left none of them there. Umar was also unaware of the Prophet's command not to enter a plague-stricken area, while others knew that..."
Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf. Umar asked Abu Waqid al-Laythi what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to recite in the prayers of Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, even though the Messenger of Allah had performed them for many years. He did not know what to do about the Magians until Abd al-Rahman reminded him of the Messenger of Allah's instruction concerning them. He had forgotten that the Prophet had accepted the jizya from the Magians of Bahrain, a well-known matter; perhaps he had taken a share of that money, as others had. He forgot the Prophet's instruction that a person in a state of major ritual impurity should perform dry ablution (tayammum), and said that he should never perform dry ablution or pray unless he found water, until Ammar reminded him. He intended to divide the wealth of the Kaaba, but Ubayy ibn Ka'b argued against him that the Prophet had not done so, and he desisted. He used to send back women who had menstruated and departed before bidding farewell to the House, until he was informed that the Messenger of Allah had permitted this, whereupon he stopped sending them back. He used to assign different amounts of blood money for the fingers, until he learned from the Prophet that they were to be treated equally; he abandoned his view and adopted equality. He held that blood money belonged only to the agnatic heirs, until al-Dahhak ibn Sufyan informed him that the Prophet had granted a woman a share of the blood money, whereupon Umar adopted that ruling. He prohibited excessive dowries, citing the dowries of the Prophet, until a woman reminded him, and he withdrew his prohibition. He intended to stone a woman who was insane, until he was informed of the Messenger of Allah's saying, "The pen has been lifted from three"; he then ordered that she not be stoned. He ordered that Hatib's freedwoman be stoned, until Uthman reminded him that an ignorant person is not subject to the prescribed punishment, and he desisted from stoning her. He objected to Hassan reciting poetry in the mosque, but Hassan and Abu Hurayra informed him that Hassan had recited there in the presence of the Messenger of Allah, so Umar fell silent. It had escaped the Ansar and the Emigrants, including Uthman, Ali, Talha, al-Zubayr, and Hafsa, Mother of the Believers, that ritual bathing is obligatory after penetration even if there has been no ejaculation, although this is a matter that frequently arises. It had also escaped Aisha and Umm Habiba
__________
(15) Ibn Hazm, Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam, cited above (6/79).


[Page 42]

The Mothers of the Believers, Ibn Umar, Abu Hurayra, Abu Musa, Zayd ibn Thabit, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, and the rest of the eminent jurists of Medina and others held that the ruling requiring ablution after eating food touched by fire had been abrogated.
All of this is a matter of widespread affliction and general occurrence. All of this, and what follows, refutes the claim made by those among the Hanafis and Malikis who give no weight to their words: that when a matter is one of widespread affliction, a solitary report is not accepted.
It is astonishing that both groups accepted reports that others contradicted, even though the matter was one of widespread concern: the Hanafis accepted that laughter invalidates ablution, while others were unaware of it; the Malikis accepted a ruling allowing an oath to be accompanied by one witness, while others were unaware of it. There are very many examples of this kind. Muhammad ibn Sa'id narrated to us: Ahmad ibn Abd al-Nasir narrated to us: Qasim ibn Asbagh narrated to us: Muhammad ibn Abd al-Salam al-Khushani narrated to us: Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna narrated to us: Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi narrated to us: Sakhr ibn Juwayriya narrated to us: Amir ibn Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr narrated to us, that Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Aswad informed him, saying: I was sitting with my father at Arafat, while Ibn al-Zubayr was addressing the people. Ibn al-Zubayr said, "This is a day for magnifying Allah, praising Him, and proclaiming His oneness, so magnify Allah, praise Him, and proclaim His oneness." My father got up and made his way through the crowd until he reached him, then leaned close and said, "I testify that I heard Umar ibn al-Khattab on this very pulpit reciting the talbiya." Ibn al-Zubayr then recited, "Here I am, O Allah, here I am," in a loud voice. Abu Muhammad said: As you can see, this report was unknown to Ibn al-Zubayr and others, although it is well known from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Umar had forbidden people to be named after the prophets, yet he saw Muhammad ibn Maslama coming and going to visit him, though he was one of the eminent Companions. He also saw Abu Ayyub al-Ansari and Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, who were known among the Companions only by their kunyas. He saw Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Siddiq, who was born in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), during the Farewell Pilgrimage. His mother asked the Prophet for a ruling when she gave birth to him, asking what she should do about her state of consecration while in postpartum bleeding. Umar knew with certainty that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knew the names and kunyas of those we have mentioned, approved them, and called them by them, without changing any of them. When Talha and Suhayb informed him that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had permitted this, he refrained from forbidding it. He had intended to abandon jogging during the pilgrimage, but then recalled that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had done it, and said, "We have no right to abandon it." Here is Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him): they have reported that he sent to al-Furay'a, the sister of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, to ask her what the Messenger of Allah had ruled concerning her waiting period, and that he acted on that ruling. He also ordered a woman who had given birth after six months of pregnancy to be stoned, but Ali cited the Quran to him, pointing out that a pregnancy could last only six months, whereupon he withdrew the order to stone her. And here is Ali (may Allah be pleased with him): he acknowledged that many of the Companions had related to him things from the Prophet that he did not know, and that he would make them swear to it, except for Abu Bakr, whom he would not make swear. Allah, Exalted is He, would thereby benefit him with whatever He wished of what he heard, which he had not known before. Here is Talha, who permitted gold to be exchanged for silver on deferred terms until Umar reminded him. And here are Ibn Umar and Ibn Abbas, who sold one dirham for two until they were reminded, whereupon they stopped. Ibn Umar then related it from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him); Muslim recorded it. Ibn Umar then returned to that ruling and abandoned his own view. Ibn Umar later related it and said, "This is the instruction our Prophet gave us." Malik recorded it from Humayd, from Mujahid, from Ibn Umar. Ibn Umar spoke truly, and we say of a hadith from the Prophet, when it reaches us, "This is the instruction our Prophet gave us." In this way we understand all cases in which a Companion narrated a hadith and then acted contrary to it: he had given a ruling contrary to the hadith before it reached him, and once he was informed of it, it is not permissible to think anything else of the Companion. This is precisely what we have explained about Ibn Umar, in a way that admits no obscurity: they interpreted what they had heard of the hadith. Anyone who understands this otherwise necessarily places the Companion under one of two possibilities, from both of which Allah, Exalted is He, has absolved them; both are misguidance and sin. Either they openly opposed the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)—which is impermissible for anyone, and it is impermissible to think this of them—or they possessed knowledge that required them to act contrary to what they had narrated, in which case they would not be justified in concealing it from us, narrating what had been abrogated and concealing the abrogating ruling from us. Such conduct would be disbelief on the part of whoever did it, and deception in religion. No one attributes this to them except someone whose heart has deviated or whose heart is blind. Thus their false assumption is disproved, and our position is established. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. There is absolutely no third possibility, except that they may have forgotten at the time some of what they had previously narrated. That too is possible. If they interpreted the reports, then their interpretation, may Allah be pleased with them, was conjecture, whereas their narration from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was certain. It is not permissible for a Muslim to abandon certainty for conjecture. Thus the difficulty in this matter is entirely resolved. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. As for them, may Allah be pleased with them, they are excused, since this was their own exercise of judgment, and such cases on their part are also very few. The same does not apply to someone who follows them after being alerted to what we have explained. Here are Aisha and Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with them): the wiping over leather socks was unknown to them, and to Ibn Umar as well, while Jarir knew of it, though he had only embraced Islam a few months before the Prophet's death. Aisha acknowledged
She had no knowledge of it and was instructed to ask someone who was expected to know about it, namely Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). This is Hafsa, Mother of the Believers, who was asked about intercourse that leaves the man in a state requiring ritual bathing: is bathing required or not? She said, "I have no knowledge of that." And this is Ibn Umar, who thought that a prohibition from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) against leasing land might have been issued, more than forty years after the Prophet's death. So he refrained from it, while acknowledging that they had leased it during the time of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. He did not say that it was impossible for something known to Rafi, Jabir, and Abu Hurayra to have escaped the notice of these men. Yet these are our brothers, who say whatever they wish: "If this were true, it would not have escaped Umar." But the permissibility granted by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) for a menstruating woman to depart without performing the farewell circumambulation escaped Zayd ibn Thabit, Ibn Umar, and most of the people of Medina, until Ibn Abbas and Umm Sulaym informed them of it, whereupon they retracted their position. And Ibn Umar did not know that one should remain until the deceased had been buried, until Abu Hurayra and Aisha informed him of it. He then said, "We have missed out on many qirats."


[Page 43]

Numerous. It was said to Ibn Umar, regarding his preference for the tamattu' pilgrimage over performing Hajj alone: "You are going against your father." He replied, "Is the Book of Allah more deserving of being followed, or Umar?" We have related this from him through Abd al-Razzaq, from Ma'mar, from al-Zuhri, from Salim, from Ibn Umar. Ibn Umar was unaware that touching the penis invalidates ablution until Busra bint Safwan instructed him about it on the authority of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he accepted that. Ibn Abbas was unaware of the prohibition of tamattu' and of the prohibition on eating domestic donkeys until Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) informed him of it. Ibn Abbas said, "Do you not fear that Allah will cause the earth to swallow you up? I tell you that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said something, and you say, 'Abu Bakr and Umar said something.'" The Ansar had forgotten his statement, "The leaders are from Quraysh." Anas related it, and Ubadah ibn al-Samit related something that indicates the same. They would only abandon their own reasoning when something from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had reached them. Abu Hurayra relates that they, may Allah be pleased with them, were occupied with their wealth and trade, whereas he himself kept close to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and witnessed what they did not. We have mentioned this hadith in the chapter on consensus in this book of ours, in a section entitled "Refuting the claim that when the majority agree on an opinion and one person disagrees with them, his opinion is disregarded." Our having mentioned it there makes it unnecessary to repeat it here.
If we find that a Companion was unaware of the Sunnah, or that it reached him and he interpreted it in various ways—as they did regarding the prohibition of domestic donkeys—al-Bukhari related that they differed: one said they were forbidden because they ate dung; another, because they had not been subjected to the fifth; another, because he feared the riding animals would perish. Some said, rather, that they were categorically forbidden at that time. Ali said: All of this is false except the view that they were categorically forbidden. A text has come prohibiting them in themselves, because they are impure; Anas related this. Since all that we have mentioned is sound, and blind imitation is entirely invalid, what reason is there to follow a Companion's opinion when it does not conflict with a report—let alone when it is accompanied by a conflict with a report? In the chapter on invalidating blind imitation in this book, we have recorded what they issued as legal opinions, though the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) informed them that it was not so. Ali said: Whenever those who evade the truth cling to things of this sort and the like, when confusion overwhelms them, they are the furthest of all people from it.
And it is stated in "Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam by Ibn Hazm" (2/127):
"Knowledge of tayammum (dry ablution) was held by Ammar and others, while Umar and Ibn Masud did not know it, and said that a person in a state of major ritual impurity must not perform tayammum, even if he went two months without finding water. The ruling on wiping over footwear was known to Ali, Hudhayfa (may Allah be pleased with them), and others, but Aisha, Ibn Umar, and Abu Hurayra did not know it, though they were Medinans. The rule of inheritance whereby a son's son's daughter inherits alongside a daughter was known to Ibn Masud, but Abu Musa did not know it. The ruling on seeking permission was known to Abu Musa and Abu Said, but Umar did not know it. The ruling permitting a menstruating woman to depart..."
Before she circumambulated, Ibn Abbas and Umm Sulaym knew of it, while Umar and Zayd ibn Thabit did not; and the ruling prohibiting temporary marriage was
The ruling concerning domestic donkeys was known to Ali and others, but Ibn Abbas did not know it. The ruling on currency exchange was known to Umar, Abu Sa'id, and others, but Talha, Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Umar did not know it. The ruling on expelling the People of the Covenant from the lands of Arabia was known to Ibn Abbas and Umar, but Umar forgot it for years and left them there until he was reminded; then he remembered and expelled them. Knowledge of the inheritance case of kalala was held by some, but Umar did not know it. The prohibition on selling wine was known to Umar, but Samura did not know it. The ruling concerning a grandmother's inheritance was known to al-Mughira and Muhammad ibn Maslama, but Abu Bakr and Umar did not know it. The ruling on taking jizya from the Magians, and on not entering a land afflicted by plague, was known to Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, but Umar, Abu Ubayda, and the majority of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) did not know it. The ruling on a grandfather's inheritance was known to Ma'qil ibn Sinan, but Umar did not know it. There are very many examples of this kind. The Companions proceeded as we have described; after them came the Successors, who learned from them, and each generation of the Successors in the regions we have mentioned ))
Ibn Hazm said:
"Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam by Ibn Hazm" (6/76):
"As for what they rely on, namely the report that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to Abu Bakr and Umar, 'Were it not for your disagreement with me, I would not have disagreed with you,' the first point is that this report is unsound. Even if it were sound, it would be proof against following their opinions, because what it says is that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) prevented them from acting on their opinions in worldly matters. It is therefore incumbent upon us to follow him (peace and blessings be upon him) and not to adopt their opinions in matters of the Sharia. This is clear. As for his saying (peace and blessings be upon him), 'You must adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs,' we know that he (peace and blessings be upon him) would not command what is beyond one's ability. We find that the rightly guided caliphs after him (peace and blessings be upon him) differed greatly. Thus, there must be one of three possibilities, with no fourth: either we adopt everything over which they differed—and this is impossible and beyond our ability, since it entails accepting a thing and its opposite. It is not possible, for example, to give the grandfather a share to the exclusion of the siblings, following the view of Abu Bakr and Aisha, while giving him only one-third and the remainder to the siblings, following Umar's view, or giving him one-sixth and the remainder to the siblings, following Ali's school of thought, and likewise in every matter over which they differed. This possibility is therefore invalid.


[Page 44]

because people are unable to do it. This is one possibility; or it may be permissible for us to take any of these things. But this would be a departure from Islam, because it would mean that the religion of Allah, Exalted is He, was left to our choice, so that each of us could forbid whatever he wished and permit whatever he wished, and one of us could forbid what another permits. Allah, Exalted is He, says: {Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and that over which any name other than Allah's has been invoked, and the strangled, the beaten to death, the fallen to death, the gored to death, and that which wild beasts have eaten—unless you have slaughtered it—and what has been slaughtered
...over the stone altars, and that you seek to determine your fate by means of divining arrows. That is wickedness. Today those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion, so do not fear them; fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and chosen Islam as your religion. But whoever is compelled by severe hunger, without inclining toward sin—then Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful} And His saying, Exalted is He: {Divorce is twice; then either retain her honorably or release her kindly. It is not lawful for you to take anything of what you have given them, unless both fear that they cannot maintain the limits set by Allah. If you fear that they cannot maintain the limits set by Allah, then there is no blame upon either of them for what she gives up to secure her release. These are the limits set by Allah, so do not transgress them. Whoever transgresses the limits set by Allah—it is they who are the wrongdoers} And His saying, Exalted is He: {Obey Allah and His Messenger, and do not dispute, lest you lose heart and your strength depart. Be patient; indeed, Allah is with the patient} refutes this corrupt view and establishes that whatever was forbidden then remains forbidden until the Day of Resurrection; whatever was obligatory then remains obligatory until the Day of Resurrection; and whatever was lawful then remains lawful until the Day of Resurrection.
Also, if this were so, then when we followed the opinion of one of them, we would necessarily have abandoned the opinion of the other. In that case, we would not be following their practice; rather, we would have fallen into opposition to the hadith mentioned, as they themselves did, whether they wished it or not. I recall that this happened with a mufti we had in al-Andalus, who was ignorant. His custom was to be preceded by two men upon whom the issuing of fatwas in that period depended. Beneath their fatwas, he would write, "I hold the same opinion as the two shaykhs." It so happened that those two shaykhs disagreed. When he wrote beneath their fatwas what we have mentioned, someone present said to him, "The two shaykhs have disagreed." He replied, "And I disagree whenever they disagree." Abu Muhammad said: Since these two possibilities have been disproved, only the third remains: to follow what they unanimously agreed upon. That can only be what all the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, agreed upon together, and their following the practices of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and adhering to them. Furthermore, when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded that the practices of the rightly guided caliphs be followed, there must necessarily be one of two possibilities: either he (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted them to establish practices other than his own—and no Muslim would say this; whoever permits it has disbelieved and apostatized, and his life and property are lawful—or else the matter is otherwise. For the entire religion consists either of what is obligatory or what is not obligatory, and either what is forbidden or what is lawful; there is absolutely no other category in religion. Whoever permits the rightly guided caliphs to have a practice that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not establish has permitted them to forbid something that was lawful during his lifetime until he died, or to make lawful something the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had forbidden, or to make obligatory a duty the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had not made obligatory, or to waive a duty the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had imposed.
And he did not abandon it until he died. Anyone who permits any of these possibilities is an unbeliever and an idolater, by the consensus of the entire Muslim community, without any disagreement. And Allah Most High is the source of success. This possibility has thus been disproved, praise be to Allah. As for the possibility that he commanded us to follow them in their adherence to his Sunnah (peace and blessings be upon him), this is precisely what we say: this hadith admits no other interpretation at all. Some have said, "We follow them only in matters for which there is no Sunnah." Abu Muhammad said: And since he did not
Nothing remains except this, and their contention has fallen away. There is nothing in the world without a textually established Sunnah concerning it. We have explained this in the chapter on invalidating analogy in this book. And success is from Allah, Exalted is He.
They argued on the basis of what was reported to us by Abd Allah ibn Rabi, who said: Muhammad ibn Muawiya related to us, saying: Ahmad ibn Shuaib related to us, saying: Muhammad ibn Bashshar related to us, saying: Abu Umar related to us, from Sufyan—that is, al-Thawri—from al-Shaybani—that is, Abu Ishaq—from al-Shabi, from Shurayh, that he wrote to Umar asking him a question. Umar wrote back to him: "Judge according to what is in the Book of Allah. If it is not in the Book of Allah, then according to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). If it is in neither the Book of Allah nor the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), then judge according to what the righteous have judged. If it is in neither the Book of Allah nor the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and the righteous have not judged concerning it, then, if you wish, go ahead, and if you wish, hold back. I consider holding back to be better for you. Peace be upon you." Abu Muhammad said: This report is against them, not in their favor, because Umar did not say, "according to what some of the righteous have judged"; rather, he said, "according to what the righteous have judged." That means the consensus of all the righteous. This report also shows that Umar permitted refraining from judgment by analogy and preferred doing so. They may also be told, regarding their argument based on the report commanding adherence to the Sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs, that this is evidence against them: the Sunnah of all the rightly guided caliphs, without any disagreement among them, was not to imitate anyone, nor to imitate one another, but to seek out the Sunnahs of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) wherever they found them, then turn to them and act upon them. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) strongly rebuked a man who asked him a question about the pilgrimage. When Umar gave him a ruling, the man said, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) gave me this very ruling." Umar struck him with his whip and said, "You asked me about something on which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had already given a ruling, and I might have contradicted him." We have transmitted this through Abd al-Razzaq. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) also said: "Opinion from us is a burden we take upon ourselves, whereas opinion from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was truth." Abu Muhammad said: Whoever follows them should follow them in this matter on which they agreed: abandoning imitation; in what they unanimously agreed upon: following the Sunnahs of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him); and in what they forbade concerning the…


[Page 45]

Straining, for by doing so he agrees with the truth and with the words of Allah, Exalted is He, and the words of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). These caliphs were opposed by people of their own time: Zayd, Ali, and others opposed Umar; Umar opposed Uthman; and Umar opposed Abu Bakr in many cases. Yet none of them said to anyone who opposed him, "Why have you opposed me, when I am the imam?" Had following them by imitation been obligatory, they would not have allowed anyone to act otherwise than as required. As for the sophistry of those who cite the words of Allah, Exalted is He: {O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. If you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and fairest in outcome}, this verse invalidates imitation beyond any doubt. It is the greatest proof against them, because He, Exalted is He, commanded obedience to those in authority only in what they transmitted to us from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and not in anything else. If they say, "Rather, it is in what they say by their own reasoning," we have already shown that this assumption is invalid. And even if we conceded that, it would only make obedience obligatory to all of them, not to some of them, because Allah, Mighty and Majestic, did not say, "some of those in authority among you." Rather, He commanded us to follow those in authority among us, meaning all the people of knowledge. When they reach consensus on a matter, there is no disagreement that following them is obligatory. Allah, Exalted is He, made this clear in the very same verse and left us in no ambiguity, saying: {O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. If you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and fairest in outcome}. Thus, when disagreement arises, Allah, Exalted is He, omitted referral to those in authority and required referral only to the Quran and the Sunnah. He commanded obedience to those in authority among us only so long as there is no disagreement. This is our position, and praise be to Allah. As for the report, "Muadh established this practice for you," we have said that it is a hadith whose chain of transmission is unsound. Even if it were sound, it would not constitute proof for them, because joining the imam in prayer is an established practice not because Muadh did it, but because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) approved it and commanded it. His words were: "Whatever you catch, pray; and whatever you miss, make up." Otherwise, Muadh did something in prolonging the prayer that angered the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who forbade him from doing it again. If what Muadh did were a Sunnah, then prolonging the prayer when leading people would be a Sunnah, and that is wrong. It is therefore established that neither Muadh's actions nor anyone else's are a Sunnah unless the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) commands and approves them. This is our position, not theirs. As for the report, "Follow the two who come after me," it is an unsound hadith, because it is narrated from an unknown client of Rib'i and from al-Mufaddal al-Dabbi, who is not a reliable authority. As Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Jasur related to us: Ahmad ibn al-Fadl al-Dinawari related to us: Muhammad ibn Jubayr related to us: Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Aswad al-Tafawi related to us: Muhammad ibn Kathir al-Mulla'i related to us: al-Mufaddal al-Dabbi, from Dirar ibn Murra, from Abd Allah ibn Abi al-Hudhayl al-Atri, from his grandmother, from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who said: "Follow"
by the two who will come after me, Abu Bakr and Umar; follow the guidance of Ammar and hold fast to the covenant of Ibn Umm Abd.
And as Ahmad ibn Qasim related to us, he said: My father, Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Qasim ibn Asbagh, told us: Qasim ibn Asbagh told me: Ismail ibn Ishaq the Judge told us: Muhammad ibn Kathir told us: Sufyan al-Thawri, from Abd al-Malik ibn Umayr, from the freedman of al-Rabi, from Hudhayfa, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Follow the example of the two who come after me, Abu Bakr and Umar; follow the guidance of Ammar, and hold fast to the covenant of Ibn Umm Abd." We also received it from one of our companions, from the Judge Abu al-Walid ibn al-Faradi, from Ibn al-Dakhil, from al-Uqayli: Muhammad ibn Ismail told us: Muhammad ibn Fudayl told us: Waki told us: Salim al-Muradi, from Amr ibn Hurm, from Rabi ibn Hirash and Abu Abd Allah, a man among Hudhayfa's companions, from Hudhayfa. Abu Muhammad said: Salim is weak. Some have named the freedman, saying he was Hilal, the freedman of Rabi, but he is unknown; no one knows who he actually was. Even if it were sound, it would count against them, not in their favor, for they—that is, the followers of Malik, Abu Hanifa, and al-Shafii—are the people who depart most from Abu Bakr and Umar. We have shown that the followers of Malik contradicted Abu Bakr in five instances, specifically in what they transmitted in the Muwatta, and contradicted Umar in about thirty cases, specifically in what they transmitted in the Muwatta. We have also mentioned that Umar and Abu Bakr differed, and that following both of them in matters on which they differed is impossible and unattainable; no one can do it. What is sound in this chapter is what one of our companions gave me and what Yusuf ibn Abd Allah ibn Abd al-Barr al-Namari also related to me. Both of them received it from Abu al-Walid Abd Allah ibn Yusuf the Judge, from Ibn al-Dakhil, from al-Uqayli: Muhammad ibn Ismail told us: Ismail ibn Abi Uways, from Abd Allah ibn Abi Abd Allah al-Basri and Thawr ibn Yazid al-Dayli, from Ikrima, from Ibn Abbas, who said: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Understand my words, O people, for I have conveyed the message. I have left among you, O people, that which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray: the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet."))
And through him, al-Uqayli narrated to us: Musa ibn Ishaq narrated to us; Muhammad ibn Ubayd al-Muharibi narrated to us; Salih ibn Musa al-Talhi narrated to us, from Abd al-Aziz ibn Rafi, from Abu Salih, from Abu Hurayra, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
"I have left among you two things; you will never go astray after them so long as you hold fast to them or act upon them: the Book of Allah and my Sunnah. They will not part company until they come to me at the Pool."
As for the report, "My Companions are like the stars," it is a spurious narration. This is a hadith that was related to me by

Abu al-Abbas Ahmad ibn Umar ibn Anas al-Udhri, who said: Abu Dharr Abd ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Harawi al-Ansari related to us; he said: Ali ibn Umar ibn Ahmad al-Daraqutni related to us; he said: Judge Ahmad Kamil ibn Kamil Khalaf narrated to us; he said: Abdullah ibn Ruh narrated to us; he said: Salam ibn Sulayman narrated to us; he said: al-Harith ibn Ghussayn narrated to us, from al-A'mash, from Abu


[Page 46]

Sufyan, from Jabir, said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "My Companions are like stars; whichever of them you follow, you will be guided." Abu Muhammad said: Abu Sufyan is weak, and al-Harith ibn Ghussayn is Abu Wahb al-Thaqafi. Salam ibn Sulayman narrates fabricated hadiths, and this is certainly one of them. Thus, this is a rejected report transmitted through a weak chain of narration. Abu Umar Yusuf ibn Abd Allah ibn Abd al-Barr al-Namari wrote to me that this hadith was also narrated through Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd al-Ammi, from his father, from Said ibn al-Musayyib, from Ibn Umar; and through Hamzah al-Jazari, from Nafi, from Ibn Umar. He said: Abd al-Rahim ibn Zayd and his father are both abandoned narrators, and Hamzah al-Jazari is unknown. Al-Namari wrote to me: Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Said told us that Abu Abd al-Rahman ibn Mufarrij related to them, saying: Muhammad ibn Ayyub al-Samut told us that al-Bazzar said, "As for what is narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), 'My Companions are like stars; whichever of them you follow, you will be guided,' this is a statement that is not soundly established as coming from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)." Abu Muhammad said: It has thus become clear that this report is not established at all; there is no doubt that it is fabricated, because Allah, Exalted is He, says of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), {Nor does he speak from his own desire. It is only a revelation sent down to him.} Since everything he (peace and blessings be upon him) says concerning the Sharia is true, it is all from Allah, Exalted is He, without doubt; and what is from Allah, Exalted is He, contains no contradiction, as He says: {Do they not reflect upon the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have found much contradiction in it.} Allah, Exalted is He, has forbidden division and disagreement, saying: {Obey Allah and His Messenger, and do not dispute, lest you lose heart and your strength depart.}
"And be patient; indeed, Allah is with the patient." It is impossible that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would command people to follow every speaker among the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), when some of them deem something lawful and others deem it unlawful. If that were so, selling wine would be lawful, in imitation of Samura ibn
Jundub. Eating hail would be lawful for a fasting person, following the example of Abu Talha, and unlawful, following that of others among them. Omitting the ritual bath after intercourse without ejaculation would be obligatory, following the example of Ali, Uthman, Talha, Abu Ayyub, and Ubayy ibn Ka'b, and unlawful, following that of Aisha and Ibn Umar. Selling fruit before signs of ripeness appear on it would be lawful, following the example of Umar, and unlawful, following that of others among them. All of this is transmitted in our sources with chains of transmission. End quote.
The upshot of what we have mentioned is that there is no explicit evidence establishing the authority of the opinion of any of the Companions, let alone those of lesser rank. If they say that their opinion is authoritative in matters of belief, then whoever disagrees with them is deemed an unbeliever.
The answer is: Ibn Taymiyya said: "He also said in Mukhtasar al-Fatawa al-Misriyya: 'The division of issues into fundamental issues, denial of which constitutes disbelief, and subsidiary issues, denial of which does not constitute disbelief, has no basis among the Companions, the Successors, or the imams of Islam. Rather, it was adopted from the Mu'tazila and similar imams of innovation, who are inconsistent. For when they are asked, "What defines the fundamentals of religion?" and they answer, "Issues of belief," they may be told: People have disagreed over whether Muhammad saw his Lord, whether Uthman or Ali was superior, many meanings of the Quran, and the authentication of some hadiths. These are matters of belief, yet there is no disbelief in them, by the agreement of the Muslims. The obligation of prayer, zakat, and pilgrimage, and the prohibition of indecencies and wine, are practical matters, yet one who denies them is unanimously judged to be an unbeliever ...'"
If it is said that the foundational principles are those that are definitive, it may be replied that many matters of inquiry are not definitive. Whether a matter is definitive or speculative varies from person to person: what is definitive for one may not be definitive for another, as in the case of someone who hears the wording of a text and is certain of its intended meaning, while another text does not carry the same force for him; for him, it is not speculative, let alone definitive...
The point is that the positions of the leading scholars distinguish between the category and the individual case, and whoever has reported a disagreement has not grasped the depth of their statement ...
One group relates two reports from Ahmad concerning the unrestricted excommunication of the people of innovation. But this is not the position of Ahmad or of any of the other imams. Likewise, al-Shafi'i declared Hafs al-Fard an unbeliever when he said, "The Quran is created." Al-Shafi'i said to him, "You have disbelieved"—that is, what you said is disbelief. For this reason, he did not seek to have him killed; had he considered him an unbeliever, he would have sought to have him killed.
It is clear from what has preceded that the Companions differed over some matters of belief on the basis of interpretation, yet they did not declare one another unbelievers. It will be shown explicitly later that Ibn Abbas did not declare the Kharijites unbelievers, but regarded them as people who interpreted the texts and excused them on that basis. If their statements are authoritative, then they must follow them in this matter of excusing people on the basis of interpretation: they must not declare an interpreter an unbeliever, even if his interpretation falls under what they have included among matters of belief. Otherwise, they will have contradicted themselves. God willing, we will devote a separate discussion to the matter of excusing people on the basis of interpretation.


[Page 47]

Everything stated above concerning the lack of probative authority in a Companion's opinion applies all the more to what has been transmitted from the Successors and those after them. However, what I have observed, after examining the statements of their theorists, is that they have not produced a single text from the Companions declaring an interpreter among the people of heretical sects to be an unbeliever, or declaring one who excuses him to be an unbeliever. I cite here two reports, one from Qadi Iyad and the other from Ibn Hazm, showing that the Companions' position was to excuse people on the basis of interpretation.
(What has been transmitted from the Companions concerning declaring those who interpret texts to be unbelievers)(1)((Qadi Iyad said: "People have differed over declaring those who interpret texts to be unbelievers. Once you understand this, the reason for their disagreement will become clear to you, and the correct position is to refrain from declaring them unbelievers.
And refraining from definitively condemning them to perdition, while applying the rulings of Islam to them in matters of retaliation, inheritance, marriage, blood money, funeral prayers, burial in Muslim cemeteries, and all other dealings with them. However, they are dealt with sternly through painful discipline, severe rebuke, and social boycott until they abandon their innovation. This was the practice of the earliest generation toward them. In the time of the Companions and afterward, among the Successors, there arose people who held these views concerning predestination, as well as the Khawarij and the Mu'tazila. Yet they did not disinter their graves or deprive any of them of inheritance; rather, they boycotted them and disciplined them with beatings, exile, or execution, according to their circumstances, because they were disobedient, misguided sinners who committed major sins. (I say: See here the account of Ali and Ibn Abbas with the Khawarij, which I will mention later: Ibn Abbas said to the Khawarij, regarding Aisha, "Are you insulting your mother?" This clearly shows that Ibn Abbas did not declare them unbelievers, since he called Aisha the Mother of the Believers and their mother. Al-Ash'ari has quoted the statement, "All the Khawarij say that the Quran was created" (Maqalat al-Islamiyyin, 108). This is evidence that Ibn Abbas excused those among them who held their view through interpretation; nevertheless, the Companions did not declare them unbelievers on that account.)


[Page 48]

He said: "Among those who transmitted the other view—that they should not be declared unbelievers—were Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ibn Umar, and al-Hasan al-Basri. This was also the view of a group of jurists, speculative theologians, and scholars of kalam. They cited as evidence the fact that the Companions and Successors granted inheritance to the heirs of the people of Harura and to those known for holding the doctrine of predestination who had died, buried them in Muslim cemeteries, and applied the rulings of Islam to them."

Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) used to pray behind Najda the Kharijite.

It is stated in Usul al-Sunna by Ibn Abi Zamanin (p. 283):

"Asad said: al-Rabi ibn Zayd told me, from Sawwar ibn Shabib, who said: Najda al-Haruri made the pilgrimage with his companions and made a truce with Ibn al-Zubayr. One of them led the people in prayer for a day and a night, and the other led them for a day and a night. Ibn Umar prayed behind them both. A man confronted him and said, 'Abu Abd al-Rahman, do you pray behind Najda al-Haruri?'

Ibn Umar replied, 'When they call, "Come to the best of deeds," we answer; and when they call, "Come to kill a person," we say, "No."' He raised his voice as he said this."

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Abd Allah ibn Umar and other Companions used to pray behind al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. The Companions and Successors also used to pray behind Ibn Abi Ubayd, who was accused of heresy and called people to misguidance." (7) Majmu al-Fatawa, 3/281


[Page 49]

Ibn Hazm said: "A group held that no Muslim is declared an unbeliever or a sinner on account of something he says concerning belief or a legal opinion, and that anyone who exercises independent reasoning in any of these matters and adheres to what he considers to be the truth is rewarded in all cases: if he is right, he receives two rewards, and if he is mistaken, one reward. This was the view of Ibn Abi Layla, Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i, Sufyan al-Thawri, and Dawud ibn Ali, may Allah be pleased with them all. It is also the view of everyone among the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, whom we know to have expressed an opinion on this issue. We know of no disagreement among them at all, except for the disagreement we have mentioned concerning declaring an unbeliever anyone who deliberately leaves the prayer until its time has passed, or fails to pay zakat, perform Hajj, or fast Ramadan, or drinks wine. Those who declared people unbelievers on account of disagreements in matters of belief cited various arguments, which we shall present, if Allah, Exalted is He, wills."

But they are not satisfied with Ibn Hazm or al-Qadi Iyad, because, in their view, they are Ash'aris or Jahmis. Yet they often contradict themselves: their books are full of quotations from those they accuse of heresy, such as Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Kathir, and others, whenever they find in them something that supports their position. I do not know how to make sense of this contradiction: at one moment these men are unbelievers whose statements are unacceptable, and at another their views and arguments are cited. Therefore, I will discuss the issue in detail later, with regard to the statements of the Companions on this matter, if Allah wills.

The second issue: their reliance on the statements of the Companions and Successors. As noted above, they have not relied on a single statement of the Companions on this issue at all. Yet they have laid down the principle that even reports with weak chains of transmission may be acted upon. Although rejecting weak reports in matters of belief and rulings—even when attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)—is now almost universally accepted, some groups have added another condition alongside soundness: if the matter concerns belief, the report must also have been transmitted by mass transmission. How, then, can these people deem it permissible to accept weak reports in matters of belief, especially reports from someone other than the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), as a result of this dubious doctrine of theirs?


[Page 50]

They relied on reports transmitted from the early generations that had been judged weak by hadith scholars, and which contain disparagement of the prophets and angels, such as the story of Harut and Marut, the story of Joseph's passion, the story of David's sin, the story of Solomon's ring, and the story attributing shirk to Adam and naming his son Abd al-Harith so that he might live, as they claim. I do not know what their leading scholar intended by this. Moreover, he criticized Ibn Kathir for rejecting these hadiths, and I do not know what he intended by defending this disparagement of the prophets found in these weak hadiths. This is very suspicious. Likewise, they rely on statements attributed to some early scholars that the earth is flat, while disregarding other reports and the scholarly consensus transmitted from scholars that it is spherical. They then made this one of the matters of belief, declaring anyone who disagrees an unbeliever, and consequently declaring most Muslims, past and present, unbelievers on that basis. Also, for example, it is astonishing and suspicious that they deliberately weaken reports attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that are authentic according to some hadith scholars, but which contradict their school of thought, and refuse to rely on them because, in their view, they are weak. For example, their leading scholar did this with the report about the man who scattered his own ashes, in which he says, "Perhaps I will escape Allah." This report explicitly shows that the man was ignorant of the attribute of power, and it was transmitted through a chain of narrators that many scholars deem sound. I think he himself deems it sound, but he ignored this chain, produced another chain that is weak, and rejected the report on that basis, saying it was weak. As you can see, sometimes reports from people below the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) are treated as proof, even when weak, while at other times reports from the Prophet himself (peace and blessings be upon him) are not treated as proof because they contradict their school of thought. There is no might or power except through Allah.
Although it is clear that acting upon weak reports in matters of creed and rulings is impermissible, especially when the view in question is that of a Companion, there is no harm in briefly addressing this issue so that the discussion may be complete, God willing.
Ibn Taymiyya said: "What the scholars do in acting upon a weak hadith does not mean establishing that something is recommended on the basis of a hadith that cannot be used as proof, for recommendation is a legal ruling and can only be established by evidence.


[Page 51]

It is a matter of the Sharia. Whoever claims on God's authority that He loves a particular deed without Sharia evidence has prescribed as part of the religion what God has not authorized, just as if he were to establish an obligation or a prohibition... What they mean by this is that the deed must be one that has been established, by a text or consensus, as something God loves or dislikes, such as reciting the Quran, glorifying God, supplication, charity, freeing slaves, treating people well, and disliking lies, treachery, and the like.
If a hadith is narrated concerning the merit and reward of some recommended deeds, or the disapproval and punishment of some deeds, then, when a hadith is narrated about the amounts and kinds of reward and punishment and we do not know it to be fabricated, it is permissible to narrate it and act upon it. This means that a person may hope for that reward or fear that punishment. It is like someone who knows that trade is profitable but has heard that it yields a great profit: if that is true, it benefits him, and if it is false, it does him no harm. An example of this is exhortation and warning through Israelite reports, dreams, sayings of the early generations and scholars, accounts of scholars, and the like. Such things, on their own, cannot establish a Sharia ruling, whether recommendation or anything else, but they may be mentioned for exhortation and warning, hope and fear.
If weak hadiths about merits specify and delimit something—for example, a prayer at a particular time, with a particular recitation, or in a particular manner—then this is not permissible, because the recommendation of that specific form has not been established by Sharia evidence. This differs from a report that whoever enters the marketplace and says, "There is no god but Allah..." will receive such-and-such, since remembering God in the marketplace is recommended because it involves remembering God among the heedless...
As for the specified reward reported in it, it does no harm whether or not it is established.
The upshot is that this material may be narrated and acted upon for exhortation and warning, not to establish recommendation. Belief in what it entails—that is, the amounts of reward and punishment—depends on Sharia evidence. ))End quote

(Evidence for the impermissibility of acting on a weak hadith)


[Page 52]

There is no doubt that weak hadiths do not yield knowledge or preponderant probability; rather, they yield probability in the sense of doubt. This kind of probability is forbidden to follow in the Book and the Sunnah, and its adherent is blameworthy: he speaks about Allah and His Messenger without knowledge, and this is among the gravest sins.
Ibn Hazm said: "Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) also said in al-Ihkam (1/133):
'Among the errors made by some hadith scholars is their saying: "So-and-so may be relied upon in matters of exhortation, but not in legal rulings."
Abu Muhammad (that is, Ibn Hazm) said: This is false, because it is an invalid division for which there is no proof; indeed, the proof refutes it. That is because every person on earth must be either sinful or not sinful. If he is not sinful, then he is upright, and there is no third category.
The upright person falls into two categories: a jurist and a non-jurist. The upright jurist is accepted in every matter, while the sinful person is not relied upon in anything.
The upright person who is not a memorizer is not accepted in any matter whatsoever, because the condition for acceptance specified by Allah Most High is not present in him (that is, His saying, "so that they may gain understanding of the religion and warn their people"). Whoever is upright in some of what he transmits is upright in the rest of it. It is impossible to deem some of his reports acceptable and the rest unacceptable unless there is a text from Allah Most High or a consensus distinguishing between them. Otherwise, this is arbitrary judgment without proof and speaking without knowledge, which is impermissible.' End quote."
Ibn Hazm said: "Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam by Ibn Hazm (1/22):
'And Allah Most High said: {Rather, those who do wrong follow their desires without knowledge. So who can guide one whom Allah has led astray? They will have no helpers.} Thus, as you hear, Allah Most High has informed us that whoever follows a statement that accords with his view without knowing that it is sound is a wrongdoer, even if


[Page 53]

Whoever does not return to the truth he hears is among the people of the Fire. Allah, Exalted is He, says: {If they do not respond to you, then know that they are only following their desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.} Allah, Exalted is He, also condemned a person for denying what he does not know, saying: {Rather, they denied what they had no knowledge of, and whose interpretation had not yet come to them. Thus did those before them deny. So see what was the end of the wrongdoers.} Thus, all that we have mentioned establishes the duty to refrain from what we do not know and to return to what the proof requires once it has been established.

Allah, Exalted is He, says: {And who is more unjust than one who fabricates a lie against Allah or denies the truth when it comes to him? Is there not a dwelling in Hell for the disbelievers?} Abu Muhammad said: This verse suffices to establish that no one should affirm anything unless proof has been established for it, and that no one should do anything when proof has been established against it. Who is more unjust than one who knows what we have mentioned, yet follows a whisper arising within himself, or a report for which no proof has been established that it must be believed, or imitates another person like himself, who may, in Allah's sight, be mistaken in what he thinks? In any case, that person is not infallible; he may be right or wrong. Allah, Exalted is He, says: {And they say, "None will enter Paradise unless he is a Jew or a Christian." Those are their wishes. Say, "Produce your proof, if you are truthful."}
Thus, He, Exalted is He, required whoever is truthful in his claim to produce proof; if he does not produce proof,
then he is a liar, one who asserts falsehood, or an ignorant person. Allah, Exalted is He, says: {Here you are, disputing about that of which you have knowledge; why, then, do you dispute about that of which you have no knowledge? Allah knows, and you do not know.} Thus, He, Exalted is He, required disputation only on the basis of knowledge and prohibited it without knowledge.

Allah, Exalted is He, says: {They will say, "They were three, the fourth of them being their dog," and they will say, "They were five, the sixth of them being their dog," guessing at the unseen. And they will say, "They were seven, and the eighth of them was their dog." Say, "My Lord knows best their number; none knows them except a few." So do not argue about them except with an evident argument, and do not ask any of them about them.} Abu Muhammad said: Since we found that Allah, Exalted is He, commanded argument and debate in the verses we have mentioned, and did not require acceptance of anything except on the basis of proof, we were obliged to seek out arguments.


[Page 54]

The blameworthy kind, as we have explained. We find that He said: {We send the messengers only as bearers of good news and warners. Those who disbelieve argue with falsehood in order to refute the truth by it, and they take My signs and the warnings given to them in mockery.} **
Thus, as you see, Exalted is He condemned arguing without proof and arguing for falsehood. In this way, Exalted is He refuted the claim of the deluded: that every person led astray is furnished with an argument. Exalted is He made clear that the deluded person is one who is not furnished with an argument, whereas the one in the right is truly furnished with an argument—and they are the people of truth. Exalted is He also said: {Those who argue about the signs of Allah without any authority having come to them—it is greatly hateful in the sight of Allah and in the sight of those who believe. Thus does Allah seal the heart of every arrogant tyrant.} These verses together explain both blameworthy argumentation and praiseworthy, obligatory argumentation. The obligatory kind is that in which the person arguing seeks to make the truth manifest. The blameworthy kind has two forms, as stated in the verses we have cited: first, arguing without knowledge; and second, arguing in support of falsehood through contentiousness and deception after the truth has become clear to him. This makes clear that the truth is one, and that nothing is valid except what is established by rational proof. These blameworthy people are those of whom Exalted is He said: {Have you not seen those who argue about the signs of Allah—how they are turned away?} And His saying: {Among the people is one who argues about Allah without knowledge and follows every rebellious devil.} And His saying: {Among the people is one who argues about Allah without knowledge, guidance, or an illuminating Book, turning his neck aside to lead others astray from the path of Allah. For him there is disgrace in this world, and on the Day of Resurrection We shall make him taste the punishment of the Fire.} And His saying:
Exalted is He: {None argue about the signs of Allah except those who disbelieve, so let not their movement through the lands deceive you. Before them, the people of Noah and the factions after them denied the truth,

and every nation plotted against its messenger to seize him, and they argued with falsehood in order to refute the truth by it. So I seized them; and how was My punishment?} Thus, as you see, Exalted is He made clear that forbidden argumentation is argumentation used to support falsehood and refute the truth without knowledge.))
«He said in al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam by Ibn Hazm» (1/65):


[Page 55]

"As for one to whom an unsound report from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has reached, and an interpreter, an ignorant person, or a sinner whom he did not know to be sinful has deemed it authentic for him, that is the extent of his knowledge. If he acts on the falsehood that has reached him, he is excused on account of his ignorance and bears no sin, for he did not deliberately incline toward sin, and deeds are judged by intentions. He is a mujtahid, rewarded once for his intention and purpose of seeking good and obedience to Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). If he acts contrary to what has reached him, then the sin is that of one who takes lightly his opposition to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): either he does so knowingly, in which case he is a sinner, or he does so with that intention, in which case he is an unbeliever. And success is from Allah, Exalted is He."

He said: "The correct view is that we have found Allah, Exalted is He, to condemn those who affirm something without knowledge, and to condemn those who deny something without knowledge. He says, Exalted is He: {Say: My Lord has only forbidden indecencies, both outward and inward, sin, wrongful aggression, associating with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and saying about Allah what you do not know.} Allah, Exalted is He, has forbidden, in the explicit wording of this verse, anyone to say anything about Allah, Mighty and Majestic, whose truth he does not know. The truth of anything beyond the first principles of reason and the immediate evidence of the senses can be known only through proof. Thus, this verse obliges anyone who claims to establish something to produce proof for it; otherwise, he has done what is forbidden to him. And He says, Exalted is He: {Rather, they have denied what they did not comprehend in knowledge, and whose interpretation had not yet come to them. In the same way, those before them denied. So see what was the end of the wrongdoers.} Thus, He, Exalted is He, condemned a person for denying something without knowing that it is false. And He says, Exalted is He: {They say, 'None shall enter Paradise unless he is a Jew or a Christian.' Those are their wishes. Say: 'Bring your proof, if you are truthful.'} Thus, Allah, Exalted is He, required everyone who claims to be truthful to produce proof; otherwise, his statement is invalid. We have found that everyone who denies something claims to be truthful in denying it, and everyone who affirms something claims to be truthful in affirming it. Therefore, both groups are obliged to produce proof for their claims, if they are truthful. Ali said: As for those among our companions who argue that proof is not required of one who denies something, citing the Messenger of Allah's (peace and blessings be upon him) ruling that the claimant must produce evidence and the one who denies must swear an oath, this applies only in...


[Page 56]

As for legal rulings, there is no disagreement among the people of the faith that no oath is required of someone who denies something in a debate concerning matters other than legal rulings. Ali said: When two disputants disagree, one affirming something and the other denying it, each must provide evidence for the truth of his claim, as we explained above, in accordance with the ruling of the words of Allah, Exalted is He. Whichever of them establishes proof, his statement is correct. They cannot both establish proof, because the truth cannot lie in two opposites, and it is impossible for something to be both false and true at the same time and in the same respect. If both are unable to establish evidence—and this is possible—the ruling on that matter is to suspend judgment: neither affirming nor denying it, but leaving it within the realm of possibility. For if the one affirming it established proof, the matter would indeed be affirmed as true; and if the one denying it established proof, it would be false and denied. If neither of them establishes proof, it is said of that matter: "It is possible that it is true, and possible that it is false; but we neither affirm it nor rule by it, nor do we assert categorically that it is false." This is precisely what the words of Allah, Exalted is He, state: {Do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight, and the heart—all of these will be questioned.} It has also been narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), in a hadith concerning the People of the Book: "We neither affirm nor deny; rather, we say: Allah knows best."
((Allah, Exalted is He, says: {Do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight, and the heart—all of these will be questioned.} And He says, censuring a people who said: {And when it was said, 'Allah's promise is true, and there is no doubt about the Hour,' you said, 'We do not know what the Hour is. We only suppose, and we are not certain.'} And He says: {They are nothing but names that you and your forefathers have given them; Allah has sent down no authority for them. They follow nothing but conjecture and what their souls desire, though guidance has certainly come to them from their Lord.} And He says: {They have no knowledge of it; they follow nothing but conjecture, and conjecture avails nothing against the truth.} Thus, by the explicit words of Allah, Exalted is He, from which no Muslim turns away, it is established that conjecture is other than the truth; and since it is other than the truth, it is falsehood and a lie, without doubt, for there is no third possibility. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'Beware of conjecture, for conjecture is the most false of speech.' Abu Muhammad said: This is the truth, and no one who hears it can turn away from it.))
Thus, all the evidence we have cited, including that cited by the scholars, establishes that it is forbidden to speak about Allah without knowledge. They do not disagree with us that a weak hadith yields neither knowledge nor, as some put it, predominant conjecture; rather,


[Page 57]

It conveys only conjecture, in the sense of doubt. So how can they rely on it after that, even if it comes from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)? What, then, of something coming from someone below him, whose statements are not authoritative in the first place? It is noticeable that this group often say and repeat, "We transmit from the early generations, we follow the early generations, and our school is the school of the early generations," yet you will find no precise definition of whom they mean by this. So I would like here to touch on the question of who the early generations are.

(Definition of the early generations)
In al-Nihaya fi Gharib al-Athar (4/81), it says:
In the report, "[The best of you are my generation, then those who come after them]," this means the Companions, then the Successors. A generation (qarn) is the people of each era, and it is the approximate span of the lifespans of the people of each era. The word derives from iqtiran, as though it were the span during which the people of that era are close to one another in their lifespans and circumstances.
It is also said that a generation is forty years; it is also said, eighty; and it is also said, one hundred. It is also said that the term is unrestricted as to time. It is the verbal noun of qarana, yaqrinu. End quote. On the basis of this definition, if by "the early generations" they mean those whose views are authoritative on the issue, according to their position—even though I have explained that the statement of a Companion himself is not authoritative—then, since this is the position of some, I have met them on their own terms. Ibn Muflih said in Usul al-Fiqh: "The position of a Successor is not authoritative according to Ahmad and the scholars, because that would lead to an infinite regress. Some Hanafis have reported two narrations from him." End quote.


[Page 58]

Al-Zarkashi said in al-Bahr al-Muhit: "If a Successor states an opinion on a matter in which there is no room for analogical reasoning, it is not accorded the status of a Companion in our view, contrary to al-Sam'ani, as mentioned earlier. The author of al-Ghaya, among the Hanbalis, said: 'If someone gets up from a night's sleep and dips his hand into a vessel before washing it, al-Hasan al-Basri held that its purifying quality is lost. This contradicts analogical reasoning. When a Successor says something like this, it is authoritative, since it is most likely that he reported it on the authority of the Companions, or on the basis of a text established for him.' The author of al-Musawwadah said: 'The apparent meaning of Ahmad's words and those of our companions is that this is not taken into consideration; rather, it is treated like his own independent judgments.' End quote." At the very most, and by way of conceding as much as possible, if the Successors' opinions are authoritative, then they must stop at the Successors. Why, then, do they not cite those who came after the Successors in support of their position? I know of no one who holds that the opinions of the Successors of the Successors are authoritative. And if their argument is that matters of creed leave no room for personal opinion, then this must lead to an infinite regress here; they would have to regard the opinion of every scholar who has addressed a matter of creed, right up to our own time, as authoritative, since such matters are not based on personal opinion. Yet they would never accept this.
The era of the Successors of the Successors is the era following that of the Successors (may Allah be pleased with them). It began around the year 170 AH.
Al-Suyuti said: "The sounder view is that a generation—that is, a century—is not defined by a fixed period. The generation of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) comprised the Companions, and their period extended from the beginning of his mission until the death of the last of the Companions, a span of one hundred and twenty years. The generation of the Successors lasted from one hundred years to around seventy, and the generation of the Successors of the Successors extended from then until around the year 220." End quote.
On the basis of this division, they would have to refrain from citing the statements of scholars who came after the year 170. I have said all this only by way of concession.


[Page 59]

This is Ibn Hajar's account of his concise presentation and division of the generations, may Allah have mercy on him.

The generations: The first: the Companions, with their varying ranks, distinguishing those among them who had nothing more than merely seeing the Prophet from others.
The second: the generation of the senior Successors, such as Ibn al-Musayyib. If someone was a mukhadram, I stated that explicitly.
The third: the middle generation of the Successors, such as al-Hasan and Ibn Sirin.
The fourth: the generation that follows them, most of whose narrations are from senior Successors, such as al-Zuhri and Qatada.
The fifth: the junior generation among them, those who saw one or two Companions, but for some of whom hearing from the Companions is not established, such as al-A'mash.
The sixth: a generation contemporary with the fifth, but for whom meeting any of the Companions is not established, such as Ibn Jurayj.
These people must therefore stop at this generation and not cite those below it as evidence. Yet their books are replete with citations of those below that generation, namely the following, as Ibn Hajar said:
The seventh: the generation of the Successors of the Successors, such as Malik and al-Thawri.
The eighth: the middle generation among them, such as Ibn Uyayna and Ibn Ulayya.


[Page 60]

The ninth: the junior generation of the Successors to the Successors, such as Yazid ibn Harun, al-Shafi'i, Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi, and Abd al-Razzaq.
The tenth: the senior scholars who took knowledge from the Successors to the Successors, but did not meet the Successors, such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
The eleventh: the middle generation of these scholars, such as al-Dhuhli and al-Bukhari.
The twelfth generation: the junior scholars who took knowledge from the Successors to the Successors, such as al-Tirmidhi.
End quote.
Al-Shafi'i died in 204, and Abd al-Razzaq in 211. Note that, according to this classification, Ibn Hanbal does not even belong among the Successors to the Successors, and so falls outside the hadith about the best generations—if that is your proof for citing these scholars. But we will meet you partway. Before examining the evidence concerning the issue of declaring someone an unbeliever on account of an erroneous interpretation, we will here mention the statements of some of the early scholars who held that one who interprets erroneously is not to be declared an unbeliever, and report the disagreement on this matter. Allah is the one whose help is sought. We do this before discussing the evidence. If you appeal to the early scholars, then here are some of their statements, explicit in excusing the ignorant person who has not been negligent, and the one who interprets erroneously. So refer the matter to Allah and the Messenger, and do not claim consensus on this issue. According to your own position, you are obliged to rely on their statements, whether or not their attribution to them is authentic, just as you did previously. And from


[Page 61]

What is remarkable here is that, after citing weak statements from some scholars concerning the excommunication of anyone who denies some of the attributes—categorically, without discussing the case of a particular individual—when they came across a report from al-Shafi'i excusing someone ignorant of an attribute, they rejected it and said that al-Hakkari's report from al-Shafi'i is weak. So sometimes a weak report is proof when it agrees with their views, and sometimes it is not proof when it contradicts them. Can there be any religion left after that? Let the reader of this book know that we rely only on the Book or an authentic Sunnah. Nothing else constitutes proof for us. But we will meet the proponent of the view on his own terms in order to demonstrate the corruption of his doctrine.

(The ruling on the one who interprets) There is a difference between this issue and that of the heedless ignorant person. The view that seems strongest to the researcher is that someone who turns away from learning is not excused for affirming or denying of Allah what he does not know. But if he holds the general belief and is ignorant of something that he is not required to know in detail, then he is excused so long as he remains ignorant, does not affirm or deny anything in religion without knowledge, entrusts knowledge of it to Allah, and refrains from judgment. The present issue, however, is a different one: the discussion here concerns the one who interprets, by whom I mean a man who has exerted his utmost effort to understand the words of Allah


[Page 62]

and the words of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), to the best of his ability, but he erred in the conclusion he reached. This is what I mean here by the person interpreting the texts: the researcher considers him excused, because he did not turn away from the truth but exerted his utmost effort, yet was not guided to it. He misunderstood; he did not act with bad intent or neglect the pursuit of knowledge. Rather, he exerted his utmost effort to know the truth, but failed to reach it. I will begin by citing the scholars' statements, then discussing their evidence, Allah Most High willing.
(Interpretation and the punishment of one who interprets the texts) Ibn Taymiyya said: "What I have mentioned concerning a Muslim's abandoning an obligation or committing a prohibition on the basis of an interpretation arising from independent reasoning or following another's opinion is clear to me, and his situation in this regard is better than that of an unbeliever who interprets the texts. This does not preclude my fighting a rebellious person who interprets the texts, flogging a drinker who interprets the texts, and the like; for interpretation does not altogether remove worldly punishment, since the purpose of punishment is to prevent the harm of transgression." End quote. (Majmu al-Fatawa 22/14)
He also said: "There is no one among these who belongs to the early generations of the community or its leading scholars; rather, each of them is a Muslim who is criticized for an innovation, even if he interprets the texts in support of it, and his error is forgiven." End quote. (Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya 2/358)
He said: "This is the position of the jurists among the hadith scholars, such as Ahmad and others: whoever calls people to an innovation deserves punishment to protect people from his harm, even if inwardly he is exercising independent reasoning." End quote. (Majmu al-Fatawa 7/385)


[Page 63]

He said: "Whoever adopts singing and clapping as worship and a means of drawing near to Allah has thereby imitated the polytheists and resembled them in something that is not the practice of the believers—the Emigrants and the Helpers. If he does this in the houses of Allah, his resemblance to them is all the greater, and he is occupied by it instead of prayer, remembrance of Allah, and supplication to Him. His resemblance to them has thus become grave, and he has a great share of the blame indicated by His saying, Exalted is He: {Their prayer at the House was nothing but whistling and clapping.} Yet this may be forgiven him because of his sincere effort, or because of good deeds that erase sins, or for some other reason. This is among the matters in which a distinction is made between a Muslim and a disbeliever. But his being distinct from the polytheists in other respects does not prevent him from being blameworthy, outside the bounds of the Sharia, and engaged in innovation." End quote (Majmu al-Fatawa 11/596).
He said: "The ignorant person must turn back and not persist in his ignorance or oppose what the Muslim scholars hold; for by doing so he becomes an ignorant, misguided innovator." End quote (Majmu al-Fatawa 7/682).

Error in interpretation: Interpretation (ta'wil) is placing a legal proof in a context other than its proper one, through independent reasoning or a doubt arising from failure to understand the indication of the text. A legally responsible person may therefore proceed to commit an act of disbelief without considering it disbelief, citing as proof a text whose meaning he has misunderstood. This error means that the condition of deliberate intent is absent, and error in interpretation prevents him from being declared a disbeliever. But if proof is established against him and his error is explained to him, and he persists in his act, he then becomes a disbeliever. The evidence for this is the incident of Qudama ibn Maz'un. Qudama deemed drinking wine permissible—and deeming it permissible is disbelief—citing the saying of Allah, Exalted is He: {There is no blame on those who believe and do righteous deeds for what they have consumed} (al-Ma'ida: 93). He cited this verse to Umar when Umar intended to impose the prescribed punishment on him. Umar explained his error to him and imposed the punishment. Regarding this, Ibn Taymiyya said: "Or he was mistaken and thought that those who believe and do righteous deeds...


[Page 64]

The righteous are exempted from the prohibition of wine. Those whom Umar required to repent made this same mistake, and there are other examples of this kind. They are to be called upon to repent and the proof is to be established against them. If they persist, they then become unbelievers; they are not judged to be unbelievers before that. The Companions likewise did not judge Qudama ibn Maz'un and his companions to be unbelievers when they made the mistake they made in their interpretation.(1)
This incident shows that, by the consensus of the Companions, error in interpretation prevents a person from being declared an unbeliever. It also falls under the general meaning of the words of Allah, Exalted is He: {There is no blame upon you for what you do by mistake} (al-Ahzab: 5).
Nevertheless, not every error in interpretation is considered an acceptable excuse that prevents a person from being declared an unbeliever:
An error in interpretation that is excusable is one that arises from examining a legal proof, but misunderstanding it.
An error in interpretation that is not excusable is one that arises from mere opinion and caprice, without relying on a legal proof. An example is Iblis's refusal to prostrate to Adam, arguing that {I am better than him: You created me from fire and created him from clay} (al-A'raf: 12). This was mere opinion. Another example is the esoteric interpretations by which the Batinites set aside religious obligations; these arose from mere caprice.
This error in interpretation is what prevented him from being declared an unbeliever, just as error in interpretation prevented Qudama ibn Maz'un (may Allah be pleased with him), who was also one of the people of Badr, from being declared an unbeliever when he drank wine, believing it to be permissible and interpreting the words of Allah in this way: {There is no blame upon those who believe and do righteous deeds for what they have consumed, so long as they are mindful of Allah and believe and do}


[Page 65]

righteous deeds) [al-Ma'idah: 93], until Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said to him, "You have hit the wrong mark," and told him, "If you had been mindful of Allah, you would not have drunk it." Just as error in interpretation prevented Qudamah from being declared an unbeliever, it also prevented Hatib from being declared an unbeliever; both had fought at Badr. Allah, Exalted is He, said: {There is no blame upon you for what you do by mistake} [al-Ahzab: 5].
In explaining Hatib's excuse, Ibn Hajar said: "Hatib's excuse is what he himself mentioned: he did this on the basis of an interpretation that it would cause no harm." [(2)
Ibn Taymiyyah also said: "As for the four obligations, if someone denies the obligation of any one of them after the proof has reached him, he is an unbeliever. The same applies to anyone who denies the prohibition of an outwardly evident matter whose prohibition is widely transmitted, such as indecencies, injustice, lying, wine, and the like. But as for someone to whom the proof has not been established—for example, someone who has only recently entered Islam, or grew up in a remote desert where the laws of Islam did not reach him, or someone who mistakenly thought that those who believe and do righteous deeds are exempt from the prohibition of wine, as did those whom Umar ordered to repent, and others like them—they are to be asked to repent and the proof is to be established against them. If they persist, they then become unbelievers; they are not judged to be unbelievers before that, just as the Companions did not judge Qudamah ibn Maz'un and his companions to be unbelievers when they erred in their interpretation." [(3)
Both Qudamah ibn Maz'un and Hatib ibn Abi Balta'ah did something that constitutes unbelief, interpreting it as they did, yet neither was declared an unbeliever. Qudamah deemed drinking wine permissible, interpreting the verse in al-Ma'idah: {There is no blame upon those who believe and do righteous deeds for what they have consumed} [al-Ma'idah: 93],


[Page 66]

And Hatib allied himself with the unbelievers and supported them against the Muslims, interpreting the matter on the grounds that he had an excuse for doing so and that it would not harm the Muslims.
Qadi Iyad said: "As for anyone who knowingly denies or rejects one of Allah's essential attributes, Exalted is He, such as saying, 'He is not knowing, powerful, willing, or speaking,' or the like of the attributes of perfection that are necessarily His, Exalted is He, our imams have explicitly stated that there is consensus that whoever denies these attributes of Him, Exalted is He, and strips Him of them is an unbeliever. This is how the statement of Sahnun is to be understood: 'Whoever says that Allah has no speech is an unbeliever.' He does not declare those who interpret the texts to be unbelievers, as we have already explained. As for someone who is ignorant of one of these attributes, the scholars differed on this point. Some declared him an unbeliever, and this was reported from Abu Ja'far al-Tabari (the statement of al-Tabari was quoted earlier: he declares ignorant of the attributes that are known only through innate disposition to be unbelievers, but not of other attributes, such as hearing and sight, in his view), and others. Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari held this view at one point. Another group held that this does not remove a person from the designation of faith; al-Ashari later returned to this position. He said: 'For he did not believe this as something whose correctness he was certain of and which he regarded as religion and law. Rather, only someone who believes his statement to be true is an unbeliever.' They cited as evidence the hadith of the black woman, and that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) only…
He asked her for nothing but affirmation of God's oneness, and cited the hadith about the man who said, "If Allah should have power over me"—in one version, "He will surely punish me"—and then said, "So Allah forgave him." They said: Even if most people were examined about the divine attributes and they were disclosed to them, only a few would be found who knew them. The other scholar answered this hadith in several ways, including that qadara means qaddara, and that his doubt was not about...


[Page 67]

the ability to bring him back to life, but rather in the very resurrection, which can only be known through revelation. Perhaps no revelation had come to them that established it decisively, in which case doubting it would be disbelief. As for what no revelation has addressed, it is among the things reason deems possible. Or perhaps "decreed" means "made narrow," and what he did to himself was an act of self-reproach and anger at his disobedience.
It was also said that he said what he said while not understanding his own words or controlling his speech, because of the anguish and fear that had overwhelmed him and taken away his reason; therefore, he was not held accountable for it. It was also said that this occurred during a period without revelation, when mere affirmation of divine oneness sufficed. Another view is that this is a figure of speech in Arabic whose form suggests doubt but whose meaning is certainty. This is called "feigning ignorance," and examples of it occur in their speech, such as the words of the Exalted: {Perhaps he will take heed or fear}, and His words: {And indeed, either we or you are upon guidance or in clear error}.
As for those who affirm the description but deny the attribute, saying, "I say He is Knowing, but He has no knowledge; and Speaking, but He has no speech," and likewise with the other attributes, following the doctrine of the Mu'tazila: whoever judges them by the implication of their statement and the conclusion to which their doctrine leads, declares them disbelievers. For if they deny knowledge, then the description "Knowing" is negated, since only one who possesses knowledge can be described as knowing. It is as though, in his view, they had explicitly stated what their words entail. The same applies, in his view, to the other groups of those who interpret the attributes figuratively, including the anthropomorphists, the Qadariyya, and others.
Whoever does not consider them bound by the implications of their words, nor hold them to what their doctrine entails, does not consider them disbelievers. He says: "For when this is pointed out to them, they say, 'We do not say that He is not Knowing. We disavow the implication you have attributed to us, which we believe, as do you, to be disbelief. Rather, we say that our statement does not lead to that conclusion, according to the principles we have laid down.'"


[Page 68]

On these two grounds, people differed over declaring the proponents of figurative interpretation to be unbelievers. Once you understand this, the reason for their disagreement will become clear to you, and the correct position is to refrain from declaring them unbelievers.
And refraining from definitively condemning them to perdition, while applying the rulings of Islam to them in matters of retaliation, inheritance, marriage, blood money, funeral prayers, burial in Muslim cemeteries, and all their other dealings. But they are to be dealt with sternly through painful discipline, severe rebuke, and ostracism, until they abandon their innovation. This was the practice of the earliest generation regarding them. In the time of the Companions and afterward, among the Successors, there arose people who held these views concerning predestination, as well as the Khawarij and the Mu'tazila. Yet they did not disinter anyone's grave or deprive anyone of an inheritance; rather, they ostracized them and disciplined them with beatings, exile, and execution, according to their circumstances, because they were disobedient, misguided sinners who committed major sins. (I say: See here the account of Ali's dealings with the Khawarij. Al-Ash'ari transmitted the statement, "All the Khawarij say that the Quran was created." [Maqalat al-Islamiyyin: 108])
Among the scholars who have investigated the matter and the Sunnis who have not declared them unbelievers, there is disagreement, contrary to those who held otherwise. And Allah is the One who grants success in attaining what is correct.
Qadi Abu Bakr said: "As for questions concerning promise and threat, the vision of Allah, the createdness of the Qur'an, the creation of acts, the permanence of accidents, generation, and similar subtle matters, the prohibition against declaring those who interpret them to be unbelievers is all the clearer, since ignorance of any of them does not constitute ignorance of Allah, Exalted is He, nor have the Muslims unanimously agreed to declare anyone who is ignorant of any of them an unbeliever. In the preceding section, we have already presented the discussion and the nature of the disagreement on this matter, which makes it unnecessary to repeat it, by the help of Allah, Exalted is He." He said in al-Shifa bi-Ta'rif Huquq al-Mustafa (2/272).


[Page 69]

Chapter: As for one who attributes to Allah, Exalted is He, something unbecoming of Him, not by way of insult or apostasy, nor with the intention of disbelief, but by way of interpretation, independent reasoning, and error leading to caprice and innovation—such as likening Him to creation, describing Him as having a limb, or denying an attribute of perfection—this is a matter concerning which the early and later scholars differed over whether to declare its speaker and adherent an unbeliever. Malik and his companions also differed in their opinions on this, though they did not differ that such people are to be fought if they join a faction, and that they are to be asked to repent; if they repent, then well and good, but otherwise they are to be killed. Their disagreement concerned those acting alone. Most of Malik and his companions held that they should not be declared unbelievers or killed, but that their punishment should be severe and their imprisonment prolonged until they manifestly desist and their repentance becomes clear, as Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did with Sabigh. This was the view of Muhammad ibn al-Mawwaz regarding the Kharijites, and of Abd al-Malik ibn al-Majishun; it was also the view of Sahnun regarding all people of heretical views. He interpreted Malik's statement in the Muwatta in this way, as well as what he related from Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, his grandfather, and his uncle, concerning the Qadariyya: "They are to be asked to repent; if they repent, then well and good, but otherwise they are to be killed." Isa ibn al-Qasim said of people of heretical views among the Ibadiyya, the Qadariyya, and their like, who oppose the community through innovation and distortion in interpreting the Book of Allah: "They are to be asked to repent, whether they have made this manifest or kept it concealed. If they repent, then well and good, but otherwise they are to be killed, and their inheritance goes to their heirs." Ibn al-Qasim said the same in Muhammad's book concerning the Qadariyya and others. He said: "To ask them to repent means to tell them: 'Abandon what you are following.'" The same is stated in al-Mabsut concerning the Ibadiyya, the Qadariyya, and all other people of innovation: "They are Muslims; it is only their opinion that is evil." Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz acted accordingly. Ibn al-Qasim said: "Whoever says that Allah did not speak to Moses with speech is to be asked to repent; if he repents, then well and good, but otherwise he is to be killed." Ibn Habib and others among our companions held that they are unbelievers.


[Page 70]

And the declaring of their likes among the Kharijites, Qadaris, and Murji'is to be unbelievers. It was also related from Sahnun that he held the same view regarding one who says that Allah has no speech: he is an unbeliever. Reports from Malik differ. In a report from the Syrians, Abu Mushir and Marwan ibn Muhammad al-Tatari, he stated categorically: "Unbelief applies to them." He was consulted about marrying a Qadari and said, "Do not marry him." Allah, Exalted is He, says: {A believing slave is better than a polytheist}. It was also related from him (perhaps: from him) that all the people of heretical doctrines are unbelievers. He said that whoever describes any aspect of Allah's essence, or points to some part of his own body—a hand, hearing, or sight—should have that part cut off, because he has likened Allah to himself. Regarding one who says that the Quran is created, he said: "He is an unbeliever, so kill him." He also said, in a report from Ibn Nafi, that he should be flogged, beaten severely, and imprisoned until he repents. In a report from Bishr ibn Bakr al-Tinnisi, Malik said that he should be killed and his repentance not accepted. Qadi Abu Abd Allah al-Barnakani and Qadi Abu Abd Allah al-Tustari, among the leading Iraqi scholars, said that Malik's response varied: the one who is firmly convinced and calls others to the doctrine is to be killed. On this same point, his statements differed regarding repeating the prayer performed behind them. Ibn al-Mundhir related from al-Shafi'i that a Qadari is not asked to repent. Most of the statements of the early scholars declare them unbelievers. Among those who held this view were al-Layth, Ibn Uyayna, and Ibn Lahi'a; this was related from them concerning one who says that the Quran is created. The same view was held by Ibn al-Mubarak, al-Awdi, Waki, Hafs ibn Ghiyath, Abu Ishaq al-Fazari, and Ali ibn Asim, among others. It is the view of most hadith scholars, jurists, and theologians concerning them, the Kharijites, the Qadaris, those who follow deviant doctrines, and the proponents of interpretive innovations. This was also the view of Ahmad ibn Hanbal. They said the same of those who suspend judgment and those who doubt these foundational doctrines.


[Page 71]

Among those from whom the other view was transmitted—that they should not be declared unbelievers—were Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ibn Umar, and al-Hasan al-Basri. This was also the view of a group of jurists, legal theorists, and theologians. They cited the fact that the Companions and Successors granted inheritance to the heirs of the people of Harura and to those known for holding the doctrine of predestination who had died, buried them in Muslim cemeteries, and applied the rulings of Islam to them. Malik said of the Qadariyya and other people of innovation that they should be asked to repent; if they repent, then well and good, but otherwise they should be killed, because they spread corruption in the land. He said the same of the brigand: if the ruler sees fit to kill him, he may do so, even if he has not killed anyone. The brigand's corruption concerns only property and worldly interests, though it may also extend to religious matters, such as obstructing the pilgrimage and jihad. The corruption caused by people of innovation, however, is mostly against religion, though it may also affect worldly affairs through the enmity they sow among Muslims.

(Ali and Ibn Abbas's position on the interpretation of the Kharijites)
I will present this hadith in full here to clarify Ali and Ibn Abbas's position regarding the Kharijites who interpreted the texts, and to show that they excused them rather than declaring them unbelievers. This is so even though the researcher considers the Kharijites (those meant by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him) to be unbelievers—not because they interpreted the texts and were mistaken, but because there is an established text stating that they would leave the religion, that they are the worst of creation, and that they are the dogs of Hell, describing and characterizing them as such. Nevertheless, I present this hadith to clarify two points: first, that some of the early generations excused those who interpreted the texts; and second, that no report from any of the Companions declares someone who excuses such a person to be an unbeliever. Even if some considered that interpreter an unbeliever, there is no report from any of the early generations declaring Ibn Abbas an unbeliever for excusing the Kharijites.


[Page 72]

Despite the fame of this hadith, their transmitting and narrating it, and its having reached them as well, al-Ashari explicitly stated, "All the Kharijites say that the Quran is created" [Maqalat al-Islamiyyin, 108]. I will cite the hadith in full; it is a hasan hadith, to clarify their doctrine.
The Imam, hadith master Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Nasa'i, said: Amr ibn Ali informed us, saying: Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi narrated to us, saying: Ikrima ibn Ammar narrated to us, saying: Abu Zumayl told me, saying: Abdullah ibn Abbas told me, saying:
"When the Haruriyya went out, they withdrew to a house. They numbered six thousand. I said to Ali, 'Commander of the Faithful, delay the prayer until it is cooler; perhaps I can speak with these people.'
He said, 'I fear they may harm you.'
I said, 'No.' So I put on my clothes, combed my hair, and went in to them at the house at midday, while they were resting. They said, 'Welcome, Ibn Abbas! What brings you here?'
I said to them, 'I have come to you from the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)—the Emigrants and the Helpers—and from the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law. The Quran was revealed among them, so they know its interpretation better than you do, and there is not one of them among you. I have come to convey to you what they say and to convey to them what you say.'
A group of them stepped aside to speak with me.
I said, 'Tell me what you object to in the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and his cousin.'
They said, 'Three things.'


[Page 73]

I said, "What are they?"
They said: As for one of them, he appointed men to judge in a matter belonging to Allah, while Allah says, {Judgment belongs to Allah alone} (1). What have men to do with judgment?!
I said, "This is one point."
They said, "As for the second: he fought, but took no captives and seized no spoils. If they were unbelievers, taking them captive would have been lawful; but if they were believers, neither taking them captive nor fighting them would have been lawful."
I said, "Those are two; what is the third?"
They said, "He erased from himself the words 'Commander of the Faithful'; if he is not the Commander of the Faithful, then he is the Commander of the Unbelievers!!"
I said, "Do you have anything besides this?"
They said, "This is enough for us."
I said to them, "What do you think: if I recite to you from the Book of Allah, Glorious is His praise, and the Sunnah of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) something that refutes your position, will you recant?"
They said, "Yes."
‌‌_________
(1) Surah Yusuf: 40, 67. I said, "As for your claim that men judged in a matter belonging to Allah, I shall recite to you from the Book of Allah that He has entrusted His judgment to men concerning the value of a quarter of a dirham, and Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, commanded them to judge in that matter. Have you considered the words of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He: {O you who believe, do not kill game while you are in a state of consecration. Whoever among you kills it deliberately, the compensation is an equivalent from livestock, as judged by two just men among you}


[Page 74]

(1) It was part of Allah's decree that He referred the matter to men to judge, though, had He willed, He could have judged it Himself. Thus, the judgment of men was permissible.
"I adjure you by Allah: Is the judgment of men to restore harmony and spare their blood better, or judgment concerning a hare?"
They said, "Yes; that is better."
"And concerning a woman and her husband: {If you fear a breach between them, appoint an arbiter from his family and an arbiter from her family} (2). I adjure you by Allah: Is the judgment of men to restore harmony between them better than their judgment concerning a woman's private parts?! Have you withdrawn from this?"
They said, "Yes."
I said, "As for your claim that he fought but neither took captives nor seized spoils: Would you take your mother Aisha captive, making lawful with her what you make lawful with other women, when she is your mother?! If you say, 'We make lawful with her what we make lawful with other women,' then you have disbelieved. And if you say, 'She is not our mother,' then you have disbelieved, for Allah, Exalted is He, says: {The Prophet has a greater claim on the believers than they have on themselves, and his wives are their mothers} (3). So you are caught between two errors; find a way out of this. Have you withdrawn from this?"
They said, "Yes."
"As for his erasing the title 'Commander of the Faithful,' I shall give you something you will accept. On the day of al-Hudaybiyya, the Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) made a truce with the polytheists and said to Ali:
'Write, Ali: This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has made a truce upon.' They said, 'If we knew you were the Messenger of Allah, we would not have fought you!'


[Page 75]

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Erase it, Ali. O Allah, You know that I am the Messenger of Allah. Erase it, Ali, and write: This is what Muhammad ibn Abd Allah agreed to."
By Allah, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is better than Ali. He erased his own name, but erasing his name did not erase him from prophethood. Have you drawn this conclusion from that?
They said, "Yes."
Two thousand of them then turned back, while the rest went out and were killed in their misguidance; the Emigrants and the Helpers killed them."
Good. It was transmitted by al-Nasa'i in al-Sunan al-Kubra (5/165–167/8575), or no. 190 in al-Khasa'is; Ahmad in al-Musnad (1/342), or no. 3187 (Shakir)—in abridged form; Abu Dawud (4037)—in abridged form, and this wording is not found in his version; Abd al-Razzaq in al-Musannaf (10/157/18678); al-Hakim (2/150) and (4/182); al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (8/179); al-Tabarani in al-Mu'jam al-Kabir (10, no. 15098); Ibn Abd al-Barr in Jami Bayan al-Ilm (2/962/1834); Abu Nuaym in Hilyat al-Awliya (1/318–320); al-Fasawi in al-Marifa wa al-Tarikh (1/522–524); al-Khwarizmi in al-Manaqib (244); Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam in al-Amwal (no. 444); Ibn al-Jawzi in Talbis Iblis (pp. 91–93); and al-Muafa al-Nahrawani in al-Jalis al-Salih (1/558–560, Alam al-Kutub).


[Page 76]

Through two chains of transmission from Ikrima ibn Ammar:

1 - Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi, from him.

2 - Umar ibn Yunus al-Yamami, from him.
The hadith scholar Ahmad Shakir graded its chain of transmission authentic in his edition of "al-Musnad" (5/67/3187), and the hadith scholar al-Albani graded its chain good in "Sahih Sunan Abi Dawud," no. (3406).

There are several points in this hadith.
First: What is apparent from it is that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) did not hold the Kharijites to be unbelievers. Otherwise, if he had believed them to be unbelievers, how could he have refrained from carrying out the prescribed punishment for apostasy against them? This is not something one would think of him.
Second: Ibn Abbas did not hold the Kharijites to be unbelievers. This report states that clearly, where he said: "I said: 'As for your claim, "He fought but took no captives and seized no spoils"—would you then take your mother Aisha captive, deeming lawful with her what you deem lawful with other women, when she is your mother?!'" This clearly shows that he regarded them as believers, since Aisha is only the Mother of the Believers.


[Page 77]

Third: It has not been transmitted from any of the early generations or the transmitters of hadith who reported this hadith that they declared Ibn Abbas, who excused them, to be an unbeliever. This clearly indicates that, in the view of the majority of them, one who excuses someone acting on a mistaken interpretation is not an unbeliever.

Fourth: This shows that Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) did not consider a statement's necessary implication to entail unbelief unless the speaker affirmed that implication. He said to them: "As for your claim that he fought but neither took captives nor seized spoils: would you take your mother Aisha captive, deeming lawful with her what you deem lawful with other women, when she is your mother? If you say, 'We deem lawful with her what we deem lawful with other women,' then you have disbelieved. And if you say, 'She is not our mother,' then you have disbelieved, for Allah, Exalted is He, says: {The Prophet has a greater claim on the believers than they have on themselves, and his wives are their mothers.} (3) So you are caught between two errors; find a way out of them."

Qadi Iyad said:

Section: Establishing the correct position on declaring those who act on mistaken interpretations to be unbelievers. We have already mentioned the positions of the early generations on declaring innovators and followers of whims to be unbelievers when they act on mistaken interpretations and make a statement whose implications lead to unbelief, even though, when confronted with those implications, they do not affirm what their statement entails. The jurists and theologians differed on this matter just as they differed on the question itself. Some endorsed the declaration of unbelief made by the majority of the early generations, while others rejected it and did not consider them outside the community of believers. This was the position of most jurists and theologians. They said that such people are disobedient, sinful, and astray, but that we inherit from them as Muslims and apply to them the rulings applicable to Muslims. For this reason, Sahnun said that one who prays behind them need not repeat the prayer. He said this was the position of all of Malik's companions: al-Mughira.


[Page 78]

Ibn Kinana and Ashhab said: because he is a Muslim, and his sin has not taken him out of Islam. Others were uncertain about this, refraining from declaring him an unbeliever or from denying that he was one. Malik's two differing opinions on the matter, and his hesitation about repeating the prayer behind them, stem from this. The judge Abu Bakr, the leading authority among the scholars of verification and truth, adopted a similar view, saying that this is one of the difficult questions, since the people did not explicitly name the...
Disbelief; rather, they uttered a statement that leads to it. His position on the issue was as inconsistent as that of his imam, Malik ibn Anas. In some of his statements, he said that those who held the view that they were unbelievers on account of their interpretation could not be married, their slaughtered animals could not be eaten, and prayers could not be offered over their dead; whether they could inherit from them was disputed, in accordance with the disagreement over the inheritance of an apostate. He also said: "We allow their Muslim heirs to inherit from their deceased, but we do not allow them to inherit from Muslims." For the most part, he leaned toward refraining from declaring them unbelievers on account of the eventual implications of their position. The position of his teacher, Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari, was likewise inconsistent on this matter, though his predominant view was to refrain from declaring them unbelievers.
Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Zad al-Ma'ad, in the chapter "An indication of the legal lessons to be drawn from the Conquest of Mecca": "This shows that if a man, acting on his interpretation and out of anger for Allah, His Messenger, and His religion—not for his own desires or personal interests—accuses a Muslim of hypocrisy or disbelief (as Umar accused Hatib of disbelief), he does not thereby become an unbeliever; indeed, he does not incur sin for it. Rather, he is rewarded for his intention and purpose. This is unlike the people of whims and innovations, who declare others unbelievers and innovators because they oppose their whims, innovations, and sects. They are more deserving of those judgments than the people whom they declare unbelievers and innovators." End quote (3/423).


[Page 79]

- Al-Hafiz said in Fath al-Bari, in the Book of Prayer (1/523), among the lessons of the hadith in which someone said of Malik ibn al-Dukhshun that he was a hypocrite who defended the hypocrites: "Whoever accuses someone who outwardly professes Islam of hypocrisy or the like, on the basis of an indication that he perceives, does not thereby become an unbeliever or a sinner; rather, he is excused on the basis of interpretation." End quote.
Ibn al-Qayyim said, and he also said there (3/117): "The Lawgiver did not make those rulings depend on what is merely in people's hearts, without an indication in deed or speech; nor did He make them depend on mere words, knowing that the speaker did not intend their meanings and had no full knowledge of them. Rather, He has excused the community for what their hearts tell them, so long as they do not act upon it or speak of it; and He has excused them for what they say in error, forgetfulness, under compulsion, or without knowledge, when they do not intend or mean the sense of what they have said. When intention is joined with an indication in speech or deed, the ruling follows. This is a principle of the Sharia, and it is among the implications of Allah's justice, wisdom, and mercy." End quote.
- 610)

Ibn al-Wazir says: "His saying, Exalted is He, in this noble verse, 'But whoever opens his heart to disbelief,' supports the view that those who interpret [the texts] are not unbelievers, because their hearts have certainly not opened to disbelief, whether with certainty, conjecture, allowance, or possibility." End quote. Ithar al-Haqq ala al-Khalq, p. 437.


[Page 80]

(Faulty interpretation is not accepted.) This must be emphasized once again: the interpretation for which its author is excused is one that has some basis in linguistic or religious evidence, which led the interpreter to err in his interpretation. As for an interpretation that has no basis in either religion or language, such as the Shiites' interpretations of Allah's saying, "Indeed, Allah commands you to slaughter a cow," when they claimed that what was meant was Aisha, there is no excuse for this.

Al-Qadi Iyad quoted the scholars in al-Shifa as saying: "Claiming an interpretation of an explicit statement is not accepted." End quote. (2/217)
Shaykh al-Islam stated this explicitly in al-Sarim al-Maslul, p. 527.
If someone is known and notorious for heresy and for manipulating the proofs of religion, or engages in acts of disbelief that are explicit and clear and admit of no interpretation, his claim of interpretation is not accepted. There is no independent reasoning or interpretation that makes engaging in explicit disbelief permissible. For every disbeliever has faulty interpretations with which he tries to patch up his disbelief.
For this reason, Ibn Hazm said: "If a report from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) reaches someone through a reliable chain, and he is a Muslim, but interprets it contrary to its meaning—or perhaps another text reaches him, so that the proof of his error in abandoning what he abandoned and adopting what he adopted has not been established against him—then he is rewarded and excused, because he intended the truth but was ignorant of it. But if the proof has been established against him and he persists defiantly, then there is no interpretation after the proof has been established." End quote. Al-Durra (414)


[Page 81]

He says: "As for those who are not of the people of Islam, whether Christian, Jew, Magian, or adherent of any other religion, or the esotericists who claim that a human being is divine, or that someone was a prophet after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), they are not excused on the basis of interpretation at all. Rather, they are unbelievers and polytheists in every case." End quote from Al-Durra fi ma yajibu i'tiqaduhu, p. 441.
"Al-Fasl fi al-milal wa al-ahwa wa al-nihal" (3/141):
"Some of them argued (that is, against excusing people on the basis of interpretation in any case), saying: Allah, Exalted is He, says: {Say, 'Shall We inform you of those who are greatest losers in their deeds? Those whose striving in the life of this world has gone astray, while they think that they are doing good.'}
Abu Muhammad said: The end of this verse refutes their interpretation, for Allah, Mighty and Majestic, connected His words 'they are doing good' to His words: {Those are the ones who disbelieved in the signs of their Lord and in meeting Him, so their deeds came to nothing, and on the Day of Resurrection We will assign them no weight. That is their recompense: Hell, because they disbelieved and took My signs and My messengers in mockery.} This makes clear that the beginning of the verse concerns the unbelievers who oppose the religion of Islam as a whole. Then we say to them: If this verse had been revealed concerning those who interpret matters among the people of Islam, as you claim, then every person who errs in an interpretation in a legal opinion would be included in its scope. This would entail declaring all the Companions unbelievers, may Allah be pleased with them, because they differed, and we know with certainty that each of them may be right or wrong. Indeed, it would entail declaring the entire community unbelievers, because every one of them must be right in some matters and wrong in others. It would even entail declaring oneself an unbeliever, because anyone who speaks about any matter of religion must at some point retract a statement he has made in favor of another statement that becomes clear to him to be more correct, except that..."


[Page 82]

If he is an imitator, that is worse, because all imitation is wrong and invalid. Whoever has reached this point has glimpsed the depths of his argument. And Allah Most High is the source of success. Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) acknowledged to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that he had not understood the verse concerning kalala, yet he did not declare him an unbeliever on that account, nor deem him sinful, nor tell him that he had thereby incurred sin. He only rebuked him sternly for repeatedly asking about it. Likewise, a number of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) gave incorrect legal opinions during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). When that reached him, he did not declare any of them an unbeliever on that account, nor deem them sinful, nor say that they had thereby incurred sin, for none of them opposed him deliberately. An example is the legal opinion of Abu al-Sanabil ibn Ba'kak concerning the two waiting periods, and that of those who ruled that an unmarried adulterer was to be stoned. We have examined this at length in our book entitled The Book of al-Ihkam on the Principles of Legal Rulings. Furthermore, the aforementioned verse cannot be reconciled with the position of any of those who disagree with us except by means of an omission. They say that the words in His saying, Exalted is He, {Those whose striving is lost in the life of this world} are the predicate of an omitted subject, and this can only be so by omitting the subject, as though He had said, "They are those ..." No one may claim that anything has been omitted from the Quran unless another clear text necessitates it, or there is consensus on it, or it is required by sensory necessity. Thus their position is invalid and becomes a claim without evidence. As for us, the word "those" retains its ordinary meaning, without any omission: it is an adjective describing "the greatest losers," and it is the predicate of the subject in His saying, Exalted is He, {Those are the ones who disbelieved}. The same applies to His saying, Exalted is He, {And they think that they are upon something, but they are indeed the liars}. Yes, this describes the people whom Allah Most High characterized in the beginning of the verse, and the pronoun refers back to them; they are the disbelievers, as stated explicitly at the beginning.


[Page 83]

The verse. Their spokesman said: "If you excuse those who exercise independent reasoning when they err, then excuse the Jews, Christians, Magians, and all other religious communities, for they too exercise independent reasoning, seeking what is good." Our answer—and Allah Most High is the source of success—is that we did not excuse those whom we excused on the basis of our own opinions, nor declare those whom we declared unbelievers to be so on the basis of our conjecture. This is a prerogative that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has granted to no one besides Himself. No one enters Paradise or Hell; rather, Allah Most High admits to them whomever He wills. We therefore call no one a believer except one whom Allah Most High has so called—all of this being conveyed through the words of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). No two people on earth disagree—not merely among the Muslims, but among people of every religious community—that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) unequivocally declared unbelievers the adherents of every religion other than Islam, whose followers disavowed every religious community except the one he (peace be upon him) brought. So we stopped at that, and no two people disagree either that he (peace be upon him) unequivocally called everyone who followed him, believed everything he brought, and disavowed every religion besides it, a believer. So we stopped at that as well, and there is nothing more to add. Thus, if there is an explicit text declaring someone outside Islam after the designation of Islam has applied to him, we declare him outside it, whether or not there is consensus on his exclusion. Likewise, if the Muslims unanimously agree that someone is outside Islam, it is obligatory to follow that consensus. As for someone whose exclusion from Islam after Islam has applied to him is established neither by an explicit text nor by consensus, it is not permissible to remove him from what has been established with certainty as applying to him. Allah Most High has explicitly stated what we have said, saying: {Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.} And He Most High said: {They wish to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers, and say, "We believe in some and disbelieve in others," and wish to adopt a way in between.}


[Page 84]

{Those are truly the disbelievers.} And the Exalted said: {Say, "Was it Allah, His signs, and His Messenger that you were mocking?" Make no excuses; you have disbelieved after your faith.} All of these are disbelievers, according to the text. Consensus has been established that anyone who denies something which, by consensus, is known to us to have been brought by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) has disbelieved. The text also establishes that anyone who mocks Allah, the Exalted, one of the angels, one of the prophets (peace be upon them), a verse of the Quran, or one of the religious obligations—all of which are signs of Allah, the Exalted—after proof has been conveyed to him, is a disbeliever. Whoever claims there was a prophet after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), or denies something that he knows the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, is a disbeliever, because he has not accepted the Prophet's judgment concerning the dispute between him and his opponent.

Ibn Hajar said in his commentary on the hadith: "Aisha said: 'We administered medicine to him through the side of his mouth during his illness, and he began gesturing to us, "Do not administer medicine to me through the side of my mouth." We said, "It is the sick person's aversion to medicine." When he recovered, he said, "Did I not forbid you to administer medicine to me through the side of my mouth?" We said, "It is the sick person's aversion to medicine." He said, "Let no one in the house remain without having medicine administered to him through the side of his mouth while I watch, except al-Abbas, for he was not present with you."'" Administering medicine through the side of the mouth means placing medicine at the side of the mouth, or putting it into the mouth with a finger and rubbing it around the mouth. (Fath al-Bari, Ibn Hajar, 8/147)

His words, "Let no one in the house remain without having medicine administered to him through the side of his mouth while I watch, except al-Abbas, for he was not present with you": It has been said that this establishes the legitimacy of retaliation for anything a person is deliberately subjected to. This is open to question, because they did not all undertake this; rather, he did this to them as a punishment for their having left him


[Page 85]

Complying with his prohibition of that: as for the one who did it himself, this is clear; as for the one who did not, it is because they failed to forbid what he had forbidden them. It may be inferred from this that an implausible interpretation does not excuse the person who adopts it. There is also a question about this, since the one who acted in opposition to the prohibition— Ibn al-Arabi said: "He intended that they should not come on the Day of Resurrection owing him a right, and thereby fall into a grave predicament." It was objected that he could have pardoned them, since he did not take revenge for himself. What seems apparent is that he intended thereby to discipline them so that they would not do it again; thus it was discipline, not retaliation or revenge.)) Ibn Hajar here transmitted the view of those who said that an implausible interpretation is no excuse: they opposed his explicit prohibition against pouring the medicine into the side of his mouth, on the basis of a far-fetched inference, namely, their assumption that he forbade them only because he disliked the medicine. This was an implausible interpretation, so he punished them all. And Allah knows best.
Shaykh al-Islam said, after mentioning the hadith about the man who instructed his sons, at the time of his death, to burn his body: "One who interprets matters on the basis of ijtihad, while earnestly striving to follow the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), is more deserving of forgiveness than someone like this." End quote (3/148).
Ibn al-Wazir said: "There is no disagreement that whoever denies something known by necessity to everyone, and conceals himself behind the name of interpretation in a matter that cannot be interpreted—like the heretics in their interpretation of all the Most Beautiful Names, indeed of the entire Quran, the religious laws, and the afterlife, including resurrection, the Day of Judgment, Paradise, and Hell—is a disbeliever." End quote.
Ithar al-Haqq ala al-Khalq, p. 415.


[Page 86]

Among these, certainly, is the foundation of monotheism, which entails devoting worship exclusively to Allah in all its forms. To undermine this foundation under the pretext of an interpretation that permits associating partners with Allah, Exalted is He, and taking rivals alongside Him is among the clearest forms of falsehood—the very falsehood that all the messengers were sent to abolish and denounce.

It is stated in al-Muhalla (al-Muhalla bi al-Athar, 11/334):
"It is thus established that interpretations differ. Any group that, in pursuing its aims, interprets matters in a way that erases some part of the Sunnah—for example, one who adopts the view of the Kharijites in order to remove authority from Quraysh, or to lead people back to the view that stoning is invalid, or that sinners are unbelievers, or to the expropriation of Muslims' property, or to the killing of children and women, or to proclaiming that divine decree is invalid, or that the vision of Allah is impossible, or that Allah, Exalted is He, knows nothing until it comes to be, or to disavowing some of the Companions, or to denying intercession, or to abandoning the practice of established Sunnahs from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and calling people to refer instead to someone below the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), or to withholding zakat, or refusing to render a right owed to a Muslim or a right owed to Allah, Exalted is He—such people are not excused on the basis of a corrupt interpretation, for this is utter ignorance. As for one who advocates an interpretation that does not invalidate any Sunnah, but is like Muawiya's interpretation that he should exact retribution from Uthman's killers before pledging allegiance to Ali, he is excused, because this does not entail rejecting any part of the religion; rather, it is a particular error concerning a specific incident that does not extend beyond it.
"As for one who rose up solely for worldly gain, as Yazid ibn Muawiya, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, and Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan did when they rose against Ibn al-Zubayr; and as Marwan ibn Muhammad did when he rose against Yazid ibn al-Walid; and those who also rose on Marwan's behalf, they are not excused, because they had no interpretation at all: it was sheer aggression."


[Page 87]

As for one who calls people to enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, making the Quran and the Sunnah manifest, and ruling with justice, he is not a rebel; rather, the rebel is the one who opposes him. And with Allah, Exalted is He, lies success." Here Ibn Hazm mentioned the matters for which the Kharijites declared others unbelievers and by which they opposed the definitive consensus. Among them he mentioned the invalidation of stoning, and he did not excuse those who held this view on the basis of an interpretation.
It says in al-Tanbih wa al-Radd ala Ahl al-Ahwa wa al-Bida (p. 185):
Hassan ibn Farukh said: "Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (may Allah be pleased with him) asked me what the Azariqa say, so I told him. He said, 'What do they say about stoning?' I replied, 'They declare it unbelief.' He said, 'Allah is greatest! They have disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger.'" End quote.
It says in al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa wa al-Nihal (4/144):
The rest of the Azariqa, who are the followers of Nafi ibn al-Azraq, held that stoning a married adulterer should be abolished. They cut off a thief's hand at the shoulder, and required menstruating women to pray and fast during their menstruation. Some of them said, "No; rather, she makes up the prayers when she becomes pure, just as she makes up the fasts." They deemed the blood of children who were not in their army lawful, and also killed women who were not in their army. The Azariqa disavowed anyone who stayed behind from going out to fight, whether due to weakness or for any other reason. They declared anyone who opposed this view an unbeliever after the death of the first among them to hold it, but did not declare him an unbeliever for opposing it during his lifetime. They said that they should test everyone they encountered who was not from their army, and kill him if he said, "I am a Muslim"; but they forbade killing anyone affiliated with the Jews, Christians, or Magians. It was concerning this that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) testified that they would depart from the religion as an arrow passes through its prey, when he said that they would kill the people of Islam and leave the idolaters alone. This is among the signs of his prophethood (peace and blessings be upon him), for he foretold this, and it is one of the particulars of the unseen; thus it came to pass exactly as he said." End quote.
(Reports from the early generations and those after them concerning excusing those who interpret texts)


[Page 88]

Ahmad ibn Mani (16) (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Whoever claims that the Quran is created is a Jahmi. Whoever suspends judgment concerning it: if he is someone who does not understand, such as grocers, women, and children, leave him alone and teach him; but if he is someone who understands, then his reward is in the valley of the Jahmiyya. Abu Hatim al-Razi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Whoever claims that it is created and made is an unbeliever with an unbelief that takes him out of the religion. Whoever doubts the unbelief of such a person, while understanding and not being ignorant, is an unbeliever. Whoever is ignorant should be taught; if he accepts the truth regarding declaring him an unbeliever, then well and good; otherwise, he is deemed an unbeliever.
/ He said in the narration of Abu Talib(17): Whoever says, "The Quran is created," is an unbeliever. As for whoever does not declare an unbeliever the one who says, "The Quran is created," we do not declare him an unbeliever. [The Two Narrations and Two Positions, Issues of Creed (p. 111), and al-Furu (6/568)]
The author of al-Furu said: The author of al-Muharrar said: "The correct view is that a follower is not deemed sinful for any innovation that does not entail unbelief, because of its slightness—for example, someone who gives Ali precedence over all the other Companions, or refrains from declaring unbelievers those innovators whom we have declared unbelievers."
Then he mentioned the report of Ibn Hani' (18) cited above, and al-Marwadhi's (19) statement to Abu Abd Allah: "There are people who declare to be unbelievers those who do not declare others to be unbelievers." He rejected this, as well as his statement in the report of Abu Talib: "Who would dare say that he is"
__________
(16) Ahmad ibn Mani ibn Abd al-Rahman, Abu Ja'far al-Baghawi, who settled in Baghdad, the Deaf, trustworthy, a hadith memorizer. Al-Taqrib, 1/27
(17) Abu Talib Ahmad ibn Humayd al-Mishkani, a companion of Abu Abd Allah Ahmad ibn Hanbal and an authority in this field. He transmitted many questions from him, and Ahmad honored and esteemed him.
Tarikh Baghdad (4/122) and Tabaqat al-Hanabila (1/39–40)
(18) Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hani, al-Iskafi al-Athram al-Ta'i, one of the leading scholars, compiler of the Sunan, and a student of Imam Ahmad. Abu Bakr al-Khallal said: "Al-Athram was held in high esteem, a hadith memorizer.
Tadhkirat al-Huffaz (2/570–572); Tahdhib al-Kamal (1/476–480)
(19) Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaj al-Marwadhi, a companion of Imam Ahmad, was an imam in the Sunnah and a staunch follower. He held an extraordinary position of esteem in Baghdad and narrated many legal questions from Imam Ahmad.
Siyar A'lam al-Nubala' (13/175).


[Page 89]

"Is he a disbeliever?" This is an explicit statement from Ahmad that the one who excuses him is not to be declared a disbeliever. 2/
Al-Marwadhi related concerning a group in Tarsus who declare anyone who does not declare others unbelievers to be an unbeliever. He said: "I have heard nothing about this." [Al-Riwayatayn wa-al-Wajhayn, Masa'il al-Aqida (p. 111), and al-Furu (6/568)]
Al-Bukhari said (20): "I have examined the words of the Jews, Christians, and Magians, and I have seen none more astray in their disbelief than they are. I regard as ignorant anyone who does not declare them disbelievers, except one who does not know of their disbelief."(21)
Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani(22) said: "Whoever doubts the disbelief of one who says that the Quran is created, after knowing this and hearing it from scholars who are approved, is like him." End quote. [Al-Hujja fi Bayan al-Mahajja, 1/240]
__________
(20) Muhammad ibn Isma'il ibn Ibrahim ibn al-Mughira al-Bukhari, Abu Abd Allah, the leading scholar of the world in his time and the physician of the hadith scholars, held in the highest esteem. He was born in 194 AH and died, may Allah have mercy on him, in 256 AH. His renown makes a biography of him unnecessary. Siyar A'lam al-Nubala' (10/277)
(21) Sharh al-Sunna by al-Baghawi (1/228), Khalq Af'al al-Ibad (13), and al-Fatawa al-Kubra (5/47).
.
(22) Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Ja'far ibn Hayyan, known as Abu al-Shaykh. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi said of him: "Abu al-Shaykh was a reliable, precise hadith memorizer." He died in 369 AH.
Siyar A'lam al-Nubala' (16/277–279).


[Page 90]

He said: Talha ibn al-Husayn al-Salhani(23) informed us; my grandfather, Abu Dharr al-Salhani,(24) informed us; Abu al-Shaykh informed us. He said: Then he mentioned it.(25)

The words of Ibn Abi Asim(26) (He said: "The Quran is the speech of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He. Allah spoke it; it is not created. Whoever says that it is created, after the proof has been established against him, is an unbeliever in Allah the Almighty. But whoever says so before the proof has been established against him, there is nothing against him (!!) ...")(27)

The statements of the scholars concerning one who is ignorant of an attribute and does not falsely fabricate lies about Allah
__________
(23) Talha ibn al-Husayn ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ali al-Salhani was from the people of Isfahan. Al-Sam'ani said: "He was a righteous shaykh who heard many reports. He lost his sight toward the end of his life. He heard from his great-grandfather, Abu Dharr Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Salhani." He died in the year 515.
Al-Tahbir fi al-Mu'jam al-Kabir (1/350–352)
(24) Abu Dharr Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ali al-Salhani narrated from Abu Muhammad Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Ja'far ibn Hayyan, the hadith scholar known as Abu al-Shaykh. He narrated some of his books from him, such as The Character and Qualities of the Prophet, al-Sunna al-Saghir, and al-Birr wa al-Sila. Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Umar ibn Azizah narrated from him. Yahya ibn Manda said: "He died in the year 440, one month before Ibn Ridhah."
Ikmal al-Ikmal (2/644); al-Tahbir fi al-Mu'jam al-Kabir (1/350–352)
(25) The words of Abu al-Shaykh are authentically established from him, so the chain of transmission of the author of al-Mahajja to him is sound.
(26) Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Amr ibn al-Dahhak ibn Makhlad al-Shaybani was an ascetic and a great hadith scholar, an accomplished imam who followed the transmitted reports and authored many works. Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Madini al-Bazzaz said: "I came to Basra while Ahmad ibn Hanbal was still alive and asked who among them was the most learned in jurisprudence. They said: 'There is no one in Basra more learned in jurisprudence than Ahmad ibn Amr ibn Abi Asim.'"
Tadhkirat al-Huffaz (2/640–641) and al-Siyar (13/430–439).
(27) The words of Ibn Abi Asim are authentically established from him in his book al-Sunna (2/645).


[Page 91]

Ibn Taymiyya said: "An apostate is one who associates partners with Allah, Exalted is He; or hates the Messenger and what he brought; or ceases to reject an evil in his heart; or supposes that any of the Companions, Successors, or their successors fought alongside the unbelievers or permitted that; or denies something established by definitive consensus; or places intermediaries between himself and Allah, relying on them, calling upon them, and asking them. Whoever doubts one of Allah's attributes, when someone like him would not be ignorant of it, is an apostate; but if someone like him could be ignorant of it, he is not an apostate. For this reason, the Prophet did not declare the man who doubted Allah's power and His restoring him to life an unbeliever, since this can only occur after the message has been conveyed. This includes the statement of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her): 'Whatever people conceal, Allah knows it.' He said: 'Yes.'"
He said:
"Whoever doubts one of the attributes of Allah, Exalted is He, when someone like him would not be ignorant of it, is an apostate. But if someone like him could be ignorant of it, he is not an apostate. For this reason, the Prophet did not declare the man who doubted Allah's power and His ability to resurrect him an unbeliever, since this can only be known after the message has been conveyed. This is also illustrated by Aisha's statement (may Allah be pleased with her): 'Whatever people conceal, Allah knows.'"
And it is stated in The Creed of the People of the Sunnah by al-Lalaka'i (2/193):
Chapter on the comprehensive doctrine of the oneness of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and His attributes and names,
and that He is Living, Powerful, Knowing, Hearing, Seeing, Speaking, Willing, and Everlasting.
An account of what is indicated by the Book of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and what has been narrated from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), concerning that...
The obligation to know Allah, Exalted is He, and His attributes through revelation, not reason ... This indicates that knowledge of Allah and the messengers is through revelation, as Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has informed us.
And this is the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a." This is a clear statement from him that knowledge of Allah's attributes is attained only through transmitted evidence, not reason, and he attributes this view to Ahl al-Sunna.


[Page 92]

It is stated in I'tiqad Ahl al-Sunna, by al-Lalaka'i (1/176):
Muhammad ibn al-Muzaffar al-Muqri(28) informed us; he said: al-Husayn ibn Muhammad ibn Habash al-Muqri(29) narrated to us; he said: Abu Muhammad Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Hatim(30) narrated to us; he said:
I asked my father(31) and Abu Zur'a(32) about the doctrines of Ahl al-Sunna concerning the fundamentals of religion, what they had found the scholars in all regions adhering to, and what they themselves believed regarding these matters. They said: We found the scholars in all regions—Hijaz, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen—adhering to these doctrines: ... ... Whoever claims that the Quran is created is an unbeliever in Allah the Almighty, an unbelief that takes him out of the religion; and whoever doubts the unbelief of such a person, if he understands, is an unbeliever.(33) (There are two truthful narrators in its chain, and the rest of its chain consists of trustworthy narrators. Note here that they qualified this by saying, "if he understands.")
__________
(28) Muhammad ibn al-Muzaffar ibn Ali ibn Harb, Abu Bakr al-Muqri al-Dinawari. Al-Khatib said: "We wrote down narrations from him. He was a righteous, virtuous, and truthful shaykh." Tarikh Baghdad (4/30)
(29) Al-Husayn ibn Muhammad ibn Habash, Abu Ali al-Dinawari al-Muqri. He was advanced in the science of Quranic recitation, renowned for precision, trustworthy, and reliable. Tarikh al-Islam (26/536)
(30) Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Idris ibn al-Mundhir ibn Dawud ibn Mihran. Al-Khalili said: "A group praised him for his asceticism, complete scrupulousness, and knowledge and practice." Al-Wafayat (18/135-136)
(31) Ubayd Allah ibn Abd al-Karim al-Qurashi, the freedman of al-Razi, the hadith master and one of the leading imams. Abu Hatim said: "He left no one like him after him in knowledge, jurisprudence, integrity, and truthfulness; this is beyond doubt." Ishaq ibn Rahawayh said: "Any hadith that Abu Zur'a does not know by heart has no basis." Tahdhib al-Kamal (19/89)
(32) Muhammad ibn Idris ibn al-Mundhir, Imam Muhammad ibn Idris al-Hanzali. He excelled in memorization and traveled widely in pursuit of the repositories of knowledge. He died in the year 277, may Allah have mercy on him. Tahdhib al-Kamal (24/381)
(33) Its chain of transmission is sound back to the two of them, and this creed is established as that of Ibn Abi Hatim.


[Page 93]

And Ibn al-Qayyim said: "There can be no establishment of religion without the messengers. If reason has discerned the goodness of some actions and the badness of others, how can it know Allah, Exalted is He, through His names and attributes, or the signs by which He made Himself known to His servants through the tongues of His messengers? How can it know the details of His law and religion, which He prescribed for His servants? How can it know the particular things that He loves, is pleased with, is angry with, and dislikes? How can it know the details of His reward and punishment, what He has prepared for His allies and what He has prepared for His enemies, or the measures, nature, and degrees of reward and punishment? How can it know the unseen, which Allah has not disclosed to any of His creation except those of His messengers whom He has chosen? And how can it know all the other matters brought by the messengers and conveyed from Allah, which reason has no means of knowing? How, then, can reason's knowledge of the goodness and badness of some actions suffice in place of what the messengers brought? It is thus clear that what you have said is mere intimidation, filled with falsehoods. Praise be to Allah." ( )
(According to the creed of Ahl al-Sunna, al-Lalaka'i, 2/193) The chapter on the oneness of Allah, Almighty, and His attributes and names, and that He is powerful, hearing, all-knowing, seeing, wise, everlasting, and speaking. The context of what is indicated by the Book of Allah, Almighty, and what has been narrated from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), namely, that knowledge of Allah, Almighty, and His attributes is obligatory, and that this knowledge is acquired through transmitted evidence (the proofs from the Quran and Sunna), not through reason ... indicating that knowledge of Allah and the messengers is acquired through transmitted evidence (the proofs from the Quran and Sunna), as Allah, Almighty, has stated. This is the creed of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a.


[Page 94]

Ibn Taymiyyah said: ((Declaring unbelief in general terms, like a threat of punishment in general terms, does not entail declaring a particular person an unbeliever until the proof is established against him, the proof whose rejection makes a person an unbeliever.
As is established in the Sahih collections from the Prophet (peace be upon him) about the man who said: "When I die, burn me, then grind me, then scatter me in the sea, for by Allah, if Allah has power over me, He will punish me with a punishment He has not given anyone in all the worlds." Allah said to him: "What made you do what you did?" He said: "Fear of You." So He forgave him.
This man believed that Allah would not be able to gather him if he did that, or he doubted it, and that He would not resurrect him. Each of these two beliefs is unbelief that makes a person an unbeliever once the proof has been established against him. But he was ignorant of that, and the knowledge that would have lifted his ignorance had not reached him, and he had faith in Allah, in His command and prohibition, and in His promise and threat, so he feared His punishment, and Allah forgave him for his fear.
So whoever among the people of faith in Allah, His Messenger and the Last Day, and of righteous deeds, errs in some matters of belief is in no worse a state than this man: Allah forgives his error, or punishes him if he fell short in following the truth, according to his religion. As for declaring a person whose faith is known an unbeliever merely for a mistake in this, it is a grave matter.
It is established in the Sahih from Thabit ibn al-Dahhak, from the Prophet (peace be upon him), that he said: "Cursing a believer is like killing him, and whoever accuses a believer of unbelief, it is like killing him."
For absolute takfeer ( saing that whoever does this thing is disbeliver )  , like an absolute threatening, does not require the  accusing of the appointed person of being kafer (disbeliver) until the proof is based on the one who denies it.
As it was proven in the Sahih on the authority of the Prophet, peace be upon him, who said ((one man said   that if I died, then   burn me and then crush me, then shed me in the sea, if God is able to torture me,  he will torture me with a torture he does not torture anyone from the worlds. Then God said to him: What makes you did what u did?  he said Your fear, so  he forgave him))
This man believed that God could not collect him if he did that. or doubted that, and that he did not resurect him and each of these two beliefs is a disbelief (kofr), a one will be disbeliever  if  the argument is based on him, but because  he was ignorant of that and had no knowledge about that which can  makes him away of his ignorance  .and had faith in God and his command and forbidding and his promise and his threatening  and feared his punishment so God forgave him because of  His fear
He whoever  has erred in some matters of belief from the people of faith in God and His Messenger and on the other day and have  righteous deed is not worse than this  man then God will forgive his mistake. or torment him if he neglects to follow the truth according to the extent of his religion.  As for saying  that  an appointed  person who known  that he is a believer is disbeliever  simply because of bmaking a mistake , it is a  great(sin).
It was proven in Al-Sahih on the authority of Thabet Bin Al-Dahhak on the authority of the Prophet, PBUH. He said: The curse of the believer is like his murder, and whoever throws a believer in disbelief(saying that he is kafer) is like killing him((


[Page 95]

Some have rejected the use of the hadith about the man who had himself burned, saying that he repented of this. They cited a weak narration and said: Ibn Abi Hatim said, "My father narrated to us; Muhammad ibn Musaffa narrated to us; Baqiyya narrated to us, from Abu Bakr ibn Abi Maryam, from Atiyya ibn Qays, concerning His words, {But for whoever fears standing before his Lord there will be two gardens}: 'It was revealed concerning the man who said, "Burn me in the fire, so that perhaps I may escape Allah." He repented for a day and a night after saying this, so Allah accepted his repentance and admitted him to Paradise.'" Ibn Kathir, Tafsir.
In this chain is "Abu Bakr ibn Abd Allah ibn Abi Maryam al-Ghassani al-Shami." It is said that his name was Bukayr, and it is also said that it was Abd al-Salam. (He may be attributed to his grandfather.)
Generation: 7; among the senior Successors of the Successors. His rank according to Ibn Hajar: weak; his house was burgled, and he became confused.
His rank according to al-Dhahabi: "They considered him weak; he had knowledge and religious devotion."
Also in the chain is "Baqiyya ibn al-Walid ibn Sa'id ibn Ka'b ibn Hurayz al-Kila'i al-Himyari al-Maytami," Abu Yahmad al-Himsi.
Birth: 110 AH


[Page 96]

Generation: 8: from the middle generation of the Followers of the Successors
Death: 197 AH (al-Bukhari, in suspended reports; Muslim; Abu Dawud; al-Tirmidhi; al-Nasa'i; Ibn Majah)
His rank according to Ibn Hajar: Truthful, but frequently practices tadlis from weak narrators.
In its chain is Atiyya ibn Qays al-Kilabi, also said to be al-Kala'i, Abu Yahya al-Shami, al-Himsi, also said to be al-Dimashqi
Birth: 17 AH
Generation: 3: from the middle generation of the Followers
Death: 121 AH
Reported from by (al-Bukhari, in suspended reports; Muslim; Abu Dawud; al-Tirmidhi; al-Nasa'i; Ibn Majah)
His rank according to Ibn Hajar: Trustworthy))
(The doctrines of the Companions and the evidence against declaring one who interprets texts figuratively to be an unbeliever)

(Abu Hanifa and the view that the Quran was created)
Shaykh Amr ibn Abd al-Mun'im al-Misri said in his book
:

*Abu Hanifa's attribution to the view that the Quran was created, and the Book of Stratagems attributed to him*

It is reported from Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, that he said:


[Page 97]

It has not been established to our satisfaction that Abu Hanifa held that the Quran was created.

Its chain of transmission is sound—in fact, exceptionally sound, as Shaykh Amr al-Misri said.

Furthermore, for the sake of argument, let us concede to these Jahmi innovators that Abu Hanifa held that the Quran was created.

Ibn Abi Hatim narrated it in his book al-Sunna—as Imam al-Dhahabi mentioned in al-Uluw:
He said:
Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Muslim narrated to us; Ali ibn al-Hasan al-Kara'i narrated to us, saying: Abu Yusuf said:

"I debated Abu Hanifa for six months, and we came to agree that whoever says the Quran is created is an unbeliever."

Its chain of transmission is fair, as Shaykh Amr al-Misri said in his book Abu Hanifa and the Attribution to Him of the View That the Quran Is Created.

Imam al-Bayhaqi, may Allah have mercy on him, also recorded in al-Asma wa al-Sifat, and said: "[Its narrators are trustworthy],"
that Abu Yusuf, the companion of Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on them both, was asked whether Abu Hanifa held Jahm's view—that the Quran was created. He replied: "Allah forbid! I do not say that either."

(Ahmad's position on declaring someone who interprets the texts figuratively an unbeliever) Ibn Taymiyya said in al-Iman al-Awsat (1/56):
Ahmad and other imams explicitly stated that these Murji'ites are not to be declared unbelievers. Whoever reports from Ahmad or another of the imams that they declared these people unbelievers, or who makes...


[Page 98]

These people are among the innovators whose excommunication is disputed; whoever claims otherwise has made a grave error. What is reliably reported from Ahmad and other imams is only the excommunication of the Jahmiyya, the anthropomorphists, and the like. Ahmad did not excommunicate the Kharijites or the Qadariyya when they affirmed divine knowledge but denied that actions are created and that the divine will is all-encompassing. However, two reports are related from him concerning their excommunication. As for the Murji'a, his position that they are not to be excommunicated is undisputed. Yet Ahmad did not excommunicate individual Jahmis, nor did he excommunicate everyone who was called a Jahmi, nor everyone who agreed with the Jahmiyya in some of their innovations. Rather, Ahmad and those like him prayed behind Jahmis who called people to their doctrine, subjected them to an inquisition, and inflicted severe punishments on those who did not agree with them. He did not excommunicate them; rather, he considered them believers and legitimate leaders, prayed for them, and held that one should pray behind them, perform the pilgrimage and fight alongside them, and refrain from rebelling against them, just as he held regarding other leaders like them. He condemned the false doctrine they had introduced, which was grave unbelief, even though they themselves did not know that it was unbelief. He would denounce it and strive, as far as he could, to make them abandon it. Thus he combined obedience to Allah and His Messenger in upholding the Sunnah and religion and condemning the innovations of the heretical Jahmiyya, with upholding the rights of the believers among the leaders and the community, even when they were ignorant innovators and unjust sinners. Those well-known figures, such as Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, Abu Hanifa, and other jurists of Kufa, counted verbal profession and belief in the heart as part of faith. This was also the position of Abu Muhammad ibn Kullab and those like him. Their position on this did not differ, nor is it reported that they said faith is merely affirmation in the heart. Rather, they attributed this view to "Jahm ibn Safwan," saying that he held that faith is merely knowledge in the heart, even without professing it verbally. They strongly condemned this view.))


[Page 99]

Al-Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr said in al-Tamhid (18/46): In the story of one who poisoned himself
This man's ignorance of one of Allah's attributes concerning His knowledge and decree does not take him out of faith. Do you not see that Umar ibn al-Khattab, Imran ibn Husayn, and a group of the Companions asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) about divine decree? It is well known that they asked him about it while ignorant of it, and no Muslim could hold that by asking about it they became unbelievers, or that at the time they asked they were not believers.... He went on to say: These Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)—the learned and virtuous among them—asked about divine decree as learners who were ignorant of it, not as obstinate opponents. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) taught them what they did not know about it, and their ignorance of it before they learned did them no harm. Had it been impermissible for them to be ignorant of it at any time, he would have taught it to them along with their profession of faith, required it of them when they entered Islam, and made it a sixth pillar of Islam. So reflect, and seek Allah's help.
What is apparent from Ibn Abd al-Barr's words here is what we established earlier: people are only required to have general faith, without affirming or denying anything in religion except on the basis of proof. The example Ibn Abd al-Barr mentioned of some of the Companions being unaware of the subject of predestination is like it.
A hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari (4/105):
Then some people from Yemen came in to see him, and he said, "Accept the good news, people of Yemen, since Banu Tamim did not accept it." They said, "We have accepted it, Messenger of Allah." They said, "We have come to ask you about this matter." He said, "Allah was, and there was nothing besides Him. His Throne was upon the water, and He recorded everything in the Reminder, and He created the heavens and the earth."
He did not declare them unbelievers for their ignorance of what was mentioned.

Likewise, Aisha's belief that Allah will call the righteous believers to account on the Day of Resurrection is an affirmation of an act of Allah based on ignorance and interpretation, and it is a matter of belief.
It is related in Sahih al-Bukhari (1/32):
Sa'id ibn Abi Maryam narrated to us, saying: Nafi' ibn Umar informed us, saying: Ibn Abi Mulaykah told me that A'ishah, the wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), would never hear something she did not understand without asking about it until she understood it. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Whoever is called to account will be punished." A'ishah said: I asked, "Does Allah, Exalted is He, not say: {Then he will be called to account...


[Page 100]

"Then he will be given an easy reckoning" [al-Inshiqaq: 8]. She said: He replied, "That is only the presentation of the deeds. But whoever is examined closely in the reckoning will perish."

Likewise, Muadh was unaware of one of Allah's acts: that Allah holds us accountable for what we say. This is a matter of belief.

I consider this hadith one of the strongest proofs that a person who suspends judgment on whether someone who interprets matters incorrectly is to be declared an unbeliever should not himself be declared an unbeliever. Muadh (may Allah be pleased with him) did not know whether Allah would hold people accountable for what they said or not. There is no doubt that what they say includes words of unbelief, which are spoken by the tongue. Yet, despite Muadh's ignorance of this matter, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) excused him and did not declare him an unbeliever. He did no more than explain it to him. The hadith relates Muadh's words:

"He said, 'Are we held accountable for what our tongues say?' The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) struck Muadh on the thigh and then said, 'O Muadh, may your mother be bereaved of you'—or whatever else Allah willed him to say to him—'and what is it that casts people on their faces into Hell except what their tongues have uttered?'" I do not know what difference there is between being ignorant of one of Allah's attributes and being ignorant of one of Allah's acts. Whoever knows the difference, let him assist us by providing clear evidence from the Book and the Sunnah; otherwise, there is no difference between one who is ignorant of this and one who is ignorant of that.

Also, the following hadith, although it is narrated by Abu al-Zubayr (Muslim ibn Tadrus), whom I consider weak in hadith, is in Sahih Muslim. So they are obliged to act upon it if they consider his hadith sound. It is also found in Ahmad's Musnad, but with different wording and through narrators other than Abu al-Zubayr; its editor, Shuayb, declared it authentic. I present here the two narrations.

First: the narration in Muslim: 2496) Harun ibn Abdullah narrated to me; Hajjaj ibn Muhammad narrated to us; he said: Ibn Jurayj said: Abu al-Zubayr informed me that he heard Jabir ibn Abdullah,


[Page 101]

He says: Umm Mubashshir told me that she heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say in Hafsa's presence, "None of the people of the Tree who pledged allegiance beneath it will enter the Fire, if Allah wills." She said, "Indeed, O Messenger of Allah!" So he rebuked her. Hafsa then recited: {There is none of you who will not come to it} [Maryam: 71]. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has said: {Then We will save those who were mindful of Allah, and leave the wrongdoers there, fallen on their knees}" [Maryam: 72].

Here, Hafsa denied one of Allah's attributes of action, namely, His saving the people of Badr and al-Hudaybiyya after their coming to the Fire, and affirmed for Him an attribute of action, namely, His punishing them first. Yet he (peace and blessings be upon him) did not declare her an unbeliever, if the hadith is authentically established from him. Both matters belong to the tenets of belief.

It is related in Musnad Ahmad (44/590, al-Risala edition):
" Ibn Idris narrated to us, saying: al-A'mash narrated to us, from Abu Sufyan, from Jabir, from Umm Mubashshir, the wife of Zayd ibn Haritha, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was in Hafsa's house and said, 'No one who witnessed Badr and al-Hudaybiyya will enter the Fire.' Hafsa said, 'Does Allah, Mighty and Majestic, not say: {There is none of you who will not come to it} [Maryam: 71]?' She said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, 'Enough! {Then We will save those who were mindful of Allah} (2) [Maryam: 72].'"
Shu'ayb said: "Authentic."

This narration, too, explicitly shows that Hafsa was unaware of these attributes of action belonging to Allah, yet he (peace and blessings be upon him) did not declare her an unbeliever on that account. This matter, too, is one of the matters of belief.


[Page 102]

Al-Nawawi said, concerning the man who killed himself: "A group said: This man was ignorant of one of the attributes of Allah, Exalted is He. The scholars differed over whether someone ignorant of an attribute is to be declared an unbeliever."
The judge said: Among those who declared him an unbeliever on that account was Ibn Jarir al-Tabari; Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari also said this initially.
Others said: One does not become an unbeliever through ignorance of the attribute, nor does one thereby cease to be called a believer, unlike one who denies it. This was the position to which Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari returned, and upon which his view settled, because he did not hold that belief with certainty, deeming it correct and regarding it as religion and law. Rather, only one who believes his own doctrine to be true becomes an unbeliever. They said: If people were asked about the attributes, those who knew about them would be found to be few.
A group said: This man lived during an interval when mere affirmation of divine oneness was sufficient, and there was no obligation before the revealed law had been conveyed, according to the soundest position, because of the words of the Exalted: {We would never punish until We had sent a messenger.}
A group said: It is possible that, in the time of their law, pardoning an unbeliever was permissible, unlike in our law. This is among the things deemed possible by reason according to the Sunnis; we have only prohibited it in our law on the basis of revelation, namely His saying, Exalted is He: (Indeed, Allah does not forgive associating anything with Him). And other proofs. Allah knows best (1). End of quotation.
Sahih Muslim with al-Nawawi's commentary, vol. 7, p. 70:


[Page 103]

Ibn Hajar said regarding "one ignorant of the attribute": "Al-Hafiz said: Al-Khattabi said: This may seem problematic, and one might ask: How can he be forgiven when he denies the resurrection and the power to bring the dead back to life? The answer is:
He did not deny the resurrection; rather, he was ignorant and thought that if this were done to him, he would not be brought back and so would not be punished. His faith was evident in his admission that he had done this only out of fear of Allah.
Ibn Qutayba said: "Some Muslims may err regarding certain attributes, but they are not thereby declared unbelievers."
Al-Tabari said in his book Al-Tabṣir fi Ma'alim al-Din, after mentioning some of the texts concerning the divine attributes: "These meanings that have been described, and their like among those with which Allah has described Himself and His Messenger, are such that their true nature cannot be established through thought and reflection; nor is anyone deemed an unbeliever for being ignorant of them until they have reached him." (1)
It is stated in Tabaqat al-Hanabila (1/283):
Al-Maimuni said: I heard Ahmad ibn Hanbal say, "There are six for whom I pray at dawn; one of them is al-Shafi'i." Let us now mention his creed.
I read to al-Mubarak and said: "Did he tell you?" Muhammad ibn Ali ibn al-Fath al-Ashari said: "Ali ibn Mardak informed us." He said: "Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Hatim informed us." He said: "Yunus ibn Abd al-Ala al-Misri narrated to us: I heard Abu Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi'i say, when he was asked about the attributes of Allah and what one ought to believe: 'Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, has names and attributes that His Book has brought and His Prophet has reported—'"


[Page 104]

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)—his community: no one among Allah's creation against whom proof has been established may deny that the Quran was revealed with this, and that it is authentically reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) through a reliable narrator. If someone contradicts this after proof has been established against him, he is an unbeliever in Allah. But before proof has been established against him through a report, he is excused on account of ignorance, because this knowledge cannot be attained through reason, reflection, thought, or the like. Allah, Glorified is He, has informed us that He is All-Hearing, and that He has two hands, in His words: "Rather, both His hands are outstretched"; that He has a right hand, in His words: "And the heavens will be folded in His right hand"; that He has a face, in His words: "Everything will perish except His face," and His words: "And the face of your Lord, full of majesty and honor, will remain"; and that He has a foot, in the Prophet's words (peace and blessings be upon him): "Until the Lord places His foot in it"—meaning Hell. He laughs at His believing servant, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said of the man who was killed in the path of Allah: "He met Allah while He was laughing at him." He descends every night to the lowest heaven, according to the report of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). He is not one-eyed, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said when mentioning the Dajjal: "He is one-eyed, but your Lord is not one-eyed." The believers will see their Lord on the Day of Resurrection with their eyes, just as they see the moon on the night of the full moon. And He has a finger, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "There is no heart that is not between two fingers of the fingers of the Most Merciful, Mighty and Majestic." These meanings by which Allah has described Himself, and by which His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) has described Him, are such that their true nature cannot be grasped through reflection or thought. No one is deemed an unbeliever for being ignorant of them unless the report concerning them has reached him. If what is transmitted in this regard is a report that, in understanding, stands in the place of direct observation, then …


[Page 105]

Hearing it entails that the listener affirm it as true and testify to it, as though he had seen and heard it from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Yet he affirms these attributes and denies any likeness, just as He, exalted is He, denied this of Himself, saying: "There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing."

He said: "(Al-Jaza'iri) is the shaykh of this group." ((Al-Alusi, Ibn Hajar, and Ibn Jama'a attributed it to Ibn Abi Hatim in his book al-Manaqib, but they were mistaken; it is not found in the printed edition of that book.))

I said (M): That is so, but it is mentioned in Tabaqat al-Hanabila with the chain of transmission cited.

Al-Tabari said in his book al-Tabṣir:

((Abu Ja'far said:
As for that without knowledge of which a person's profession of faith is not valid for us, and without which the ruling of unbelief is not lifted from him, it is what we mentioned earlier. (He had mentioned that He is the Creator and Disposer, unlike anything else, powerful, speaking, and knowing.)
This is because no one who has reached the age of religious responsibility is excused for being ignorant of the attributes we mentioned earlier, whether a messenger from Allah, exalted is He, came to him or not, and whether he has seen any creation besides himself or has seen no one but himself.
Allah, exalted is He, has names and attributes that His Book has brought and that His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has conveyed to his community. No one among Allah's creation, once the proof has been established against him that the Quran was revealed with them and the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) has been confirmed to him, may ...))


[Page 106]

A report was narrated from him that contradicts it. If he contradicts it after the proof has been established against him through the report, as I have explained, in a matter whose true nature cannot be known, then the one ignorant of it is excused, for such knowledge cannot be attained through reason, reflection, or thought.
This includes God, Exalted is He, informing us that He is All-Hearing and All-Seeing, and that He has two hands, as He says: {Rather, His two hands are outstretched}. And that He has a right hand, as He says: {And the heavens will be folded in His right hand}. And that He has a face, as He says: {Everything will perish except His face}, and: {And the face of your Lord, full of majesty and honor, will remain}. And that He has a foot, according to the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him), who said: "Until the Lord places His foot in it"—meaning Hell.
And that He laughs at His believing servant, according to the Prophet's words about the man who was killed in the path of God: "He met God, Mighty and Majestic, while He was laughing at him."
And that He descends every night to the lowest heaven, according to a report from the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him).
And that He is not one-eyed, according to the Prophet's words when he mentioned the Antichrist: "He is one-eyed, but your Lord is not one-eyed." And that the believers will see their Lord on the Day of Resurrection with their eyes, just as they see the sun when no cloud veils it, and just as they see the full moon, according to the Prophet's words. And that He has fingers, according to the Prophet's words: "There is no heart except that it is between two fingers of the fingers of the Most Merciful."


[Page 107]

These meanings that have been described, and their like, are among those by which Allah, Mighty and Majestic is He, has described Himself, or by which His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) has described Him. Their true nature cannot be grasped through thought and reflection. We do not declare anyone an unbeliever for being ignorant of them unless the matter has been conveyed to him.
If the report transmitted concerning this is one that establishes proof in the same way as direct observation and hearing, then the one who hears it is obliged to affirm its truth as testimony concerning it." Consider how al-Tabari transmits al-Shafi'i's creed in full and attributes it to himself. However, may Allah have mercy on him, he does not excuse ignorance regarding the attributes that, in his view, are known through reason or innate disposition; these are the ones he mentioned at the beginning of his discussion. One observation about this group, namely those who declare the one who excuses a person acting on an erroneous interpretation to be an unbeliever, is that they often cite the words of al-Tabari, one of their leading authorities on this subject, because he does not excuse ignorance of certain attributes which, in his view, are established by innate disposition. Yet here, when al-Tabari disagrees with them by not declaring one who denies the attributes of hearing and sight an unbeliever—since, in his view, these are not established by reason or innate disposition, but by transmitted revelation—they do not declare him an unbeliever. Here, he excuses the person acting on an erroneous interpretation and the one ignorant of these attributes, even though, according to them, ignorance of them is unbelief, and one who excuses the ignorant person is an unbeliever. Yet they do not declare al-Tabari an unbeliever in this instance. This is a clear contradiction."
"Al-Lalaka'i said in I'tiqad Ahl al-Sunna, by al-Lalaka'i (1/180):
The Quran—the speech of Allah—His knowledge, names, attributes, commands, and prohibitions are not created in any respect. Whoever claims that they are created and made is an unbeliever in Allah, guilty of unbelief that takes him out of the religion. Whoever doubts the unbelief of such a person, if he understands and is not ignorant, is ...


[Page 108]

...a disbeliever." This is al-Lalaka'i's clear transmission regarding excusing the one who excuses another, and the requirement that knowledge and understanding of the proof be established before declaring him a disbeliever. May Allah have mercy on him.
(Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, dealing with the Kharijites and excusing them on account of their interpretation.) This is alongside al-Ash'ari's explicit statement: "All the Kharijites say that the Quran was created" (Maqalat al-Islamiyyin, p. 108).
I cite this statement here even though I consider the Kharijites disbelievers, because of the Prophet's statement about them: "They are the worst of creation; they leave the religion and then do not return to it; they are the dogs of Hell." But I present what is reported from Ali here to show that he excused these people on account of their interpretation. This is evidence that his position was to excuse on the basis of interpretation, and he was a rightly guided caliph and one of the leading figures among the early generations. We also mentioned Ibn Abbas excusing them when he said to them, "Isn't your mother Aisha?" This indicates that he regarded them as believers, since Aisha is the Mother of the Believers, so there is no need to repeat it here. Likewise, it is not reported that any of the Companions declared Ali a disbeliever over this matter. This shows that the position of everyone who learned of Ali's action, whether through a report or directly, was not to declare the one who excuses someone acting on an interpretation a disbeliever. Here are the texts:
Ibn Abi Shayba recorded in his Musannaf (5/332), from Tariq ibn Shihab, who said: I was with Ali when he was asked about the people of al-Nahr: "Are they polytheists?" He replied, "They fled from polytheism." He was asked, "Are they hypocrites, then?" He replied, "The hypocrites remember Allah only a little." He was asked, "What are they, then?" He replied, "People who have rebelled against us." Its editor said: "Its chain of transmission is hasan." And Allah, Exalted is He, knows best.


[Page 109]

Ibn Abi Shayba related in his Musannaf (15/327), from Kathir ibn Numayr, who said: "While I was at Friday prayer and Ali ibn Abi Talib was on the pulpit, a man came and said, 'There is no judgment but Allah's.' Then another stood up and said, 'There is no judgment but Allah's.' Then they rose from different parts of the mosque, declaring Allah's judgment. He gestured to them with his hand: 'Sit down. Yes, there is no judgment but Allah's—a word of truth by which falsehood is sought. Allah's judgment awaits you. For now, you have three guarantees from me, so long as you remain with us: we will not prevent you from using Allah's mosques to remember His name; we will not withhold from you any share of the spoils so long as your hands are with ours; and we will not fight you unless you fight us.' Then he resumed his sermon." Its editor said: "Its chain of transmission is sound." Al-Tabari also related the hadith (5/73) through the route of Abu Mikhnaf.

Al-Tabari (5/73) and Ibn Abi Shayba (15/312) related from Abu Razin, who said: "When arbitration took place at Siffin and the Kharijites separated from Ali, they returned in opposition to him, while Ali remained with his army until he entered Kufa with the people and his army. They went on to Harura with their army. Ali sent Ibn Abbas to them, and he spoke with them, but his words did not persuade them. Then Ali went out to them and spoke with them until they and Ali agreed to accept a settlement. They returned and entered Kufa, both he and they having agreed to it. They stayed for two days or thereabouts. He said: Al-Ash'ath ibn Qays came in—he used to visit Ali—and said, 'People are saying that you have recanted your disbelief for their sake.' The next day, Friday, Ali ascended the pulpit, praised and extolled Allah, and delivered a sermon in which he spoke of them and their separation.


[Page 110]

the people and the matter over which they had parted ways. He criticized them and their position. He said: When Ali came down from the pulpit, they called out from different parts of the mosque, "There is no judgment except Allah's." Ali said, "Allah's judgment is what I await from you." Then he gestured with his hand like this, signaling them to be quiet, while he was still on the pulpit, until one of them came, placing his two fingers in his ears and saying: {If you associate others with Allah, your deeds will surely come to nothing, and you will surely be among the losers.} In al-Tabari's account there is an additional passage: [Ali said: {So be patient. Surely Allah's promise is true, and do not let those who have no certainty unsettle you.}]. Its chain of transmission is sound.

(Abu Bakr's position toward Umar in the incident of those who withheld zakat)

It has been reported that those who declare the person who excuses someone acting on an interpretation to be an unbeliever say that those who withheld zakat were unbelievers, and that Abu Bakr did not excuse them on the basis of their interpretation. They said: "The Companions unanimously agreed that those who withheld zakat were unbelievers, as related by Imam Abu Ubayd, Abu Bakr al-Jassas, Qadi Abu Ya'la, Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr, Abu al-Faraj al-Maqdisi, and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya; they did not excuse them on the basis of interpretation or ignorance. No informed person can doubt that they were ignorant and acting on an interpretation, given how recently they had entered Islam and the religion." End quote.

But if their claim is correct—that those who withheld zakat were unbelievers and were acting on an interpretation, yet Abu Bakr did not excuse them on that basis—then what is your position on Umar, who excuses those acting on interpretations, in this case? Umar excused those who withheld zakat and initially objected to fighting them. His objection is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari: "Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) said: When the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) died, and Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) ...


[Page 111]

Some of the Arabs apostatized, so Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "How can you fight the people, when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, 'I have been commanded to fight the people until they say, "There is no god but Allah." Whoever says it has thereby protected his property and his life from me, except by its due right, and his reckoning is with Allah.'" The question here is this: if Abu Bakr's position was that those who withheld zakat were unbelievers and were not excused on account of their interpretation, then his position also entails excusing the one who excuses those who interpret matters in this way—Umar here—on the basis of the hadith's wording at the outset, since Umar did not immediately declare them unbelievers. And according to your claim that the statements of the early generations are authoritative, Abu Bakr is the foremost of the early generations, a follower of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, concerning whom it was said, "You must adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs." So you are obliged to follow him here and excuse the one who excuses the person who interprets matters in this way. Otherwise, you are obliged to declare Umar an unbeliever, and Abu Bakr too, since Umar did not regard withholding zakat—which, according to them, is an act that nullifies faith—as unbelief, and he objected to fighting those involved in it—merely fighting them, as you claim—but even regarded them as Muslims who affirm the oneness of God.
We ask them: did Umar remain an unbeliever throughout this period? If they say yes, they have made a grave false accusation and have ended up declaring the most noble of the early generations after al-Siddiq an unbeliever. If they say, "No, he did not become an unbeliever," then we say to them: excuse the one who excuses those whom you consider polytheists, but whom he called Muslims because of an interpretation he held. This person who excuses them did nothing beyond what Umar did. All of this is granting them, for the sake of argument, that the Companions unanimously agreed that those who withheld zakat were unbelievers.


[Page 112]

(Hazimi's own words on the one who interprets and the one who excuses) Hazimi said:
"What is meant is that he makes an outrageous statement, as some have put it, one that is far removed from the truth. At that point we say: What is this considered? It is considered a slip. An example of this in our present age is the one who says that ruling by other than the law of Allah, Exalted is He, is lesser disbelief. This is a grave slip, and some of the great scholars have said it. But they are not to be followed in that; their standing is to be respected, but they are not to be followed. It should be made clear that this is a slip, and that the statement is, in principle, disbelief. But we do not declare everyone who says something that constitutes disbelief in matters such as these to be a disbeliever. Rather, we say: This is a slip, and this is an ugly, outrageous statement. But if it becomes clear that he is a scholar and that his intention is good, he is not declared a disbeliever. If we know that he is a person of caprice—and this is the more common case—then they are disbelievers, and are included among those who rule by false deities and the like, because this is considered something necessarily known to be part of the religion.
Likewise, regarding the issue of excusing ignorance: if these polytheists are excused, then if he is a scholar, the case is like the one just mentioned. Otherwise, the basic ruling is that he is a disbeliever, for he has not declared disbelievers those whom Allah, Exalted is He, and His Messenger declared disbelievers.
Second: You must not follow this scholar in his slip. If you follow him out of caprice, then he may not be a disbeliever, but you are. Is that correct? It does not necessarily follow. Some people, when they want to corner you, say: 'Then, if you say that ruling by other than the Sharia is disbelief, you must declare so-and-so and so-and-so disbelievers.' We say: No, that does not follow. I declare you a disbeliever, but I do not declare him one. It does not necessarily follow. Why? Because we know that the scholar may have some doubt, and his intention may be good; in that case, this is an excuse. The scholars have proceeded on this basis. But that has not become apparent in your case, and you are not even one of the scholars. Who has permitted you to follow him? One must return to the Book and the Sunnah. So, if that is the case, it does not necessarily follow that if you declare someone a disbeliever, you must declare the person who followed him a disbeliever. Say: It absolutely does not follow, for this is knowingly following an error. Whoever does not know that it is a slip is more excusable than him, though both are negligent. That is, even if he does not know it is a slip and follows him, he is considered negligent, because he has not returned to the source. And what is the source? The Book and the Sunnah. He must investigate the Book and the Sunnah, not the statements of so-and-so and so-and-so among men."


[Page 113]

(Statements of the scholars and reports from the early generations that they transmitted concerning the absence of an excuse for those who interpret the texts)
The statement of Harb al-Kirmani (34): He said, may Allah have mercy on him: "Whoever claims that our utterances of the Quran and our recitation of it are created, while the Quran is the speech of Allah, is a wicked Jahmi innovator. Whoever does not declare these people and all the Jahmiyyah to be unbelievers is like them." [Questions of Imam Ahmad, as narrated by Harb al-Kirmani, p. 360]
The statement of Ziyad ibn Ayyub al-Tusi, known as Dalawayh (35): He said, may Allah have mercy on him: "Whoever says that the Quran is created is an unbeliever; there is no doubt about it." He was asked, "Should one listen to someone who does not declare them unbelievers?" He replied, "No, absolutely not." He was asked, "I have relatives among them whom I treat kindly and greet. What should I do?" He replied, "No; do not attend their funerals or visit them." (Weak) [Reported by al-Qadi Abu Ya'la in Tabaqat al-Hanabila (1/422).] He said: Khal informed us
__________
(34) Harb ibn Isma'il ibn Khalaf al-Hanzali al-Kirmani, Abu Muhammad (also said: Abu Abd Allah), was a jurist and hadith memorizer among the companions of Imam Ahmad. He narrated questions from him. Al-Dhahabi said: "Harb's Questions is one of the finest books of the Hanbalis, and it is a large work in two volumes."
See Tabaqat al-Hanabila (1/145–146); Siyar A'lam al-Nubala (13/244–245).
(35) Ziyad ibn Ayyub ibn Ziyad al-Tusi, also known as Dalawayh. Abu Hatim said: "He is truthful."
Al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil (3/525).


[Page 114]

My mother(36), from Ibn Battah,(37) who said: Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Mahmud al-Sarraj(38) told us; Abu Hashim Ziyad ibn Ayyub al-Tusi, known as Dalawayh, told us, and he mentioned it.(39) (Weak)
The statement of Zuhayr ibn Harb is incorrect; the correct name is Mus'ab ibn Sa'id al-Misisi.(40) And he, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "Whoever claims that the Quran, the speech of Allah, is created is an unbeliever, and whoever doubts that he is an unbeliever is an unbeliever." [Sharh Usul al-I'tiqad (430)]
The statement of Yazid ibn Harun(41): In al-Ibana by Ibn Battah (257), it is reported that Yazid ibn Harun said: "Whoever says, 'The Quran is..."
__________
(36) Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ali al-Basri al-Baghdadi, al-Bundar, narrated from Ibn Battah, and Ibn Abi Ya'la narrated from him. Al-Khatib said: "I wrote down hadith from him, and he was truthful." Abu Sa'd al-Sam'ani said: "He was a righteous, learned, trustworthy shaykh." He died in the year 474 AH.
Tarikh Baghdad (11/335); Siyar A'lam al-Nubala' (18/402)
(37) Ubayd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Hamdan al-Ukbari al-Hanbali, Ibn Battah, author of the book al-Ibanah al-Kubra. Al-Dhahabi described him as "the imam, the exemplar, the devout worshipper, the jurist, the hadith scholar, the shaykh of Iraq," then said: "Despite his merits, Ibn Battah had misconceptions and made mistakes." Al-Siyar (16/529–530)
(38) Muhammad ibn Mahmud ibn Muhammad ibn al-Mundhir ibn Thumama, Abu Bakr al-Sarraj. Yusuf ibn Umar al-Qawwas mentioned him among his reliable teachers, and Abu al-Qasim al-Abanduni said: "There is no harm in him."
Tarikh Baghdad (4/25)
(39) "The chain of transmission is sound from Ibn Dalawayh, and the narrators in the chain are trustworthy, as stated above."
(40) An important note: Abu Khaythama mentioned in al-Lalaka'i's chain of transmission is not Zuhayr ibn Harb ibn Shaddad.
He is in fact Mus'ab ibn Sa'id al-Misisi; the report will be cited later in its correct form.
(41) Yazid ibn Harun, Abu Khalid al-Wasiti. Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: "He was a hadith memorizer, precise in hadith, and sound in his hadith."
Tahdhib al-Kamal (32/266)


[Page 115]

Whoever says that he is created is an unbeliever; whoever does not declare him an unbeliever is an unbeliever; and whoever doubts his unbelief is an unbeliever."
The Statement of Ahmad ibn Hanbal: Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "Whoever says that the Quran is created is an unbeliever, and whoever doubts that he is an unbeliever is an unbeliever." [Tabaqat al-Hanabila (1/461)] He also said: "The Quran is the speech of Allah; He spoke it, and it is not created. Whoever claims that the Quran is created is a Jahmi unbeliever. Whoever claims that the Quran is the speech of Allah but stops short and does not say that it is not created is more vile than the first statement. Whoever claims that our utterances of it and our recitation of it are created, while the Quran is the speech of Allah, is a Jahmi. Whoever does not declare these people unbelievers is like them." (Weak) [Usul al-Sunna, as narrated by Abdus al-Attar(42), printed with al-Aqida, as narrated by Abu Bakr al-Khallal, p. 79, Dar Qutayba edition, Damascus, 1408 AH / 1988 CE]
__________
(42) He is Abdus ibn Malik al-Attar, Abu Muhammad. Abu Bakr al-Khallal mentioned him, saying: "He held a high standing with Abu Abd Allah Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in matters of gifts and otherwise. He was very close to him, and Ahmad would give him precedence. He narrated from Abu Abd Allah legal questions that no one else narrated, but not all of them reached us. He died before they were transmitted from him."
Tabaqat al-Hanabila by Ibn Abi Ya'la (338)


[Page 116]

It is reported in al-Sunna by Abdullah ibn Ahmad (1/112): Ghayath ibn Ja'far (43) told me: I heard Sufyan ibn Uyaynah (44) say, "The Quran is the speech of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Whoever says it is created is an unbeliever, and whoever doubts that he is an unbeliever is an unbeliever." // (Weak)
It is reported in Tarikh Baghdad (7/365)
__________
(43) He was Sufyan's dictation assistant. ` ()
Ghayath ibn Ja'far al-Shami al-Rahbi was mentioned by Ibn Hibban in his book al-Thiqat, and al-Daraqutni said:
Uyaynah narrated many hadiths from Ibn Uyaynah.
Tahdhib al-Kamal (23/126)
(44) ` () Sufyan ibn Uyaynah ibn Abi Imran was one of the narrators of the canonical collections. Ahmad ibn Abdullah al-Ijli said: Sufyan ibn Uyaynah was a trustworthy Kufan, firmly established in hadith. Some hadith scholars used to say that he was the most reliable of people in narrating from al-Zuhri. He had good hadith, was counted among the wise hadith scholars, and his hadith numbered around seven thousand. He had no books.
Tahdhib al-Kamal (11/189)


[Page 117]

Abu Bakr al-Barqani(45) informed us, saying: I read to Bishr ibn Ahmad al-Isfarayini.(46) He said: Abu Sulayman Dawud ibn al-Husayn al-Bayhaqi(47) told you: "It reached me that al-Hasan ibn Ali al-Halwani(48) said, 'I do not declare anyone who suspends judgment concerning the Quran to be an unbeliever.'" So they abandoned his knowledge. Abu Sulayman said: "I asked Abu Salama ibn Shabib about al-Halwani's knowledge. He said, 'He should be thrown into the privy.'" Then Abu Salama said: "Whoever does not testify to the unbelief of an unbeliever is an unbeliever."(49) (Weak) A report conveyed indirectly
It appears in Tabaqat al-Hanabila (1 / 172)
__________
(45) The imam, scholar, jurist, hadith master, reliable authority, and shaykh of the jurists and hadith scholars, Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Ghalib al-Khwarizmi, then al-Barqani, a Shafi'i, author of works. Al-Khatib said: "Al-Barqani was trustworthy, devout, reliable, and discerning. We have seen no one among our shaykhs more reliable than him. He was knowledgeable in jurisprudence, had a good command of Arabic, and knew many hadiths."
Tarikh Baghdad, 4 / 374.
(46) The imam, hadith scholar, trustworthy and widely traveled authority, the leading transmitter of his time, Abu Sahl Bishr ibn Ahmad ibn Bishr ibn Mahmud al-Isfarayini, a leading figure of Isfarayin and one of those renowned for courage and bravery.
Siyar A'lam al-Nubala (16/228-229)
(47) Dawud ibn al-Husayn ibn Aqil, Abu Sulayman al-Bayhaqi: the hadith scholar, imam, trustworthy authority, and leading transmitter of Nishapur.
Siyar A'lam al-Nubala (13/579)
(48) Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Muhammad al-Halwani. Yaqub ibn Shayba said: "He was trustworthy, reliable, and precise." Abu Dawud said: "He did not criticize narrators." He also said: "He was knowledgeable about narrators, but did not put his knowledge to use." Al-Nasa'i said: "Trustworthy." Al-Dhahabi said: "A reliable authority and proof." Ibn Hajar said: "Trustworthy, a hadith master."
Imam Ahmad criticized him because he suspended judgment on declaring an unbeliever anyone who said, "My utterance of the Quran is created."
Tahdhib al-Kamal (6/262-263); Siyar A'lam al-Nubala: 11 / 398
(49) Its chain of transmission is sound back to Dawud ibn al-Husayn, but he did not name the person from whom he received this report, so the intermediary is unknown. Al-Khatib related from him in Tarikh Baghdad (7/365) that he said: "The Quran is the speech of Allah, uncreated. We know nothing other than this."


[Page 118]

And Abu al-Husayn ibn al-Muhtadi Billah(50) informed us, from Abu al-Husayn ibn the nephew of Maymi(51), who said: Ali ibn Muhammad al-Mawsili(52) informed us; Musa ibn Muhammad al-Ghassani(53) narrated to us; Shaheen ibn al-Sumayda(54) narrated to us, saying: I heard Abu Abd Allah Ahmad ibn Hanbal say, "Al-Husayn al-Karabisi(55) is an unbeliever in our view."(56) (Fabricated)
(1/173) He said: I heard Abu Abd Allah say, "Whoever says, 'My utterance of the Quran is created,' is an unbeliever." And he said: I heard Abu Abd Allah say, "Whoever says, 'The Quran is created,' is an unbeliever, and whoever doubts his unbelief is an unbeliever."(57) (Fabricated) There is an unknown narrator in its chain.
It appears in The Creed of the People of the Sunnah by al-Lalaka'i (2/249)
__________
(50) Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ubayd Allah ibn Abd al-Samad ibn al-Muhtadi Billah, Abu al-Husayn, son of al-Muhtadi Billah. Al-Khatib said: "He was trustworthy and distinguished." History of Baghdad (11/108–109).
(51) Muhammad ibn Abd Allah ibn al-Husayn ibn Abd Allah ibn Harun, Abu al-Husayn al-Daqqaq, known as the nephew of Maymi. Al-Khatib said: "He was trustworthy, reliable, religious, and virtuous."
History of Baghdad (3/88–89).
(52) Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Said, Abu al-Hasan al-Mawsili, who settled in Baghdad. Abu Nuaym said: "He is a liar." Ibn al-Furat said: "He was confused and not commendable."
History of Baghdad (12/82); History of Islam (26/194).
(53) I have found no biographical entry for him. Al-Khatib mentioned in the biography of Ali ibn Muhammad al-Mawsili that he narrated from a group of unknown people, so perhaps he was one of them. History of Baghdad (12/82).
(54) Shaheen ibn al-Sumayda, Abu Salama al-Abdi. Ibn Abi Yala said: "He transmitted some things from our Imam." He did not mention any criticism or commendation of him, so he is virtually unknown.
Classes of the Hanbalis (1/172).
(55) Al-Husayn ibn Ali ibn Yazid, Abu Ali al-Karabisi. Al-Khatib said: "He was perceptive, learned, and a jurist, and he had many works on jurisprudence and legal theory that attest to his sound understanding and extensive knowledge. Reports from al-Karabisi are very rare. This is because Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to criticize him over the question of the wording, and al-Karabisi also used to criticize Ahmad. For this reason, people refrained from taking reports from him." History of Baghdad (8/63).
(56) This chain of transmission contains two unknown narrators and a liar, so discard it.
(57) This is a continuation of Imam Ahmad's statement through the preceding chain of transmission. Its chain contains two unknown narrators and a liar, so discard it.


[Page 119]

And Ahmad ibn Abd Allah ibn al-Khidr al-Muqri(58) informed us, saying: Ahmad ibn Sulayman(59) narrated to us, saying: Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Suhayb(60) narrated to us, saying: Abbas ibn al-Azhar(61) narrated to us, saying: Abu Muhammad Yahya ibn Khalaf al-Muqri(62) narrated to us: "...Then I came to Kufa and met Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash. I asked him, 'What do you say about someone who says that the Quran is created?' and I related the man's words to him.
He said, 'He is an unbeliever, and whoever does not say that he is an unbeliever is an unbeliever.'"(63) (Weak)
The Creed of the People of the Sunnah - al-Lalaka'i - (2 / 256)
Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Muslim(64) informed us, saying: Ahmad ibn al-Hasan(65) narrated to us, saying: Abu al-Layth, meaning Yazid ibn Jahur,(66) narrated to us, saying: I heard Abu Khaythama, meaning Musab ibn
__________
(58) Ahmad ibn Abd Allah ibn al-Khidr ibn Masrur. Al-Khatib said: He was trustworthy and devout, sound in belief, and staunch in adherence to the Sunnah. Tarikh Baghdad 4/237
(59) Ahmad ibn Sulayman ibn al-Hasan, the jurist and hadith memorizer. Al-Khatib said: He was truthful and knowledgeable, and compiled a large book on the Sunan.
Tarikh Baghdad 4/189-192
(60) I found no biographical entry for him.
(61) I found no biographical entry for him.
(62) Yahya ibn Khalaf Abu Muhammad al-Tartusi. Al-Dhahabi said: He is unknown. He related an objectionable statement from Malik: Someone asked him, "What do you say about the Quran, regarding one who says it is created?" He replied, "A heretic. Seize him and kill him." He said, "I am only relating what was said." Malik replied, "I have heard it only from you." God forbid that Malik should order the killing of someone who relates unbelief or judge him to be a heretic.
Al-Dhahabi also said: He is not trustworthy; he attributed to Malik something unacceptable.
Dhayl Diwan al-Duafa wa al-Matrukin (533); al-Mughni fi al-Duafa (6957); Mizan al-Itidal (4/372)
(63) This is not reliably established from Imam Malik. As mentioned above, al-Dhahabi accused Yahya ibn Khalaf al-Tartusi of fabricating it.
(64) Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abi Muslim. Al-Khatib said: I encountered him alive in the year 412 AH, and he was truthful. Tarikh Baghdad (5/135)
(65) He is Ahmad ibn Salman ibn al-Hasan al-Najjad, mentioned earlier. Al-Khatib said he was truthful.
(66) Yazid ibn Jahur Abu al-Layth al-Tartusi. Al-Hakim said: Al-Daraqutni said, "Yazid ibn Jahur Abu al-Layth was stationed at the frontier; there is no objection to him."
Su'alat al-Hakim li al-Daraqutni (242)


[Page 120]

Sa'id al-Misisi(67) said: I heard Ibn al-Mubarak(68) and Musa ibn A'yan(69) say, "Whoever says that the Quran is created is an unbeliever, more of an unbeliever than Hormuz."(70) (Weak)
430 - Abu Khaythama(71) said: "Whoever claims that the Quran, the speech of Allah, is created is an unbeliever, and whoever doubts his unbelief is an unbeliever." (This Abu Khaythama is weak.)
It is related in Tabaqat al-Hanabila - (1 / 156)
My maternal uncle(72) informed us, from Ibn Batta,(73) who said: Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Mahmud al-Sarraj(74) told us: Abu Hashim Ziyad ibn Ayyub al-Tusi, known as Dulawayh,(75) told us: Abu Numayla Yahya ibn
__________
(67) Mus'ab ibn Sa'id, Abu Khaythama al-Makfuf al-Misisi. Ibn Adi said: He narrates reports from reliable narrators that are objectionable, and misquotes them.
Al-Kamil fi al-Du'afa (8/89); Mizan al-I'tidal (4/119)
(68) Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak ibn Wadih al-Hanzali, their client, the Turk, then al-Marwazi: the hadith master, peerless in his time and the shaykh of Islam. Tahdhib al-Kamal (16/5-25)
(69) Musa ibn A'yan al-Jazari. Abu Zur'a and Abu Hatim said: Reliable.
Al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil (8/136-137)
(70) Its chain of transmission is weak. Ibn Adi declared Mus'ab ibn Sa'id weak, as mentioned above.
(71) He is Mus'ab ibn Sa'id, Abu Khaythama. Ibn Adi declared him weak, and discussion of him has already been given.
(72) His biographical entry has been given earlier.
(73) His biographical entry has been given earlier.
(74) His biographical entry has been given earlier.
(75) His biographical entry has been given earlier.


[Page 121]

It is clear.(76) Musa ibn Ubayda(77) narrated to us, from Ayyub ibn Khalid ibn Safwan,(78) from Ibn Umar, who said: "Whoever prays four rak'ahs after the sunset prayer is like one who follows one military expedition with another."(79) (Weak.)
Ziyad ibn Ayyub said: "Whoever says that the Quran is created is an unbeliever, without any doubt." He was asked, "Can one be heard from if he does not declare them unbelievers?" He replied, "No, absolutely not." He was asked, "I have relatives among them; should I treat them kindly and greet them with peace?" He replied, "No, absolutely not. Do not attend their funerals or visit them."(80)
It is related in The Creed of the People of the Sunnah by al-Lalaka'i (1/176):
Muhammad ibn al-Muzaffar al-Muqri(81) informed us, saying: al-Husayn ibn Muhammad ibn Habsh al-Muqri(82) narrated to us, saying: Abu Muhammad Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Hatim(83) narrated to us, saying:
__________
(76) Yahya ibn Waddah al-Ansari, one of the narrators included in the major hadith collections. Ibn Ma'in, al-Nasa'i, and Ibn Hibban said: "Trustworthy."
Tahdhib al-Kamal (32/22-25)
(77) Musa ibn Ubayda ibn Nashit ibn Amr ibn al-Harith al-Rabadhi. Ahmad said: "His hadith is objectionable." He also said: "One should not occupy oneself with him." Abu Hatim said: "His hadith is objectionable."
Tahdhib al-Kamal (29/104-114)
(78) Ayyub ibn Khalid ibn Safwan ibn Aws ibn Jabir ibn Qurt ibn Qays al-Ansari al-Najjari al-Madani. Al-Azdi said: "His hadith is not of that quality; the hadith scholars criticized him." Yahya ibn Sa'id and those of his standing did not write down his hadith.
See Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (1/401)
(79) Its chain of transmission is very weak, and Musa ibn Ubayda and Ayyub ibn Khalid are both weak.
(80) The chain of transmission back to Ziyad ibn Ayyub is strong, as mentioned earlier.
(81) Muhammad ibn al-Muzaffar ibn Ali ibn Harb, Abu Bakr al-Muqri al-Dinawari. Al-Khatib said: "We wrote hadith from him. He was a virtuous, distinguished, and truthful shaykh." Tarikh Baghdad (4/30)
(82) Al-Husayn ibn Muhammad ibn Habsh, Abu Ali al-Dinawari al-Muqri. He was advanced in the science of Quranic recitation, renowned for precision, trustworthy and reliable. Tarikh al-Islam (26/536)
(83) Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Idris ibn al-Mundhir ibn Dawud ibn Mihran. Al-Khalili said: "A group praised him for his asceticism, complete scrupulousness, and knowledge and practice." Al-Wafayat (18/135-136)


[Page 122]

I asked my father (84) and Abu Zur'a (85) about the doctrines of the People of the Sunnah concerning the fundamentals of religion, what they had found the scholars in all the regions adhering to, and what they themselves believed regarding these matters. They said: "We found the scholars in all the regions—Hijaz, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen—adhering to the following doctrine: … Whoever claims that the Quran is created is an unbeliever in Allah the Almighty, an unbelief that takes him out of the religion. Whoever doubts the unbelief of such a person, if he understands, is an unbeliever."(86) (Among its narrators are two truthful narrators, and the rest of its chain consists of trustworthy narrators.) This does not say that a particular individual is always an unbeliever. Likewise, note that it restricts declaring the one who doubts his unbelief an unbeliever to someone who understands. This indicates that an excuser is excused until the proof is established against him and he understands it.

It is related in al-Sunnah by Abd Allah ibn Ahmad (1/112):
Ghayath ibn Ja'far (87) told me: I heard Sufyan ibn Uyaynah (88) say, "The Quran is the speech of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Whoever says it is created is an unbeliever, and whoever doubts his unbelief is an unbeliever." // Its chain of transmission is good.
__________
(84) Ubayd Allah ibn Abd al-Karim al-Qurashi, the freedman of al-Razi, the hadith master and one of the leading imams. Abu Hatim said: "No one of his like in knowledge, jurisprudence, integrity, and truthfulness came after him; this is beyond doubt." Ishaq ibn Rahawayh said: "Any hadith that Abu Zur'a does not know by heart has no basis." Tahdhib al-Kamal (19/89)
(85) Muhammad ibn Idris ibn al-Mundhir, the imam Muhammad ibn Idris al-Hanzali, was outstanding in memorization and widely traveled in pursuit of the repositories of knowledge. He died in the year 277, may Allah have mercy on him. Tahdhib al-Kamal (24/381)
(86) Its chain of transmission is sound back to both of them, and this creed is authentically established from Ibn Abi Hatim.
(87) Ghayath ibn Ja'far al-Shami al-Rahbi. Ibn Hibban mentioned him in his book al-Thiqat, and al-Daraqutni said:
Uyaynah narrated many hadiths from Ibn Uyaynah.
(88) His biographical entry has already been given.


[Page 123]

So consider, may Allah have mercy on you, how no statement resembling theirs has been established from anyone among the early generations except the statement of Sufyan ibn Uyaynah. As for what is transmitted from Ahmad ibn Hanbal, if it is authentic, it has already been noted that Ahmad is not counted among the early generations, since he did not belong to the generation of the Successors of the Successors. It is also possible that these words are a general statement about the category, not about particular individuals, since it is well known of him, may Allah have mercy on him, that he did not declare the rulers of his time who held that the Quran was created to be unbelievers as individuals, as has already been transmitted from him. His words should therefore be understood in the general sense.

(Ahmad's position on excusing people on the basis of interpretation) Ibn Taymiyyah said in al-Iman al-Awsat (1/56):

Ahmad and other imams explicitly stated that these Murji'ah are not to be declared unbelievers. Whoever transmits from Ahmad or another of the imams that they declared these people unbelievers, or classifies them among the innovators whose status as unbelievers is disputed, has made a grave error. What is reliably transmitted from Ahmad and imams like him is only the declaration that the Jahmiyyah, the anthropomorphists, and people like them are unbelievers. Ahmad did not declare the Kharijites or the Qadariyyah unbelievers when they affirmed divine knowledge but denied that actions are created and that the divine will is all-encompassing, though two reports are related from him concerning declaring them unbelievers. As for the Murji'ah, his position that they are not to be declared unbelievers is undisputed. Moreover, Ahmad did not declare particular Jahmiyyah to be unbelievers, nor did he declare everyone who was called a Jahmi to be an unbeliever, nor everyone who agreed with the Jahmiyyah in some of their innovations. Rather, he prayed behind Jahmiyyah who called people to their doctrine, subjected them to an inquisition, and inflicted severe punishments on those who did not agree with them. Ahmad and imams like him did not declare them unbelievers. Rather, he believed them to be believers and imams, prayed for them, and considered it permissible to follow them in prayer, to perform the pilgrimage and fight alongside them, and to refrain from rebelling against them, just as he held regarding rulers like them. He denounced what they introduced of the…


[Page 124]

of false speech that is grave disbelief, even if they themselves did not know that it was disbelief. He would denounce it and strive to make them reject it to the extent possible. Thus, he combined obedience to Allah and His Messenger in upholding the Sunnah and religion and denouncing the innovations of the heretical Jahmiyya, with safeguarding the rights of the believers among the rulers and the community, even when they were ignorant innovators and unjust sinners. Those well-known figures, such as Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, Abu Hanifa, and other jurists of Kufa, regarded the utterance of the tongue and the belief of the heart as part of faith. This was also the view of Abu Muhammad ibn Kullab and those like him. Their position on this did not differ, nor is it reported that they said faith is merely affirmation of the heart. Rather, they attributed this view to "Jahm ibn Safwan," saying that he held that faith is merely knowledge in the heart, even if one does not affirm it with the tongue. They denounced this so vehemently that Waki ibn al-Jarrah went so far as to declare ...
After mentioning what has preceded, the following becomes clear.
First: Only a very small number of such cases have been established as coming from the early generations, and even these may concern the general category rather than particular individuals. Here, a distinction must be made between two issues. The first is the ruling on someone who turns away from learning and falsely attributes to Allah a lie involving polytheism or something else; this is the person who adopts a corrupt interpretation of the kind explained above. The same applies to anyone who has not entered Islam. My view is that such a person is not excused. The second is a person who entered Islam and embraced the general faith, then exerted his utmost effort regarding a matter of creed but erred in it through interpretation. In this case, the stronger view is that he is excused. This applies, for example, to questions concerning the divine attributes and other matters. This is a response to those who declare Asharis and Maturidis to be unbelievers as individuals, and who generalize the ruling of disbelief to anyone ignorant of an attribute or interpreting it incorrectly. It is said to them: There is a difference between two issues. The first is a person who is ignorant of an attribute, remains silent, and says, "Allah knows best; I believe in the general faith." There is no doubt that such a person is not an unbeliever, since it is not obligatory for everyone to ...


[Page 125]

One is knowledge of the names of Allah and of what He has told us about Himself in detail. I will mention the evidence for this in detail later. Some of the Companions were unaware that Allah would be seen, that He knows what we conceal, that He holds us accountable for what our tongues have uttered, and that He had decreed our deeds for us in advance, among other things. The same applies to the question posed by the disciples and to the man who scattered his own ashes. Thus, detailed belief in knowledge of every particular is not a condition for someone to be a believer; the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had already accepted the faith of his people without that. This also includes someone who knows one of Allah's attributes but interprets it as something linguistically sound and plausible, citing the words of the Exalted: {There is nothing like unto Him}. Likewise, someone may believe that judgment belongs to none but Allah, yet support one of the candidates—not so that he may rule by other than what Allah has revealed, but intending to lessen harm to the Muslims—citing his words (peace and blessings be upon him): "Actions are only by intentions." This is while remaining free of approving the wrong of ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, whether in word or deed, and while disapproving of it; and while not thereby assisting in violating the sanctity of a Muslim through killing, fornication, sodomy, or anything else. For these things—that is, approving the wrong, fabricating lies about Allah, changing the religion, and violating the sanctity of a Muslim—are not made permissible by coercion, as we have explained previously elsewhere. This, then, is an interpretation that permits committing an act of disbelief in order to avert harm from the Muslims, citing the concession granted to Muhammad ibn Maslama, who sought the Prophet's permission to speak ill of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf in order to save the Muslims from his evil. The story of al-Hajjaj ibn Ilat, when he sought to recover his property from the polytheists, is exactly the same. This is a kind of interpretation subject to the conditions stated above. And Allah knows best.


[Page 126]

(Why is an excuse granted on the basis of interpretation?) An excuse is granted on the basis of interpretation because the person interpreting has exerted his utmost effort to learn Allah's ruling. He is not like one who turns away. Thus, it is valid to say that the person interpreting is mistaken, and the mistaken person is excused. He may not, however, be excused from punishment; rather, he may be excused from being declared an unbeliever alone.
Ibn Taymiyya said: "What I have mentioned concerning a Muslim's neglecting an obligation or committing a prohibition on the basis of an interpretive judgment or imitation is clear to me, and his situation in this regard is better than that of an unbeliever acting on an interpretation. This does not prevent me from fighting a rebellious interpreter, flogging an interpreter who drinks wine, and the like. For interpretation does not remove worldly punishment absolutely, since the purpose of punishment is to prevent the harm caused by transgression." (Majmu al-Fatawa, 22/14)
He also said: "Among these people there is no one who is from the early generations of the community or its leading scholars; rather, they are Muslims who have been criticized for innovation, even if they hold it on the basis of interpretation, and whose error is forgiven." (Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya, 2/358) He also said: "It may be that both parties to a dispute are innovators, and that both are ignorant and acting on an interpretation." (Majmu al-Fatawa, 23/356)
Error in interpretation: Interpretation is placing a legal proof in a context other than its proper one, on the basis of independent reasoning or a doubt arising from failure to understand the implication of the text. Thus, a legally responsible person proceeds to commit an act of unbelief while not considering it unbelief, citing as proof a text whose meaning he has misunderstood. This error means that the condition of deliberate intent is absent, and error in interpretation prevents him from being declared an unbeliever. But if the proof is established against him and his error is made clear to him, and he persists in his act, he then becomes an unbeliever. The evidence for this is the incident of Qudama ibn Maz'un—which I mentioned in the important note in my commentary on al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya—in which Qudama deemed drinking wine permissible, and deeming it permissible is unbelief, citing the words of the Exalted: (There is no blame upon those who believe ...


[Page 127]

"And those who believe and do righteous deeds incur no blame for what they have consumed" (al-Ma'idah: 93). He cited this verse as evidence to Umar when Umar intended to carry out the prescribed punishment on him. Umar explained his error to him and carried out the punishment. Concerning this, Ibn Taymiyyah said: "Or he was mistaken and thought that those who believe and do righteous deeds were exempted from the prohibition of wine, just as those whom Umar required to repent were mistaken in this regard, and the like. They are to be asked to repent and the proof is to be established against them; if they persist, they then become unbelievers. They are not judged to be unbelievers before that, just as the Companions did not judge Qudamah ibn Maz'un and his companions to be unbelievers when they were mistaken in their interpretation."(1)
(The one who interprets) This incident indicates that error in interpretation prevents a judgment of unbelief, by the consensus of the Companions. It also falls under the general meaning of the words of Allah, Exalted is He: "There is no blame upon you for what you do by mistake" (al-Ahzab: 5).
Nevertheless, not every error in interpretation is considered an acceptable excuse and a bar to declaring someone an unbeliever:
An error in interpretation that is excusable is one that arises from examining a legal proof, but misunderstanding it.
An error in interpretation that is not excusable is one that arises from mere opinion and caprice, without relying on a legal proof. An example is Iblis's refusal to prostrate to Adam, on the grounds that "I am better than him: You created me from fire and created him from clay" (al-A'raf: 12). This is mere opinion. The esoteric interpretations by which the Batinis set aside religious obligations are likewise mere caprice.


[Page 128]

(The one who interprets) Qadi Iyad said: "As for one who denies an essential attribute of Allah, Exalted is He,
Or denies them knowingly, saying, for example, "He is neither knowing, powerful, willing, nor speaking," or the like, concerning attributes of perfection that are necessarily His, Exalted is He. Our imams have explicitly stated that there is consensus that whoever denies these attributes of Him, Exalted is He, and strips Him of them is an unbeliever. It is in this sense that the statement of Sahnun is understood: "Whoever says that Allah has no speech is an unbeliever." He does not declare those who interpret the texts to be unbelievers, as we have explained above. As for someone who is ignorant of one of these attributes, the scholars differed over this: some declared him an unbeliever, and this was reported from Abu Ja'far al-Tabari and others. Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari held this view at one point. Another group held that this does not remove him from the designation of faith, and al-Ash'ari later returned to this position. He said: "That is because he did not hold this belief with the conviction that it was correct, nor regard it as a religion and a law. Rather, only someone who believes his statement to be true is an unbeliever." They cited as evidence the hadith of the black woman, in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) only…
He asked them for nothing but affirmation of the oneness of God, and by the hadith about the man who said, "If Allah has power over me"—and in one narration, "If Allah should cause me to go astray"—then he said, "So Allah forgave him." They said: If most people were examined about the divine attributes and these were disclosed to them, only a few would be found who knew them. The other scholar answered this hadith in several ways, including that "has power" means "decrees," and that his doubt was not about Allah's power to bring him back to life, but about the resurrection itself, which can only be known through revelation; perhaps he...
There had been no revealed ruling concerning it that would decisively settle the matter, such that doubt about it would then constitute disbelief. As for what no revealed ruling addresses, it is among the things deemed possible by reason. Or "decreed" may mean "constrained," and what he did to himself was an act of self-reproach and anger at his own disobedience. It was also said: "He said only what"


[Page 129]

He said this while neither understanding his own words nor controlling his speech, overcome by such anguish and fear that they had taken away his reason; therefore, he was not held accountable for it. It was also said that this occurred during the interval between prophets, when mere affirmation of divine oneness was sufficient. And it was said, rather, that this is a figure of speech in Arabic whose outward form suggests doubt, while its meaning is certainty; this is called feigning ignorance, and examples of it occur in their speech, such as the words of the Exalted: {Perhaps he will take heed or fear}, and His words: {And indeed, either we or you are surely upon guidance or in clear error}. As for those who affirm the description but deny the attribute, saying, "I say that He is Knowing, but He has no knowledge; and Speaking, but He has no speech," and so on with the other attributes, following the doctrine of the Mu'tazilites, whoever judges them by the implication of what their statement leads to, and where their doctrine takes them, declares them unbelievers. For if they deny knowledge, the description "Knowing" is negated, since only one who possesses knowledge can be described as knowing. It is as though, in his view, they had explicitly stated what their words entail. The same applies, in his view, to the other groups among the proponents of figurative interpretation, such as the anthropomorphists, the Qadariyya, and others. But whoever does not consider them bound by the implications of their words, or does not hold them to what their doctrine entails, does not consider them unbelievers. He says: "For when they are confronted with this, they say, 'We do not say that He is not Knowing. We disavow the implication you have attributed to us, which we and you believe to be unbelief. Rather, we say that our statement does not lead to that, according to the principles we have laid down.'" It is on the basis of these two approaches that people have differed over declaring the proponents of figurative interpretation to be unbelievers. Once you understand this, the reason for people's disagreement on this matter will become clear to you, and the correct position is to refrain from declaring them unbelievers.
And refraining from definitively declaring them doomed to perdition, while applying the rulings of Islam to them in matters of retaliation, inheritance, marriage, blood money, funeral prayers, burial in Muslim cemeteries, and all their other dealings; but they are subjected to severe disciplinary punishment.


[Page 130]

And severe rebuke and ostracism, until they turn back from their innovation. This was the practice of the earliest generation toward them. The Companions' position on declaring those who interpret texts erroneously to be unbelievers was that, during the time of the Companions and afterward among the Successors, people arose who held these views of the Qadariyya, and the Kharijites and Mu'tazilites appeared. Yet they neither exhumed their graves nor deprived any of them of inheritance. Rather, they ostracized them and disciplined them with beating, exile, and execution, according to their circumstances, because they were dissolute, misguided, disobedient sinners who committed major sins. (I say: See here the hadith about Ali and the Kharijites.)
(Faulty interpretation is not accepted)
Al-Qadi Iyad quoted in al-Shifa the scholars' statement: "Claiming an interpretation of an explicit expression is not accepted." End quote (2/217).
Shaykh al-Islam stated this explicitly in al-Sarim al-Maslul, p. 527.
Thus, if someone is known and notorious for his heresy and manipulation of the proofs of the Sharia, or engages in acts of unbelief that are explicit and clear and admit of no interpretation, his claim of interpretation is not accepted. There is no ijtihad or interpretation that makes engaging in explicit unbelief permissible, for no unbeliever is without faulty interpretations with which he tries to patch up his unbelief.
For this reason, Ibn Hazm said: "If a person who is Muslim receives a report from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) through a reliable chain, then interprets it contrary to its meaning—or perhaps another text has reached him, so that the proof of his error in abandoning what he abandoned and adopting what


[Page 131]

He has erred, yet is rewarded and excused, because he sought the truth but was unaware of it. But if proof has been established against him in that matter and he persists defiantly, there is no room for interpretation after proof has been established." End quote from al-Durra (414).
He says: "As for those who are not of the people of Islam, whether Christians, Jews, Magians, or adherents of other religions, or the esotericists who claim that a human being is divine, or that someone became a prophet after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), they are not excused on the basis of interpretation at all. Rather, they are unbelievers and polytheists in every case." End quote from al-Durra fi ma yajibu i'tiqaduhu, p. 441.
It says in al-Fasl fi al-milal wa al-ahwa wa al-nihal (3/139):
"Abu Muhammad said: As for one against whom proof of the truth has not been established, whatever the matter may be, he is not an unbeliever unless there is a text declaring him an unbeliever, in which case one must stop at that—such as a person in the farthest reaches of the Zanj to whom only mention of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has reached, and who refrains from seeking further information about him: he is an unbeliever."
16
And in al-Fasl fi al-milal wa al-ahwa wa al-nihal (3/142):
"One of their spokesmen said: 'If you excuse those who exercise independent reasoning when they err, then excuse the Jews, Christians, Magians, and adherents of all other religions, for they too exercise independent reasoning and seek what is good.' Our answer—and success is from Allah, Exalted is He—is that we did not excuse those whom we excused on the basis of our own opinions, nor declare those whom we declared unbelievers on the basis of our own conjecture. This is a prerogative that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has granted to no one besides Himself. No one admits anyone to Paradise or Hell; rather, Allah, Exalted is He, admits to them whomever He wills. Thus, we call no one a believer except one whom Allah, Exalted is He, has so called, all of this being conveyed through the words of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)..."


[Page 132]

Upon him, and no two people on earth disagree—not merely among the Muslims, but among people of every religion—that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) declared as unbelievers the adherents of every religion other than Islam, whose people disavowed every religion except the one he brought, peace be upon him. So we stopped at that. Nor do two people disagree that he, peace be upon him, designated as believers all who followed him, affirmed everything he brought, and disavowed every religion besides that. So we likewise stopped at that, and there is nothing more. Thus, anyone for whom there is an explicit text establishing that he has left Islam, after the designation of Islam had applied to him, we declare outside it, whether or not there is consensus that he has left it. Likewise, if the Muslims unanimously agree that someone has left Islam, it is obligatory to follow the consensus in that matter. As for someone whose departure from Islam, after Islam had applied to him, is established neither by an explicit text nor by consensus, it is not permissible to remove him from what has been established with certainty as applying to him. Allah Most High has explicitly stated what we have said, saying: {Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.} And He Most High says: {They wish to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers, and say, "We believe in some and disbelieve in others," and wish to adopt a way in between. Those are truly the unbelievers.} And He Most High says: {Say, "Was it Allah, His signs, and His Messenger that you were mocking? Make no excuses; you have disbelieved after your faith."} All of these people are unbelievers by explicit text. It is established by consensus that anyone who denies something which, as we know by consensus, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) brought has disbelieved. And it is established by explicit text that anyone who mocks Allah Most High, or one of the angels, or one of the prophets (peace be upon them), or a verse of the Quran, or one of the religious obligations,


[Page 133]

For all of them are the signs of Allah, Exalted is He. Once the proof has reached him, he is an unbeliever. Whoever claims that there is a prophet after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), or denies something that he knows the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, is an unbeliever, because he has not accepted the Prophet's judgment in the matter disputed between him and his opponent."

Likewise, Ibn Hajar says (Fath al-Bari, Ibn Hajar, 8/147):
"His words, 'No one will remain in the house except that I will have him flogged, while I look on—except al-Abbas, for he was not present with you': It has been said that this establishes the legitimacy of retaliation for everything a person is deliberately subjected to. This is open to question, because not all of them had done that; rather, this was done to them as a punishment for failing to comply with his prohibition of it. As for the one who did it, the matter is clear. As for the one who did not do it, it was because they failed to forbid what he had forbidden them. It may be inferred from this that a far-fetched interpretation does not excuse its proponent. This too is open to question, because the one who acted contrary to the prohibition—" Ibn al-Arabi said: "He intended that they should not come on the Day of Resurrection bearing a claim against him, and so fall into a grave predicament." It was objected that he could have pardoned them, since he did not take revenge for himself. What seems apparent is that he intended thereby to discipline them so that they would not do it again; thus it was discipline, not retaliation or revenge."
Shaykh al-Islam said, after mentioning the hadith about the man who instructed his sons, at his death, to burn his body: "The person who interprets the matter, being among the people of independent reasoning and eager to follow the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), is more deserving of forgiveness than someone like this." End quote. (3/148)


[Page 134]

Ibn al-Wazir said: "There is no disagreement that whoever denies what is necessarily known to everyone is an unbeliever, and cloaks himself in the name of interpretation where interpretation is impossible, as do the heretics in interpreting all the Most Beautiful Names, indeed the entire Quran, the revealed laws, and the Hereafter, including resurrection, the Day of Judgment, Paradise, and Hell." End quote from Ithar al-Haqq ala al-Khalq, p. 415.

Among such matters, certainly, is the foundation of monotheism (tawhid), which entails devoting every kind of worship exclusively to Allah. To undermine this foundation by claiming an interpretation that permits associating partners with Allah, Exalted is He, and taking rivals alongside Him is among the clearest forms of falsehood—the very falsehood that all the messengers were sent to refute and condemn.

(Disagreement over declaring the interpreter an unbeliever, and scholars' views on declaring the interpreter an unbeliever)

Ibn Taymiyya said: "The scholars have disagreed over declaring the people of innovation and caprice unbelievers and consigning them to remain eternally in the Fire. There is no imam from whom only one view has been reported on this matter; rather, two views have been reported from Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, and others. Some of their followers came to report this disagreement as applying to all people of innovation and to their remaining eternally in the Fire, to the point that they committed themselves to consigning everyone whom they personally considered an innovator to eternal punishment. This involves an incalculable degree of error. Others reacted in the opposite way, coming to think that no one among the people of caprice should be categorically declared an unbeliever, even if they have adopted heretical views and the doctrines of those who deny Allah's attributes and those who espouse union with Him.

"The correct view is that a statement may constitute unbelief, as with the doctrines of the Jahmiyya, who said that Allah does not speak and will not be seen in the Hereafter. Yet this may be unclear to some


[Page 135]

that it is disbelief, and so the ruling that the one who says it is a disbeliever is stated in general terms, as the early scholars said: "Whoever says that the Quran is created is a disbeliever," and, "Whoever says that Allah will not be seen in the Hereafter is a disbeliever." But a particular person is not declared a disbeliever until proof has been established against him ... End quote from Majmu al-Fatawa (Dar Ibn Hazm edition), 7/375–377.
Al-Shawkani's statement in al-Sayl al-Jarrar (4/373), commenting on the author of Hada'iq al-Azhar's statement, "Execution is the prescribed punishment for a belligerent disbeliever and an apostate, whatever the form of disbelief": He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "As for his words, 'whatever the form of disbelief,' the author intended to include, by convention, those who disbelieve on the basis of interpretation under the category of apostasy. This is a grievous misstep, one that makes the hands and mouth cry out; a stumble that cannot be excused, and a slip that cannot be forgiven. If this were sound, most of the Muslims on the face of the earth would be apostates, because the followers of the four schools are Asharis and Maturidis, and they declare the Mu'tazilites and their followers to be disbelievers, while the Mu'tazilites declare them disbelievers. All of this is one of the promptings of Satan the accursed, and a pulse of extreme partisanship and great injustice." End quote.

Al-Shawkani also said, commenting on the statement, "One who interprets [the texts] is like an apostate": "I say: Here tears are shed, and Islam and its people are mourned for what religious partisanship has brought upon most Muslims: accusations of disbelief hurled at one another, not on the basis of the Sunnah, nor the Quran, nor a clarification from Allah, nor proof, but because the fires of religious partisanship burned fiercely, and Satan the accursed gained the power to divide the Muslims. He prompted them to make accusations against one another based on things as insubstantial as dust in the air and a mirage in a barren plain. Alas for the Muslims, in the face of this ..."


[Page 136]

The calamity that is among the greatest calamities to befall religion, and the disaster unlike any that has struck the path of the believers. If you still possess some reason, some awareness of Allah, Exalted is He, and a measure of Islamic zeal, you know—and everyone who knows this religion knows—that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about Islam and, explaining its reality and clarifying its meaning, said: "It is establishing prayer, paying zakat, performing the pilgrimage to the House, fasting Ramadan, and bearing witness that there is no god but Allah." Hadiths to this effect are mass-transmitted. Whoever fulfills these five pillars and observes them as they should be observed is a Muslim, whether anyone likes it or not, whoever that may be. So if someone comes to you with something contrary to this, whether worthless talk, false knowledge, or indeed ignorance, strike it in his face and say to him: "Your ravings have been preceded by the proof of Muhammad ibn Abd Allah, may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him."
Is it not incumbent upon us to recognize that the circumstances and situation of the three whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) shunned in the abode of Islam are not like those of Muslim youth today in the abode of disbelief and under conditions of weakness, and that the faith of those Companions is not like that of other people? That is why he did not shun the other people of weak faith who would offer him excuses for staying behind, and he would excuse them. (2)

(Interpretation, Ahmad's doctrine, and the sects) Ibn Taymiyya, al-Iman al-Awsat, 1/56
Ahmad and other leading scholars explicitly stated that these Murji'a are not to be declared unbelievers. Whoever attributes to Ahmad or any other leading scholar the declaration that these people are unbelievers, or claims that


[Page 137]

If someone says that these people are among the innovators whose excommunication is disputed, he has made a grave error. What is reliably reported from Ahmad and other imams is only that they declared the Jahmiyya, the anthropomorphists, and the like to be unbelievers. Ahmad did not declare the Kharijites or the Qadariyya to be unbelievers when they affirmed divine knowledge but denied that human acts are created and that the divine will is all-encompassing. However, two reports are related from him concerning whether they are unbelievers. As for the Murji'a, there is no disagreement in his position that they are not to be declared unbelievers. Yet Ahmad did not declare specific individuals among the Jahmiyya to be unbelievers, nor did he declare everyone who was called a Jahmi to be an unbeliever, nor everyone who agreed with the Jahmiyya in some of their innovations. Rather, Ahmad and those like him prayed behind Jahmiyya who promoted their doctrine, put people to the test, and severely punished those who did not agree with them. Ahmad did not declare them unbelievers. Instead, he considered them believers and imams, prayed for them, and held that one could follow them in prayer, perform the pilgrimage and fight alongside them, and refrain from rebelling against them, just as he held regarding other imams like them. He condemned the false doctrine they had introduced, which was grave unbelief, even though they themselves did not know that it was unbelief. He would denounce it and strive, as far as possible, to make them abandon it. Thus he combined obedience to Allah and His Messenger in upholding the Sunnah and religion and condemning the innovations of the heretical Jahmiyya, with observing the rights of the believers among the rulers and the community, even when they were ignorant innovators and unjust sinners. Those well-known figures, such as Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, Abu Hanifa, and other jurists of Kufa, held that verbal profession and belief in the heart were part of faith. This was also the position of Abu Muhammad ibn Kullab and those like him. Their position on this did not differ, nor is it reported that they said faith is merely affirmation in the heart. Rather, they attributed this position to "Jahm ibn Safwan," saying that he held faith to be merely knowledge in the heart, even without professing it verbally. They denounced this so vehemently that Waki ibn al-Jarrah went so far as to declare...
And he said: Majmu al-Fatawa, 15/29.


[Page 138]

Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him, said (12/189): "As for declaring someone an unbeliever, the correct view is that whoever among the community of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) exercises independent judgment, seeks the truth, but errs, is not an unbeliever; rather, his error is forgiven. But whoever learns what the Messenger brought (peace and blessings be upon him), then opposes the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) after guidance has become clear to him, and follows a path other than that of the believers, is an unbeliever."
It says in Questions of Abu Ubayd al-Ajuri to Abu Dawud al-Sijistani on Discrediting and Accrediting Narrators (p. 35):
"Those who categorically barred transmission from them (that is, from innovators and followers of sectarian whims) held that innovators were unbelievers, according to the view of those who declared those who interpret texts figuratively to be unbelievers, or sinners, according to the view of those who did not rule that they were unbelievers. Some of them, however, deliberately refrained from transmitting from them as a form of punishment and humiliation, or because they did not consider these people trustworthy against lying. According to this latter view, the following statement by Abu Dawud, may Allah have mercy on him, is an exception: 'Among the followers of sectarian whims, none has more authentic hadiths than the Kharijites.' He then mentioned Imran ibn Hittan and Abu Hassan al-A'raj."5 (Abu Dawud did not declare the Kharijites unbelievers.)
Ibn al-Arabi said in al-Qabas fi Sharh Muwatta Malik ibn Anas (p. 404):
"People have differed over declaring those who interpret texts figuratively to be unbelievers. These are people who do not intend unbelief, but seek faith and end up in unbelief, and seek knowledge, but are led by their interpretation into ignorance. This is a grave question in which the proofs conflict. I have considered it at times: sometimes I declare them unbelievers, and sometimes I withhold judgment, except in the case of one who says that the Quran is created, or that there is another creator besides Allah. In such a case, I have no doubt, and I leave him no share of faith." (6)
(A very important principle concerning figurative interpretation)
There is no difference in figurative interpretation between what they call matters of belief and practical matters. This is because they fell into a contradiction: they said that if figurative interpretation concerns practical matters, they mean matters of


[Page 139]

Jurisprudence, such as the jurisprudence of ablution, prayer, and sales: this interpretation is excusable, and its proponent is not declared an unbeliever. But if this interpretation concerns a matter of belief, such as the attributes of Allah, then he is declared an unbeliever. Their distinction is supported by no evidence from the Book, the Sunnah, or the words of a Companion. If they are asked, "Why did you excuse the one who interprets matters of practice?" they begin citing the verse, "There is no blame upon you for what you do by mistake," and other verses and hadiths that excuse one who errs in interpretation. It is then said to them: What is the difference between matters of knowledge and matters of practice in their being covered by these general texts? And on what basis have you restricted this general wording to matters of belief alone? Second, every matter of practice entails a matter of belief. For example, a man holds that the witr prayer is obligatory. This act entails several matters of belief, including the belief that Allah recorded it in the Preserved Tablet—and this is a matter of belief—and the belief that Allah said to this matter, "Be," and it came to be; this is an attribute of action belonging to Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He. Likewise, he believes that He, Exalted is He, commanded Gabriel to convey this to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him); this too is an attribute of action belonging to Allah, Exalted is He. By implication, he also denies the attribute that Allah, Exalted is He, permitted its omission; likewise, he denies that He recorded permission to omit it in the Preserved Tablet, and denies that Allah commanded Gabriel to convey permission to omit it. All of these, as you can see, are matters of belief, inseparable from any of the matters they have called practical. And I wonder: what is the difference between someone who denies an attribute of action belonging to Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, that is connected to a practice—such as His making something obligatory—while interpreting the matter mistakenly, like someone who denies that Allah made rinsing the mouth and sniffing water into the nose obligatory in ablution, for example, and someone who denies an attribute of action belonging to Allah that is not connected to it…


[Page 140]

In this regard, the case is like that of someone who denied the actual descent to the lowest heaven, interpreting the texts and being mistaken. Does merely having an act accompany a belief make him undeserving of excuse? And who is more deserving of excuse: a man who held a mistaken belief based only on interpretation, or a man who held a mistaken belief based on interpretation and, as a result, performed an incorrect act by which he sought nearness to Allah, mistakenly adding to Allah's religion something that is not part of it as an innovation, if he did so deliberately? So they excused someone who committed two innovative acts, in belief and in practice, but did not excuse someone who committed only one act, namely belief alone.
Ibn Taymiyya said: "He said in Mukhtasar al-Fatawa al-Misriyya: 'Dividing issues into foundational issues, denial of which constitutes disbelief, and subsidiary issues, denial of which does not constitute disbelief, has no basis among the Companions, the Successors, or the imams of Islam. Rather, it was adopted from the Mu'tazila and similar imams of innovation, and they are inconsistent. For when they are asked, "What defines the foundations of religion?" and they answer, "Issues of belief," they may be told: People have disagreed over whether Muhammad saw his Lord, whether Uthman or Ali was superior, many meanings of the Quran, and the authentication of some hadiths. These are matters of belief, yet there is no disbelief in them, by agreement of the Muslims.
"The obligation of prayer, zakat, and pilgrimage, and the prohibition of indecencies and wine, are practical matters, yet one who denies them is an unbeliever, by agreement...
"If they say that the foundations are matters that are definitive, they may be told: Many matters of reasoning are not definitive. Whether an issue is definitive or speculative varies from person to person. What is conclusive for one person may not be conclusive for another, as in the case of someone who hears the wording of the text"


[Page 141]

And he was certain of what it meant, while it did not attain, in his view, the strength of the other text; thus, it was not even speculative in his view, let alone definitive...

The point is that the imams' positions distinguish between a category and an individual. Whoever reports a disagreement has not grasped the full import of their words...

One group reports two narrations from Ahmad concerning the unrestricted excommunication of the people of innovation. But this was not the position of Ahmad or any of the other imams. Likewise, al-Shafi'i's excommunication of Hafs al-Fard when he said, "The Quran is created." Al-Shafi'i said to him, "You have disbelieved"—that is, your statement is disbelief. For this reason, he did not seek to have him killed; had he considered him a disbeliever, he would have sought to have him killed."

It is stated in Mukhtasar al-Sawa'iq al-Mursala ala al-Jahmiyya wa al-Mu'attila by Ibn al-Qayyim (p. 594):
"The aim is not to examine this issue exhaustively. Rather, the point is that error occurs in what they have called subsidiary matters, just as it occurs in what they have made foundational matters. So we ask them to provide a sound distinction between what may be established in religion by a solitary report and what may not. They will find no way to make such a distinction except through false claims. Then we ask them to distinguish between matters of fundamentals and matters of branches, and to state the criterion for doing so. Then we ask them to distinguish between what its denier incurs sin for—whether the sin of disbelief or of disobedience—and what its denier does not incur sin for. And we ask them to distinguish between what requires definitive certainty and what may be based on probability. They have absolutely no way to establish any of this.


[Page 142]

Al-Juwayni said: They have discussed the distinction between fundamentals and subsidiary matters, and said: "A fundamental is that for which there is definitive evidence, while a subsidiary matter is the opposite." I say: This entails circular reasoning. For if it is said, "Fundamentals are established only by definitive evidence," and then it is said, "A fundamental is that for which there is definitive evidence," this is manifestly circular.
Moreover, many practical rulings—in fact, most of them—are supported by definitive evidence, such as the obligation of purification, prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and almsgiving; the invalidation of ablution by urination and defecation; and the obligation of ritual bathing after a wet dream. Indeed, most of the Sharia's rulings are supported by definitive evidence, while many issues that they classify as fundamentals are supported by probabilistic evidence.
The same is true of the fundamentals of religion and the fundamentals of jurisprudence: there are more examples than can be listed, such as accepting implications, analogical reasoning, their precedence over general texts, the status of a command after a prohibition, the question of whether an era must pass without dissent, the opinion of a Companion, using mursal reports as evidence, the law of those who came before us, and many times as much besides.
Likewise, among the fundamentals of religion are the question of the state, the Lord's subsistence and pre-eternity—whether these are subsistence and pre-eternity additional to His essence—the question of whether necessary existence is intrinsic to the quiddity or additional to it, affirming an attribute subsisting in the self, and other matters. According to this distinction, these and similar issues would be subsidiary, while those practical rulings would be fundamental.
He said: And it has been said: "A fundamental is that in which worship may be performed only in accordance with one specific command, while a subsidiary matter is the opposite."


[Page 143]

I say: This distinction is more corrupt than the first, for most subsidiary rulings may be observed as acts of worship only in accordance with what was prescribed through the tongue of each prophet. It is not permissible to worship by prostrating to idols, permitting indecencies, killing people, wrongfully taking property, violating people's honor, bearing false witness, and the like. Although those who deny that things are intrinsically good or bad deem it permissible to worship in these ways and say that it is possible for revealed laws from Allah, Exalted is He, to prescribe them, their claim is among the most false of falsehoods. We have explained its corruption in more than sixty ways elsewhere in this book, and it is something whose invalidity is known necessarily.
He said: It has also been said that the foundational matter is one that may be known without the prior advent of revealed law, while the subsidiary matter is otherwise. This distinction, too, is utterly corrupt, for most of the issues they call foundational were not known until after the advent of revealed law, such as that a command entails obligation and a prohibition entails forbiddance, that analogy is authoritative, and that consensus is authoritative. Indeed, most issues of the foundations of religion were known only through transmitted revelation. The permissibility of seeing the Lord, Blessed and Exalted is He, on the Day of Resurrection, and His establishing Himself over His Throne, are unlike the question of His being, in His essence, above created things, for that is innate and self-evident. Most issues concerning the Resurrection and its details are not known before the advent of revealed law, including the issues of the punishment and bliss of the grave, the questioning by the two angels, and other foundational issues that are not known before the advent of revealed law.
Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-Baqillani said: Any issue concerning which disagreement is forbidden once revealed law has been established, and whose contrary belief makes a person ignorant, is a foundational issue, whether rational or revealed. A subsidiary issue is one concerning which disagreement is not forbidden, or in which the one who errs does not incur sin. Although this is closer than what came before it, it too is false, for if many of the


[Page 144]

The issues of the branches are definitively established, even if there is disagreement about them, and even if one who errs in them is not sinful because the evidence is obscure to him. Even if they are definitive, it does not follow that there must be agreement on definitive matters. The judge conceded this in cases where the text was obscure to someone.
Some have mentioned another distinction, saying: "Issues of the foundations are matters of knowledge, while issues of the branches are matters of knowledge for which two things are required: knowledge and action." What is required in practical matters is also knowledge and action: the heart's love and aversion—its love for the truth indicated and contained in them, and its aversion to the falsehood that contradicts them. Thus, action is not confined to the deeds of the limbs. Rather, the deeds of the heart are the basis of the deeds of the limbs, and the deeds of the limbs follow from them. Every matter of knowledge is therefore accompanied by the heart's faith, affirmation, and love; that too is action—in fact, it is the basis of action. This is something many theologians discussing matters of faith have overlooked, supposing that faith is merely affirmation, without deeds. This is among the ugliest and gravest errors, for many unbelievers were certain of the truthfulness of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), with no doubt about it; yet that affirmation was not accompanied by the heart's love for what he brought, acceptance of it, desire for it, or allegiance and enmity on its account.
Do not neglect this point, for it is extremely important; through it, the true nature of faith is known.
Matters of knowledge are matters of action, and practical matters are matters of knowledge. For the Lawgiver did not deem mere action, without knowledge, sufficient from those legally responsible in practical matters, nor mere knowledge, without action, in matters of knowledge.


[Page 145]

Others distinguished between the fundamentals and the subsidiary matters by saying that the fundamentals are matters whose denial constitutes disbelief, such as divine oneness, prophethood, the Resurrection, and affirming the divine attributes; while subsidiary matters are those whose denial does not constitute disbelief, such as the obligation to recite al-Fatiha in prayer, the requirement of composure, the obligation to wipe the entire head in ablution, and the like. This distinction is neither universally applicable nor reversible, for many subsidiary matters are such that denying them constitutes disbelief, while many fundamental matters are such that denying them does not, as has been explained above.
Moreover, declaring someone a disbeliever is a ruling of the Sharia: a disbeliever is one whom Allah and His Messenger have declared a disbeliever. Disbelief is the denial of something known to have been brought by the Messenger, whether it belongs to the matters you call doctrinal or practical. Whoever denies something brought by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), after knowing that he brought it, is a disbeliever, whether the matter is subtle or weighty in religion.
Others distinguished between the fundamentals and subsidiary matters by saying that the fundamentals concern reports, while subsidiary matters concern commands. This distinction is no different from the distinctions mentioned above, and it too is unsound, for the servant is charged with affirming both, through knowledge, faith, action, love, acceptance, allegiance, and enmity, as stated above.
Others distinguished between them by saying that the fundamentals are matters in which following another's opinion is impermissible, while it is permissible in subsidiary matters. Besides being an impermissible circular argument, they may be asked: "In what matters is following another's opinion permissible?" They would answer: "In subsidiary matters." And in what matters is it impermissible? "In the fundamentals." This distinction is also unsound both in its application and its converse, for following another's opinion is impermissible in many subsidiary matters, such as the obligation of purification, prayer, and zakat, and the prohibition of wine, usury, indecencies, and injustice. For whoever does not know that the final word is cut off here.


[Page 146]

The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) brought that, yet someone who doubted it did not know that he was a Messenger. Likewise, whoever did not know that he brought monotheism, affirmation of the Messengers, affirmation of the bodily resurrection, and affirmation of the divine attributes, exaltedness, and speech, did not know that he was a Messenger. Thus, many matters of transmitted reports and religious obligations may be followed on authority by one unable to reason from evidence, just as many practical matters may not be followed on authority.
Dividing religion into what is established by a solitary report and what is not established by it is a division that is neither consistently applicable nor comprehensive, and has no sound proof to support it.
Moreover, following on authority is accepting another person's statement without proof. Whoever accepts another person's statement about what he relates from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that he brought, whether as a report or an obligation, accepts it only because he attributes it to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). This is proof; however, not everyone may be able to formulate its premises and rebut the doubts that oppose it. Not everyone who knows something through its proof can set it out with all its premises, express it, or rebut what opposes it. If inability to do so counts as following on authority, then the majority of the community would be following on authority in monotheism, affirmation of the Messenger's mission, and the resurrection. If inability to do so does not count as following on authority, then they would not be following on authority in monotheism, affirmation of the Messenger's mission, and the resurrection; nor would they be following on authority in most of the practical rulings they need. This is the truth: the majority of the community base their acts of worship, prohibitions, and permissions on what they have necessarily learned from their Prophet, namely, that he brought it. If they were asked to explain its proof, most of them would be unable to do so, just as they are certain of monotheism, and that ...


[Page 147]

That Allah is above His creation, that the Quran is His speech, and that He will resurrect those in the graves. If most of them were asked about this, they would be unable to answer.
As for the sixth point: namely, that the conjecture derived from the reports of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is, in their view, stronger than the certainty based on those illusory propositions—this is known to anyone familiar with both. Someone with no experience of either hears them call their false propositions "conclusive rational proofs" and "demonstrations that yield certainty," while calling the explicit texts of the Quran and Sunnah "apparent transmitted reports that do not yield certainty." He may then come to believe they are right, out of deference to them, thinking well of them, and relying on some of the doubts they raise. But one who has insight into what the Messenger brought (peace and blessings be upon him) and into what these people hold knows with certainty that the matter is otherwise, and that the propositions by which they oppose the texts yield neither knowledge nor even conjecture. Indeed, they say: "Sound reason and innate human nature testify that these propositions are false and invalid." Even if a large group agrees on them, among all the groups of people of falsehood you will find each group agreeing on something whose corruption is necessarily evident to reason and to the innate disposition with which Allah created people. Each group of theologians bears witness against its opponents that they have contradicted sound reason and innate human nature. We have already mentioned some examples of this earlier in this book, concerning matters in which the theologians and philosophers contradicted sound reason. What is astonishing is that you see many of them assert their position categorically and declare anyone who disagrees with them an unbeliever, then themselves assert the opposite or suspend judgment on the matter. This is extremely common among them.


[Page 148]

Abu al-Muzaffar al-Sam'ani said: Every group among the innovators believes that what it says is the truth upheld by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions. For they all claim the law of Islam, outwardly adhere to its symbols, and believe that what Muhammad brought is the truth. But afterward, the paths diverged for them, and they introduced into the religion what Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) had not authorized. So each group claimed that it was the one adhering to the law of Islam, and that the truth upheld by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was what it believed and professed.
However, Allah, Exalted is He, decreed that the truth and sound creed should be found only with the people of hadith and transmitted reports, because they received their religion and beliefs from one generation to the next, and from one era to the next, until they reached the Successors. The Successors received it from the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and the Companions received it from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). There is no way to know the upright religion and straight path to which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) called people except by this path followed by the people of hadith.
As for the other sects, they sought religion by a path other than its own, because they turned to their own reasoning, thoughts, and opinions. When they heard something from the Book and the Sunnah, they measured it against the standard of their intellects: if it seemed sound to them, they accepted it, but if it did not weigh up according to their intellects, they rejected it; and if they were compelled to accept it, they distorted it.
Through far-fetched interpretations and repugnant meanings, they turned away from the truth and strayed from it, cast religion behind their backs, and trampled the Sunnah underfoot.


[Page 149]

As for the People of the Sunnah, they placed the Book and the Sunnah before them and sought the religion through them. Whatever occurred to them by way of reason, thoughts, or opinions, they presented to the Book and the Sunnah. If they found it in agreement with them, they accepted it and thanked Allah for showing it to them and granting them success in it. If they found it contrary to them, they abandoned what had occurred to them and turned to the Book and the Sunnah, directing suspicion toward themselves. For the Book and the Sunnah guide only to the truth, whereas a person's opinion may be true or false.
This is the view of Abu Sulayman al-Darani, who was the most singular of the people of his time. He said, "Whenever my soul suggested something to me, I sought two witnesses for it from the Book and the Sunnah. If they were produced, I accepted it; otherwise, I rejected it."
(He said): Among the things that show that the people of hadith are upon the truth is that if you were to examine all their authored books, from beginning to end, old and new, you would find that despite the differences in their lands and times, the great distances between their homes, and each one of them residing in a different region, they follow a single course and a single pattern in matters of belief. They adhere to a way from which they neither deviate nor turn aside; their hearts in this regard are as one heart. Their transmitted reports show no disagreement or division in anything, however slight. Indeed, if you gathered everything they have said and transmitted from their predecessors, you would find it as though it had come from one heart and been spoken by one tongue. Is there any clearer proof of the truth than this? Allah, Exalted is He, says: {Do they not reflect upon the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have found much inconsistency in it} [al-Nisa: 82]. And He, Exalted is He, says: {And hold fast, all together, to the rope of Allah, and do not be divided. And remember Allah's favor upon you when you were}


[Page 150]

"...enemies, then He brought your hearts together, and by His blessing you became brothers" [Al Imran: 103].
But when you look at the people of innovation, you see them divided and at odds, factions and parties. You can hardly find two of them who share the same creed. They declare one another innovators; indeed, they go so far as to declare one another unbelievers: a son declares his father an unbeliever, a brother his brother, and a neighbor his neighbor. You see them perpetually in dispute, mutual hatred, and disagreement; their lives come to an end without their views ever being united. "You think them united, but their hearts are divided. That is because they are a people who do not reason" [Al-Hashr: 14]. Have you not heard that, despite the Mu'tazilites' agreement in this regard, the Baghdadis among them declare the Basrans unbelievers, and the Basrans declare the Baghdadis unbelievers? The followers of Abu Ali al-Jubba'i and his son declare Abu Hashim and his followers unbelievers, while the followers of Abu Hashim declare Abu Ali and his followers unbelievers. The same is true of the rest of their leading figures and the authors of their doctrinal treatises: when you consider their views, you see them divided, each declaring the others unbelievers. The same is true of the Kharijites and the Rafidites among themselves, and likewise all the other innovators. Is anything a clearer sign of falsehood than this? Allah, Exalted is He, said: "Those who divided their religion and became factions—you have nothing to do with them. Their affair rests with Allah" [Al-An'am: 159]. Thus Allah absolved His Messenger of those who are characterized by such division and disagreement.
(He said): The reason the people of hadith were united was that they took their religion from the Book and the Sunnah, and through transmission; this brought them unity and harmony. The people of innovation took their religion from their own reason, and this brought them division and disagreement. For reports and narrations transmitted by reliable and precise authorities rarely differ; and even if they differ in wording or...


[Page 151]

of His words, then that disagreement does not harm the religion or undermine it. As for rational judgments, thoughts, and opinions, they rarely agree; rather, each person's intellect, opinion, and thought show him something different from what they show another.

He said: In this way, the difference between disagreement over subsidiary legal questions and disagreement over the creeds that form the foundations becomes clear. We found that the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), may Allah be pleased with them, disagreed after him over religious rulings, yet they did not split apart or become factions, because they did not depart from the religion. They considered matters in which they had been given latitude, and their statements and opinions differed on many questions, such as the questions of the grandfather, the polytheistic inheritance case, distant kindred, mothers of children, and other matters. Thus, their disagreement over these matters was praiseworthy, and this kind of disagreement was a mercy for this community, as Allah granted them success and certainty. He then gave scholars latitude to exercise judgment concerning matters whose rulings they did not find in the Revelation and the Sunnah. Despite this disagreement, they were people of affection and sincere counsel; the brotherhood of Islam remained between them, and the bond of harmony among them was not severed. But when these ruinous whims arose, calling their adherents to the Fire, and they became factions, brotherhood in religion was severed and harmony fell away. This shows that estrangement and division arose only over newly introduced matters, which Satan invented and put on the tongues of his allies so that they would disagree and denounce one another as unbelievers. Thus, whenever a matter arose in Islam over which people debated and disagreed, if that disagreement did not give rise among them to enmity, rancor, or division, but harmony, sincere counsel, affection, mercy, and compassion remained between them, then


[Page 152]

We know that this is one of the matters of Islam in which it is permissible to investigate. The other person holds that some of those opinions do not entail declaring anyone an innovator or an unbeliever. Differences of this kind appeared among the Companions and the Successors, while affection and love remained between them. Whenever a new matter arose over which they differed, and their disagreement led to allegiance and aversion, turning away from one another and severing ties—and perhaps even reached the point of declaring one another unbelievers—you know that this has nothing to do with religion. Rather, everyone of sound reason must avoid such matters and refrain from delving into them.
Allah Most High has made it a condition of our adherence to Islam that we become brothers in this regard. He, Exalted is He, says: {And remember Allah's blessing upon you: when you were enemies, He brought your hearts together, and by His blessing you became brothers} [Al Imran: 103].
He said: "If someone says: Delving into matters of divine decree, the divine attributes, and faith leads to severing ties and turning away from one another, so they must be set aside and avoided, as you have established."
"The answer is: We said this only about newly introduced matters. As for these matters, they must be accepted according to what has been established through transmission from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions. It is not permissible for us to turn away from transmitting, narrating, and explaining them, just as with the foundations of Islam, calling people to affirm the oneness of Allah, and proclaiming the two testimonies of faith. We have made clear that the straight path is with the people of hadith, and that the truth lies in what they narrated and transmitted."))


[Page 153]

(Note) It is stated in Mukhtasar al-Sawa'iq al-Mursala ala al-Jahmiyya wa al-Mu'attala (p. 590):
"What, then, is the difference between the domain of commands and the domain of reports, such that these reports may be used as proof in one but not the other? This distinction is invalid by the consensus of the Muslim community, for it has always used these hadiths as proof in matters of transmitted knowledge, just as it uses them as proof in practical matters involving commands. This is especially so since practical rulings entail reporting about Allah that He prescribed such-and-such, made it obligatory, and approved it as religion; His legislation and religion relate back to His names and attributes. The Companions, the Successors, those who followed them, and the people of hadith and Sunnah have always used these reports as proof in questions of the attributes, divine decree, names, and rulings. It has never been transmitted from any of them that he permitted using them as proof in questions of rulings but not in reports about Allah, His names, and His attributes.
Where, then, are the early authorities who distinguished between the two domains? Indeed, their predecessors were some of the later theologians, who had no concern for what came from Allah, His Messenger, and his Companions. Rather, they turn hearts away from seeking guidance in this domain through the Book, the Sunnah, and the statements of the Companions, and refer them instead to the opinions of the theologians and the contrived principles of those who strain after argument. They are the ones known to distinguish between the two matters. They divided religion into matters of knowledge and matters of practice, calling them fundamentals and branches, and said: 'The truth in matters of fundamentals is one, and whoever opposes it is either an unbeliever or a sinner. As for matters of the branches, Allah Most High has no specific ruling concerning them, error in them is inconceivable, and every person exercising independent reasoning arrives at Allah Most High's ruling, which is His ruling.' If this division were merely a matter of terminology, it would not distinguish by it …"


[Page 154]

What they called fundamentals and what they called subsidiary matters—how could this distinction be valid when they have based rulings upon it that they devised with their own intellects and opinions? Among these is declaring someone an unbeliever for erring in matters of fundamentals, but not in matters of subsidiary rulings. This is among the most false of falsehoods, as we shall explain. Another is affirming subsidiary rulings on the basis of solitary reports, but not fundamentals, and so on. Any division that is not supported by the Book, the Sunnah, and the principles of the Sharia is a false division that must be discarded.
This division is one of the foundations of the people's misguidance. They distinguished between what they called fundamentals and what they called subsidiary matters, and stripped the subsidiary matters of any specific ruling of Allah concerning them. Rather, they held that Allah's ruling in them varies according to the differing opinions of the jurists. As for what they called fundamentals, they held that whoever errs in them is an unbeliever or a sinner. They claimed consensus on this distinction, yet what they presented as consensus is not recorded from any of the imams of the Muslims, nor from any of the Companions or Successors. This is the habit of the people of speculative theology: they report consensus on something that none of the imams of the Muslims said; indeed, the imams of Islam held the opposite view. Imam Ahmad said, "Whoever claims consensus has lied." This is the claim of al-Asamm, Ibn Ulayya, and those like them: they seek to invalidate the Sunnahs of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) by means of the consensus they claim.
It is known with certainty from the textual proofs and the consensus of the Companions and Successors, and is explicitly stated by the four imams, that jurists who disagree over legal rulings are not all alike; rather, among them are those who are correct and those who are mistaken. Thus, discourse on what they called fundamentals and what they called subsidiary matters divides into that which accords with the truth as it actually is and that which does not. The division of belief concerning a ruling into that which accords with the truth and that which does not is like the division of


[Page 155]

Belief concerning wine is divided into that which corresponds to reality and that which does not. The one who says of something, "It is lawful," and the one who says, "It is forbidden," with one of them being right and the other wrong, are like the one who says that He, Glorified is He, will be seen and the one who says that He will not be seen, with one of them being right and the other wrong. Lying about Allah, Exalted is He, whether by mistake or deliberately in this case, is like lying about Him deliberately or by mistake in the other case. For one person reports of Allah that He commanded such-and-such and permitted it, while the other reports that He forbade it and declared it unlawful. One of them is certainly mistaken.
If it is said: "The difference between the two is that it is possible that, in reality, it is neither lawful nor forbidden; rather, it is lawful for the one who believes it to be lawful and forbidden for the one who believes it to be forbidden."
It is said: "This is false for many reasons. We have mentioned in the book al-Miftah and elsewhere (among them) that it contradicts the explicit text of the Quran and the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Companions."
This preceding discussion is directed at those who declare others unbelievers on the basis of interpretation, because they say that creed is established by solitary reports; thus, the argument applies to them.
As for those who say that creed is not established by a solitary report, the following is the response to them:
First: His saying, Exalted is He, "When Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter": "matter" is indefinite in the context of a conditional clause, so it encompasses knowledge and practice.
Second: "Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it": the word "whatever" is general.
Third: "So that they may gain understanding of the religion": religion encompasses knowledge and practice.


[Page 156]

Fourth: The claim that a solitary report does not establish a creed is itself a creed. So did you believe this creed with certainty or conjecture? According to your own classification, it is conjectural, because the interpretation of the verse, "They follow nothing but conjecture," is conjectural, as you believe.
Fifth: He said in al-Nihaya: "Conjecture is doubt that occurs to you, then you ascertain it."
Sixth: "Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam — Ibn Hazm" (1/120):
"If we find proof that a solitary report, with an unbroken chain of transmission to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), concerning the rulings of the Sharia, cannot be subject to falsehood or error, then our position and theirs—that a report from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) concerning the Sharia cannot be subject to falsehood or error—is established. If we find no proof of this, then that is their position. Proof of it has indeed been established, and praise be to Allah, as we shall mention, if Allah Most High wills.
We know that the Quran contains verses that have undoubtedly been abrogated, because Allah Most High says: {Whenever We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or the like of it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?} Scholars have differed concerning them: one group has said that a particular verse is abrogated, while another has said that it is not abrogated but remains in force. Yet no Muslim has ever said—not Ibn Kaysan nor anyone else—that one must refrain from acting upon any part of the Quran for this reason, out of fear of acting upon something abrogated, which it is impermissible to act upon. Rather, one must act upon every verse in it until its abrogation is established, at which point one ceases to act upon it.
{That a solitary report from a trustworthy narrator, with an unbroken chain of transmission to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), concerning the rulings of the Sharia, establishes knowledge and can never be subject to falsehood or error. We say, and Allah Most High is the source of success: Allah, Mighty and Exalted, said of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): {And what…


[Page 157]

He does not speak from his own desire; it is nothing but revelation revealed." And the Exalted said, commanding His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to say: "Say: I am no unprecedented messenger, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you. I follow only what is revealed to me, and I am only a clear warner." And the Exalted said: "Indeed, We have sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will surely preserve it." And the Exalted said: "With clear proofs and scriptures. And We sent down to you the Reminder so that you may make clear to people what was sent down to them, and so that they may reflect." Thus it is established that all the words of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) concerning religion are revelation from Allah, Mighty and Majestic, without doubt; and there is no disagreement among any of the people of language and the Sharia that
every revelation sent down from Allah, Exalted is He, is a Reminder sent down. Therefore, all revelation is certainly preserved by Allah, Exalted is He, through His preservation of it. Everything whose preservation Allah has undertaken is guaranteed not to be lost, nor will anything in it ever be distorted in a way that clarification cannot expose as false. For if anything else were possible, the words of Allah, Exalted is He, would be a lie, and His guarantee would be untrustworthy. This would not occur to anyone possessing even a measure of reason. It is therefore necessary that what Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) brought to us is preserved, with Allah, Exalted is He, undertaking its preservation, and conveyed exactly as it is to everyone who seeks it, continuously until the end of the world. The Exalted said: "Say: What is the greatest testimony? Say: Allah is witness between me and you. And this Quran has been revealed to me so that I may warn you by it and whomever it reaches. Do you truly testify that there are other gods alongside Allah? Say: I do not testify. Say: He is only One God, and I am free of what you associate with Him."
Since this is so, we know necessarily that there is absolutely no way for anything the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said concerning religion to be lost, nor is there any way for it to be


[Page 158]

Falsehood may be mixed into it so thoroughly that no one can distinguish it with certainty. For if that were possible, the Reminder would not be preserved, and the words of Allah, Exalted is He, "Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will preserve it," would be a lie and a broken promise. No Muslim would say this. If someone says that Allah meant by this the Quran alone, and that it is the Quran whose preservation He guaranteed, but not the rest of the revelation that is not Quran, we say to him—and Allah is the source of success—this is a baseless claim, unsupported by proof, and an unjustified restriction of the meaning of the Reminder. Anything of this kind is false, in light of Allah's words: "And they say, 'None will enter Paradise unless he is a Jew or a Christian.' Those are their wishes. Say, 'Produce your proof, if you are truthful.'" It is thus established that he has no proof for his claim, and so he is not truthful in it. The word "Reminder" applies to everything Allah sent down to His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whether Quran or Sunnah—revelation by which the Quran is explained. Moreover, Allah, Exalted is He, says: "With clear proofs and scriptures. And We sent down to you the Reminder so that you may make clear to people what was sent down to them, and so that they may reflect." It is thus established that he (peace and blessings be upon him) was commanded to explain the Quran to people. The Quran contains many matters stated in general terms, such as prayer, zakat, pilgrimage, and other things whose details of what Allah, Exalted is He, has made obligatory upon us are not known from its wording alone; rather, they are known through the explanation of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). If his explanation of those general matters were not preserved and guaranteed to be free of what does not belong to it, then the benefit of the Quran's text would be lost, and most of the religious duties it makes obligatory upon us would be invalidated. If we did not know what Allah, Exalted is He, truly intended by them, then what would remain would be the error of the one who erred or the deliberate lie of the liar—and Allah forbid this. We also say to the one who claims that the report of a single trustworthy narrator from another like him, tracing back to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), does not yield knowledge, and that it may contain a lie:


[Page 159]

And conjecture, and that it is not guaranteed to be preserved. Tell us: Is it possible, in your view, for a law of obligation or prohibition brought by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) to remain in force for the Muslims after his death, without being abrogated, yet to be unknown, so that no one knows it with certainty?
among the people of Islam anywhere in the world? And is it possible, in your view, for a ruling founded on a lie or an erroneous supposition to have been accepted and passed into effect, and become so thoroughly mixed with the rulings of the Sharia that no one among the people of Islam anywhere in the world could ever distinguish it, or is neither of these two possibilities possible in your view?
If they say, "They can never occur; rather, we have secured against that," then they have adopted our position and affirmed that every report transmitted by a trustworthy narrator from another trustworthy narrator, with an unbroken chain back to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), concerning religion, is true and was indeed said by him, and that it yields certain knowledge. We affirm its soundness and hold that a fabricated report, or one mistakenly attributed to him, which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) never said, can never become mixed with it in such a way that falsehood can never be distinguished from truth. But if they say, "Rather, all of that is possible," then they have judged that the religion of Islam has been corrupted and most of it invalidated, and that what Allah, Exalted is He, commanded has become mixed with what He did not command in a way that no one can ever distinguish; and that they can never know what Allah, Exalted is He, commanded them to do, as distinct from what He did not command them to do, nor what liars and frivolous people have fabricated, as distinct from what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) brought, except through conjecture, which is the most false of speech and avails nothing against the truth. This is a casting off of Islam, a demolition of the religion, and a sowing of doubt in


[Page 160]

the revealed laws. Then we say to them: Tell us, if all of that is possible in your view, did Allah, Exalted is He, command you to act upon what reliable transmitters have narrated with a chain of transmission going back to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), or did He not command you to act upon it? One of the two must be the case. If they say, "Allah, Exalted is He, did not command us to do that," they have joined the Mu'tazilites, and their answer to this claim will come, if Allah, Exalted is He, wills. But if they say, "Rather, Allah, Exalted is He, commanded us to act upon that," we say to them: You have thereby claimed that Allah, Exalted is He, commanded you, in your religion, to act upon what He did not command you to act upon: things fabricated by liars and mistaken by those prone to error; and that He commanded you to attribute to Him, Exalted is He, and to His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), what never came to you from them and what Allah, Exalted is He, and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) never said. This is a definitive proof that He, Mighty and Majestic is He, commanded lying about Him, made it obligatory to act upon falsehood, upon what is not part of the religion, and upon what liars prescribed without His permission.
Allah, Exalted is He—and this is an exceedingly grave matter, which no Muslim would deem permissible to say. Then we ask them about what they claim is possible: that some of the rulings concerning religion which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) stated, whether imposing an obligation or a prohibition, might have been lost, so that no one knows whether we are still bound to act upon them or whether that obligation has lapsed. One of these two must be the case. If they say, "Rather, we remain bound by them," we say to them: How can we be bound to act upon what we do not know, what has not reached us, and what will never reach us? This is precisely the burden, hardship, and difficulty from which Allah, Exalted is He, has granted us security. But if they say, "Rather, the obligation to act upon them has lapsed," we say to them: You have thus permitted the abrogation of some of the laws of Islam, laws that were established, confirmed, and binding when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) died. So tell us: who abrogated them?


[Page 161]

and abrogated it, even though the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had died while it remained binding upon us and had not been abrogated. This is contrary to Islam and constitutes a complete departure from it. If they say, "It is not permissible for the ruling of a revealed law to lapse when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) died while it remained binding upon us and had not been abrogated," we say to them: "Then on what basis did you permit this kind of preservation of the revealed law, but not the complete preservation of the revealed law, such that no falsehood ever commanded by Allah Most High could become mixed with it in a way that makes it impossible to distinguish the truth commanded by Allah Most High from the falsehood He never commanded?" They have no way out of this, and there is no difference between someone who forbids the lapse of a true revealed law but permits its being mixed with falsehood, and someone who forbids truth in the revealed law from being mixed with falsehood but permits the lapse of a true revealed law. All of this is false and utterly impermissible, and we are assured that it has not occurred, praise be to Allah. Once this is established, it is certain that we are assured, praise be to Allah, that the report of a trustworthy narrator from another like him, traced back to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), is true beyond doubt and entails both action and knowledge. Allah Most High also said: {With clear proofs and scriptures. And We sent down to you the Reminder so that you may make clear to people what was sent down to them, and so that they may reflect.} And He Most High said: {O Messenger, convey what has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.} We ask them: Did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) make clear what Allah had sent down to him, or did he not make it clear? And did he convey what Allah had sent down to him, or did he not convey it? One of these must be the case. They say that he (peace and blessings be upon him) conveyed what Allah had sent down to him, made it clear to the people, and established proof against those to whom it was conveyed. We then ask them: Does that conveyance and clarification remain?


[Page 162]

For us, and until the Day of Resurrection—or are they not enduring? If they say, "Rather, they are enduring until the Day of Resurrection," they have returned to our position and acknowledged that the truth in all that Allah, Exalted is He, revealed concerning religion is clear: what He did not reveal has not been conveyed to us, and this remains so until the Day of Resurrection. This is precisely our position: that a report transmitted by a trustworthy individual from another like him, with an unbroken chain back to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), is certainly true in what it makes clear, and entails both knowledge and action.
But if they say, "Rather, they are not enduring," they have fallen into a grave matter and declared that much of the religion has been lost, that the conveyance of many of the laws has ceased, and that the Messenger of Allah's (peace and blessings be upon him) clarification of much of the religion has vanished so completely that it can never be recovered. This is the position of the Rafidites—or worse than theirs, for the Rafidites claimed that the true religion exists with a person whose presence in the world is assured, whereas these people have abolished it from the entire world. We seek refuge in Allah from both positions.
Furthermore, Allah, Exalted is He, says: {Say, "My Lord has forbidden only indecencies, both open and hidden, sin, wrongful aggression, associating with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and saying about Allah what you do not know."} And He, Exalted is He, says: {They are nothing but names that you and your fathers have given them; Allah has sent down no authority for them. They follow nothing but conjecture and what their souls desire, though guidance has come to them from their Lord.} And He, Exalted is He, says: {They have no knowledge of it; they follow nothing but conjecture, and conjecture can avail nothing against the truth.} And Allah, Exalted is He, censures a people who said: {When it was said, "Allah's promise is true, and there is no doubt about the Hour," you said, "We do not know what the Hour is. We only suppose; we are not certain."} And He, Exalted is He, says: {Those who associate others with Allah will say, "Had Allah willed, we would not have associated anything with Him, nor would our fathers, nor would we have forbidden ..."}


[Page 163]

Something similar was denied by those before them, until they tasted Our might. Say, "Do you have any knowledge that you can produce for us? You follow nothing but conjecture, and you do nothing but guess."} It has been established that Allah, Exalted is He, has made it obligatory for us to act upon the report of a trustworthy individual, transmitted from another like him, all the way back to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him); and to say, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded such-and-such," "He (peace and blessings be upon him) said such-and-such," and "He (peace and blessings be upon him) did such-and-such." He has forbidden speaking about His religion on the basis of conjecture, and Allah, Exalted is He, has forbidden us to say anything about Him without knowledge. If the report in question could contain a lie or an error, Allah, Exalted is He, would have commanded us to say about Him what we do not know, and would have made it obligatory for us to rule in religion on the basis of conjecture, which we cannot be certain of, which is falsehood that avails nothing against the truth, and which is not the guidance that has come to us from Allah, Exalted is He. This is the lie, the slander, and the falsehood that it is unlawful to utter, and that Allah, Exalted is He, has forbidden us to utter, as well as the forbidden fabrication. It is therefore certain that the report in question is true, its unseen content being established beyond doubt, and that it entails both knowledge and action. And Allah, Exalted is He, is the source of success. Thus, anyone who says that acting upon a solitary report is obligatory, yet that it is still conjecture, that its unseen content is not established beyond doubt, and that it does not entail knowledge, is saying that Allah, Exalted is He, has charged us to say about Him what we have no knowledge of, and to rule in our religion on the basis of conjecture, which He, Exalted is He, has forbidden us to use as a basis for judgment.
in religion, and this is very grave. Also, Allah Most High says:

{Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and that over which a name other than Allah's has been invoked; and the strangled animal, the one beaten to death, the one killed by a fall, the one gored to death, and that which a wild beast has eaten—except what you slaughter; and that which is sacrificed upon


[Page 164]

"...and that you seek to determine your fate by means of divining arrows. That is wickedness. Today those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion, so do not fear them; fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and chosen Islam as your religion. But whoever is compelled by severe hunger, without inclining toward sin, then Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." And the Exalted says: "Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers." And the Exalted says: "Indeed, the religion with Allah is Islam. Those who were given the Scripture differed only after knowledge had come to them, out of mutual envy. And whoever disbelieves in the signs of Allah, then Allah is swift in reckoning." And the Exalted says: "Humanity was one community, then Allah sent the prophets as bearers of good news and warners, and sent down with them the Book in truth to judge between people concerning that over which they differed. None differed over it except those who had been given it, after clear proofs had come to them, out of mutual envy. Then Allah guided those who believed to the truth concerning that over which they differed, by His permission. And Allah guides whomever He wills to a straight path." Abu Muhammad said: We say to those who hold it possible that what Allah, Exalted is He, commanded His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to explain to us of the law of Islam has not been preserved, and that it may have been altered and mixed with fabricated lies in such a way that they can never be distinguished: Tell us, does Allah's perfecting the religion, His choosing Islam as our religion, and His refusal to accept any religion other than Islam all remain in force for us until the Day of Resurrection, or were they only for the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), or for neither the Companions nor us? One of these positions must be taken. If they say, "For neither the Companions nor us," then whoever says this is an unbeliever, for he openly denies Allah, Exalted is He. No Muslim would say this. But if they say, "Rather, all of this remains in force for us until the Day of Resurrection," then they are necessarily committed to our position, and it is established that the laws...


[Page 165]

The entirety of Islam, complete, has reached us and will continue to reach us until the Day of Resurrection. If they say, "Rather, it was for him, peace be upon him, only with those who witnessed him, not in the transmission of the religion to those who came after them," we say to them: If you allow the protection from error in transmitting the religion to have lapsed after his death, peace be upon him, and allow corruption, decay, invalidity, addition, omission, and distortion to enter the religion, then on what basis do you distinguish between what you allow to happen after him, peace be upon him, and what you forbid from happening during his lifetime? If they say, "Because then he, peace be upon him, would not have conveyed what he was commanded to convey, nor would he have been protected from error, and Allah, Exalted is He, says: {O Messenger, convey what has been sent down to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people}," it is said to them: Yes, and this very conveyance that you dispute, in which, by your unanimous agreement with us, he, peace be upon him, was protected from lying and error, has reached us just as it reached the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them. There is no difference. The religion is binding upon us just as it was binding upon them, equally in every respect.
Thus, protection from error in conveying the religion is necessary, remains assured, and must continue until the Day of Resurrection, just as it was in force for the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, equally in every respect. Whoever denies this has concluded that the proof in matters of religion is not established against us; yet proof cannot be established by something whose truth or falsehood is unknown. Then we say to them: Allah, Exalted is He, likewise says: {Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will preserve it} … If they claim consensus, we say to them: Among the Karramiyya are those who say that he, peace be upon him, was not protected from error in conveying the Sharia. If they say, "These are not counted among those whose agreement constitutes consensus," we say: You are right; those who say that the religion is not preserved, and that many of the laws Allah, Exalted is He, sent down have indeed…


[Page 166]

It became invalid and was mixed with fabricated falsehood and imagined notions so thoroughly that right guidance could no longer be distinguished from error, truth from falsehood, or the religion of Allah, Exalted is He, from the religion of Satan—ever. If they say, "Rather, the virtue of what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) brought as religion remains protected from error until the Day of Resurrection," then they have arrived at the truth, which is our position, and praise belongs to Allah, Exalted is He. If they say, "The attribute of every reporter and his nature are such that his report may be true or false, or mistaken; and your claim that the report of a single upright narrator in the Sharia necessitates knowledge is contrary to the nature of reports and reporters, and violates the attributes and customary patterns of all of them," we say to them: It is not to be denied that Allah, Exalted is He, may alter whatever natural properties He wills, once proof establishes that He has done so. What is astonishing is that you deny this while holding precisely the same position when you affirm that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was protected from lying and error in conveying the Sharia. This is exactly what you have denied. Indeed, you were not content with contradicting yourselves by affirming it where you were right and denying it in the case of the report of a single upright narrator; you went further and asserted sheer falsehood when you allowed all communities to agree upon error in their consensus of opinion. That is the nature and attribute of all of them. Yet you denied the possibility of error and delusion in what you claim to be the consensus of the Muslim community alone in its reasoning by analogy. Far be it from Allah that the community should agree upon falsehood, while analogy is itself falsehood. Thus you violated customary patterns and declared natural properties impossible without proof—especially if the one opposing us is among the Murji'a, who categorically assert that it is impossible for a Jew or Christian to know in his heart that Allah, Exalted is He, is true. Such people have declared natural properties impossible without proof, yet denied that they could be altered when …


[Page 167]

The proof has established it. If they say, "Then you must say that those who transmitted the religious reports uttered by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) are infallible in transmitting them, and that each one of them is protected in his transmission from deliberately lying and from falling into error," we say to them: Yes, this is what we say, and on this we are certain and firm. Every upright person who transmitted a report from
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), in matters of religion, or his action, peace be upon him: that narrator is protected from deliberately lying, and this is certain in the sight of Allah, Exalted is He. He is also protected from the possibility of erring in it, unless a clarification is conveyed; and Allah, Exalted is He, must clarify what he has erred in, just as He did with His Prophet, peace be upon him, when he mistakenly performed two rak'ahs instead of three, on account of the proofs we have already presented concerning the preservation of the entire Sharia and the clarification of what is not part of it. We know necessarily that anyone who speaks truthfully in any report is, without doubt, protected from lying and error in that report. So what is objectionable about this? If they say, "Allah, Exalted is He, has charged us to think well of Him, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, 'Allah, Exalted is He, says: I am as My servant thinks of Me,'" we say: This has nothing to do with making religious rulings on the basis of conjecture. Rather, it is all one matter, because He, Exalted is He, has forbidden us to say of Him what we do not know. We do not know whether He will forgive us or punish us, so we are obliged to refrain from asserting anything about that, while maintaining hope and fear. He has forbidden us to make claims about religion, prohibition, permissibility, and obligation that we do not know, and He has clarified everything of this that He has imposed upon us. Thus, we must be certain of all of it, just as we must be certain that the unbelievers will remain forever in the Fire and the believers forever in Paradise; there is no difference. It is not permissible to make conjectural claims about any of this. If they say, "You yourselves say that Allah


[Page 168]

The Exalted has commanded us to judge according to the testimony of one upright witness together with the claimant's oath, according to the testimony of two or more upright witnesses, and according to the oath of the defendant when the claimant has no evidence, in cases involving the unlawful taking of lives, unlawful sexual relations, unlawful bodily harm, and unlawful property. By your own admission, all of this could, in reality, be contrary to what the witness testified to and what the person swearing an oath swore to. This is judgment based on conjecture, which you condemned us for in our position on the report of a single narrator. There is no difference. We said to them:
By Allah's enabling grace, there are clear distinctions between the two matters, as clear as the sun. The first is that Allah, Exalted is He, has undertaken to preserve the religion, complete it, and make clear what belongs to it and what does not. But He has never undertaken to preserve our lives, our sexual integrity, our bodies, or our property in this world. Rather, the Exalted has decreed that much of all this will be taken unjustly in this world.
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) explicitly stated this when he said, "You bring your disputes to me, and I am only a human being. Perhaps one of you is more persuasive in his argument than the other, so I may rule in his favor according to what I hear. If I rule in someone's favor concerning any part of his brother's right, let him not take it, for I am only allotting him a portion of the Fire." And when he said to the two spouses who had invoked mutual imprecation, "Allah knows that one of you is lying. Will either of you repent?" Or words to that effect, in all these cases. The second distinction is that our ruling on the basis of a witness's testimony and the oath of the person swearing is not judgment based on conjecture, as they claim. Rather, we are certain and affirm that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has made it obligatory upon us to judge on the basis of the claimant's oath together with the testimony of an upright witness, and on the basis of the defendant's oath when the claimant has no


[Page 169]

A ruling is made on the basis of evidence and the testimony of one upright witness, two upright witnesses, or upright witnesses, according to us, even if in reality they are liars or mistaken. A judgment based on any of this is true in the sight of Allah, Exalted is He, and, in our view, its unseen reality is beyond our knowledge. The proof of this is that if two people bring a dispute before a judge, and the claimant has no evidence, but the judge does not rule in favor of the defendant on the basis of an oath; or if two upright witnesses testify before him, but he does not rule on the basis of their testimony, then that judge is a sinner, disobedient to Allah, Exalted is He, whose testimony is discredited, and an oppressor—whether the defendant is wrong in his denial or in the right, or the witnesses are liars, mistaken, or truthful, so long as he does not know the reality of their case. We are certainly commanded by Allah, Exalted is He, to kill this innocent person against whom false testimony has been given, and to declare lawful this inviolable person and this unlawful property concerning which false testimony has been given. It is forbidden for the wrongdoer to take any of that. Our Lord has decreed that if we do not rule accordingly, we are sinners and disobedient to Him in religion, oppressors, threatened with the Fire for doing so. Allah, Exalted is He, has never commanded us to rule in religion on the basis of a report fabricated by a sinner or misunderstood by someone who is mistaken. Allah, Exalted is He, said: {O you who believe, do not follow the footsteps of Satan, and whoever}
"...follows the footsteps of Satan, for he commands indecency and wrongdoing. Were it not for Allah's grace and His mercy upon you, none of you would ever have been purified; but Allah purifies whom He wills, and Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing."} This is a distinction of the utmost clarity. A third distinction is that we say: Allah, Exalted is He, has made it obligatory upon us to say, throughout the entire Sharia, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said," and "Allah, Exalted is He, has commanded such-and-such," because He, Exalted is He, says: {O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. If you disagree over anything, refer it back...


[Page 170]

to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and fairer in outcome." … So it is incumbent upon us to say: "Allah, Exalted is He, and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) have forbidden us to do such-and-such."
And He commanded us to do such-and-such, but the Exalted never commanded us to say, "This witness has spoken truthfully," or, "This party has sworn truthfully," or, "What we have ruled in favor of this person is certainly his right." Nor did the Exalted say, "This witness has spoken the truth." Rather, the Exalted said to us: "Judge according to the testimony of upright witnesses and the oath of the defendant when no proof has been brought against him." This is a distinction that is unmistakable. Thus, in none of this have we judged on the basis of conjecture at all, praise be to Allah. Rather, we have judged with decisive knowledge and firm certainty that everything we have ruled upon on the basis of a report transmitted by an upright narrator from another upright narrator, back to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), is truth from the Exalted Allah, revealed by our Lord, the Exalted, and attributed to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), as something he is reported to have said. And everything we have ruled upon on the basis of testimony from witnesses we deem upright is a truth established with certainty from the Exalted Allah, because He commanded us to judge by it. He did not command us to say, regarding what they testified to or what the person taking an oath swore, that it is from the Exalted Allah or that it is a truth established with certainty. If they say, "The Exalted said only, {O you who believe, avoid much suspicion; indeed, some suspicion is sin}, and He did not say that all suspicion is sin," we reply: Allah, the Exalted, has made clear the distinction between sin and righteousness: to speak about Him without knowledge is forbidden. This is undoubtedly a kind of suspicion that is sin. Ali said: The Mu'tazilites resorted to refusing to rule on the basis of a solitary report, because of the arguments we have mentioned. They thought that by doing so they had escaped the problem, but they have not escaped it. Rather, everything we have shown to be incumbent upon others is incumbent upon them as well. We therefore say to them—and Allah, the Exalted, is the source of success—tell us about the reports narrated by ...


[Page 171]

Are solitary reports all true if they are transmitted specifically by reliable narrators, or are they all false, or do they contain both truth and falsehood? If they say that they contain both truth and falsehood—and this is their position—we say to them: Is it permissible for a law that Allah, Exalted is He, revealed to His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) so that he might explain it to His servants to be corrupted, until it becomes mixed with a lie fabricated by a wicked person and attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), or with an error made by someone who errs, so that the truth enjoined upon us becomes mixed with fabricated falsehood in such a way that the truth can never be distinguished from falsehood by anyone? And is it permissible that
Are all the Islamic laws preserved and binding upon us, or are they not preserved, and are not all of them binding upon us, but rather many of them ceased to apply after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)? Has Allah, Exalted is He, established proof against us regarding the laws He prescribed, in that they are clear to us and distinguishable from what He did not command us to do? Or has Allah, Exalted is He, not established proof against us in religion, because much of it is mixed with lies and can never be distinguished from them? If they allow the laws of religion that Allah, Exalted is He, revealed to His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to be mixed with what is not in
the religion, and they said, "No proof from Allah, Exalted is He, has been established against us concerning what He commanded us to do," they would fall into the same argument for the corruption of the Sharia, the disappearance of Islam, and the invalidation of Allah's guarantee to preserve the Reminder as others have fallen into, letter for letter, exactly alike. They would be bound to have abandoned much of the sound religion, just as others are bound to be acting on what is not part of the religion, and that the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) clarification has been nullified, and that Allah's proof through him has not been established against us, exactly alike. This is self-evident. If they resort to restricting themselves to reports transmitted by mass transmission (tawatur), they will still be unable to escape the fact that much of the religion has been nullified through its being mixed with fabricated lies and what is merely conjectured, and that it is possible that there be a ...


[Page 172]

Many of the laws of Islam have not been transmitted to us, since Allah Most High's guarantee of their preservation no longer applies to them. Moreover, no one is incapable of claiming that any report he wishes was transmitted by mass transmission (tawatur). Indeed, the proponents of chains of transmission have the stronger claim in this regard, given the large number of transmitters and the variation in their chains, which attest to the soundness of their claim that they were transmitted by mass transmission. And Allah Most High is the source of success. If someone resorts to saying that every report transmitted through the route of reliable individuals is a fabricated lie, none of which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ever said, we say—and Allah Most High is the source of success—that this is open defiance and a rejection of what we know with certainty to be otherwise. It is a denial of all the Companions, from the first to the last, of all the eminent Successors, and of every generation of scholars, one after another. For all those we have mentioned undoubtedly transmitted reports from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him); some cited them as proof against others, acted upon them, and issued religious rulings based on them. This is a rejection of a consensus known with certainty, and it is plainly false, beyond any possibility of doubt. For we know necessarily that it is utterly impossible that every one of those we have mentioned never spoke truthfully in a single report he transmitted, and that they all fabricated everything they transmitted. Moreover, this would invalidate the laws that no Muslim or non-Muslim doubts are not set out in detail in the Quran, such as prayer, zakat, pilgrimage, and other matters, whose details were taken only from the words of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). This entails the certainty that every Companion who transmitted from the Messenger of Allah...
Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, for he is the one who fabricated and invented the lie about the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and no one on earth doubts that every


[Page 173]

A Companion who had heard from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would relate it to his family and neighbors. This establishes that the laws were laid down for all of them, from the first to the last. The Rafidites and Kharijites have never gone so far as this, even though it is a claim without proof. Whatever is like that is certainly false, according to three positions, as you can see; there is no fourth.
Either every report transmitted by a trustworthy narrator from another trustworthy narrator, reaching back to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), is entirely false, fabricated from beginning to end—and this is certainly false, as we have shown—or else it would mean that every Companion, Successor, and scholar, without exception, agreed to invent the laws and lie about them in the name of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). This is a renunciation of Islam. Or else some of these reports are true and some false, but no one can ever distinguish the true from the false. This is to deny Allah, Exalted is He, in His declaration that He would preserve the revealed Reminder, that He had perfected the religion for us, and that He accepts from us only the religion of Islam and nothing else. It also entails the corruption of the religion and its mingling with things Allah, Exalted is He, never commanded, and that no one in the world can know what Allah has commanded him in his religion and what He has never commanded him. It means that the reality of Islam and its laws have certainly been nullified. This is a renunciation of
Islam, or that they are all definitively true in their unseen reality with Allah, Exalted is He, and all necessarily yield certain knowledge, because Allah, Exalted is He, has stated that He preserves the Reminder He sent down; because He has forbidden judging in religion on the basis of conjecture and speaking about Him without knowledge; and because He has stated that He has made clear the right guidance as distinct from error. Right guidance is nothing other than what Allah, Exalted is He, sent down through the words of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and in his actions, while error is nothing other than what Allah, Exalted is He, did not send down.


[Page 174]

on the tongue of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This is our position, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. Ali said: Since this position has now been established with certainty, and everything else has been invalidated, let us, with the help of Allah Almighty, discuss its classification. We say, and through Allah Almighty we seek support: We are certain, praise be to Allah, that no law which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded, recommended, or practiced could be lost without reaching someone among his community, either through mass transmission or through the transmission of a trustworthy narrator from another trustworthy narrator, until it reached him (peace and blessings be upon him). We are also absolutely certain that Allah Almighty would not single out for transmitting it someone whose transmission, even if he were upright, could not establish proof. We are also absolutely certain that there could not be a law in which its trustworthy narrator errs without a clear and evident explanation establishing that he has erred in it. And we are also absolutely certain, or that He would declare…
Allah, Mighty and Majestic, from one whose transmission has established proof for us, concerning the wording of a hadith containing a ruling that he attributes to someone whose transmission establishes proof, until he traces it back to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Likewise, we state categorically and affirm that every report that has only ever been transmitted as a mursal report, or has only ever been narrated by an unknown narrator or one whose discrediting is established, is undoubtedly a false report, fabricated and not uttered by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). For if it were possible that it was true, it would be a valid ruling of the Sharia, but one not binding upon us, since proof has not been established against us concerning it.
Ali said: This ruling that we have set out applies only to what has been transmitted by those whose uprightness is agreed upon, such as the Companions and the trustworthy Successors, then Shu'ba, Sufyan, Sufyan, Malik, and the other imams of their time and those who came after them, down to us and until the Day of Resurrection; and to everyone whose criticism is established, such as al-Hasan ibn Umara, Jabir al-Ju'fi, and all the other narrators whose criticism is established. As for those concerning whom there is disagreement, with some declaring them upright and others criticizing them, if it is established for us that


[Page 175]

If we are certain of his uprightness, we are certain that his report is sound; and if his discredit is established for us, we are certain that his report is invalid. If neither of these is established for us, we suspend judgment on the matter, while being absolutely certain that someone else must have established one of the two concerning him. Our error, if we err, and our ignorance, if we are ignorant, cannot be proof that Allah's religion must be lost. Rather, the truth is established and known to one group, even if another is ignorant of it; and likewise with falsehood, just as some people are ignorant of what we know. Grace is in Allah's hand; He grants it to whomever He wills. An error in a trustworthy narrator's report can be established only in one of three ways: either the narrator verifies it and admits that he made an error in it; or a reliable person testifies that he heard the report alongside its narrator and that so-and-so made a mistake in it; or direct observation makes it certain that he made an error. Ali said: Likewise, we are certain and decisive regarding any two sound reports that conflict, any two verses that conflict, any verse and sound report that conflict, and any two conflicting texts for which no explicit text has established that one abrogates the other: the ruling that adds to the ruling established by the original precedent is the abrogating one, while the ruling that accords with the original precedent is certainly and unquestionably the abrogated one. This follows from the proofs we have already presented: that the religion is preserved. For if it were possible for an abrogating text to be concealed among abrogated ones, or for there to be a general text that no sound text specifies, while its intended meaning is particular, then the religion would not be preserved, the proof in the Sharia would not be binding on anyone, and we would be charged with acting on false conjecture, which is forbidden, indeed with acting on something Allah, Exalted is He, never commanded. This is certainly false. Ali said: If one day it is found that we have said otherwise, then we repent to Allah, Exalted is He, for it. It is a slip for which we ask Allah, Mighty and Majestic, to forgive us, and we hope that no such thing will be found in our words.


[Page 176]

Ibn Hazm said: "Another proof is that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent a messenger to every king among the kings of the earth who were neighbors to the lands of the Arabs. Some of those who disagree with us have objected to this, saying that delegations and merchants came at the Prophet's command, so he did not rely on the messenger alone. Abu Muhammad said: This is sophistry and deception, which can only persuade the weak. We have no doubt that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not limit the aforementioned messengers to informing people of his appearance and miracles, which were reported by delegations and travelers. Rather, he instructed them to teach those who embraced Islam the laws of Islam and the rulings on worship and other matters, none of which had been conveyed by delegations and travelers. The sending of these messengers is well known and reliably transmitted by numerous narrators. Thus, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) required every king and his subjects to accept what the messenger sent to them informed them of regarding the laws of their religion. Ali said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) likewise sent Muadh to al-Jund and parts of Yemen, and Abu Musa to another region, namely Zabid and elsewhere;
and Abu Bakr to lead the people in the pilgrimage, and Abu Ubayda to Najran, and Ali to Yemen as a judge. Each of these went to a region to teach its people the laws of Islam. He likewise sent a commander to every region that embraced Islam, whether far from him or near, such as the farthest parts of Yemen, Bahrain, and all the other regions, districts, and tribes that embraced Islam. To each group he sent a man to teach them their religion and the Quran, give them legal rulings on matters of their religion, judge disputes among them, and convey to them what Allah required of them.


[Page 177]

Exalted is He, and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and they are commanded to accept what they report to them from their Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
The sending of these people mentioned above is well known through mass transmission, from both disbelievers and believers. None of the scholars or Muslims doubts it, nor that they were sent only for the reason we have stated. It is impossible and false to suppose that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent them to people who would not be bound by the proof established through their conveying the message, who would not be obliged to accept what they taught them of the Quran and the rulings of religion, what they gave them as legal opinions, or to submit to what they reported to them in all these matters from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). For if that were so, his sending them would have been pointless, and he would have been saying to the Muslims: "I have sent you people whom you are not obliged to accept when they convey to you what I have said, and whom you are required to disregard when they transmit something from me or tell you what I have said." Whoever holds this view has departed from Islam. The same applies to someone who grows up in a village or city where there is only one Quran reciter, one hadith scholar, or one mufti. We say to those who disagree with us: What do you say? Is someone obliged, when he studies the Quran with that reciter, to believe what he teaches him and affirm that it is the word of Allah, Exalted is He, and remain firm in that belief? Or must he doubt and not affirm that it is the word of Allah, Mighty and Majestic? If they say that he is obliged to affirm that it is the word of Allah, Exalted is He, we say: You are right. So what difference is there between their transmission of the Quran and their transmission of the other Sunnahs, when both are from Allah, Exalted is He, and acceptance of both is obligatory? But if they say that he must doubt it until he meets a large number of people, they have committed a grave offense against religion. We then ask them about someone who meets two, three, or four people in this way: they must set a limit.


[Page 178]

They stop at the number mentioned there, so their claim is absurd and false, and an assertion without proof; or they refer to something nonexistent in a matter without which, according to their position, accepting the Quran and religion would not be valid. This would invalidate the religion and the Quran altogether and prohibit relying on them. We seek refuge in Allah from that. The same applies to the obligation to obey anyone who received a Quran or Sunnah from those messengers and conveyed it to someone else. For those lands are vast, and it is impossible for each of those messengers to meet every man and woman among them. Rather, he conveys it, and the one to whom he conveys it conveys it in turn, and so on indefinitely, lest some ignorant person say, "This was specific to those messengers."

No two Muslims disagree that if a trustworthy Muslim entered the land of unbelief, called a people to Islam, recited the Quran to them, and taught them the religious laws, they would be obliged to accept it, and proof would thereby have been established against them. The same would apply if the caliph or ruler sent a messenger to one of the kings of unbelief or to one of the nations of unbelief,

calling them to Islam and teaching them the Quran and the laws of religion. There is no difference. No Muslim has ever said that the people of Yemen were entitled to say to Muadh, or to anyone whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sent to any region as a teacher, jurist, and Quran reciter: "Yes, you are the Messenger of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and the bond of faith is binding

upon us; but we will not accept from you or take from you what you have given us as legal rulings and taught us of the rules of prayer, the cases concerning zakat, and the rest of the religion, from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), nor what you have recited to us of the Quran on his authority, because lying is possible on your part."


[Page 179]

And it is inconceivable that you should suppose that all of this would reach us only through complete and mass-transmitted reports. Indeed, if they had said that, they would not have been Muslims. Likewise, no two people disagree that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent his messengers to distant lands only to convey to their people the Quran, the Sunnah, and the laws of religion, and that he did not send them to establish for them a religion that he himself had not brought from Allah, Exalted is He. All of this makes it clear that everything reliably transmitted from one trustworthy person to another, reaching back to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), whether Quran or Sunnah, must be accepted, acknowledged, affirmed, believed in, and followed as religion.
Second: Their claim that an error may occur on the part of someone transmitting the Sunnah. We say: By the same token, an error may occur on the part of someone transmitting the Quran. A reciting teacher may make a mistake, but that does not prevent the Quran from conveying knowledge.
It is likewise established that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made certain judgments through personal reasoning, such as taking ransom from the captives of Badr, and that he was not left to that judgment; rather, the revelation came down: "Had it not been for a prior decree from Allah, you would have been afflicted by a great punishment for what you took ..." [end of verse]. Likewise, Allah's saying, "And you fear the people," and His saying, "He frowned and turned away." He (peace and blessings be upon him) was not left to such matters; rather, clarification came down to guide him. It is also established in the Sunnah that he (peace and blessings be upon him) forgot, but he was reminded, even though he was a model to follow. He said, "I am only a human being; I forget just as you forget. So when I forget, remind me."
None of this prevented his words (peace and blessings be upon him) from being authoritative in matters of belief and practice.


[Page 180]

Third: They say that solitary reports (akhbar al-ahad) establish only practice, but there are hadiths from which practice can be derived only by establishing knowledge. An example is: "Allah has cursed the woman who tattoos and the woman who has herself tattooed, the woman who joins hair extensions and the woman who has her teeth filed for beauty." The cursing of one who alters the landmarks of the land
"Whoever plays with dice has disobeyed Allah." "He cursed men who imitate women, and women who imitate men."
And many other hadiths containing the words "will not enter Paradise," such as "A talebearer will not enter Paradise." Likewise, some recommended acts, as in: "I guarantee a house in the middle of Paradise."
And likewise, "There is no marriage without a guardian,"
"There is no prayer without the Mother of the Quran,"
and many other examples. The obligation, prohibition, or recommendation is not derived from the words "Do" or "Do not," or "You should do," but rather from reports conveying knowledge that one will enter Paradise or Hell, or not enter them, that the person who does it is cursed, or that the act is invalid. All of these are matters of knowledge that must first be established; only then can a practical ruling be derived from them, namely, that the act is prohibited, obligatory, or recommended. This is so only after believing in the reward and punishment stated in the hadith. If it does not establish a belief, then consequently it does not establish a practical ruling.
Fourth: Those Who Held That a Solitary Report Accompanied by Corroborating Indicators Yields Knowledge
"Al-Sijzi's Epistle to the People of Zabid in Refutation of Those Who Denied the Letter and Sound" (p. 284):


[Page 181]

Ibn Taymiyya, Shaykh al-Islam, transmitted this from the followers of the four imams and others, saying:
"As for the second category of reports, these are reports narrated only by a single upright narrator or the like, whose wording and meaning have not been transmitted by mass transmission, but which the community has received with acceptance, either by acting upon them or affirming them … These yield certain knowledge according to the vast majority of the community of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), among both the early and later generations. There was no disagreement about this among the early generations. As for the later generations, this was the position of the leading jurists among the followers of the four imams. The issue is recorded in the books of the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is, and Hanbalis, such as al-Sarakhsi and Abu Bakr al-Razi among the Hanafis; Shaykh Abu Hamid, Abu al-Tayyib, and Shaykh Abu Ishaq among the Shafi'is; Ibn Khuwaz Mindad and others among the Malikis; and Abu Ya'la, Ibn Abi Musa, Abu al-Khattab, and others among the Hanbalis. It was also the position of Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini, Ibn Furak, and Abu Ishaq al-Nazzam among the theologians. Only a group, such as Ibn al-Baqillani and those who followed him, including Abu al-Ma'ali, al-Ghazali, and Ibn Aqil, disputed this. See: Mukhtasar al-Sawa'iq al-Mursala, 2/372–373."
In Mukhtasar al-Sawa'iq al-Mursala ala al-Jahmiyya wa al-Mu'attila (p. 553), it says:
"This is what those who deny that reports from the Messenger of Allah yield knowledge have relied upon. By doing so, they violated the consensus of the Companions, which is known with certainty through the consensus of the Successors and the consensus of the imams of Islam. They thereby agreed with the Mu'tazila, Jahmiyya, Rafida, and Kharijites, who violated this sanctity. Some of the scholars of legal theory and jurists followed them; otherwise, no early imam is known to have held this position. Rather, the imams explicitly stated the opposite of what they say.


[Page 182]

Among those who explicitly stated that a solitary report (khabar al-wahid) yields knowledge are Malik, al-Shafi'i, the companions of Abu Hanifa, Dawud ibn Ali and his companions, such as Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm; this was also explicitly stated by al-Husayn ibn Ali al-Karabisi and al-Harith ibn Asad al-Muhasibi.
Ibn Khuwaz Mindad said in his book on the principles of jurisprudence, after mentioning the solitary report narrated by only one or two people: "This kind of report, too, can yield necessary knowledge." Malik explicitly stated this. Ahmad said regarding the hadith about the vision: "We know that it is true, and we are certain of our knowledge of it." Al-Marwadhi likewise narrated: "I said to Abu Abd Allah, 'There are two people here who say that a report entails action but does not entail knowledge.' He disapproved of this and said, 'I do not know what this is.'" The Qadi said: "The apparent meaning of this is that he equates knowledge with action." The Qadi also said at the beginning of the section on reports: "A solitary report entails knowledge if its chain of transmission is sound, there is no disagreement in its transmission, and the community has received it with acceptance. Our companions state this categorically, saying that it entails knowledge even if the community has not received it with acceptance." He said: "The school's position is as I have described, and no other."
He thus explicitly stated that this is the school's position. In the narration of Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Tirmidhi, he stated that one must affirm a report from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Another narration from him indicates that a solitary report does not yield knowledge, for in the narration of al-Marwadhi he said: "When a hadith comes from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) with a sound chain of transmission and contains a ruling or an obligation, I act upon it and worship Allah in accordance with it, but I do not testify that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said it." The discussion of the meaning of this narration will come later, if Allah Most High wills.


[Page 183]

Ibn Abi Yunus said at the beginning of al-Irshad: "A solitary report (khabar al-wahid) entails both knowledge and action." Qadi Abu Ya'la stated that this position is held by the majority.
Shaykh Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi said in his works on legal theory, such as al-Tabsira, Sharh al-Luma, and others. These are his words in the commentary: "A solitary report, when the community receives it with acceptance, entails knowledge and action, whether everyone acts upon it or only some do." He did not report any disagreement on this among the companions of al-Shafi'i. Qadi Abd al-Wahhab, among the Malikis, attributed this position to a group of jurists. The Hanafis explicitly state in their books that a widely transmitted report (khabar al-mustafid) entails knowledge. They cite as an example the Prophet's statement (peace and blessings be upon him): "There is no bequest for an heir." They say that although it was transmitted only through solitary chains, it is accepted. They also cite the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud concerning two parties to a sale who disagree: the seller's word is accepted, or they rescind the sale. They further cite the hadith of Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf concerning the collection of jizya from the Magians, and likewise the hadith of al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba and Muhammad ibn Maslama concerning giving a grandmother one-sixth. The early and later generations agreed to apply the rulings of these reports when they heard them. This demonstrates that their transmission is sound and that they are free of defect. Even if some people opposed them, in our view these are anomalous opinions, and their proponents are not counted in determining consensus."
He said: "We have said that reports following this course entail knowledge of the truthfulness of the one who reported them because, when we find that the early generations agreed to accept a report of this description without verifying it or opposing it on the basis of the foundational principles, or when a similar report is related, while we know their methods of accepting reports, examining them, and comparing them with the foundational principles, this indicates to us"


[Page 184]

That is among their affairs, since they did not adopt his ruling except because its soundness and correctness had been established for them; this therefore made it necessary for us to know that it was sound. These are the words of Abu Bakr al-Razi in his book Principles of Jurisprudence.
It is known to everyone of sound senses and sound reason that the hadiths concerning the vision, the call, the descent, the speaking, and other attributes have been transmitted through numerous channels, and that the community received them with acceptance to a degree far greater than the widespread transmission of the hadith about the two parties to a sale having the option to rescind, the hadith "There is no bequest for an heir," and the hadith concerning the grandmother's prescribed share. Indeed, there is no comparison between the widespread transmission of the hadiths concerning the attributes and that of these hadiths. Can any rational person reasonably say that the latter establish knowledge while the former do not, unless he is being obstinate?
Al-Shafi'i explicitly stated in his books that a solitary report yields knowledge. He stated this plainly in his book The Disagreement of Malik, and in the Egyptian Epistle he argued that it does not establish the kind of knowledge established by a text of the Book or a mass-transmitted report. We shall cite his wording in both books.
In the Epistle he said: "As for a practice established by a report from a particular source, where reports may differ and the report may admit of interpretation, and the report has come by way of a single transmitter, the proof concerning it, in my view, is that it must bind the scholars, so that they may not reject what has been explicitly stated in it, just as they are bound to accept the testimony of upright witnesses. This is not, however, certainty of knowledge, as is the case with a text of the Book and a report transmitted by the public from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). If anyone were to doubt this, we would not tell him to repent; rather, we would say: If you are a scholar, you have no right to doubt, just as you have no choice but to rule on the basis of the testimony of upright witnesses, even if"


[Page 185]

It is possible that they made a mistake, but you judge by that according to the apparent truthfulness of their testimony; and Allah is the Guardian of what is hidden from you in this matter. End quote.
This is his explicit statement concerning a report open to interpretation, with nothing to support it other than its being a solitary report. There is no dispute about this, for it is open to error in both its chain and its wording. Our discussion concerns reports that were received with acceptance and became well known among the community, and that one person stated in the presence of a group, none of whom objected; rather, the hearer accepted it and affirmed by it an attribute of the Lord, Exalted is He, and denounced those who denied it, just as all the imams of Islam denounced those who denied the Lord's attributes reported in the texts and branded them innovators.
As for what he mentioned in his later book, he said: I said to him—meaning the person debating him: "What do you think if someone says to you, 'I suspect everything you have narrated from those from whom you narrated it, for I fear that every hadith transmitter among them may have erred in what he heard from the person who narrated to him, when something contrary to it is narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)'?" It is not permissible to suspect the reports of trustworthy people. I said: "Did any of them narrate it except as one person from another?" He said: "No." I said: "And was it narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as one person from another?" He said: "Yes." I said: "We know that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said it only through the truthfulness of the transmitter in our view, and we know that the person whose statement we have cited said it on the basis of a single report." He said: "Yes." I said: "And our knowledge that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said it is like our knowledge that the person we have named said it." He said: "Yes." I said: "So, when the two kinds of knowledge derived from the report of a truthful person are equal, which report should we give precedence to: the report from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and act upon it, or the report from someone below him?" He said: "Rather, the report from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), if it is established." I said: "Their establishment..."


[Page 186]

One, he said: The report from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) has greater claim on us that we should turn to it. If you introduce the possibility of error among those who report from him, then that possibility will arise for you in every report transmitted that contradicts the report that came from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). (If you say: "We establish it on the basis of the report of truthful people,") then what is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has greater claim, in our view, to be followed.
As you can see, he explicitly stated that if one person reports from another, from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and it is known that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said it, then the narrator is to be believed in our view and not contradicted. This is his explicit statement in al-Risala. There, he only denied that the knowledge gained from it is equal to the knowledge gained from the text of the Book and from a mass-transmitted report. This is correct, for knowledge varies in strength and weakness. Al-Qadi said, in the narration of Hanbal from Ahmad concerning the hadiths about the vision: "We believe in them and know that they are true." He said: "Thus he affirmed certain knowledge of them." A group of our companions adopted the apparent meaning of these words and said: "A solitary report, if it concerns the Sharia, yields knowledge." He said: "In my view, this is to be understood in a sound sense of Ahmad's words: that it yields knowledge by way of inference, not by way of necessity."
Inference yields knowledge in four ways:
The first is that the community receives it with acceptance; this indicates that it is true, because the community does not agree upon error. The community's acceptance indicates that proof of its soundness has been established for them, since it is customary that the community does not collectively accept a solitary report for which proof has not been established; rather, some people accept it and others reject it. The second: the report of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ...


[Page 187]

Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he is one person, so his truthfulness is established with certainty, because the proof has established his infallibility. Third: that one person reports something and claims to have heard it from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and he does not deny it. What indicates that it is true is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) does not tacitly approve of a lie.
Fourth: that one person reports something and claims that a large number of people heard it from him, and none of them denies it. This indicates that it is true, because if it were a lie, they would not all have agreed to remain silent rather than declare him a liar. The knowledge arising from all of this is acquired, because it results from reflection and inference.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: I say, his restriction of the solitary reports that yield knowledge is not comprehensive, because among the things that yield knowledge are reports that the Messenger himself also received with acceptance, such as his reports concerning Tamim al-Dari and what he reported, affirming him in it. Another example is two people reporting an incident when one knows that they did not collude over it, and it is ordinarily unlikely that they would agree to lie about it or make a mistake, and so on.
I say: The solitary reports that yield knowledge are not confined to these cases. Rather, a person receiving a report may attain knowledge of which he has no doubt through many such reports. For example, if someone who has never been found to lie tells him that he witnessed it, he then becomes certain of it with certainty that is necessary or nearly so. Likewise, if reporting it would bring harm upon the person, yet he reports it out of religious devotion and fear of Allah, Exalted is He; for example, if he comes forward voluntarily and reports against himself a crime for which he has incurred a prescribed punishment, seeking to be purified of it through that punishment; or if he admits against himself a right claimed against him when there is no evidence and no oath being demanded of him, and he faces no fear of harm if he denies it; or if he informs the mufti of something he did so that he may obtain for himself


[Page 188]

The way out of it, or someone telling a doctor about a pain he is experiencing and seeking its relief, involves reports many times more numerous than this, whose truthfulness the hearer is certain of. How, then, can anyone feel at ease and speak freely, claiming that the report of al-Siddiq, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, Ali ibn Abi Talib, and Abd Allah ibn Masud (may Allah be pleased with them), when they said, "We heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) say such-and-such," does not yield knowledge at all? Glory be to You! This is a tremendous slander.
We testify by Allah that when these men reported something from the Messenger of Allah, their truthfulness was taken as certain. We testify by Allah that when they reported something from other Companions and Successors, their truthfulness was likewise taken as certain. Indeed, we testify by Allah that Salim, Nafi, Said ibn al-Musayyib, and those like them held this same standing; and Malik, al-Awzai, al-Layth, and those like them did too. Neither we nor anyone who knows these men would entertain any doubt about what Malik says: "I heard Nafi say, 'I heard Ibn Umar say, "I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say..."'" We are certain that our opponents are mistaken in this matter.
A group of scholars of legal theory held that when consensus is reached on acting upon a solitary report, it becomes like a mass-transmitted report. Ibn Burhan related this view, but preferred the opinion that it does not become like a mass-transmitted report. Another group held that if one person makes a claim before a group, asserting its truth in their presence, and they remain silent, his report becomes like a mass-transmitted report. A group of Ahmad's followers and others held that anyone who denies what is established by the report of a trustworthy, upright narrator is an unbeliever. This was the position of Ishaq ibn Rahawayh. The one who denies that a solitary report yields knowledge has fallen into error because of a false analogy: he likened the person reporting from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) to ...


[Page 189]

Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) with a law applying generally to the community, or with one of the attributes of the Lord, Exalted is He, to the testimony of a witness concerning a particular case. How great the difference between the two! For if one reporting from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) were assumed to have lied deliberately or by mistake, and nothing appeared to indicate his falsehood, that would necessarily entail leading people astray. The discussion concerns a report that the community received with acceptance and acted upon, and by which it affirmed the attributes and acts of the Lord. For reports that must be accepted according to the Sharia cannot be false in reality, especially when the entire community has accepted them. The same must be said of every proof that must be followed according to the Sharia: it can only be true, and what it indicates must therefore be established in reality.
This applies to what is reported concerning the law of the Lord, Exalted is He, and His names and attributes, unlike a particular testimony concerning a particular person against whom testimony is given; the implication of such testimony may not be established in reality. He distorted the issue by claiming that a report through which Allah has made the community accountable and made Himself known to them, on the tongue of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), in affirming His names and attributes, could be false and untrue in reality. For it is one of Allah's proofs against His servants, and Allah's proofs cannot be false or untrue; rather, they can only be true in reality. It is not permissible for the proofs of truth and falsehood to be equal, nor is it permissible for a lie about Allah, His law, and His religion to be indistinguishable from the revelation He sent down to His Messenger and by which He made His creation accountable, such that one cannot be distinguished from the other. For the difference between truth and falsehood, truthfulness and lying, and the revelation of Satan and the revelation of the angel from Allah is too clear for either to be confused with the other. Indeed, Allah has placed a light upon the truth.


[Page 190]

Like the light of the sun, it appears to those whose insight is illuminated; and he clothed falsehood in the darkness of night. It is not surprising that falsehood should be confused with daylight by one blind in sight, just as truth and falsehood are confused by one blind in insight.
Muadh ibn Jabal said in his judgment: "Accept the truth from whoever says it, for the truth has a light." But when hearts grew dark and insights were blinded by turning away from what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) brought, and the darkness increased as they contented themselves with the opinions of men, truth became confused with falsehood for them. They deemed it possible that his sound hadiths, transmitted by the most upright and truthful members of the community, could be lies, while they deemed it possible that the false, fabricated, and contradictory hadiths that accorded with their desires could be true, and so they took shelter behind them.
The crux of the matter is this: can the report of upright, trustworthy transmitters, which Allah Most High has made it obligatory for Muslims to act upon, be false or mistaken in reality, with Allah providing no indication of that? Whoever says that it yields certain knowledge says that this is not possible; rather, whenever the conditions that make acting upon it obligatory are met, what it reports must be established in reality. On this basis, they disputed whether one who rejects it is an unbeliever, since it is among the proofs that yield certain knowledge, just as they discussed whether one who denies consensus is an unbeliever. If someone rejects a sound report because he believes the transmitter erred or lied, or because he believes that the infallible would not say such a thing, or because he believes it was abrogated, or for a similar reason, and rejects it through independent reasoning and out of zeal to uphold the truth, he does not thereby become an unbeliever or a sinner. More than one of the Companions rejected some sound solitary reports, just as Umar rejected the hadith of Fatima bint Qays concerning the annulment of


[Page 191]

the maintenance of a woman divorced three times. Likewise, Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) rejected Ibn Umar's hadith about the deceased being punished because of his family's weeping for him, and other such reports.

Section

As for al-Athram's report from Ahmad that he would not testify on the basis of a report from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), yet act upon it, this is a report transmitted by al-Athram alone. It is not found in Ahmad's Questions or in the Book of the Sunnah. Rather, al-Qadi related that he had found it in the Book of the Meanings of Hadith. Al-Athram did not say that he had heard this from Ahmad; perhaps it had reached him through someone who had mistakenly attributed those words to him. None of Ahmad's companions transmitted this from him. Rather, what is authentically transmitted from him is that he affirmed that the ten were in Paradise, although the report concerning this is a solitary report. Perhaps his hesitation to testify was out of scrupulousness. He would affirm that certain things were forbidden, yet refrain from applying the word "forbidden" to them; and he would affirm that certain things were forbidden, yet refrain, out of scrupulousness, from applying the word "obligatory" to them. Instead, he would say, "I disapprove of such-and-such," or, "I recommend such-and-such." This is common in his answers.

In one place he said: "We do not testify that any of the people of the qibla is in the Fire on account of a sin he committed or a major sin he perpetrated, unless there is a hadith about it; then we affirm it and know that it is as reported, but we do not state the testimony explicitly. Nor do we testify that anyone is in Paradise on account of a righteous deed he performed or a good deed he did, unless there is a hadith about it; then we accept it as reported, according to what has been transmitted, but we do not state it explicitly." Al-Qadi said: "By 'we do not state the testimony explicitly,' I understand him to mean that we do not make a definitive judgment about it."


[Page 192]

Shaykh al-Islam said: The wording "we affirm" means that we attest to its meaning, not that we testify about a specific individual. Otherwise, he said, "We know that it is as it has come down," and this entails that it conveys knowledge.
Moreover, it is part of his foundational position that he testifies that the ten are in Paradise, on the basis of the report that has been transmitted; and that report is a solitary report. He said, "I testify" and "I know" as one and the same thing. This is evidence that he testifies on the basis of what a solitary report entails, although Ibn al-Madini and others disagreed with him.
Ibn al-Madini said: They say, "The reports of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) convey knowledge." Allah, Exalted is He, says: {He does not speak from his own desire; it is only revelation sent down to him} [al-Najm: 3].
And He, Exalted is He, said, commanding His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to say: {I follow only what is revealed to me} [al-An'am: 50]. And He, Exalted is He, said: {Indeed, We have sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will preserve it} [al-Hijr: 9]. And He, Exalted is He, said: {And We sent down the Reminder to you so that you may make clear to people what was sent down to them} [al-Nahl: 44]. They said: It is thus known that all of the Messenger of Allah's (peace and blessings be upon him) speech concerning religion is revelation from Allah, and every revelation from Allah is a Reminder that Allah sent down. Allah, Exalted is He, said: {And Allah sent down to you the Book and the Wisdom} [al-Nisa: 113]. The Book is the Quran, and the Wisdom is the Sunnah. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "I have been given the Book and something like it along with it." He thus informed us that he was given the Sunnah just as he was given the Book. Allah, Exalted is He, has guaranteed the preservation of what He revealed to him and sent down upon him, so that through it He may establish His proof against His servants until the end of time. They said: If it were possible for these reports to be false, they would not be from Allah, nor would they be among what He sent down.


[Page 193]

Allah upon His Messenger and granted him its explanation and clarification of it. How, then, could His proof against His creation be established by something that might in reality be false? For the Sunnah serves as an explanation of the Book and a clarification of what is intended; it is what makes known to us what Allah intends by His Book. If it were possible for it to be false and mistaken, Allah's proof against His servants would be invalidated. Anyone confronted with a Sunnah that clarifies and explains the Quran could say, "This is a solitary report that does not yield knowledge, so no proof can be established against me by something that does not yield knowledge." This is the inevitable consequence of this corrupt doctrine, and those who carry it through most consistently are the furthest from knowledge and faith.
What is truly astonishing is that they refuse to rely on the reports of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), claiming that they do not yield knowledge, yet they rely on mental fancies and false doubts that they received from the people of philosophy, Jahmism, and Mu'tazilism, and claim that these are rational proofs.
Ibn al-Qayyim quoted Ibn Hazm: "The eleventh proof: Those who deny that the reports of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) yield knowledge bear decisive, categorical testimony concerning their imams and their doctrines and statements, affirming that they said such things. Were someone to say that these statements had not been authentically transmitted from them, they would reject that most vehemently and marvel at the ignorance of whoever said it. Yet it is well known that those doctrines were transmitted from them only by one, two, or three people, or the like; they were not transmitted from them by a number sufficient to establish mass transmission. This is known with certainty.
How, then, do they attain necessary knowledge, or knowledge approaching the necessary, that their imams and those whose religion they followed issued such-and-such a legal opinion and held such-and-such a view, while they do not attain it from what Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Umar ibn al-Khattab, and all the Companions reported from the Messenger of Allah"


[Page 194]

May Allah bless him and grant him peace, nor by what the Successors narrated from them, which became widespread and well known in the community, with its chains of transmission multiplying and varying, while his concern for it was far greater than the concern of those people for the sayings of the authorities they follow? This is truly astonishing beyond measure."

From what has preceded, it is clear that solitary reports (ahad) yield knowledge.

(Evidence that one is not deemed an unbeliever on account of interpretation or ignorance, provided one has general faith and does not falsely attribute anything to Allah, whether by affirming or denying it)

By this heading I mean that whoever, following evidence that led him to a mistaken action or belief, does so while seeking nothing but Allah's ruling on the matter, and does not lie about Allah or deny anything of Him merely on the basis of conjecture without proof, is excused. Likewise, whoever is ignorant of something in the Sharia that he is not required to know, while submitting and holding general faith, and without falsely attributing anything to Allah by affirming or denying it, is also excused. A number of legal proofs indicate that a Muslim is excused for ignorance in matters of creed. They are:

First: The legal texts that show that one who errs is excused, such as the words of Allah, Exalted is He: {Our Lord, do not take us to task if we forget or make a mistake} (al-Baqara 2:286).

Allah, Exalted is He, said, "I have done so," as in Sahih Muslim (126).

And His words, Exalted is He: {There is no blame upon you for what you do by mistake, but only for what your hearts intend. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful} (al-Ahzab 33:5).


[Page 195]

And his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "Allah has pardoned my community for mistakes, forgetfulness, and what they are compelled to do." Narrated by Ibn Majah (2043); al-Albani graded it hasan.
These texts indicate that anyone who contravenes what he was charged with, out of forgetfulness or ignorance, is pardoned. The term "one who errs" includes the ignorant, since one who errs is anyone who departs from the truth unintentionally, provided that he has not been negligent in seeking knowledge or fabricated lies about Allah without proof, as will come, if Allah wills. Second: the texts indicating that Allah's proof against His servants is established only after they have received knowledge:
Such as His saying, Exalted is He: {We would never punish until We had sent a messenger} (al-Isra 17:15).
And His saying: {Messengers bearing good news and warning, so that people would have no argument against Allah after the messengers. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wise} (al-Nisa 4:165).
And His saying: {Allah would not lead a people astray after He had guided them until He had made clear to them what they should avoid} (al-Tawba 9:115), along with other verses indicating that proof is established only after knowledge and clarification. So long as a person has not turned away from the truth, neglected seeking knowledge and exerting his utmost effort, and then interpreted the matter and erred, there is no sin upon him.
The story of Dhat Anwat.
Abu Waqid al-Laythi said: "We went out with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) toward Hunayn. We passed by a lote tree and said, 'O Prophet of Allah, make this a Dhat Anwat for us, just as the disbelievers have a Dhat Anwat.' The disbelievers used to hang their weapons on a lote tree and gather around it."


[Page 196]

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Allah is the Greatest! This is just like what the Children of Israel said to Moses: {Make for us a god, just as they have gods.} You will follow the ways of those who came before you." Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (2180), who graded it authentic; also narrated by Imam Ahmad (21900), and this is his wording. Shaykh al-Albani graded it authentic.
They asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to do something that constitutes major shirk: to prescribe for them attachment to a tree, as the polytheists used to do. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) likened what they said to what the Children of Israel said to Moses.
Muhammad Rashid Rida said: "Those who said to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) what has been mentioned had only recently left polytheism, and so they thought that what the Prophet might prescribe for them in this regard would be lawful and would not contradict Islam."
The saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): "If a judge exercises independent reasoning and reaches the correct conclusion, he receives two rewards; if he errs, he receives one reward."
Ibn Hazm says:
If the ruling of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) reached him and was established as authentic in his view, but he opposed it, exercising independent reasoning in a matter whose correct course had not been made clear to him, then he is mistaken, excused, and rewarded once, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "If a judge exercises independent reasoning and reaches the correct conclusion, he receives two rewards; if he errs, he receives one reward." Everyone who holds a belief, makes a statement, or performs an act is a judge with respect to that matter. If he opposes it through his actions, knowingly resisting the truth and believing contrary to what he has done, then he is a sinful believer. If he opposes it, knowingly resisting the truth, in his words or in his heart, then he is a disbeliever and a polytheist, whether ...


[Page 197]

That applies to matters of belief and to legal opinions concerning the texts we have cited. This is the view of Ishaq ibn Rahawayh and others, and it is what we hold. And Allah, Exalted is He, is the source of success." This is the meaning of "to judge" in the language: anyone who affirms something of a thing, or denies it of that thing, has judged concerning it. Thus, whoever says that ablution is obligatory has affirmed that ablution is obligatory; and whoever says that Allah will be seen in the Hereafter has judged on this matter with that ruling.
(Very, very important note)
Some have cited the preceding proofs to argue that proof is not established against anyone until knowledge reaches him, even if he says what he says, believes what he believes, or is negligent in seeking knowledge, so long as the proof has not reached him. I consider this view mistaken for several reasons. First, a person who is negligent in seeking knowledge is not called one who has erred in the sense required for the preceding verses and hadiths to apply to him. If someone were to blindfold himself and drive his car at top speed, killing whoever he killed, would he be called one who had made a mistake? Likewise, such a person is turning away from seeking the truth; he is not even called a mujtahid, so as to fall under the hadith, "When the judge exercises independent judgment..." Moreover, after his general belief in Allah and His Messenger, an ignorant person can only be one of two types. The first is a man who is asked about a religious matter and says, "I do not know. I believe in everything the Messenger brought, may Allah bless him and grant him peace." Such a person is excused, because he has neither fabricated a lie against Allah, nor committed shirk, nor attributed to Allah something He has not affirmed of Himself, nor denied of Him something He has affirmed of Himself. Accordingly, you will find that most of the hadiths cited in this matter are understood in this way. The people of Dhat Anwat did not commit shirk; rather, they asked for a religious prescription resembling one of the prescriptions in our Sharia, from among its forms of


[Page 198]

The Messenger is the Lawgiver himself, and forms of shirk are not a matter of reason that can be identified by reason in many cases. Prostration was not a form of shirk in the law of those before us, but it became so. The upshot is that they sought legislation of a ruling; they did not fabricate a lie against Allah by adopting this tree, nor did they attribute that legislation to Allah, so no shirk occurred on their part at all.
Likewise, the hadith about the man who reduced himself to ashes: he did not say that Allah was unable to resurrect him. Rather, he said, "If He should decree," and in another narration, "Perhaps I will elude Allah." In that narration is Hammad ibn Salama, who became confused in his later years. Both narrations indicate that the man was ignorant of this divine attribute; neither contains any indication that he affirmed its opposite or fabricated a lie about it. Likewise, the words of Aisha, "Whatever people conceal, Allah knows it"; the words of Imran ibn Husayn, "Will the people of Paradise know the people of Hell?"; and Aisha's words, "Does Allah not say, 'Then he will be reckoned with an easy reckoning'?"—and other examples that will come, if Allah wills—show only that they had general faith but were ignorant of particular matters, so they asked about them. They did not fabricate lies against Allah or attribute to Him what He had not attributed to Himself, except insofar as they inferred its affirmation from other evidence or presumed the original permissibility. For example, in the story of Muadh, prostrating in greeting kings and leaders was well known, just as it had been prescribed in the law of those before us. Muadh presumed this original rule applied to customary matters of social dealings, and acted accordingly with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Thus, he had grounds for interpretation here, which excused him. As for the second man, he was ignorant of Allah's ruling on the matter, did not seek it in the proper way, and began speaking about Allah without knowledge. Such a person is not called mistaken, since


[Page 199]

Along with his ignorance, he deliberately did something else: he spoke about Allah without knowledge or proof, and thereby fell into shirk. One who speaks about Allah without knowledge is certainly not mistaken; rather, he is in error, so he does not fall under the preceding verses. But whoever is ignorant of something, exerts his utmost effort, and says something incorrect about Allah, erring through interpretation, is excused so long as he believes in Allah and His Messenger in a general sense. This is the distinction between these three categories, and Allah knows best. God willing, in the discussion of how the proof is established, there will be an explanation of why the heedless, ignorant person who speaks about Allah without knowledge is not excused.
(Among the proofs for excusing someone on the basis of interpretation) is the Companions' statement that Amir's deeds had been nullified. This is in Sahih al-Bukhari (5/131):
"When the two groups drew up in battle, Amir's sword was short. He struck at the leg of a Jew with it, but the sword's tip turned back and struck Amir in the hollow of his knee, and he died from it. He said: When they returned, Salama said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) saw me holding his hand and said, 'What is the matter?' I said to him, 'May my father and mother be sacrificed for you! They claim that Amir's deeds have been nullified.' The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, 'Whoever said that is lying. He will have two rewards'—and he joined his fingers together—'for he is a striving warrior. Few Arabs have walked with a man like him.' Qutayba narrated to us; Hatim narrated to us, saying: 'He grew up with it.'"
‌‌_________


[Page 200]

("The tip of his sword") means its sharp edge. ("His deeds were rendered void") means that Amir's deeds were nullified because he killed himself with his sword. ("He would strive") means that he would exert himself in obedience. ("A fighter") means one who fights in the path of Allah, Exalted is He. ("By it") means by this praiseworthy quality, namely, striving in jihad with exertion. ("He grew up") means he matured and reached adulthood.

In this hadith, the Companions ruled that Amir's deeds had been nullified, based on their interpretation. This was a matter of belief, yet the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not declare them unbelievers. Perhaps this was because they could have inferred it from general texts such as: "Whoever kills himself with an iron weapon will have that weapon in his hand, stabbing himself in the belly with it, abiding therein forever." They thus inferred, on the basis of their interpretation, that one who kills himself is an unbeliever and that his deeds are nullified, and applied this ruling to Amir.

Their saying, "We are doomed, by the Lord of the Kaaba: hypocrisy, hypocrisy," in the hadith

Imam Abu Ya'la, may Allah have mercy on him, said (vol. 6, p. 58): Abd al-Wahid narrated to us; Ghassan ibn Barzin, meaning al-Tahawi, narrated to us; Thabit al-Bunani narrated to us, from Anas ibn Malik, who said: One day, the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) came in the morning and said, "Messenger of Allah, we are doomed, by the Lord of the Kaaba!" He said, "What is the matter?" They said, "Hypocrisy, hypocrisy." He said, "Do you not testify that there is no god but Allah alone, with no partner, and that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger?" They said, "Yes." He said, "That is not hypocrisy." He said: Then they came back a second time and said, "Messenger of Allah, we are doomed, by the Lord of the Kaaba!" He said, "What is the matter?" They said, "Hypocrisy, hypocrisy." He said, "Do you not testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger?" [p. 81] They said, "Yes." He said, "That is not hypocrisy." He said: Then they came back a third time and said, "Messenger of Allah, we are doomed, by the Lord of the Kaaba!"


[Page 201]

He said, "What is that?" They said, "Hypocrisy, hypocrisy." He said, "Do you not testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger?" They said, "Indeed, we do." He said, "That is not hypocrisy." They said, "When we are with you, we are in one state, but when we leave you, the world and our families occupy our thoughts." He said, "If, when you left me, you remained in the state you are in with me, the angels would shake your hands in the streets of the city."
This is a sound hadith.
Here, the Companions thought that they had become unbelievers and fallen into major hypocrisy, as indicated by the Prophet's response to them that this was not hypocrisy, so long as they testified that there is no god but Allah. This would not be a valid interpretation if they had meant minor hypocrisy, since that can coexist with the two testimonies of faith. Perhaps these Companions understood this from the common linguistic meaning of hypocrisy: a person outwardly displaying something contrary to what is within. They therefore thought this was hypocrisy in its legal sense, which takes one out of the religion and leads to ruin. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) excused them on account of this interpretation, applying the linguistic meaning to the legal meaning. This hadith shows that one who declares another person an unbeliever on the basis of an interpretation is excused.
Umar declared Hatib an unbeliever on the basis of an interpretation, and Usayd ibn Hudayr declared Sa'd ibn Ubadah an unbeliever, saying, "You are a hypocrite, arguing on behalf of the hypocrites." Likewise, Usama ibn Zayd declared the man he had killed an unbeliever, thinking that the two testimonies of faith would not benefit him so long as he had uttered them under the sword. The hadith is in al-Bukhari. Here, Usama interpreted the two testimonies as not, by themselves, protecting a person's life and property or establishing the ruling of Islam when uttered under threat of arms. This is a matter of belief, yet the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not declare Usama an unbeliever on account of this interpretation, and


[Page 202]

He did not declare this person an unbeliever, judging him by the presumption that his status of unbelief remained. This is evidence that one is not declared an unbeliever on account of an erroneous interpretation.

Moses' words to al-Khidr, "You have certainly done a terrible thing" and "a grave thing," show that Moses interpreted it as impermissible to kill the boy, since he had killed no one. He judged al-Khidr's act to be a grave wrong, whereas in reality it was obedience to Allah. Thus Moses, on the basis of his interpretation, prohibited something recommended or obligatory, because the established principle for him was that it was impermissible to take a life except in retaliation for another life. Yet Allah did not declare him an unbeliever, nor did al-Khidr; rather, they excused him, even though he was a prophet. How much more so should those who are lesser than them in knowledge and understanding be excused?

It is related in Sahih al-Bukhari: Yahya ibn Yahya narrated to us; Hammad ibn Zayd informed us, from Yazid al-Duba'i; Mutarrif narrated to us, from Imran ibn Husayn, who said: It was asked, "Messenger of Allah, are the people of Paradise known from among the people of the Fire?" He replied, "Yes." It was asked, "Then what is the point of the deeds performed by those who act?" He said, "Everyone is facilitated toward that for which he was created."

This hadith clearly indicates that Imran was unaware of Allah's knowledge of what would come to pass, since his question was phrased in the passive voice, thus encompassing the possibility that the knowledge belonged to anyone whatsoever. The basic purpose of a question is to seek knowledge. Yet here the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not declare him an unbeliever for not knowing these two grave matters: first, Allah's knowledge of what deeds His servants would perform and of their ultimate fate; and second, the matter of predestination, which is one of the foundations of faith. But since Imran was a believer in faith


[Page 203]

The general meaning of what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) brought, while being unaware of some of the details, and he excused him on that account and did not declare him an unbeliever. No one should say here that Imran only intended to ask whether the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) had taught them or not, since it is apparent that the Prophet did not teach them. How, then, could he answer "Yes"? This is supported by the hadith about those who are driven away from his Pool: he says, "My Companions," and it is said to him, "You do not know what they introduced after you." The apparent meaning of this is that he does not know who among them are the people of Paradise and who are the people of the Fire.

As for the Companions' saying to Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, "We can only think that you have become an unbeliever," Imam al-Nasa'i, may Allah have mercy on him, said (vol. 7, p. 7): Abu Dawud informed us; he said: al-Hasan ibn Muhammad narrated to us; he said: Zuhayr narrated to us; he said: Abu Ishaq narrated to us, from Mus'ab ibn Sa'd, from his father, who said: "We were discussing something, and I had only recently left the Age of Ignorance, so I swore by al-Lat and al-Uzza. The Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said to me, 'What a bad thing you have said! Go to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) and tell him, for we can only think that you have become an unbeliever.' So I went to him and told him. He said to me, 'Say, "There is no god but Allah alone, with no partner," three times; seek refuge in Allah from Satan three times; spit lightly to your left three times; and do not do it again.'"

Here, then, the Companions interpreted Sa'd as being an unbeliever destined to remain in the Fire because of the words he had said. All of this is interpretation concerning creed: first, that swearing by other than Allah is unbelief; and likewise, belief in what follows from this unbelief, namely, that its perpetrator remains in the Fire. All of this concerns matters of


[Page 204]

belief, yet it has not been transmitted that he (peace and blessings be upon him) declared his Companions unbelievers on that account. Sa'd reported this of them using a plural form with the definite article, which conveys generality.
Likewise, the hadith about the man who scattered his own ashes. Abu Muhammad said: "We say to anyone who declares a person an unbeliever merely for holding the same opinion, without the proof having been established against him and his having defied the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and without finding any unease in himself over what he brought: Tell us, did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) leave anything of Islam—belief in which is required, and denial of which makes one an unbeliever—without making it clear and calling all people to it? The answer must be, 'No.' Whoever denies this is an unbeliever, without disagreement. Once he acknowledges that, he is asked: Has it ever been reported of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he refused to accept the faith of the people of a village or a locality, or of any person who came to him, whether free or enslaved, man or woman, unless that person affirmed that ability precedes the act or accompanies it; or that the Quran is uncreated; or that Allah, Exalted is He, is seen or is not seen; or that He has hearing, sight, life, or any of the other superfluous matters of the theologians, which Satan introduced among them in order to sow enmity and hatred between them? If he claims that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never invited anyone to embrace Islam without first explaining these matters to them, then he has lied, in contradiction to the consensus of the Muslims throughout the world, and has said what he knows to be false. He has also claimed that all the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) colluded to conceal that this was something the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did. This is inherently impossible; moreover, it implies that they were unbelievers, since they concealed something without which no one's Islam is complete. If he says that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never called anyone to any of these things, but that they are contained in the Quran and in his words, then he is told: You are right. It is thereby established that ignorance of any of all these matters would have been unbelief.


[Page 205]

When the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) failed to explain this to the free woman and the slave woman, the free man and the female slave, anyone who permits this has said that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not convey the message as he was commanded. This is outright disbelief on the part of anyone who permits it. It is therefore necessarily the case that ignorance of all this does no harm at all. Discussion of these matters is only required when people engage in them; then it becomes necessary to explain the truth from the Quran and the Sunnah, in accordance with the words of Allah, Mighty and Majestic: {Be steadfast for Allah, bearing witness with justice}, and the words of Allah, Mighty and Majestic: {You shall surely make it clear to the people and not conceal it}. Whoever turns away after the truth has been explained is therefore a disbeliever, because he has neither accepted the judgment of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) nor submitted to what he decreed. It is authentically reported from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that a man who had never done any good deed said to his family when death came upon him, "When I die, burn me, then scatter my ashes on a windy day, half in the sea and half on land. For by Allah, if Allah, Exalted is He, has power over me, He will punish me with a punishment unlike any He has inflicted on anyone of His creation." Allah, Mighty and Majestic, gathered his ashes and brought him back to life, then asked him, "What made you do that?" He replied, "Fear of You, my Lord." And Allah, Exalted is He, forgave him for this statement.
Abu Muhammad said: This was a man who remained ignorant until he died that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is able to gather his ashes and bring him back to life. Yet He forgave him because of his affirmation, his fear, and his ignorance. Some who distort words from their proper meanings have said that "if Allah has power over me" means only "if Allah constricts me," as in His words, Exalted is He: {But when He tests him and restricts his provision}. Abu Muhammad said: This is a false interpretation, which is impossible, because its meaning would then be, "If Allah constricts me, He will surely constrict me." Moreover, if that were the meaning, there would have been no point in his commanding them to burn him.


[Page 206]

And scatter his ashes. The meaning is that there is no doubt that he only instructed him to do this so that he might escape the punishment of Allah, Exalted is He.
Abu Muhammad said: What makes this clearer than anything else in this matter is the statement of Allah, Exalted is He: {When the disciples said, "O Jesus, son of Mary, can your Lord send down to us a table spread with food from heaven?"} up to His statement: {and know that you have told us the truth}. These disciples, whom Allah, Mighty and Majestic is He, praised, spoke out of ignorance when they said to Jesus (peace be upon him), "Can your Lord send down to us a table spread with food from heaven?" Yet this did not invalidate their faith. There is no way around this. They would only have disbelieved had they said this after the proof had been established and made clear to them.
Abu Muhammad said: There is a necessary proof about which there is no disagreement: the entire community is in agreement, with no dissent from anyone, that whoever deliberately alters a verse of the Quran, knowing that it appears differently in the written copies, or deliberately omits a word, or deliberately adds a word to it, is an unbeliever by the consensus of the entire community. Yet a person may make a mistake in recitation, adding one word and omitting another, and altering his speech in ignorance, thinking that he is correct; he may insist on this and argue about it before the truth has become clear to him. In the view of no one in the community is he thereby an unbeliever, a transgressor, or a sinner. But once he has consulted the written copies, or someone whose report constitutes proof has informed him of this, if he persists in his error, then in the view of the entire community he is undoubtedly an unbeliever on that account. This is the ruling that applies throughout the whole religion."
Some may say that the hadith (the hadith about the man who scattered himself) contains only disbelief, and that disbelief may be forgiven, because what we have been taught is that He does not forgive


[Page 207]

It is shirk, not disbelief. The answer to that is: "How can we accept this hadith when its apparent meaning contradicts what is necessarily known of the religion? For this established fact is explicitly stated in the Noble Quran, when the Lord of the worlds said: {Indeed, Allah does not forgive associating anything with Him, but He forgives anything less than that for whomever He wills} [al-Nisa: 48]. This verse is explicit in its indication; that is, in the terminology of the scholars of legal theory (usul al-fiqh), it is definitive in transmission and definitive in meaning. Its meaning is that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, may forgive any sin, however grave, except associating partners with Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, for Allah does not forgive it: {Indeed, Allah does not forgive associating anything with Him, but He forgives anything less than that for whomever He wills} [al-Nisa: 48]." Someone might say, by way of reconciling this definitive Quranic text with the hadith: "There are two ways to reconcile them. The first is that the verse says Allah does not forgive shirk, whereas disbelief is not shirk.
In other words, what is mentioned in this hadith is not shirk, but disbelief, because this man believed in Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and his belief in Allah led him to make this unjust bequest: he felt that he deserved this punishment, so, to escape Allah's punishment, Mighty and Majestic is He, he made this bequest. He feared Allah; he did not merely believe in Him, but also feared Him. His fear of Allah led him to make this bequest.
Thus, he believed in Allah and did not associate anyone with Him. The way to reconcile the hadith with the verse is to leave the verse with its apparent meaning: {Indeed, Allah does not forgive associating anything with Him} [al-Nisa: 48]. As for disbelief that is not shirk, one could say that Allah may forgive it, and the evidence for that is this hadith.


[Page 208]

Someone might say this, and at first glance this reconciliation may seem acceptable and reasonable. But that is not the case, because there is a legal truth of the Sharia that we must know: first, because it is a law that must be understood as it is and in its true sense.
Second: Because this understanding helps us reconcile many texts that appear to contradict and conflict with one another. What is this legal truth? It is that every act of disbelief is polytheism. It is known to everyone, or at least to jurists and students of knowledge, that every act of polytheism is disbelief. But they do not know the converse: they know that every act of polytheism is disbelief, but the fact that every act of disbelief is polytheism is not known to the vast majority of people, even though it is as true as the words you speak: every act of disbelief is polytheism, just as every act of polytheism is disbelief. There is absolutely no difference between them.
Among the proofs for this is the dialogue that Allah, Exalted is He, mentions in Surat al-Kahf between a believer and a polytheist. Allah, Exalted is He, says: {Set forth for them the example of two men: We gave one of them two gardens of grapevines, surrounded them with date palms, and placed crops between them. Both gardens yielded their produce and withheld nothing from it, and We caused a river to flow through them. He had other produce, and he said to his companion} [al-Kahf: 32–34]. The owner of the two gardens, who was an unbelieving polytheist, as you will hear, said to his believing companion: {He said to his companion, as he was conversing with him, "I have more wealth than you and greater numbers." He entered his garden, wronging himself, and said, "I do not think this will ever perish. Nor do I think the Hour will come to pass"} [al-Kahf: 34–36]. In general usage, or according to common convention, is this polytheism or unbelief? This is unbelief, because he denied resurrection and the rising of the dead: {He said, "I do not think this will ever perish. Nor do I think the Hour will come to pass. And if ...}


[Page 209]

"If I am returned to my Lord, I will surely find a better place of return than this." His companion said to him, as he was conversing with him, "Have you disbelieved in the One who created you from dust, then from a drop of fluid, then fashioned you into a man?"} [al-Kahf: 35–37] His believing companion said: {But as for me, He is Allah, my Lord, and I associate none with my Lord.} [al-Kahf: 38] He concluded his admonition and conversation with his companion by saying that he did not associate partners with Allah as his companion did: {and I associate none with my Lord.} [al-Kahf: 38] This shows that the man who owned the two gardens—that is, the two orchards—when he doubted the resurrection and the raising of the dead, associated partners with Allah, Mighty and Majestic. That is why his believing companion said to him: "You have disbelieved and associated partners with Allah, but I associate none with my Lord." The conclusion of the story also confirms this, for at the end of the verses it says: {And his fruits were encompassed, so he began wringing his hands over what he had spent on it, while it lay fallen upon its trellises, and he said, "Would that I had not associated anyone with my Lord!"} [al-Kahf: 42] What was it that he associated with Allah? Apparently, he denied the resurrection and the raising of the dead. So where was the association of partners? Here lies the point: association with Allah means that every disbeliever, whatever the reason for his disbelief, has taken his own desire as his god. Thus, association with Allah applies to every kind of disbelief into which a person falls. This is why we said that there is a religiously established meaning: every disbelief is association with Allah. The context we have mentioned to you is the clearest proof of this.
Accordingly, it is not valid to reconcile the previously mentioned verse, {Indeed, Allah does not forgive associating partners with Him} [al-Nisa: 48], with this hadith in the manner we related earlier. For, after this explanation, the meaning of the verse is: Allah does not forgive disbelief in Him—that is, whether the disbelief is linguistically termed association with Allah or not. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, does not forgive disbelief at all, whether it is association with Him or not. This explanation


[Page 210]

As I have said to you, this opens the way for us to resolve many problems. Once we know that shirk in the language of the Sharia means disbelief, and disbelief means shirk, the verse then clearly indicates that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, does not forgive shirk in any of its forms—unless it is practical shirk (minor shirk), not shirk of the heart. Thus, all the hadiths we cited as evidence that one who commits an act of disbelief on the basis of a mistaken interpretation may be excused also apply to one who commits shirk on the basis of a mistaken interpretation, so long as he has not been negligent in seeking knowledge. Likewise, Allah's saying, "Then those who disbelieve in their Lord equate others with Him"—that is, they regard others as equal to Him; this is shirk, for he has taken his own desire as his god.
The hadith of the white and black thread, as related in Sahih al-Bukhari (6/26):
Musa ibn Ismail narrated to us: Abu Awana narrated to us, from Husayn, from al-Sha'bi, from Adi, who said: Adi took a white cord and a black cord. When it was part of the night, he looked, but could not distinguish them. When morning came, he said, "Messenger of Allah, I put two cords beneath my pillow." He said, "Your pillow must be very wide indeed, if the white thread and the black thread were beneath it."
Here, Adi ibn Hatim interpreted the verse incorrectly and thought that Allah had prescribed this ruling in this manner: that one should begin fasting when the two cords' white and black colors became distinguishable. This was a matter of belief, and an attribution to Allah of something He certainly did not intend. Nevertheless, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not declare him a disbeliever; rather, he excused him for following the apparent meaning of the wording in the language. This applies to all cases of error in interpreting the Quran, since the …


[Page 211]

Every interpreter of a verse who attributes to Allah an active attribute—that He intends such and such by this verse—and anyone who rejects this interpretation and adopts another is denying this attribute of Allah while affirming a different one for Him. One of the two must be mistaken, if the two interpretations cannot be reconciled. According to this view, those who declare interpretation to be disbelief would have to declare most interpreters disbelievers. And Allah knows best. If it is said, "Why did you not cite a practical ruling concerning fasting in the matter of being excused on account of interpretation?" we say what we said before: affirming a practical ruling, according to your classification, entails several matters of belief. These are that Allah intended this ruling and spoke it with His saying, "Be," which affirms a specific active attribute; that Allah then recorded it in the Preserved Tablet; that Allah then sent Gabriel with it to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him); and that Allah will punish or reward whoever does this thing. All of these are matters of belief from which they cannot extricate themselves, and they apply to every issue relating to actions that we will cite as evidence.
– Among the proofs is the report of Ammar: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent me on an errand, and I became junub but could not find water. So I rolled in the dust as an animal rolls, then I came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and told him about it. He said, 'It would have sufficed for you to do this with your hands.' Then he struck the ground once with his hands, wiped his left hand over his right, and wiped the backs of his hands and his face." And in it is the Messenger's (peace and blessings be upon him) excusing Ammar in his interpretation of the verse on tayammum. There is no doubt that this interpretation attributes this ruling to Allah in his interpretation of the verse on tayammum.
– Umar's statement about Hatib: "He has disbelieved."


[Page 212]

Imam al-Bazzar, may Allah have mercy on him, said, as recorded in Kashf al-Astar (vol. 3, p. 255): Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna narrated to us, saying: Umar ibn Yunus narrated to us, saying: Ikrima ibn Ammar narrated to us, saying: Abu Zumayl narrated to us, saying: Ibn Abbas narrated to us, saying: I heard Umar ibn al-Khattab say: Hatib ibn Abi Balta'a wrote a letter to Mecca, and Allah informed His Prophet of it. He sent Ali and al-Zubayr after the letter. They caught up with a woman riding a camel and took it out from one of her braids. The Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said nothing to them. He then sent for Hatib and said, "Hatib, did you write this letter?" He replied, "Yes, Messenger of Allah." He said, "What made you do that?" Hatib replied, "By Allah, I am sincere toward Allah and His Messenger. But I was a stranger among the people of Mecca, while my family were living among them, and I feared for them. So I wrote a letter that would not harm Allah or His Messenger in any way, hoping it might benefit my family." Umar said: I drew my sword and said, "Messenger of Allah, let me deal with Hatib, for he has disbelieved; let me strike off his head." The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said, "Ibn al-Khattab, how do you know? Perhaps Allah looked upon this company of the people of Badr and said, 'Do as you wish, for I have forgiven you.'"
Al-Bazzar said: The story of Hatib has been reported through more than one chain.
Abu Abd al-Rahman said: This is a hasan hadith. The hadith shows that Umar is excused for his interpretation, since he judged Hatib to have disbelieved based on an interpretation.


[Page 213]

-Among the proofs is Khalid's killing of Banu Jadhima, thinking that they remained in disbelief—the hadith is as follows.
Mahmud narrated to me: Abd al-Razzaq narrated to us: Ma'mar informed us. And Nu'aym narrated to me: Abdullah informed us: Ma'mar informed us, from al-Zuhri, from Salim, from his father, who said: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sent Khalid ibn al-Walid to Banu Jadhimah and called them to Islam. They could not properly say, "We have submitted," so they kept saying, "We have become Sabaeans, we have become Sabaeans." Khalid began killing some of them and taking others captive, and he assigned each of us a captive. Then, one day, Khalid ordered each of us to kill his captive. I said, "By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive," until we came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and told him about it. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) raised his hands and said, "O Allah, I disavow before You what Khalid has done," twice.
[Sh: (Banu Jadhima) was one of the Arab tribes. (We have left our religion) We have moved from one religion to another. They intended to enter Islam, but Khalid (may Allah be pleased with him) thought that they had not submitted, since they had not said, "We have embraced Islam." (I disavow myself before You) I apologize. (For what Khalid did) in killing and taking these people captive.] Here Khalid declared unbelievers those who did not deserve to be declared unbelievers, acting on his own interpretation. [6766]
Khalid's killing of those from Khath'am who sought protection through prostration, and his not being satisfied with the Islamic profession as a basis for judging them to be Muslims. This is a hadith narrated from Jarir ibn Abd Allah al-Bajali, who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent a detachment to Khath'am.


[Page 214]

Some of them sought protection by prostrating, but the killing among them was swift. This reached the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he ordered that half the blood money be paid for them. He said, "I disavow every Muslim who lives among the polytheists." They said, "O Messenger of Allah, their fires should not be visible to one another." Here, the Companions assumed that these people had remained disbelievers, based on their interpretation, so the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) paid blood money for them and did not declare those who had killed them disbelievers.

Another example is the hadith, "None of you should pray the afternoon prayer except at Banu Qurayza." It appears in Sahih al-Bukhari (5/112):

Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Asma narrated to us: Juwayriya ibn Asma narrated to us, from Nafi, from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), who said: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said on the day of the Confederates, "None of you should pray the afternoon prayer except at Banu Qurayza." Some of them caught the afternoon prayer while on the way. Some said, "We will not pray until we reach it," while others said, "Rather, we will pray; he did not mean for us to do that." This was mentioned to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he did not rebuke any of them.

The Companions differed on a matter of creed, namely whether the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saw Allah. Most of the Companions held that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not see Allah, Exalted is He, with his eyes on the Night Journey and Ascension.

It is authentically reported from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) that she said, "Whoever tells you that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) saw his Lord has lied," and she would say, "Sight cannot perceive Him..." Narrated by al-Bukhari (Tawhid/6832).


[Page 215]

Abu Dharr reported: I asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), "Have you seen your Lord?" He replied, "There is light; how could I see Him?" Narrated by Muslim (Faith/261).

Ibn Abbas reported: "The heart did not deny what it saw. And he certainly saw him another time." He said, "He saw him with his heart twice." Narrated by Muslim (Faith/258).

Furthermore, one of the Companions asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), "How can knowledge be taken away when the Book of Allah is among us?" Yet he did not declare him an unbeliever. Aisha, interpreting the matter, thought that the believer who is saved from the Fire would be called to account on the Day of Resurrection; this is a matter of belief, yet he did not declare her an unbeliever. He explained to her that his deeds would merely be presented to him. The hadith is in al-Bukhari. Hafsa thought that those who had pledged allegiance beneath the tree would enter the Fire, interpreting the words of the Exalted, "There is none of you who will not pass over it." This is a matter of belief, yet he did not declare her an unbeliever. The hadith is in Musnad Ahmad, and it is authentic. A woman interpreted the matter as permitting a woman with irregular bleeding to leave the prayer; leaving the prayer is unbelief according to the majority of the Companions, because she thought that irregular bleeding was menstruation. In a hadith, Abu Dawud (may Allah have mercy on him) said (vol. 1, p. 488): Wahb ibn Baqiyya narrated to us; Khalid narrated to us, from Suhayl—that is, Ibn Abi Salih—from al-Zuhri, from Urwa ibn al-Zubayr, from Asma bint Umays, who said: I said, "Messenger of Allah, Fatima bint Abi Hubays has had irregular bleeding for such-and-such a time and has not prayed." The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said, "Glory be to Allah! This is indeed from…"


[Page 216]

Satan, so that she may sit in a basin. When she sees yellow discharge above the water, let her perform one ritual bath for the noon and afternoon prayers, one ritual bath for the sunset and night prayers, and one ritual bath for the dawn prayer, and perform ablution in between."
This is a sound hadith according to the conditions of Muslim. A woman experienced a menstrual period that prevented her from fasting and praying. This is so, even though Aisha asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), "Does Allah know everything that people conceal?" He did not declare her an unbeliever; the hadith is in Sahih Muslim. A man also interpreted the law to mean that the prescribed punishment for fornication would be waived for his unmarried son if he paid a ransom of one hundred sheep and a slave girl. The man was not declared an unbeliever; the hadith is in al-Bukhari. A man was unaware that wine was forbidden and brought it as a gift to the Messenger of Allah. This involved deeming something forbidden to be permissible, yet he was not declared an unbeliever; the hadith is in Muslim. Abu Hurayra did not know who would be the happiest of people to receive the Prophet's intercession (peace and blessings be upon him), so the Prophet explained to him that it would be the one who said, "There is no god but Allah," sincerely from his heart; Abu Hurayra was not declared an unbeliever. The Companions did not know that they would be rewarded for sexual intercourse, and they asked, "Does one of us satisfy his desire and receive a reward for it?" The hadith is established in the Sahih collections. Aisha did not know that all the deeds of an unbeliever are rendered void. She thought that he might benefit in the Hereafter from some of his good deeds, and asked about Ibn Jud'an, saying that he used to feed guests and maintain ties of kinship: "Will that benefit him?" The Prophet explained to her that it would not, but did not declare her an unbeliever. The hadith is established in the Sahih collections. This is a matter of creed. Al-Abbas did not know that Abu Talib's punishment would be lightened because he had protected the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This too is a matter of creed, yet he was not declared an unbeliever. It is also reported that Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said (vol. 3, p. 478): Ibn Abi Adi narrated to us, from Dawud ibn Abi Hind.


[Page 217]

Al-Sha'bi, from Alqama, from Salama ibn Yazid al-Ju'fi, who said: "My brother and I went to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). We said, 'Messenger of Allah, our mother, Mulayka, used to maintain ties of kinship, honor guests, and do such-and-such. She died in the pre-Islamic era. Will that benefit her in any way?' He said, 'No.' We said, 'She also buried a sister of ours alive in the pre-Islamic era. Will that benefit her in any way?' He said, 'The woman who buries a child alive and the child who is buried alive are in the Fire, unless the woman who buried the child alive lives to see Islam, in which case Allah will forgive her.'"
This is an authentic hadith; its narrators are among the narrators of the Sahih collections. These people were ignorant of the ruling concerning the unbeliever in the Hereafter, which is a matter of belief, yet he did not declare them unbelievers. A man was ignorant of the fate of his unbelieving father, who had died in the pre-Islamic era, and asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) about him, "Where is my father?" He did not declare him an unbeliever; rather, he told him that his father was in the Fire. This is a matter of belief, and the hadith is in Sahih Muslim. A man was ignorant of the nature of jihad. Abu Musa reported: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about a man who fights out of courage, one who fights out of zeal, and one who fights to be seen by others: "Which of these is in the path of Allah?" The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) replied, "Whoever fights so that the word of Allah may be supreme is in the path of Allah." This is a matter of belief, yet he did not declare him an unbeliever. A woman was ignorant that she had to perform ghusl after experiencing a wet dream, yet he did not declare her an unbeliever; the hadith is in al-Bukhari. The Companions were ignorant that the spoils had to be divided before the animals were slaughtered, so they slaughtered the sheep before they were divided, yet he did not declare them unbelievers; the hadith is in al-Bukhari. The Companions were ignorant of where people would be when the earth was changed into another earth, and the heavens likewise, so he explained to them that they would be in darkness, before the Bridge. This is a matter of belief, yet he did not declare them unbelievers. A group interpreted...


[Page 218]

Among the Companions, concerning the hypocrites, Allah did not declare the group that interpreted the matter to be unbelievers, in His saying, {What is the matter with you that you have become two groups concerning the hypocrites, when Allah has cast them back because of what they have earned? Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has led astray? Whoever Allah leads astray, you will never find a way for him (88).} It says in al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir (5/149):
The interrogative is for expressing astonishment and reproach. The definite article in "the hypocrites" is for reference to those already known, and "two groups" is an adverbial state referring to the pronoun governed by the preposition "for"; thus it qualifies the element governing it, namely the reproach. It is therefore clear that the object of reproach is their division. "Concerning the hypocrites" is connected to "two groups," which is interpreted to mean "divided"; its meaning is "concerning the matter of the hypocrites," since a ruling does not pertain to the persons of the hypocrites themselves.
The word fi'a means a group. Its pattern is fi'la, derived from fay' (return), because members of a group turn to one another in their affairs. Its original form was fay', but the ya was omitted from its middle because of frequent use, and the ta was added in its place.
It is understood that division into two groups can only mean division over one of two possible positions. The context is a discussion of faith and unbelief; that is, "What is the matter with you that you are divided between those who declare them unbelievers and those who excuse them, and that you apply the rulings of faith or unbelief to them?" It is said that this verse was revealed concerning those who withdrew on the day of Uhud: Abd Allah ibn Ubayy and his followers. The Muslims differed over whether to describe them as believers or unbelievers because of what they had done. In Sahih al-Bukhari, Zayd ibn Thabit reported: "Some people returned from Uhud, among the Companions of the Prophet, and the people split into two groups concerning them: one group said, 'Kill them,' and another said, 'No.' Then the verse 'What is the matter with you that you have become two groups concerning the hypocrites' was revealed." He also said, "It is Taybah; it expels filth just as


[Page 219]

"The fire removes the dross from silver"—that is, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not kill them, acting according to the outward appearance of their condition, since they professed Islam. The verse thus explains that there should have been no hesitation concerning their case. Mujahid related that it was revealed about a group of people from Mecca who professed faith and migrated to Medina, then asked permission to return to Mecca to bring back merchandise in which they could trade. They claimed that they had remained believers, and the Muslims differed over their case: were they polytheists or Muslims? This is clarified by what is related from Ibn Abbas: it was revealed about a group of people from Mecca who concealed polytheism while professing Islam to the Muslims, so that they would be safe from the Muslims waging war against them when they went out on trading journeys or the like. The Muslims had heard that they had left Mecca on a trading journey, and a group of Muslims said:
We should ride out to them and fight them. Another group said, "How can we kill them when they have professed Islam?" The Muslims differed over this, and the Messenger of Allah did not censure either group until the verse was revealed. Al-Dahhak related that it was revealed concerning a people who had outwardly embraced Islam in Mecca but had not emigrated, and who supported the polytheists against the Muslims. They were the ones of whom Allah, Exalted is He, said: {Indeed, those whom the angels take in death while they are wronging themselves will say, "What were you doing?"} [al-Nisa: 97]—to the end of the verse. I think all these groups were known at the time the verse was revealed, and thus served as examples of its general purport: it applies to them and to others among all those known to be hypocrites at that time, whether from the people of Medina or the people of Mecca...... It seems that the verse was revealed after the time for fighting them had passed, with the aim of avoiding any confrontation with them when they set out, thereby drawing them along until the day of the conquest of Mecca.


[Page 220]

In all these possibilities, the point of blame is the error in ijtihad, owing to the weakness of the evidence relied upon by those who were mistaken. For the indications of the disbelief of those under discussion outweighed the evidence for their Islam, which consisted merely of uttering the word of Islam, while refraining from showing allegiance to the Muslims. This verse is evidence that when a mujtahid relies on weak evidence of a kind that a scholar would not ordinarily use as proof, he is not far from the possibility of being...
the blame—in this world—for making an error in something in which people of knowledge do not err.
The clause "and Allah has cast them back because of what they have earned" is circumstantial, meaning: if you have differed concerning them, Allah has already returned them to their evil state, because arkas means "to return to riks," and riks is close in meaning to rijs.
In the hadith in Sahih concerning dung, it says: "This is filth."
It is also said that the meaning of "he caused him to relapse" is "he turned him back," that is, he returned him in a vile manner; this is close in meaning to the first interpretation. Allah made their return to disbelief a recompense for their corrupt belief and their lack of sincerity toward His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). For deeds beget others of their own kind: a righteous deed brings an increase in righteous deeds, while an evil deed leads to the utmost sins. For this reason, the Qur'an repeatedly reports that deeds are a cause of attaining the utmost ends of their own kind.
And His saying, "Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has led astray?" is an explanatory resumption arising from the reproach and astonishment in His saying, "What is the matter with you that you have become two parties regarding the hypocrites?" For the listeners await an explanation of the basis for the reproach and wonder what stance they should take toward these hypocrites. The interrogative, which is reproachful in tone, is tinged with...


[Page 221]

by reproaching them for a suppressed clause that is the subject of an explanatory resumption. Its implied wording is: "Allah has indeed led them astray; would you then guide those whom Allah has led astray?" If this interpretation is sound, this verse is as explicit as a text in excusing one who offers an excuse on the basis of a mistaken interpretation. These people merely supposed that someone who was in fact an unbeliever was a Muslim whom it was impermissible to fight, interpreting his outward circumstances as indicating this. Yet neither Allah nor His Messenger declared them unbelievers. It is authentically reported that he (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about the believers' seeing their Lord, Blessed and Exalted is He. He said, "Do you have any difficulty seeing the sun on a clear day at midday, with no cloud before it?" They said, "No." He did not declare them unbelievers for not knowing about the vision, and this is a matter of belief. It is authentically reported that he (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked, "Where was our Lord before the heavens and the earth were created?" He did not object to the questioner, but said, "He was in a cloud, with air above it and air below it." Ahmad related this. It is authentically reported that he (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about the beginning of the creation of this world. He replied, "Allah existed, and there was nothing besides Him; His Throne was upon the water, and He wrote everything in the Record." Al-Bukhari related this. This is a matter of belief.
It is authentically reported that he (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked, "Where will people be on the Day when the earth is changed?" He replied, "On the Bridge." In another wording: "They will be in the darkness before the Bridge." He was then asked, "Who will be the first people to cross?" He replied, "The poor among the Emigrants." Muslim related it. There is no contradiction between the two answers, for the darkness is at the beginning of the Bridge: there the changing begins, and it is completed while they are on the Bridge. This is a matter of belief, and he did not declare them unbelievers.
.


[Page 222]

"The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about the people of a household among the polytheists who were attacked at night, with some of their children and women being struck. He said, 'They are of them.' This is an authentic hadith.

When the words of Allah, Exalted is He, were revealed: {Indeed, you will die, and indeed, they will die} [al-Zumar: 30] {Then, on the Day of Resurrection, you will dispute before your Lord} [al-Zumar: 31], the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked, 'Messenger of Allah, will what happened between us in this world be brought up again, even with regard to particular sins?' He replied, 'Yes, it will surely be brought up again until you give everyone who is entitled to a right their due.' Al-Zubayr said, 'By Allah, this is indeed a grave matter.' The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was also asked about medicines and incantations, whether they avert anything decreed by destiny. He replied, 'They are part of destiny.'"

"The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about those of the children of the polytheists who die. He replied, 'Allah knows best what they would have done.'"

Some of the Companions interpreted the word 'wrongdoing' in the words of Allah, Exalted is He, {and have not mixed their faith with wrongdoing} to mean every kind of wrongdoing. This was a matter of belief, and it troubled them greatly, so they asked, 'Which of us has not wronged himself?' The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) replied, 'That is not what it means; it means only polytheism. Have you not heard what Luqman said to his son: {My son, do not associate anything with Allah. Indeed, associating others with Allah is a tremendous wrongdoing} [Luqman: 13]?' He did not declare them unbelievers for this interpretation or belief of theirs.

"The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was also asked about soothsayers. He said, 'They are nothing.' The questioner said, 'Sometimes they tell us something, and it comes to pass.' He replied, 'That is ...'


[Page 223]

"A word of truth is snatched by a jinni and cast into the ear of his human ally, and they mix with it a hundred lies." Agreed upon. Here, some of the Companions were unaware that Allah alone possesses knowledge of the unseen, and that He may disclose some of it to certain people, such as soothsayers. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) informed them that this was not correct, but did not declare them disbelievers. This is a matter of creed. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and Allah knows best.

(How the proof is established)
The question now is: how is the proof established against a person, such that establishing it confirms the legal ruling of disbelief against him, and consequently the rulings applicable to disbelievers are applied to him? We said earlier that there are categories of people who are not excused, despite affiliating themselves with Islam and bearing witness to the two testimonies. They include everyone who falls short in seeking religious knowledge, thereby becoming ignorant, and then begins to fabricate lies about Allah without knowledge, associating others with Him in supplication, vows, or otherwise, without knowledge—whether he invented this himself or followed someone he takes as an authority without proof, since following another is no excuse. Rather, if he did not know, he was obliged to believe in Allah in a general way and entrust to Allah, Glorified and Exalted, what he did not know. The second category likewise includes everyone who comes to hold a belief, but whose belief results from a false interpretation unsupported by either the Sharia or the language. I have already explained false interpretation and that it is not accepted. The third category is one that has fallen into disbelief as a result of an interpretation that has some basis in language or the Sharia. In this case, the proof is established against him.


[Page 224]

The proof. But how is the proof established? By induction from the verses and the hadiths of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), we can derive some indications of how to establish the proof and how to know whether this man who is interpreting the texts is following his desires, or whether he seeks the truth and prefers Allah and His Messenger over all others, but has fallen into a kind of misinterpretation that led him to err on the issue at hand. The researcher will, Allah willing, present some of this evidence and comment on it.
{Say, "Then bring a Book from Allah that is a better guide than these two, and I will follow it, if you are truthful." (49) But if they do not respond to you, then know that they are only following their own desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his own desire without guidance from Allah? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people. (50)}
Here Allah Most High specified for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) how to distinguish one who follows his desires from one who gives precedence to the truth: by calling that person to present the opposing evidence. If you bring this person sound evidence from the Book or the Sunnah, then one of two things is incumbent upon him: either to follow it or to produce counterevidence. If he does neither, we then know that he follows his desires, and we can say with a clear conscience that proof has been established against this person.


[Page 225]

He is subject to the proof because of his turning away. There is no doubt that Allah has not charged us with what we cannot do, namely, knowing what lies within people; rather, He has given us signs that make these inner realities clear. Nor is there any doubt that He has not left the religion as a plaything for people, so that anyone may come along and say, "I am interpreting." No: whoever has had the proof established against him is judged accordingly and punished for the act. And Allah knows best.

2. {Indeed, those who dispute concerning the signs of Allah without any authority that has come to them have nothing in their breasts but pride, which they will never attain. So seek refuge in Allah; indeed, He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.} 56

This verse also clarifies who has the proof established against him. Whoever argues with you without clear evidence, whether following blind imitation or following evidence, this verse indicates that there is pride in his heart. If we return to the definition of pride, we find that it means rejecting and resisting the truth, and looking down on people. This need makes clear that one who speaks without evidence is, in reality, rejecting and resisting the truth, rather than seeking it or preferring it above all else. Thus the proof has been established against him, and the ruling applies to him.


[Page 226]

3—"Whoever invokes another god alongside Allah, for which he has no proof, his reckoning is only with his Lord. Indeed, the disbelievers will not succeed." 117

This verse clearly shows that anyone who associates another with Allah by invoking someone other than Him must produce proof for his action. Since he has produced no proof, the argument has thereby been established against him, and Allah will call him to account for it. He will be among the disbelievers who do not succeed. This verse demonstrates the gravity of associating partners with Allah.

4—"They said, 'If we follow the guidance with you, we will be snatched away from our land.' Have We not established for them a secure sanctuary to which the fruits of all things are brought as provision from Us? But most of them do not know." 57

"Then you see those in whose hearts is a disease hastening to them, saying, 'We fear that a turn of fortune may befall us.' Perhaps Allah will bring victory or a command from Him, and then they will regret what they had concealed within themselves. And those who believe will say, 'Are these the ones who swore …'" 52


[Page 227]

By Allah, with their strongest oaths, they swear that they are with you. Their deeds have come to nothing, and they have become losers.

These two verses show that their companions fell into disbelief and were not excused by claiming worldly interests as a reason for committing disbelief. Thus, anyone who justifies his disbelief by citing a worldly interest that he supposes to be valid, without evidence that the Sharia recognizes it as a barrier to declaring someone a disbeliever (such as coercion, for example), will not have that justification accepted, nor will it prevent the ruling from being applied to him.

4. "Or do they say, 'He has fabricated it'? Say, 'Then bring a surah like it, and call upon whoever you can besides Allah, if you are truthful.' Rather, they have denied what they have not comprehended in knowledge, and whose interpretation has not yet come to them. Thus did those before them deny. So see what was the end of the wrongdoers."

The discussion of this verse takes another angle: sometimes you present someone with sound proof from the Book or the Sunnah, and he finds no evidence to counter what you have said. As a result of following his own desires, he resorts to rejecting this proof and calling you a liar. Allah, Exalted is He, makes clear that whoever does this is a wrongdoer, and that we must not reject what we have not comprehended.


[Page 228]

and deny it. Whoever does this is driven by personal desire and a prior conviction about a particular matter that he wishes to establish. Otherwise, why would he reject the truth without knowledge? Such a person is an unjust wrongdoer with no excuse: he speaks about Allah without knowledge and denies His Sharia without knowledge. It is noteworthy that all the verses in which Allah condemns the polytheists concern those who speak about Him without knowledge or deny His Sharia without knowledge. As for the third category, the one who seeks Allah's pleasure, like Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufayl, he refrains from affirming anything about Allah that he does not know, and from denying anything of Him that he does not know. Rather, he believes in Him, Exalted is He, with general faith. Such a person is excused for what he does not know, so long as he remains silent and refrains from taking a position. A hadith, deemed sound by some scholars, states that he will be resurrected as a nation unto himself. This matter is under study, Allah willing.
5- "They worship, besides Allah, that for which He has sent down no authority and of which they have no knowledge. The wrongdoers will have no helper."
This verse has the same meaning as the preceding verses, for Allah calls one who has neither proof nor knowledge of what he says a wrongdoer. This shows that anyone who speaks without knowledge or proof is sinful and unjust, and has no excuse.


[Page 229]

6—Why did they not produce four witnesses to it? Since they did not produce the witnesses, they are, in the sight of Allah, the liars. (13) Were it not for Allah's grace and mercy upon you in this world and the Hereafter, a tremendous punishment would have touched you for what you plunged into. (14)
7—When you passed it from tongue to tongue, and said with your mouths what you had no knowledge of, thinking it a trivial matter, while in the sight of Allah it was tremendous. (15)
This verse indicates that whoever speaks without knowledge has committed a grave matter and is not excused.
8—Or have We sent down to them an authority, so that it speaks of what they used to associate with Him?
9—And they made the angels, who are servants of the Most Merciful, females. Did they witness their creation? Their testimony will be recorded, and they will be questioned. (19)


[Page 230]

This verse also makes clear that the polytheists will be called to account for making this claim without knowledge, since they testified to something they did not know.
10. We did not create the heavens and the earth and all that is between them except in truth and for an appointed term. Yet those who disbelieve turn away from what they have been warned of. Say, "Consider those whom you invoke besides Allah: show me what they have created of the earth, or do they have any share in the heavens? Bring me a scripture from before this, or some remnant of knowledge, if you are truthful."
The verse indicates that whoever offers no proof or knowledge for what he says is not truthful. And since there are only the truthful and the liars in this world, he is a liar in what he claims and is not excused.
11. Say, "Consider: if this is from Allah and you disbelieve in it, while a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to something like it and believes, whereas you are arrogant—indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people."


[Page 231]

Here, establishing the proof came from another angle: the faith of those whose knowledge and testimony they trusted in the soundness of the proof. Sometimes you present someone with proof from an authentic report or from the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he says to you, for example, "I follow such-and-such scholar, whom I trust." So you present him with that scholar's statement affirming the soundness of the evidence you cited and acting in accordance with its implications. If he still does not submit, then the proof has been established against him. This indicates his arrogance and wrongdoing, and that he is not excused on the grounds of his interpretation. For Allah cited as proof against them the faith of their leading scholar, Abdullah ibn Salam. This was therefore a sound argument and a valid counterargument that exposed the matter in establishing the proof.
12. And when you said, "O Moses, we will never believe you until we see Allah plainly," then the thunderbolt seized you while you looked on. Then We raised you to life after your death, so that you might give thanks.
This is evidence that excessive demands for proofs, after they have been made clear, are not valid. For when you cite the Book of Allah and


[Page 232]

The Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is sufficient for this, and no one is excused for rejecting it. Otherwise, Allah would have excused these people and would not have struck them down.

13. And if they see a sign, they turn away and say, "An ongoing magic."
This verse is likewise relevant.

14. Or do they say, "He has fabricated it"? Say, "Then bring ten fabricated surahs like it, and call upon whomever you can besides Allah, if you are truthful." But if they do not respond to you, then know that it has been sent down only with Allah's knowledge, and that there is no god but He. Will you then submit?
Here Allah, Exalted is He, made the man's truthfulness contingent upon producing countervailing evidence. This shows that whoever is unable to do so and fails to produce countervailing evidence is lying in his claim and following his own desire.


[Page 233]

58 Say, "Have you considered what Allah has sent down for you as provision, of which you have made some unlawful and some lawful?" Say, "Has Allah given you permission, or are you fabricating lies against Allah?" 59 What, then, do those who fabricate lies against Allah think will happen to them on the Day of Resurrection? Indeed, Allah is gracious to people, but most of them are not grateful. 60 Thus Allah made the one who speaks about religion without knowledge one of two men: a man whom Allah has permitted to speak in this way, or a man who fabricates lies against Allah. Allah threatened this speaker without knowledge with what he will face on the Day of Resurrection. This shows that this is neither an excuse nor a barrier to establishing the proof against him.

And those whom they invoke besides Allah do not follow partners; they follow nothing but conjecture, and they do nothing but guess. 66

They say, "Allah has taken a son." Exalted is He! He is Self-Sufficient; to Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. You have no authority for this. Do you say about Allah what you do not know? 68 Say, "Indeed, those who fabricate lies..."


[Page 234]

Upon Allah, a lie: they will not prosper. 69. A provision in this world; then to Us will be their return, and then We will make them taste the severe punishment for their disbelief. 70. The apparent meaning of this verse is that Allah, Exalted is He, called the one who fabricates lies against Allah a disbeliever and threatened him with punishment. It is also authentically reported that suspicion is the most false of speech, as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said. Thus, the Messenger called speech based on doubt a lie. Therefore, anyone who speaks without knowledge, saying something he doubts, is fabricating lies against Allah and is not excused, because he has followed that of which he has no knowledge.

And He, Exalted is He, said: "These are our people, who have taken gods besides Him. Why do they not bring clear authority for them? So who is more unjust than one who fabricates a lie against Allah?" He thus called one who brings no clear proof a fabricator of lies against Allah, and one in such a state is not excused.(15)

Moses said to them, "Woe to you! Do not fabricate lies against Allah, lest He destroy you with a punishment. Whoever fabricates lies has indeed failed." 61.


[Page 235]

"So what makes you deny the Judgment?"—after mentioning the signs of the creation of man in the best form.

Ibn Abbas reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Do not boast of your forefathers who died in the pre-Islamic era. By Him in whose hand is my soul, the dung beetle rolling dung with its nostrils is better than your forefathers who died in the pre-Islamic era." (2)

This is an authentic hadith. As for the meaning of "the dung beetle rolls," they said: that is, the beetle rolls excrement. This hadith clearly indicates that those who speak about Allah without knowledge are not excused.

Abraham's argument with his people

۞ And when Abraham said to his father, Azar, "Do you take idols as gods? I see that you and your people are clearly astray." 74 And thus We showed Abraham the dominion of the heavens and the earth, so that he might be among those who are certain. 75 When night covered him, he saw a star and said, "This is my Lord." But when it set, he said, "I do not love those that set." 76 Then when he saw the moon rising, he said, "This is my Lord." But when it set, he said, "If my Lord does not guide me, I will surely be among the people who are astray." 77 Then when he saw the sun rising, he said, "This is my Lord."


[Page 236]

"My Lord, this is greater." Then, when it set, he said, "O my people, I am free of what you associate with Allah. I have turned my face, as one inclining to the truth, toward Him who created the heavens and the earth, and I am not one of the polytheists." His people argued with him. He said, "Do you argue with me about Allah, when He has guided me? I do not fear what you associate with Him, unless my Lord wills something. My Lord encompasses all things in knowledge. Will you not then take heed? How could I fear what you associate with Him, when you do not fear associating with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority to you? Which of the two parties is more entitled to security, if you know? Those who believe and do not taint their faith with wrongdoing—for them is security, and they are rightly guided. That was Our argument, which We gave to Abraham against his people. We raise in degrees whom We will. Indeed, your Lord is Wise, Knowing." (78–83)
Abraham did not mention a miracle here. Rather, he argued against them that these things they worship were created and set, so how could they be worshipped? This showed that they had associated partners with Allah without any "authority" or proof, and he made this a sufficient reason for not being secure from Allah's punishment. This shows that it is a sufficient proof, and that there is no excuse for anyone who rejects it.


[Page 237]

And the Exalted said: "Among the people is one who disputes about Allah without knowledge, guidance, or an illuminating Book, turning his neck aside to lead others away from the way of Allah. For him there is disgrace in this world, and on the Day of Resurrection We shall make him taste the punishment of the Burning Fire. That is for what your hands have sent ahead, and Allah is never unjust to His servants."

And indeed, We sent Noah to his people, and he said, "O my people, worship Allah. You have no god other than Him. I fear for you the punishment of a tremendous Day."

"Say, 'To whom belongs the earth and whoever is in it, if you know?' They will say, 'To Allah.' Say, 'Will you not then take heed?' Say, 'Who is the Lord of the seven heavens and the Lord of the Mighty Throne?' They will say, 'To Allah.' Say, 'Will you not then be mindful of Him?' Say, 'In whose hand is the dominion of all things, who protects, while none can protect against Him, if you know?' They will say, 'To Allah.' Say, 'How then are you deluded?'"

In these verses, Allah rebukes them for knowing that Allah is the owner of everything, yet not singling Him out in worship. Instead, they worshipped others without knowledge, following conjecture. This shows that this alone suffices as an argument against an opponent.

"There are three kinds of judges: two judges are in the Fire, and one judge is in Paradise. As for the one in Paradise, he is a man who knew the truth and judged accordingly, so he is in Paradise. A man knew the truth but did not judge by it and acted unjustly in his judgment; he is in the Fire. And a man who did not know the truth and judged among people out of ignorance; he is destined for the Fire."


[Page 238]

This hadith is clear evidence for what we are establishing: this was a judge who issued a ruling, but issued it out of ignorance. His ignorance here was no excuse; rather, Allah, Exalted is He, will punish him, because his duty was to remain silent about what he did not know, not to invent a new ruling. The hadith thus shows that ignorance is not an excuse in every circumstance.

Al-Nawawi said in his commentary on Sahih Muslim, in his discussion of the hadith, "When a judge rules and exercises independent reasoning, then gets it wrong, he has one reward": The scholars said: The Muslims are unanimously agreed that this hadith concerns a judge who is learned and qualified to judge. If he gets it right, he has two rewards: one for his independent reasoning and one for getting it right. If he gets it wrong, he has one reward for his independent reasoning. They said: As for someone who is not qualified to judge, it is not permissible for him to judge. If he does so, he earns no reward; rather, he is sinful, and his ruling is not enforceable, whether or not it accords with the truth. This is because his getting it right is merely coincidental, not based on a legal foundation. He is therefore disobedient in all his rulings, whether or not they are correct; all of them are rejected, and he is excused in none of them. End quote.

Establishing proof through the Book
{She said, "O chiefs, a noble letter has been delivered to me. It is from Solomon, and it reads: 'In the name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. Do not exalt yourselves above me, but come to me in submission.'" She said, "O chiefs, advise me concerning my affair. I do not decide any matter until you are present." They said, "We are men of strength and great might, but the decision is yours, so consider what you will command." She said, "When kings enter a town, they ruin it and make its most honored people ...}


[Page 239]

"Humiliated. And thus they do." "I shall send them a gift, and see what the messengers bring back." When he came to Solomon, he said, "Are you offering me wealth? What Allah has given me is better than what He has given you. Rather, it is you who rejoice in your gift. Return to them: we shall surely come to them with forces they cannot withstand, and drive them out from it, humbled and abased." Here Solomon made the mere act of writing to these people—who worshipped the sun and the moon and falsely attributed their worship to Allah—calling them to faith and monotheism sufficient grounds for punishment.
"He is nothing but a man who has fabricated a lie against Allah, and we will not believe him."
Ibn Hazm said regarding the manner of disputation and establishing proof:
"Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam - Ibn Hazm" (1/21):
"Allah, Exalted is He, has commanded us explicitly in the Quran to follow the way of Abraham (peace be upon him), and Allah has informed us that disputation and debate were part of Abraham's way: at one time with the king, and at another with his people, using reasoning, as Allah has informed us. Thus, it is incumbent upon us to follow the practice of debate, so that we may turn the people of falsehood toward the truth, and to seek what is correct through reasoning concerning matters over which people disagree. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, said: {Indeed, the people most worthy of Abraham are those who followed him, and this Prophet and those who believe; and Allah is the Guardian of the believers.} We follow Abraham (peace be upon him) in disputation and debate, and so we are the people most worthy of him; all other people are commanded to do likewise. Allah, Exalted is He, said: {Say, 'Allah has spoken the truth, so follow the way of Abraham, inclining toward truth; he was not one of the polytheists.'} Debate, as we have mentioned, is part of his way. Whoever forbids debate and proof should know that he is disobeying Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and opposing the way of Abraham and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them). Allah, Mighty and Majestic, said, praising the Companions of the Cave..."


[Page 240]

{We relate to you their story in truth. They were young men who believed in their Lord, and We increased them in guidance.} Thus Allah, Mighty and Majestic, praised them for rejecting the claim of their people, since their people had not established clear proof for what they said. And He, Exalted is He, affirmed their statement that whoever makes a claim without evidence is fabricating a lie against Allah, Mighty and Majestic.

And He, Exalted is He, said: {Who is more unjust than one who is reminded of the signs of his Lord and then turns away from them? Indeed, We will take retribution on the criminals.} No one is more unjust than one against whom proof has been established from the Book of Allah, Exalted is He, and from the words of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), yet turns away from it, though it is the decisive proof and the clear argument. And Allah, Exalted is He, said: {Those who consume usury will not stand except as one stands who is being beaten by Satan into madness. That is because they say, "Trade is just like usury." But Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury. Whoever receives an admonition from his Lord and desists may keep what is past, and his affair rests with Allah. But whoever returns to it—those are the inhabitants of the Fire; they will abide therein forever.} And He, Exalted is He, said: {Rather, those who do wrong follow their desires without knowledge. So who can guide one whom Allah has led astray? They will have no helpers.} Thus He, Exalted is He, has informed us, as you hear, that whoever follows a statement that accords with his view without knowing that it is sound is unjust, and that whoever does not return to the truth he hears is among the people of the Fire. And He, Exalted is He, said: {If they do not respond to you, then know that they follow only their desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.} Allah, Exalted is He, condemned a person for denying what he does not know, saying: {Rather, they denied what they had not encompassed in knowledge, and whose interpretation had not yet come to them. Thus those before them denied the truth. So see what was the end of the wrongdoers.} All that we have mentioned thus establishes the duty to refrain from what we do not know and to return to what proof requires once it has been established. And He, Exalted is He, said: {Who is more unjust than one who fabricates a lie against Allah or denies the truth when it comes to him? Is there not a dwelling in Hell for the disbelievers?} Abu Muhammad said: This verse suffices to establish that no one should affirm anything unless proof has been established for it, and that no one should do anything when proof has been established against it. Who, then, is more unjust than one who knows what we have mentioned, yet follows a whisper arising within himself, or a report for which no proof has been established that it must be believed, or


[Page 241]

He imitated a human being like himself, who may, in the sight of Allah, Exalted is He, be other than he supposes. In any case, he is not infallible; he may err or be right. Allah, Exalted is He, said: {And they say, "None shall enter Paradise unless he is a Jew or a Christian." Those are their wishful claims. Say, "Bring your proof, if you are truthful"}
"truthful." Thus, Exalted is He, made it incumbent upon anyone who is truthful in his claim to produce proof; and if he does not produce it,
On the basis of proof, he is a liar, one who invalidates the truth, or an ignorant person. Allah, Exalted is He, said: {Here you are, disputing about that of which you have knowledge; why then do you dispute about that of which you have no knowledge? Allah knows, and you do not know.} Thus, He, Exalted is He, permitted disputation only on the basis of knowledge and forbade it without knowledge.
And the Exalted says: {They will say, "Three, the fourth of them being their dog," and they will say, "Five, the sixth of them being their dog," guessing at the unseen; and they will say, "Seven, and the eighth of them being their dog." Say, "My Lord knows best their number. None knows them except a few. So do not argue about them except with an outward argument, and do not ask any of them about them."} Abu Muhammad said: When we found that Allah, Exalted is He, had commanded argumentation and debate in the verses we have mentioned, and had made the acceptance of anything obligatory only on the basis of proof, we were obliged to seek out blameworthy argumentation, as we explained earlier. We found that He said: {We send the messengers only as bearers of glad tidings and warners. But those who disbelieve argue with falsehood in order to refute the truth by it, and they take My signs and the warnings given to them in mockery.} Thus, as you can see, He condemned arguing without proof and arguing about falsehood. By this, Allah refuted the saying of the deluded: "Every deluded person is taught an argument." He made clear that the deluded person is one who is not taught an argument, and that the one who is right is, in truth, the one taught an argument; they are the people of truth. And the Exalted says: {Those who argue about the signs of Allah without any authority having come to them—it is greatly hateful in the sight of Allah and in the sight of those who believe. Thus Allah seals every arrogant tyrant's heart.} These verses together make clear what blameworthy argumentation is.


[Page 242]

The praiseworthy disputation is obligatory. It is the disputation in which the person engaging in it seeks to make the truth manifest. The blameworthy kind has two forms, as stated in the verses we have cited: one is disputing without knowledge, and the other is disputing in support of falsehood, through contentiousness and deception, after the truth has become clear to him. This shows that the truth is one, and that nothing is established except by a proof grounded in reason. These blameworthy people are those of whom Allah, Exalted is He, says: {Have you not seen those who dispute concerning the signs of Allah? How are they turned away?} And His saying: {Among the people is one who disputes concerning Allah without knowledge and follows every rebellious devil.} And His saying: {Among the people is one who disputes concerning Allah without knowledge, guidance, or an illuminating Book, turning his neck aside to lead others astray from the way of Allah. For him there is disgrace in this world, and on the Day of Resurrection We shall make him taste the punishment of the burning Fire.} And by His saying:
Exalted is He: {None dispute the signs of Allah except those who disbelieve, so do not let their movement through the lands deceive you. The people of Noah denied the truth before them, as did the confederates after them.
And every nation plotted against their messenger, to seize him, and argued falsely in order to refute the truth by means of it. Then I seized them; so how was My punishment?} Thus, as you see, Exalted is He makes clear that the forbidden disputation is that by which one argues to support falsehood and invalidate the truth without knowledge. Abu Muhammad said: It may be said to one who refuses to engage in disputation and undertake the pursuit of proof: Pharaoh said, {O my people, today you hold dominion, prevailing in the land. But who will protect us from Allah's might if it comes upon us?} Pharaoh said, {I show you only what I see, and I guide you only to the path of right guidance.} {And the one who believed said, "O my people, follow me; I will guide you to the path of right guidance."} By what means can one distinguish which of them is in the right and which is in the wrong? Is it permissible to know this by anything other than evidence apart from their words? This is the speech of the Almighty, the Irresistible, the Creator, the Originator. We have cited it as proof for following evidence and rejecting the claim of one who has no proof in hand. This is what no Muslim may oppose—not the saying of one who says, "Go to someone who doubts as you do, and debate him." It may be said to him: "Do you think ..."


[Page 243]

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was in doubt, since his Lord, Exalted is He, taught him how to debate the People of the Book and the people of disbelief, and commanded him to seek proof and establish the argument against everyone who opposed him. Nor is there any validity to the statement of one who says, "Whenever a man comes who is more skilled in argument than another, should we abandon what we follow?" or words to that effect. Abu Muhammad said: This is a statement in which every atheist on earth is on equal footing with the one who makes it. If this speaker is permitted not to abandon what he found his forebears following, without proof, despite clear proof being presented to him, then the Jew and the Christian must likewise be permitted not to abandon what they found their forebears following in blind imitation, without proof, and not to accept the proof of Islam presented to them and its decisive argument. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, said: {They said, "O Lot, we are messengers of your Lord. They will never reach you. So set out with your family during a portion of the night, and let none of you look back, except your wife; what befalls them will befall her. Their appointed time is the morning. Is the morning not near?" * When Our command came, We turned it upside down and rained upon it stones of baked clay, one after another, * marked by your Lord; and it is not far from the wrongdoers. * And to Midian We sent their brother Shuayb. He said, "My people, worship Allah; you have no god other than Him..."}
"And do not give short measure or weight. Indeed, I see you in prosperity, and I fear for you the punishment of an all-encompassing Day. And, O my people, give full measure and weight with justice, and do not deprive people of their due, nor spread corruption in the land. What Allah leaves for you is better for you, if you are believers; and I am not a keeper over you. They said, 'O Shuayb, do your prayers command you that we abandon what our forefathers worship, or that we do as we please with our wealth? Indeed, you are the forbearing, the right-minded one.' He said, 'O my people, consider: if I have clear proof from my Lord and He has provided me with good provision from Him, I do not wish to do the very thing I forbid you to do. I desire only to set things right as far as I can. My success is only through Allah; in Him I put my trust, and to Him I turn. And, O my people, do not let your hostility toward me bring upon you the like of what befell the people of Noah, or the people of Hud, or the people of Salih; and the people of Lot are not far from you. Seek forgiveness from your Lord, then turn to Him in repentance. Indeed, my Lord is Merciful, Loving.' They said, 'O Shuayb, we do not understand much of what you say, and we see you as weak among us. Were it not for your clan, we would have stoned you; you have no standing with us."} Abu Muhammad said: Since Allah has thus urged you,


[Page 244]

Exalted is He, who urged disputation on the basis of truth and commanded the seeking of proof. It is established, by the text we have cited, that seeking evidence is the way of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Whoever forbids this and turns people away from it is turning them away from the way of Allah, Exalted is He, and is an oppressor.

His saying, Exalted is He: {And when We appointed for Moses forty nights, then you took the calf after him, while you were wrongdoers. Then We pardoned you after that, so that you might be grateful. And when We gave Moses the Book and the Criterion, so that you might be guided. And when Moses said to his people, "My people, you have wronged yourselves by taking the calf. So repent to your Creator and slay yourselves. That is better for you with your Creator." Then He accepted your repentance. Indeed, He is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.}

They were not excused on the grounds that they had followed the Samaritan when he said to them, "This is your god and the god of Moses, but he forgot."

Sahih al-Bukhari (6/14): It is related that


[Page 245]

Aisha said: "We administered the ladud to him during his illness, and he began gesturing to us, 'Do not administer the ladud to me.' We said, 'The sick person's aversion to medicine.' When he came to, he said, 'Did I not forbid you to administer the ladud to me?' We said, 'The sick person's aversion to medicine.' He said, 'Let no one in the house remain without being given the ladud while I watch, except al-Abbas, for he was not present with you.'"
This shows that someone who offers a far-fetched interpretation is not excused, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) punished them. The ladud is medicine placed in one side of the mouth, or administered by rubbing it onto the palate, inserting a finger into the patient's mouth and applying the medicine to it. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explicitly forbade them from doing this by gesturing, but they assumed that he did not mean to forbid it, and merely disliked the medicine. This was a far-fetched assumption. The hadith also shows that a prohibition indicates unlawfulness, and that a far-fetched interpretation is not accepted.
"Sahih al-Bukhari" (1/31):
Abdullah ibn Amr reported: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) fell behind us during a journey we had undertaken. He caught up with us when we had delayed the prayer—the Asr prayer—and we were performing ablution. We began wiping our feet, so he called out at the top of his voice, "Woe to the heels from the Fire!" twice or three times.
In this hadith, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not excuse them, because the matter of ablution was well known. And Allah knows best.
Contradiction
By this heading, I mean that a person's contradiction indicates that he follows his own desires and is not excused. For example, a man says that a mursal hadith is sound. Then you want to establish proof against him, so you bring him a mursal hadith with a sound chain of transmission. He says to you, "This is mursal; I do not accept it because it is weak." Such a person is contradictory and is not excused, and proof has thereby been established against him.


[Page 246]

Allah Most High said concerning the Jews:
"Those who said, 'Allah has bound us by a covenant not to believe in any messenger until he brings us an offering that fire consumes.' Say, 'Messengers before me came to you with clear proofs and with what you have asked for, so why did you kill them, if you are truthful?'"
Thus He made clear that they were lying in their claim that the reason they did not believe was that this sign and proof had not appeared. For this proof had already existed before, yet they still did not believe. Their contradiction therefore showed that they were lying and had no excuse. 183
Allah Most High said: "When the truth came to them from Us, they said, 'Why was he not given the like of what Moses was given?' Did they not disbelieve in what Moses had been given before? They said, 'Two works of magic supporting one another,' and they said, 'We disbelieve in them all.'"
This verse is like the one before it.

(The reason for declaring the one who excuses them to be an unbeliever)
The question now is: What is the reason for declaring the one who excuses them to be an unbeliever? They say that the one who excuses them is now lying about Allah and His Messenger, since by excusing this person who errs in interpretation in what they call matters of creed, known by innate disposition, he is as though saying that Allah and His Messenger have lied by judging this person to be an unbeliever, when in fact he is a believing monotheist. The answer is that he never intended to deny Allah and His Messenger. Rather, in their view, someone who adopts an interpretation that has some basis is excused for his error, and this is the ruling of Allah and His Messenger concerning them; and, in his view, they are truthful in this ruling. Thus there is no basis here for declaring the one who excuses them to be an unbeliever. At the very least, he is interpreting their Islam charitably, for the sake of argument.


[Page 247]

The early scholars differed over declaring many groups to be unbelievers. Yet the one who declared them unbelievers did not say to the one who did not, "You have denied Allah and His Messenger, since they judged this act to be unbelief, and you have denied them by saying that this act is not unbelief."

Here I will mention some individuals over whose status the Sunnis differed. It is stated in al-I'tisam by al-Shatibi, edited by al-Shaqir, al-Humayd, and al-Sini (1/223):
"For the early scholars and others differed over declaring many of their sects to be unbelievers, such as the Kharijites, the Qadariyya, and others."

It is stated in al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa 'ala Ahl al-Rafd wa al-Dalal wa al-Zandaqa (2/630):
"Know that the Sunnis differed over declaring Yazid ibn Mu'awiya and his successor after him to be unbelievers. One group said that he was an unbeliever, citing the well-known account related by Sibt ibn al-Jawzi and others: when the head of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was brought, he gathered the people of Syria, began striking the head with a cane, and recited verses by Ibn al-Ziba'ra."

It is stated in Mirqat al-Mafatih Sharh Mishkat al-Masabih (4/1641):
"They differed over declaring someone who is ignorant of one of the attributes of Allah, Exalted is He, to be an unbeliever. Qadi Iyad said: Among those who declared him an unbeliever was Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, and Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari initially held this view. Others said that he is not declared an unbeliever on this account, unlike one who denies the attribute. Abu al-Hasan later returned to this view, and it became his settled position. He said: This is because the person holds this belief with certainty that he is right and regards it as a religious ruling; only someone who believes that his own doctrine is true is declared an unbeliever."


[Page 248]

It is stated in
((Al-Urf al-Shadhi, Commentary on Sunan al-Tirmidhi (1/81)

They differed over declaring the Rafidah unbelievers. The Hanafis have two opinions: it was said that they are unbelievers, and it was said that they are not. The preferred view is that they are unbelievers, for whoever declares the majority of the Companions unbelievers is an unbeliever, and the Rafidah restrict Islam to nine or seven Companions.))

It is stated in
((Sharh al-Tahawiyya - Yusuf al-Ghufays (19/18, numbered automatically by al-Maktaba al-Shamela)
On the disagreement over declaring one who abandons fasting and pilgrimage an unbeliever
As for fasting and pilgrimage, a group of the early generations held that abandoning fasting is unbelief, and a group of the early generations held that abandoning pilgrimage is unbelief. The vast majority of the early and later generations held that abandoning fasting alone or abandoning pilgrimage alone is not unbelief.))

((Ibn Hubayra said: "They differed concerning one who learns magic and practices it. Abu Hanifa, Malik, and Ahmad said that he thereby becomes an unbeliever. However, some of Abu Hanifa's followers made a distinction: if he learns it in order to guard against it or avoid it, he does not thereby become an unbeliever; but if he learns it believing it to be permissible, or believing that it will benefit him, then he becomes an unbeliever. He did not consider the ruling to be absolute. If he believes that the devils do whatever they wish, then he is an unbeliever. Al-Shafi'i said: 'If someone learns magic, we say to him: Describe your magic. If he describes something that entails unbelief, such as the belief of the people of Babylon that they draw near to the planets'


[Page 249]

The seven, and that they do what is sought of them, is a disbeliever. If he does not deem it to entail disbelief, then if he believes it to be permissible, he is a disbeliever.)
Disagreement over declaring one who abandons prayer to be a disbeliever is well known.
In all these issues, scholars differed over the individuals involved. According to some, they are disbelievers, abiding forever in the Fire; according to others, they are believers. The group that declared them disbelievers did not say that the other group were disbelievers for contradicting Allah and His Messenger by calling disbelief merely a sin. »»
Second: They said that the cause of declaring someone a disbeliever is ignorance of the true nature of Islam. The answer is that this same cause is present in issues over which the early generations differed. For example, one who declares a person who abandons prayer to be a disbeliever considers those who do not declare him a disbeliever to be in a state of compounded ignorance about the true nature of Islam, since, in his view, prayer is a pillar whose absence nullifies Islam altogether. The other side, by contrast, regards its being an obligation as having no bearing on the validity of Islam. Thus, this person is ignorant of the true nature of Islam, yet the early generations did not declare one another disbelievers on this basis. Abu Ubayda al-Jazairi himself said, relying on this very rationale—that the early generations did not declare one another disbelievers in certain issues—as evidence that we do not declare such a person a disbeliever: "One does not declare a person a disbeliever if he doubts or refrains from declaring one who abandons prayer a disbeliever, or refrains from declaring the Kharijites disbelievers; likewise, one who refrains or doubts regarding the disbelief of someone who has apostatized, but the grounds for it have not become clear to him.


[Page 250]

His disbelief, like that of Abu Hanifa and al-Hajjaj: the early generations differed over whether they were disbelievers, yet some did not declare others disbelievers." The question now is: if, by his own words, the early generations differed over declaring the Kharijites disbelievers, is this not clear evidence that they differed over the issue of declaring someone who interprets texts figuratively to be a disbeliever? Why, then, did you not declare those who did not declare the Kharijites disbelievers to be disbelievers, while you declared those who did not declare the Ash'aris disbelievers? The underlying cause in both cases is the same: declaring someone a disbeliever on the basis of figurative interpretation. If you excused those who excused the Kharijites, despite the existence of explicit hadiths declaring them disbelievers—hadiths of which there are none like them concerning the Ash'aris—and if we consider these hadiths and descriptions, we find that they contain rulings: that they are "the worst of creation," and "wherever you encounter them, kill them." Abu Umama, one of the Companions who narrated the hadith, said that they "disbelieved after their faith." These are three descriptions pertaining to this world; in the Hereafter, they are "the dogs of Hell." And he (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "They leave the religion and then never return to it." All these descriptions strongly indicate that these people are disbelievers who have left the religion. It is astonishing, then, to excuse those who did not declare these people disbelievers, despite the clarity of the texts concerning them, and then hasten to declare the Ash'aris disbelievers, those who do not declare the Ash'aris disbelievers, or those who do not declare an ignorant person who lacks knowledge of the attribute to be a disbeliever.... Moreover, among the condemnations of these Kharijites is what al-Subki says, as quoted in Fath al-Bari: "Those who declared the Kharijites and the extremist Rafidis disbelievers argued that they declared leading Companions to be disbelievers, which entails rejecting the Prophet's testimony that they would enter Paradise. He said: 'In my view, this is a sound argument.' He said: 'Those who did not declare them disbelievers argued that ruling them to be disbelievers would require that they had prior, certain knowledge of the aforementioned testimony.' This argument is open to question, for we know with certainty that those whom they declared disbelievers were upright until the time of their death.


[Page 251]

That is sufficient, in our view, to declare those who declare them unbelievers to be unbelievers. This is supported by the hadith, "If a man says to his brother, 'Unbeliever,' then it applies to one of them." In Muslim's wording: "Whoever accuses a Muslim of unbelief, or says, 'Enemy of Allah,' it will rebound upon him." He said: "It has been established that these people accuse a group of unbelief, people whose faith we know with certainty. They must therefore be judged unbelievers, in accordance with the implication of the Lawgiver's report."
Ibn Hazm likewise inclined to declare them unbelievers, and counted among their reprehensible acts, as stated in al-Muhalla bi al-Athar (11/334):
"It is thus established that interpretation differs. Any group that, in its rebellion, interprets the texts so as to erase some part of the Sunnah—such as those who adopt the view of the Kharijites in order to remove authority from Quraysh, or to return people to the view that stoning is invalid, or that people who commit sins are unbelievers, or that Muslims may be forced to lend money, or that children and women may be killed; or who openly profess that divine decree is invalid, or that the vision of Allah is impossible, or that Allah, Exalted is He, knows nothing until it comes to be; or who disavow some of the Companions, invalidate intercession, reject acting upon established Sunnahs from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and call people to refer to someone other than the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him); or who call for withholding zakat, or withholding any right due to a Muslim, or any right due to Allah, Exalted is He—such people are not excused on the basis of corrupt interpretation, for this is utter ignorance."
These are some of the reprehensible acts of the Kharijites, of which we find not even a little among the Asharis, despite the sound hadiths that indicate that these people are unbelievers.
If the reason for declaring the one who excuses them an unbeliever is his ignorance of the true nature of Islam, as you claim, then you are necessarily obliged to declare those among the early generations who excused the Kharijites unbelievers, those who held that…


[Page 252]

with all these abominations, which contradict the reality of Islam and are opposed to it, despite the hadiths explicitly concerning these particular people and no others.
Third: Their claim that the reason for declaring the one who excuses someone acting on an interpretation to be an unbeliever is that he has opposed consensus. I do not know what they mean by this. If they mean that consensus arose among the early generations on declaring someone acting on an interpretation to be an unbeliever, then we have already cited the well-known disagreement on this matter, so there is no need to repeat it here. Moreover, they have recently contradicted themselves, since they acknowledge that there was disagreement among the early generations about excusing an interpretive Kharijite. So where, then, is the consensus?
If they say that the early generations agreed against the view of the Ash'aris and others who interpret the attributes out of ignorance, the answer is: yes. Likewise, we know of no disagreement among them about rejecting and repudiating what the Kharijites held concerning the matters mentioned, nor about rejecting what the Qadaris held. Yet despite these sects' opposition, disagreement arose among the early generations about declaring them unbelievers, and disagreement arose over whether or not to excuse them. This was because some members of these sects might not regard this consensus as sound, might consider it speculative, or might point to matters concerning the divine attributes for which almost nothing at all was transmitted from the Companions, either about the attributes themselves or their interpretation. They might also have a doubt based on a verse or hadith, as happened with the Ash'aris regarding the words of the Exalted: {There is nothing like Him}; this led them to interpret the attributes. I will give here an example of the disagreement over declaring the Kharijites unbelievers. In Fath al-Bari, Ibn Hajar says: "Shaykh Taqi al-Din al-Subki said in his fatwas: Those who declared the Kharijites and the extremist Rafidis unbelievers argued that they themselves declared leading Companions unbelievers, which entails accusing the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of lying when he testified that they would enter Paradise. He said: In my view, this is a sound argument. He said: Those who did not declare them unbelievers argued that judging them to be unbelievers requires that they had prior, certain knowledge of the testimony in question. This argument is open to objection, because we know that"


[Page 253]

The exoneration of those whom they declared unbelievers was established with definitive knowledge until their death. This suffices, in our view, to deem unbelievers those who declared them unbelievers. This is supported by the hadith, "If a man says to his brother, 'Unbeliever,' then one of the two has incurred it." In Muslim's wording: "Whoever accuses a Muslim of unbelief, or says, 'Enemy of Allah,' it will rebound upon him." He said: It has been established that these people accuse a group of unbelief, people whose faith we know with certainty; therefore, in accordance with the report of the Lawgiver, they must be judged unbelievers. This is similar to what they said about one who prostrates to an idol and the like, even though there is no explicit denial in such an act, after they had defined unbelief as denial. If they argue that consensus has been established on deeming the perpetrator of such an act an unbeliever, we say: These reports concerning these people likewise entail that they are unbelievers, even if they did not believe with certainty that those whom they declared unbelievers were exonerated. Nor does their general belief in Islam and their performance of the obligatory acts save them from being judged unbelievers, just as it does not save one who prostrates to an idol. I say: Among those who inclined toward some of this discussion was al-Tabari in his Tahdhib. After citing the hadiths of this chapter, he said: "In this is a refutation of the view of one who says that no one among the people of the qibla leaves Islam, once its ruling applies to him, except by consciously intending to leave it. This view is invalidated by the hadith's statement: 'They speak the truth, recite the Quran, and pass out of Islam, yet it does not go beyond their throats.' It is well known that they only deemed the blood and property of Muslims lawful because they erred in their interpretation of Quranic verses, understanding them otherwise than intended." He then transmitted with an authentic chain from Ibn Abbas, and mentioned the Kharijites and what they encounter when the Quran is recited. Ibn Abbas said: "They believe in its clear verses and perish over its ambiguous ones." The command to kill them also supports the aforementioned view, along with the previously cited hadith of Ibn Masud: "It is not lawful to kill a Muslim except for one of three reasons," including "one who abandons his religion and separates from the community." Al-Qurtubi said in al-Mufhim: "The analogy mentioned in the hadith of Abu Sa'id supports the view that they are unbelievers"—that is, the hadith to be cited in the following chapter—"for …"


[Page 254]

The apparent meaning intended is that they left Islam and retained no connection to it, just as an arrow passes through its target, because of its speed and the strength of the archer, so that it retains nothing of the target. He alluded to this by saying, "It passes beyond the dung and the blood." The author of al-Shifa said concerning this: "Likewise, we decisively declare an unbeliever anyone who makes a statement by which he seeks to lead the community astray or to declare the Companions unbelievers." The author of al-Rawda cited this from him in the chapter on apostasy and endorsed it. Most Sunni scholars of legal theory held that the Kharijites are sinners, and that the rulings of Islam apply to them, since they profess the two testimonies of faith and regularly observe the pillars of Islam. They were deemed sinners only because they declared Muslims unbelievers, relying on a corrupt interpretation; this led them to deem the blood and property of those who opposed them lawful, and to testify that they were unbelievers and polytheists. Al-Khattabi said: "Muslim scholars agree that the Kharijites, despite their misguidance, are a sect among the Muslim sects. They permitted marrying them and eating their slaughtered animals, and held that they are not declared unbelievers so long as they adhere to the foundation of Islam." Iyad said: "This question nearly became more perplexing to theologians than any other, to the point that the jurist Abd al-Haqq asked Imam Abu al-Maali about it, and he excused himself, saying that admitting an unbeliever into the faith community and expelling a Muslim from it is a grave matter in religion." He said: "Before him, Qadi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani had refrained from giving an answer, saying: 'The people did not explicitly declare unbelief; rather, they made statements that lead to unbelief.'" Al-Ghazali said in The Distinction between Faith and Heresy: "What is proper is to avoid declaring someone an unbeliever whenever there is any way to do so. For deeming it lawful to shed the blood of those who pray and affirm the oneness of God is an error, and the error of leaving a thousand unbelievers alive is less grave than the error of shedding the blood of even one Muslim." Among the evidence cited by those who did not declare them unbelievers is the Prophet's statement in the third hadith of this chapter, after describing them as passing out of the religion as an arrow passes through its target: "The archer looks at his arrow."


[Page 255]

Until he said: "Then he doubts whether anything has stuck to the arrow notch." Ibn Battal said: The majority of scholars held that
The scholars held that the Kharijites are not outside the community of Muslims, based on the words, "he is uncertain about the arrowhead," since uncertainty entails doubt. And when doubt arises in this matter, they cannot be definitively judged to have left Islam, for whoever is certainly established in the covenant of Islam does not leave it except with certainty. He said: Ali was asked about the people of al-Nahrawan, "Have they disbelieved?" He replied, "They fled from disbelief." I say: If this is authentically reported from Ali, it may be understood to mean that he had not learned of the belief they held which led those who declared them disbelievers to do so. There is, however, a question about his use of the words, "he is uncertain about the arrowhead," for in some versions of the hadith mentioned—as previously indicated and as will be discussed later—"nothing of it clung to it," while in others, "it passed through the dung and blood." The way to reconcile these is that he was initially unsure whether there was anything on the arrowhead or not, then he established that nothing from the shot had clung to the arrow or any part of it. It is also possible to attribute the difference to different individuals among them, and that the words "he is uncertain" indicate that some of them may retain something of Islam. Al-Qurtubi says in al-Mufhim: "The view that they are disbelievers is more apparent from the hadith." He said: "According to the view that they are disbelievers, they are fought and killed, and their property is taken as spoils. This is the view of a group of hadith scholars regarding the property of the Kharijites. According to the view that they are not disbelievers, they are treated as rebels when they break allegiance and take up arms. As for one of them who conceals an innovation, if he is discovered, whether he is to be killed after being asked to repent, or not killed but instead efforts are made to refute his innovation, scholars have differed, in accordance with their disagreement over whether they are disbelievers." End quote.
Although I am inclined to regard the Kharijites as unbelievers, I have cited this to show that the early generations differed over whether one who interprets the texts erroneously is to be declared an unbeliever, and whether this interpretation is acceptable grounds for excusing its proponent or not. For this reason, he did not declare him an unbeliever.


[Page 256]

Whoever excuses the Kharijites' disbelief. It will be shown that among those who did not declare them disbelievers were Ibn Abbas and Ali. They did not tell them, "You have lied about Allah and His Messenger, misunderstood the true nature of Islam, and contradicted consensus," because those who excused them had a doubt concerning their disbelief. And since you say that we follow the early generations, the question for you is: Why did you not follow them here as well and excuse the one who excuses the Asharis, when their innovations are but a drop in the ocean of the Kharijites' innovations, despite the explicit texts stating that they leave the religion?
(Another contradiction in their rejection of an infinite regress)
Abu Ubayda al-Jazairi said, "Whoever does not declare a person whom Allah has explicitly declared a disbeliever to be a disbeliever—such as Iblis—is himself a disbeliever, as is whoever excuses him, and whoever excuses that person, and so on ..." Then he said, "But an infinite regress is not addressed in matters other than these, where there may be some doubts concerning the excuse given by the one who excuses, such as the Jahmiyya, the issue of the createdness of the Quran, and the like."
I do not know what he means by saying that it is "not addressed." Does he mean that he does not affirm an infinite regress in this case, that an infinite regress is invalid, and that the one who excuses the excuser is therefore excused? That is what his words appear to mean. Or does he mean that he suspends judgment on the matter? If he means that he does not affirm an infinite regress and that the one who excuses the excuser is not declared a disbeliever, then the pressing question here is: Why is the one who excuses the excuser not declared a disbeliever?
Let us give an example. They declare Ibn Taymiyya a disbeliever because he does not declare the Asharis disbelievers and excuses them. If you ask them, they answer with the reasons I mentioned earlier: denying Allah and His Messenger, ignorance of the true nature of Islam, and violating consensus.
So Ibn Taymiyya is a disbeliever who interprets the matter differently and is not excused for his interpretation, just as the Asharis are disbelievers who interpret the matter differently and are not excused for their interpretation. If someone then says, "Ibn Taymiyya is not a disbeliever, and he is excused," it seems, as I understand them, that they do not declare him a disbeliever.


[Page 257]

The pressing question here, then, is: why? If the very same reason for which you declared Ibn Taymiyya an unbeliever—namely, that "he excused people who had no valid interpretation, while himself interpreting"—is also present in this man who excused Ibn Taymiyya, since "he excused a man who had no valid interpretation, while himself interpreting," then this is a contradiction. You would therefore have to declare everyone an unbeliever and accept an infinite regress, or excuse everyone because the existence of a doubt removes the ruling of unbelief. The latter seems more likely to me, and Allah knows best.

(Are the Ash'aris and Maturidis Jahmis?)
It is noticeable that most of the texts they cite from people below the level of the Companions—for they have not cited anything from the Companions at all—that declare certain deeds to be unbelief occur in discussions of the createdness of the Quran or of the Jahmiyya. The question now is: are the Ash'aris, upon whom they apply these texts, Jahmis, or do they believe that the Quran is created, such that their use of the statements of those they cite is valid? As we have already shown, most of these statements are weak, and most come from people outside the first three generations, who fall outside the meaning of the Salaf.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him, said in al-Tis'iniyya (1/265–271): "The Jahmiyya are of three degrees:
1. The worst of them are the extremists, who deny Allah's names and attributes. If they call Him by any of His most beautiful names, they say that it is metaphorical; in reality, according to them, He is neither living, knowing, powerful, hearing, seeing, nor speaking, and He does not speak. The scholars have likewise described the true meaning of their position, as Imam Ahmad did in what he included in al-Radd ala al-Zanadiqa wa al-Jahmiyya, and as Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari did in al-Ibana and Maqalat al-Islamiyyin.
This position, which is the position of the extremists who truly deny the names, is that of the esoteric Qarmatians and those who preceded them among their brethren, the Sabean philosophers.
2. The second degree of Jahmism is the Jahmism of the Mu'tazila and those like them. They generally affirm Allah's most beautiful names, but deny His attributes. They also do not affirm all of Allah's most beautiful names on the basis of ..."


[Page 258]

The truth; rather, they make many of them metaphorical. These are the well-known Jahmiyya.
3. As for the third category, they are the affirmers of the divine attributes who oppose the Jahmiyya, but who have a degree of Jahmism. They are those who affirm Allah's names and attributes in general, but reject some of His names and attributes that are transmitted in reports, or otherwise, and interpret them, just as the earlier group interpreted all of His attributes.
Among them are those who affirm His attributes transmitted in the Quran, but not those transmitted in hadith, as is the case with many theologians and jurists, and a group of hadith scholars.
Among them, too, are those who affirm, in general, the attributes transmitted in reports as well, but deny and negate some of what is established by textual evidence and reason. This is the case with Abu Muhammad ibn Kullab and his followers.
Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari and groups of jurists, theologians, hadith scholars, and Sufis fall into this category. They are closer to the pure Ahl al-Sunna than they are to the Jahmiyya, Rafidites, Kharijites, and Qadariyya. However, a group affiliated with them is closer to the Jahmiyya than to the pure Ahl al-Sunna: these people dispute with the Mu'tazila very strongly over the attributes they affirm, more strongly than they dispute with the rest of those who affirm the attributes over what they deny.
As for later scholars, they have increasingly allied themselves with and drawn close to the Mu'tazila, and have preferred them over the Ahl al-Sunna and those who affirm the attributes. They have opposed their predecessors. Some of them come close to one another in what they deny and affirm, and most people say that these groups contradict themselves in combining denial and affirmation.
It is clear from the preceding passage that the Asharis fall under the third category, of whom Ibn Taymiyya said that they are closer to the pure Ahl al-Sunna than to the Jahmiyya. This confirms that they are not Jahmiyya. He also described them as "those who oppose the Jahmiyya," which likewise confirms that they are not the Jahmiyya whom some of the Successors are reported to have declared disbelievers without qualification.
Some have tried to use the following transmitted report as evidence that the Asharis are Jahmiyya. They said:
"The Imam al-Tirmidhi said in al-Jami al-Kabir, commenting on hadith number 662, as follows: 'This is a hasan sahih hadith. A similar report has been narrated from Aisha, from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). More than one of the people of knowledge has said concerning this hadith and reports like it that…"


[Page 259]

The attributes and the descent of the Lord, Blessed and Exalted is He, every night to the lowest heaven: they said, "The reports concerning this are established, and they are believed in without imagining how, and without asking, 'How is it?'" This is how it was related from Malik, Sufyan ibn Uyaynah, and Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak: they said regarding these hadiths, "Let them pass without asking how." This is also the position of the scholars among the people of the Sunnah and the community. As for the Jahmiyyah, they rejected these reports and said, "This is anthropomorphism." Allah, Mighty and Majestic is He, has mentioned the hand, hearing, and sight in more than one place in His Book. The Jahmiyyah interpreted these verses, explaining them in a way different from the explanation given by the scholars. They said that Allah did not create Adam with His hand, and said that "hand" here means power. Ishaq ibn Ibrahim said: "Anthropomorphism occurs only when someone says 'a hand like a hand,' 'a hand resembling a hand,' 'hearing like hearing,' or 'hearing resembling hearing.' If someone says 'hearing like hearing' or 'hearing resembling hearing,' that is anthropomorphism. But if someone says, as Allah, Exalted is He, has said, 'hand, hearing, and sight,' without saying how, or saying 'resembling hearing' or 'like hearing,' then this is not anthropomorphism. It is as Allah, Exalted is He, says in His Book: 'There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.'" End quote.))
There is nothing in al-Tirmidhi's words stating that the Asharis are Jahmiyyah. He only said that the Jahmiyyah interpret attributes of this kind, and this is true. The Asharis agreed with them on some of that, but this does not mean that they should be called Jahmiyyah, nor


[Page 260]

He says that he too is like that; not everyone who agrees with a sect on some issue thereby becomes one of them." End quote.

He said: The following are the reasons for declaring the Ash'aris unbelievers, without excusing them on the basis of interpretation:

"First: Denying Allah Most High's exaltedness, which is the most heinous of them.
The Salaf unanimously agreed that whoever denies Allah Most High's exaltedness is an unbeliever, and the Ash'aris affirm it, following the Jahmiyya.
Ibn Taymiyya said regarding Allah's exaltedness: 'For this reason, the Salaf were unanimous in declaring whoever denied this an unbeliever, since in their view it is known by necessity as part of the religion.' Al-Dar' 7/26." End quote.

Comment: It is astonishing that they cite Ibn Taymiyya here, since, as noted above, Ibn Taymiyya did not declare the Ash'aris individually to be unbelievers, nor did he transmit such a view from the Salaf, as they do when declaring individuals unbelievers. Rather, he transmitted a general, unrestricted ruling from the Salaf here. Ibn Taymiyya also said: "An unrestricted declaration of unbelief, like an unrestricted threat, does not entail declaring a particular person an unbeliever until the proof has been established against him, the rejection of which constitutes unbelief." And: "Ibn Taymiyya says: 'As for declaring someone an unbeliever, the correct view is that whoever among the community of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) exercises independent judgment and seeks the truth, but errs, is not an unbeliever; rather, his error is forgiven.'" And this is his position from


[Page 261]

His position that individuals are not to be declared unbelievers is well known, as is his refusal to declare the Ash'aris unbelievers. For this reason, they declared him an unbeliever personally.
It is stated in Majmu al-Fatawa (20/31):
"In general, the reward is for following the truth according to one's own effort in reaching a judgment. Even if there were, in reality, a truth that contradicted his judgment, that truth would be more deserving of being followed, were he able to know it; but he was unable to do so. This is like those who strive to determine the direction of the Kaaba. The same applies to anyone who performs an act of worship that has been prohibited, without knowing of the prohibition, provided that it is of the same kind as what has been commanded. For example, someone who prays at times when prayer is prohibited, having received the general command to pray but not having learned of the prohibition; or someone who relies on a specific but weaker proof, such as the prayer of two rak'ahs after Asr performed by a group of the early generations, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed them; or a prayer for which weak or fabricated hadiths have been narrated, such as the thousand-rak'ah prayer in the middle of Sha'ban, the prayer at the beginning of Rajab, and the tasbih prayer, as Ibn al-Mubarak permitted it, and other such prayers. If these fall under the general recommendation to pray, and he has not learned of anything that entails prohibition, he is rewarded for that, even if there is a prohibition concerning them in some respect, because he did not know that they were an innovation adopted as a regular practice and performed collectively every year. This is like someone instituting a sixth prayer. For this reason, if he wished to perform such a prayer without a hadith, he would have no right to do so; but when the hadith was narrated, he believed that"


[Page 262]

If it is sound, but he errs in it, his error is forgiven and he is rewarded for performing an act of a kind that is prescribed. The same applies to someone who fasts on the day of Eid without knowing that this is prohibited. This is unlike an act whose kind is not prescribed, such as associating partners with Allah: there is no reward for this, even though Allah does not punish its perpetrator until the message has been conveyed, as He, Exalted is He, says: {We would never punish until We had sent a messenger}. Yet although he is not punished, he is not rewarded either. Rather, this is as Allah, Exalted is He, says: {We shall turn to whatever deeds they did and make them scattered dust}. Ibn al-Mubarak said: "These are deeds done for other than Allah." Mujahid said: "These are deeds that were not accepted." And He, Exalted is He, says: {The deeds of those who disbelieve in their Lord are like ashes blown about by the wind} to the end of the verse. Their deeds are thus invalid, and there is no reward for them. If the Messenger forbids them from these deeds and they do not desist, they are punished; punishment for them is conditional upon the Messenger's message having been conveyed. As for their being invalid in themselves, that is because they are not commanded: every act of worship that is not commanded must be forbidden. Then, if someone knows that it is forbidden and does it, he deserves punishment. If he does not know, he does not deserve punishment. If he believes that it is commanded and it belongs to a kind of act that is prescribed, he is rewarded for it. But if it belongs to the kind of associating partners with Allah, nothing of that kind is commanded, although some people may think that certain forms of it are commanded. Such a person is not exercising independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), because one who exercises independent legal reasoning must follow a legal proof, and there can be no legal proof for these acts. But


[Page 263]

He may do so based on an exercise of independent reasoning like his own: by following the example of shaykhs and scholars who did it, and who did so because they thought it beneficial; or because they had heard a fabricated hadith. If proof establishing the prohibition has not been presented to such people, they will not be punished. As for reward, they may be rewarded in the sense that they are superior to others of their kind; but they will not be rewarded for drawing near to Allah through such acts.
Section:
The excusable error in independent reasoning occurs in both types of questions: those concerning transmitted reports and those concerning knowledge, as has been explained at length elsewhere. An example is someone who believes something to be established on the basis of a verse or hadith, while there is evidence that contradicts it and clarifies what is meant, but he does not know that evidence. This includes someone who believes that the one to be sacrificed was Isaac, on the basis of a hadith he believes to be authentic; or someone who believes that Allah cannot be seen, citing His words: {Eyes cannot perceive Him} and His words: {It is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil}. Aisha used these two verses as evidence that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not see Allah. They indicate this only in a general sense. Likewise, it is reported that some of the Successors held that Allah cannot be seen, and interpreted His words: {Faces on that Day will be radiant} {looking toward their Lord} to mean that they would await the reward of their Lord, as is reported from Mujahid and Abu Salih. Or someone who believes that the dead are not punished for the living person's weeping, because he believes that Allah's words, {No bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another}, indicate this, and that this takes precedence over a narrator's report because the


[Page 264]

Hearing may be mistaken, as a group among the early and later scholars believed. Or someone may believe that the dead do not hear the speech of the living, because he thinks that His saying, {For you cannot make the dead hear}, indicates this. Or he may believe that Allah does not marvel, as Shurayh believed, because he thinks that marveling occurs only through ignorance of the cause, whereas Allah is exalted above ignorance. Or he may believe that Ali is superior to the Companions, because he thinks the hadith of the bird is authentic: that {the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "O Allah, bring to me the one dearest to You among Your creation, to eat this bird with me."} Or he may believe that whoever spies for the enemy and informs them of the Prophet's campaign
is a hypocrite, as Umar believed of Hatib, saying, "Let me strike off the head of this hypocrite." Or he may believe that whoever becomes angry on behalf of some hypocrites is a hypocrite, as Usayd ibn Hudayr believed of Sa'd ibn Ubadah, saying, "You are a hypocrite, arguing on behalf of the hypocrites." Or he may believe that certain words or verses are not part of the Quran because their transmission has not been established for him by a reliable report. It is related that more than one of the early scholars rejected certain Quranic expressions, such as some of them rejecting {And your Lord decreed}, saying, "Rather, it is 'And your Lord enjoined.'" Some rejected His saying, {And when Allah took the covenant of the prophets}, saying, "Rather, it is the covenant of the Children of Israel," and so it is in the reading of Abdullah. Some rejected {Have not those who believed despaired}, saying, "Rather, it is 'Have not ...'"


[Page 265]

Those who believe become clear. Just as Umar objected to Hisham ibn al-Hakam when he heard him reciting Surat al-Furqan differently from the way he had recited it. And just as a group of the early generations objected to some reciters over readings they did not recognize, until Uthman united them upon the master copy of the Quran. And just as a group of the early and later generations objected to the claim that Allah wills acts of disobedience, because they believed this meant that Allah loves and approves of them and commands them. Another group of the early and later generations objected to the claim that Allah wills acts of disobedience because they thought that "will" could only mean His willing their creation; yet they knew that Allah is the Creator of all things, that whatever He wills comes to be, and whatever He does not will does not come to be. The Quran uses the word "will" in both this sense and the other sense, but each group recognized one of the two meanings and rejected the other. And like the man who said to his family, "When I die, burn me, then scatter my ashes in the sea. For by Allah, if Allah has power over me, He will punish me with a punishment unlike that of anyone in all the worlds." And as a group of the early generations have mentioned regarding His saying: {Does he think that no one will have power over him?} and the disciples' saying: {Can your Lord send down to us a table spread with food from heaven?} And like the Companions who asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), "Will we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" They did not know that they would see Him; and many people do not know this, either because the hadiths have not reached them or because they thought them false or mistaken.))


[Page 266]

(Ibn Taymiyya's discussion of declaring a specific person an unbeliever)

((After mentioning the disagreement among later scholars over whether the people of innovation are declared unbelievers in a way that takes them out of the religion or not, and whether they remain eternally in the Fire or not, Ibn Taymiyya said: "The reality of the matter is that, with regard to the general wording used by the imams, they fell into the same error as those before them fell into with regard to the general wording in the Lawgiver's texts. Whenever they saw the imams say, 'Whoever says such-and-such is an unbeliever,' the listener assumed that this wording applied to everyone who said it. They did not consider that declaring someone an unbeliever has conditions and impediments that may be absent or present in the case of a specific person, and that declaring someone an unbeliever in general does not entail declaring a specific person an unbeliever unless the conditions are met and the impediments are absent. This is made clear by the fact that Imam Ahmad and most of the imams who made such general statements did not declare most of those who said those very words to be unbelievers. For example, Imam Ahmad personally dealt with the Jahmiyya, who called on him to affirm that the Quran was created and to deny the divine attributes. They put him and the other scholars of his time to the test, and persecuted the believing men and women who did not agree with their Jahmism, beating and imprisoning them … He mentioned that most of those in authority declared everyone who was not a Jahmi and did not agree with them to be an unbeliever, and treated them as unbelievers … and so on," up to where he said: "It is well known that this is among the most extreme forms of Jahmism, for calling people to a doctrine is graver than merely holding it, and rewarding those who profess it and punishing those who reject it is graver than merely calling people to it …..

"Then Imam Ahmad prayed for the caliph and others who had beaten and imprisoned him, sought forgiveness for them, and absolved them of what they had done … Had they been apostates from Islam, it would not have been permissible to seek forgiveness for them, for seeking forgiveness for unbelievers is forbidden by the Book.


[Page 267]

The Sunnah and consensus. These statements and actions of his and of other imams make it clear that they did not declare specific individuals among the Jahmiyya to be unbelievers….
So consider, may Allah have mercy on you: despite the repugnance of the Jahmiyya's doctrine, he did not declare their specific adherents to be unbelievers; rather, he prayed for them. Nor did he support the people of polytheism and the Crusaders against them. Instead, he rejoiced at the conquest of Amorium and openly expressed his joy at it. He did not surrender to the Crusaders any land of Islam governed by the Sharia, on the pretext that the Jahmiyya and Mu'tazila declare us unbelievers."
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya says in his response to Ibn al-Bakri: "For this reason, the people of knowledge and the Sunnah do not declare those who oppose them to be unbelievers, even if those opponents declare them unbelievers, because declaring someone an unbeliever is a legal ruling, and a person may not retaliate in kind. If someone lies about you and commits adultery with your wife, you may not lie about him or commit adultery with his wife, because adultery and lying are forbidden as a right owed to Allah, Exalted is He. Likewise, declaring someone an unbeliever is a right owed to Allah, Exalted is He, so no one is declared an unbeliever except one whom Allah and His Messenger have declared an unbeliever." End quote, p. 257.

Those who declare the Ash'aris unbelievers cite among their reasons for doing so: "Second: denying the reality of Allah's speech and claiming that the Quran in the written copies is created and is not the speech of Allah.
The early generations declared an unbeliever anyone who denied Allah's speech and claimed that the Quran was created, and al-Lalaka'i and others transmitted a consensus on this. These people said that Allah has no verbal speech, only an inner meaning; Allah, Exalted is He, does not speak in words, letters, or a voice heard by Gabriel. The Quran is merely an expression of Allah's speech and a report of it; it is not Allah's speech. Rather, Gabriel's speech is an expression of what Allah intended, and the Quran in the written copies is created and is not Allah's speech." End quote. Here he attributed to al-Lalaka'i…


[Page 268]

The consensus was transmitted. But did al-Lalaka'i transmit a consensus in the sense they understood it—that the Salaf declared anyone who did this an unbeliever without qualification, even if acting on an interpretation? Let us examine his words. In Sharh Usul I'tiqad Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a (1/197), it says:
"We were informed by Muhammad ibn al-Muzaffar al-Muqri, who said: Al-Husayn ibn Muhammad ibn Habash al-Muqri narrated to us, who said: Abu Muhammad Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Hatim narrated to us, who said: I asked my father and Abu Zur'a about the doctrines of the people of the Sunnah concerning the fundamentals of religion, what they had found the scholars in all the regions adhering to, and what they themselves believed regarding these matters. They replied: 'We found the scholars in all the regions—Hijaz, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen—adhering to the following doctrine: faith is speech and action; it increases and decreases. The Quran is the speech of Allah, uncreated in all its aspects. Both the good and the evil of divine decree are from Allah, Mighty and Majestic. The best of this community after its Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, then Umar ibn al-Khattab, then Uthman ibn Affan, then Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon them). They are the rightly guided caliphs. The ten whom the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) named and testified would enter Paradise are as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) testified, and his word is true. We pray for mercy upon all the Companions of Muhammad and refrain from discussing what occurred between them. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is above His Throne, distinct from His creation, as He described Himself in His Book and through the words of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), without asking how; His knowledge encompasses all things. {There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing} [al-Shura: 11]. And He, Blessed and Exalted, will be seen in the Hereafter: the people of Paradise will see Him with their eyes and hear His speech, as and however He wills. Paradise is true and the Fire is true; both are created and will never perish. Paradise is the reward for His devoted servants, and the Fire is the punishment for those who disobey Him, except those upon whom Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has mercy. The Bridge is true, and the Balance is true; it has two pans, on which the deeds of the servants will be weighed"


[Page 269]

Its good and evil are true. The Pool with which our Prophet has been honored is true. Intercession is true, and resurrection after death is true. Those who commit major sins are subject to the will of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. We do not declare the people of the qibla unbelievers on account of their sins, and we entrust their inner secrets to Allah, Mighty and Majestic. We uphold the obligation of jihad and pilgrimage alongside the leaders of the Muslims in every age and time. We do not consider rebellion against the leaders or fighting during civil strife permissible. We hear and obey whoever Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has placed in authority over us, and we do not withdraw our hand from obedience. We follow the Sunnah and the community, and avoid deviation, disagreement, and division. Jihad has continued from the time Allah, Mighty and Majestic, sent His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) until the Hour is established, under those in authority among the leaders of the Muslims; nothing can bring it to an end. Pilgrimage is likewise, as is the payment of alms from grazing livestock to those in authority among the leaders of the Muslims. People are treated as Muslims in rulings and inheritance, but we do not know their standing with Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Whoever says, "He is truly a believer," is an innovator; whoever says, "He is a believer in the sight of Allah," is among the liars; and whoever says, "He truly believes in Allah," is correct. The Murji'a and the innovators are astray, and the Qadari innovators are astray. Whoever among them denies that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, knows what has not yet come to be before it comes to be is an unbeliever. The Jahmiyya are unbelievers; the Rafida have rejected Islam; and the Kharijites have gone out of it. Whoever claims that the Quran is created is an unbeliever in Allah, the Almighty, with unbelief that takes him out of the religion. Whoever doubts the unbelief of such a person, if he understands the matter, is an unbeliever. Whoever doubts the speech of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and remains uncertain about it, saying, "I do not know whether it is created or uncreated," is a Jahmi. Whoever suspends judgment about the Quran out of ignorance is to be taught and deemed an innovator, but not declared an unbeliever." Here we have several points to make that turn his use of this statement against him.
First: al-Lalaka'i's statement: "Whoever claims that the Quran is created is an unbeliever in Allah, the Almighty, with unbelief that takes him out of the religion. Whoever doubts the unbelief of such a person, if he understands the matter, is an unbeliever."


[Page 270]

A disbeliever.")) This statement is evidence against them, since they declare anyone who excuses another to be a disbeliever without qualification, whereas here he has stipulated a condition: "that the one excusing him understand." If that is so, their argument turns against them, for if this was the consensus of the early generations, then there is consensus here that the one who excuses another is not declared a disbeliever until he understands the proof, as is apparent from al-Lalaka'i's words.
Second: Al-Lalaka'i's statement: "Whoever suspends judgment concerning the Quran out of ignorance is to be taught and declared an innovator, but not declared an unbeliever." This demolishes their claim that ignorance regarding the attribute is no excuse. And if this is a consensus, then the early generations also reached consensus on it, so Al-Lalaka'i's statement applies to them here as well.
Third: They say that one who is ignorant of an attribute established by innate disposition or reason is an unbeliever and is not excused, and must affirm those attributes that reason or innate disposition affirms, even if no revealed text has reached him. But what is al-Lalaka'i's position, which he attributes here to Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a? Al-Lalaka'i's position, which he attributes to Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a, is that belief in Allah's attributes is established only through revealed texts, and is obligatory through revealed texts, not through reason. It says in I'tiqad Ahl al-Sunna, by al-Lalaka'i (2/193):
Chapter on the Unity of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and His Attributes and Names,
and that He is Living, Powerful, Knowing, Hearing, Seeing, Speaking, Willing, Everlasting
An account of what is indicated by the Book of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and what has been narrated from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), showing that
The obligation to know Allah, Exalted is He, and His attributes through revelation, not reason. Allah, Exalted is He, says, addressing His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in wording that is specific while the intended meaning is general: "So know that there is no god but Allah."


[Page 271]

And the Blessed and Exalted said: "Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord. There is no god but Him, and turn away from the polytheists."
And the Blessed and Exalted said: "We sent no messenger before you without revealing to him: 'There is no god but Me, so worship Me.'"
In this verse, Allah informed His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that the prophets before him came to know of monotheism through hearing and revelation.
And He said: "Say: If I go astray, I go astray only to my own detriment; and if I am guided, it is by what my Lord reveals to me. He is All-Hearing, Near."
Ibrahim inferred His oneness from His precise and perfect acts: the rising and setting of the sun, the appearance and disappearance of the moon, and the appearance and setting of the stars. Then he said: "If my Lord does not guide me, I will surely be among the people who have gone astray." Thus he knew that guidance came through hearing, and likewise that knowledge of the messengers is obligatory through hearing.
Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, said: "Say: O people, I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, to Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no god but Him; He gives life and causes death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him so that you may be guided."
And He said: "We would never punish until We had sent a messenger."
And the Blessed and Exalted said: "So that people would have no argument against Allah after the messengers."
And the Blessed and Exalted said: "You were not on the western side when We decreed the matter to Moses, nor were you among the witnesses. But We brought forth generations, and a long time passed over them. You did not dwell among the people of Midian, reciting Our signs to them, but We were sending messengers. And you were not


[Page 272]

by the side of the Mount when We called out, but as a mercy from your Lord, so that you may warn a people to whom no warner came before you, that they may take heed. And lest, when a calamity strikes them for what their hands have sent forth, they should say: Our Lord, why did You not send us a messenger, so that we might follow Your signs and be among the believers?)
(And they said: Why does he not bring us a sign from his Lord? Has there not come to them clear evidence of what was in the former scriptures? And had We destroyed them with a punishment before him, they would have said: Our Lord, why did You not send us a messenger, so that we might follow Your signs before we were humiliated and disgraced?
This shows that knowledge of Allah and of the messengers comes through revelation, as Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has told us.
This is the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a.)) I do not know what they say about this text, given how clearly it shows that the obligation to know the oneness of Allah and His attributes comes only through revelation, and that he attributes this to Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a. He said: ((Chapter gathering the oneness of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, His attributes and His names,
and that He is Living, Powerful, Knowing, Hearing, Seeing, Speaking, Willing, Everlasting:
an account of what is shown by the Book of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and by what is narrated from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), that
the obligation to know Allah, Exalted is He, and His attributes comes through revelation, not through reason. Then, after setting out the evidence, he said: This shows that knowledge of Allah and of the messengers comes through revelation, as Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has told us.
This is the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a.)) If al-Lalaka'i and his report of the consensus of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a are a proof, then they are a proof here without any doubt, so why do they not follow him?


[Page 273]

Is this based on this, and do they follow the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna here??? Al-Lalaka'i's words are therefore also proof against them here.
(A Pause to Consider the Excuse for Choosing the Lesser of Two Evils)
The matter here must be precisely defined so that no one is confused. The discussion concerns a man who will not rule by anything other than what Allah has revealed, enact any legislation other than what Allah has revealed, or submit to the judgment of any law other than Allah's law. The only issue is that there are two candidates, one of whom must assume the office: one is close to Islam, while the other is hostile to it and wages war against it. If this hostile candidate will wreak havoc among the Muslims, killing and capturing them, and will put them in a state of necessity, then the previously discussed question of necessity arises. But if the other candidate will not bring the Muslims to a state of necessity and coercion, yet choosing the lesser of two evils would bring benefits to the Muslims and ease their situation, is it permissible in this case to nominate—only nominate—the lesser of two evils? There is no doubt that the person who wishes to choose the lesser of two evils does not intend for this ruler to rule by anything other than what Allah has revealed. His sole intention is to reduce disbelief and injustice. Whether or not he makes this choice, a ruler who does not rule by what Allah has revealed will most likely be installed. This voter has not ruled by anything other than what Allah has revealed, has not directly carried it out, and has not approved of it.
In some countries, there are two candidates for a certain office. One of them would cause severe harm to the Muslims if he assumed the office, while the other would cause less harm and would be conciliatory toward the Muslims, despite committing disbelief by ruling by other than what Allah has revealed. Is it permissible, in such circumstances, for the Muslims to nominate the one who would cause less harm—for example, someone like al-Najashi at the beginning of his rule, before he embraced Islam? Some view this issue from the perspective that whoever does this would, by doing so, be assisting in ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, which is major disbelief. Thus, the person who voted for him would also be a disbeliever for assisting in disbelief, and they would not excuse him on the grounds of ignorance, since he could have acquired knowledge.
But there is another point of view here: the elected representative did not intend, by his action, to help the disbeliever in his disbelief. Rather, he sought the disbeliever's leniency toward Islam and its people, and the reduction of disbelief. I would like to give an example here to clarify this matter. Suppose there are two pans of a balance: on one is a sheet of paper bearing a verse from the Quran, and on the other is a complete copy of the Quran, with impure water beneath the balance. We find two groups of people: one group is clinging to the pan with the complete Quran, trying to lower it so that it sinks into the muddy, impure water; the other group is clinging to the other pan, trying to lower it into the muddy, contaminated water. There is no doubt that both actions are disbelief. But by helping the people on the side of the verse, we will save the complete Quran from falling into the impure mud, because to the extent that we help lower the pan with the verse, the pan with the Quran rises. So there is no doubt that whoever helps lower the pan with the verse into the impure mud with the intention of saving the Quran has absolutely no intention of defiling that verse. Rather, when two prohibited matters conflict, he chooses the lesser prohibition. The researcher who considers something like this permissible does so for several reasons. Among them is that you may help a disbeliever for some legitimate reason, and your purpose in providing this kind of assistance is a legitimate one. Even if this assistance leads to the disbeliever being kept alive and remaining in existence for a longer period, and consequently to the continuation of his acts of disbelief, you do not here intend to preserve disbelief, bring it into existence, or perpetuate it. Your assistance is intended only for a legitimate purpose, even if it leads to a disbeliever being kept alive and continuing to exist, and consequently to his disbelief continuing. But since that is not what you intend, you are not blameworthy for it. Indeed, this may be something that is obligatory to do. I will give examples of this: giving food to a disbeliever—for it is authentically reported in al-Bukhari that the Companions were instructed to gather food for the polytheist woman who owned the waterskin; and his statement to his disbelieving relatives is established: "You have ties of kinship with me, and I shall maintain them as they should be maintained"; and it is established that the Companions disliked giving money to their relatives among the polytheists, so Allah revealed: {You are not responsible for their guidance, but Allah guides whom He wills}. Likewise, the People of the Book are allowed to remain in exchange for the jizya, and thus their disbelief is allowed to remain; and it is also permissible to release a polytheist as a favor, as Allah, Exalted is He, says: {Then either a favor afterward}; and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) released Thumama ibn Uthal, who was a leader among Banu Hanifa. There is no doubt that he ruled them by other than the Sharia, and with this


[Page 274]

Perhaps this ruling by other than what Allah has revealed would have continued. Likewise, it is established in al-Bukhari that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said regarding the captives of Badr: "If al-Mut'im ibn Adi were alive and then spoke to me about these foul men, I would release them to him." Here, the Prophet would have released some of the leading men of Quraysh, and there is no doubt that this could have led to their disbelief continuing. Likewise, giving to those whose hearts are to be reconciled, according to the view that polytheists who are hoped to enter Islam may be given from the zakat; and likewise, the Prophet's supplication to Allah that He lift the drought from Quraysh, when they were polytheists at war with him, as related in al-Bukhari. The drought was lifted, and he had sought Allah's help in this matter.
There is no doubt that they continued in their disbelief thereafter, and in their rule by disbelief and their barring people from the way of Allah, until Allah granted the conquest of Mecca afterward. Thus, retaining these people meant retaining their disbelief. But this was certainly not what the Messenger of Allah intended by his supplication for them. Likewise, his statement, peace be upon him, that we would make a truce with the Romans, and his approval of that; there is no doubt that this truce meant the Romans remained in power and their disbelief continued. Likewise, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah undoubtedly entailed the disbelievers' rule in Mecca being retained and their not being confronted in battle. But since there was a greater benefit, the truce was given precedence. Likewise, the Muslims rejoiced at the Romans' victory over the Persians. There is no doubt that this strengthened the Romans' rule based on disbelief. But since this rule was less harmful to Islam than that of others, they rejoiced in it. No one would say that they rejoiced in disbelief; rather, they rejoiced that the Persians' disbelief would be diminished as a result of their defeat.
(The question of a Muslim assisting one disbeliever against another in combat) I will address here an issue: a Muslim assisting a disbeliever in fighting another disbeliever. In this issue, the Muslim fights alongside a disbeliever against another disbeliever in order to achieve…


[Page 275]

for some interest or to avert some necessity. The issue under discussion is more serious than the issue we are examining, because in the matter of fighting, the Muslim exposes himself to death, the loss of a limb, or severe hardship. People fight only so that their rule will prevail and their word will be supreme. There is no doubt that if a Muslim assists a disbeliever in fighting, he thereby helps him consolidate his rule and, consequently, govern by other than what Allah has revealed.
But the Muslim does not, of course, intend that. Rather, he may have interests in doing so, such as financial gain, inflicting a blow on a more wicked enemy, or warding off harm from himself—for example, if he is a prisoner among them and fights alongside them so that they will release him. I am not here seeking to favor one opinion on this issue; I cite it only to show that even regarding the lowest degree of assistance to a disbeliever—such as a man helping one disbeliever against another solely for financial gain—none of the scholars held that this act constitutes disbelief, even though its consequence is to empower a disbelieving ruler and his rule by other than what Allah has revealed. But since the issue concerns warding off disbelief by means of disbelief, one of which will inevitably occur, Allah willing, and since the Muslim never intends that the victorious disbeliever should govern by other than what Allah has revealed, because in either case the ... I have not found any scholar who declared him a disbeliever. Rather, some of them permitted him to do so merely in hope of financial gain, despite the fact that in this matter the Muslim faces the risk of exposing himself to danger to a degree not present when voting for the lesser of two harms in order to avert the greater harm. This risk to oneself was the sole reason that led a group of jurists to prohibit assisting them in return for money alone, rather than out of necessity. There is undoubtedly no such risk to oneself in voting for the lesser harm, which makes applying their opinion to the issue of voting mean that there is nothing wrong with it if it is done to secure an interest and ward off harm from the Muslims.


[Page 276]

I shall now present these views, drawing on a writer named Abd al-Aziz al-Tamimi.
First, that the upper hand belongs to the unbelievers, with the Muslim subordinate to them. Is it permissible for a Muslim to fight alongside them against other unbelievers for the sake of money or the like?
Defining the point of disagreement.
The scholars differed over whether it is permissible to join their army and fight alongside them against other unbelievers for worldly gains, such as seeking money and the like. They held four different views on this matter:
The first view: Fighting alongside them is prohibited; this is the position of Malik.
It is stated in al-Mudawwana (1/518):
"I said: What is your view if a group of Muslims are captives in the land of polytheism, or are merchants, and the ruler of that land seeks their help against a group of polytheists who have opposed him, whether they are from among the people of his realm or from outside it? Do you think they should fight alongside him, or not?
He said: I heard Malik say concerning captives who are in the lands of the polytheists, and whom the king calls upon to help him fight his enemy, and who are brought to the lands of the Muslims?
He said: Malik said: "I do not think they should fight over this, nor is it lawful for them to shed their blood over anything like that. Malik said: People are fought only so that they may be brought from polytheism into Islam. As for fighting the unbelievers to bring them from one form of unbelief to another and shedding their blood for that, this is not something that should be done, and it is not fitting for a Muslim to shed his blood over this."
It appears in "Al-Nawadir wa al-Ziyadat ala ma fi al-Mudawwana min ghayriha min al-Ummahat" (14/551):
"If the polytheists sought their help in fighting an enemy of theirs, they should not assist them, unless some of the people of polytheism attack them and take them captive, and the Muslims fear that this will happen to them. In that case, there is no harm in fighting alongside those among whom they are." Here it is worth noting that the Maliki school held it permissible to fight alongside one unbeliever against another if they feared being taken captive. It is also worth noting that, in the matter of voting for the lesser of two evils, Muslims often resort to it out of fear of capture and imprisonment; this case is therefore included here all the more so.


[Page 277]

The second view: Fighting in their ranks is disliked. This is the position of the Hanafis, the Shafi'is, and others.
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said: "If the rule of the people of polytheism prevails, Muslims should not fight alongside the people of polytheism, unless they fear for their own lives, in which case they defend themselves."(42) Al-Siyar al-Saghir
It appears in "Ikhtilaf al-Ulama by al-Tahawi, abridged by al-Jassas" (3/428): "On seeking assistance from the polytheists"
Our companions said: There is no harm in seeking the assistance of polytheists to fight polytheists if the rule of Islam prevails and is applied to them. Seeking their assistance is only disliked when the rule of polytheism is manifest. This is the view of al-Shafi'i.
Al-Awza'i said: "I do not disapprove of seeking their help."
Malik said: "I do not think they should seek their help unless they are servants."
Abu Ja'far said: Allah, Glorified is He, said: {Do not take as confidants anyone other than yourselves}
And He said: {And I would not take the misguided as helpers.} Malik ibn Anas narrated from al-Fudayl ibn Abi Abd Allah, from Abd Allah ibn Niyar al-Aslami, from Urwa ibn al-Zubayr, from Aisha, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) set out before Badr. When he was at Harrat al-Wabara, a man came to him and said, "I have come to follow you and fight alongside you." The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Do you believe in Allah and His Messenger?" He replied, "No." He said, "Then go back, for we will not seek help from a polytheist." The man came back to him three times, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said the same to him each time. The man said that he went back, then caught up with him at al-Bayda. The Prophet said to him what he had said the first time: "Do you believe in Allah and His Messenger?" He replied, "Yes." The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Then set out."
Abu Ja'far said: This indicates that he was one of the idol worshippers, because he called him to believe in Allah, whereas the People of the Book believe in Allah.
It is narrated from Abu Humayd al-Saidi that he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) went out on the day of Uhud and saw a heavily armed troop. He asked, "Who are these?" They replied, "The Banu Qaynuqa, who are the clan of Abdullah ibn


[Page 278]

Salam said, "Become Muslims," but they refused. He said to them, "Then go back, for I do not seek the help of polytheists against polytheists."
This indicates that the People of the Book and the worshippers of idols are alike in that their assistance may not be sought.
It has been narrated that when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) learned that Abu Sufyan had assembled men to march against him on the day of Uhud, he went to Banu al-Nadir, who were Jews, and said to them, "Either fight alongside us or lend us weapons."
Abu Ja'far said: It is possible that this was due to a necessity that had arisen.
It has been narrated that Safwan ibn Umayya attended Hunayn with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) while he was a polytheist.
Malik said, "This was not by the Prophet's command."))
[44] It appears in al-Umm, "Al-Umm by al-Shafi'i" (4/256):
"If a group of Muslims were captured and the polytheists sought their help against other polytheists like themselves, so that they might fight them, it has been said that they should fight them. It has also been said that al-Zubayr and some of his companions fought in Abyssinia as polytheists against polytheists. Those who hold this view say: What is forbidden about fighting alongside them, when the blood and property of those they fight are lawful on account of their polytheism? If someone were to say that fighting alongside them is forbidden for several reasons, one of them would be that when Muslims prevail over polytheists and take spoils, one fifth is due to those entitled to the fifth, who are dispersed across different lands. In this case, there is no way for the fifth from the spoils to reach those entitled to it, so that it can be delivered to the imam for distribution. Also, if they fight the People of the Book and they pay the jizya, they are obliged to spare their lives. If they pay the jizya, he would be unable to prevent them from sparing their lives. This would be a valid position. If they are not compelled to fight them, it would be preferable to me that they not fight. We do not know that the report about al-Zubayr is established; and even if it were established, the Negus was a Muslim: he had believed in the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed [over him]." Here al-Shafi'i is observed to have transmitted the disagreement in cases where there is no necessity to fight alongside a disbeliever against another disbeliever. Those who held that it is permissible said that the basic rule is that fighting these polytheists is permissible, and that their property is lawful; therefore, whoever fights alongside a polytheist against another polytheist has done something permissible. Those who held that it is impermissible argued that the Muslims would be unable to administer the war, distribute the spoils according to the rules of the Sharia, or refrain from fighting those who paid the jizya, among other things, because they would be under the domination of the disbelievers. Then he concluded.


[Page 279]

Al-Shafi'i held that fighting is disliked except in a case of coercion, in which it is permissible. Therefore, the issue of voting for the lesser harm in cases of necessity falls under this ruling all the more so.

The third position: suspension of judgment. This is the position of Ahmad ibn Hanbal. In Masa'il al-Imam Ahmad, narrated by Abu Dawud, in al-Jami' li-Ulum al-Imam Ahmad: al-Fiqh (8/569):

"The captive is asked to fight on the enemy's side in return."

Abu Dawud said: I said to Ahmad: If an enemy were to descend upon the people of Constantinople, and the king said to the captives, 'Go out and fight, and I will give you such-and-such'?

He said: If he tells them, 'I will set you free,' then there is no harm, in the hope that he will escape.

I said: What if he says, 'I will give you something and treat you well'?

He said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Whoever fights so that the word of Allah may be supreme" (1). I do not know.

Masa'il Abi Dawud (1590)

Nu'aym ibn Na'im narrated from him: I asked Ahmad about a captive in the hands of the enemy, when an enemy of theirs came and fought alongside them. Should he fight with them?

He said: If he fears for his life, or they tell him, 'If you fight with us, we will set you free,' then he should fight with them.

I said: What if he does not fear for his life, and they have not told him, 'We will set you free'?

He said: I have reservations about it.

Tabaqat al-Hanabila, 2/496–497

It is noteworthy that Imam Ahmad permitted him to fight alongside them if they would set him free, despite the fact that fighting alongside them would generally entail enabling the rule of disbelief, and would also involve shedding Muslim blood. But since there was a benefit for him in securing his release from captivity, and this was also a case of coercion, while fighting and killing an original non-Muslim combatant is in principle permissible, he permitted him to do so. The question here is


[Page 280]

Is it not less harmful to help a disbeliever by voting for him, in order to free Muslim prisoners or prevent them from being killed and imprisoned? But in this matter, people must be made aware that voting for him is not so that he may rule by what Allah has revealed. Rather, the reason for voting is to reduce harm to Muslims, free their prisoners, and stop them from being killed. This is so that people do not think that such voting is inherently permissible under Islamic law. If it is said that someone might see it and think the act is permissible, I say: the same danger exists in the case of someone who fought in the army of the polytheists, yet most scholars permitted him to ransom himself in this way. They likewise permitted uttering explicit words of disbelief under coercion. Therefore, people must be alerted that this vote is only to remove a state of necessity, while also explaining Allah's ruling on these matters. And Allah knows best.
Abu Talib transmitted from him, concerning a captive for whom they had not stipulated release and who did not fear them: he must not fight alongside them without him.
"Al-Furu'" 6/206
(1) Narrated by Imam Ahmad 4/392, al-Bukhari (123), and Muslim (1904), from the hadith of Abu Musa al-Ash'ari.
Ibn Muflih said: "We prohibit assisting them against their enemy, except out of fear. Ahmad suspended judgment regarding a captive for whom they had not stipulated release and whom he did not fear. Abu Talib transmitted: 'He must not fight alongside them without him.'"(46) Al-Furu (10/248).
.
.
The fourth opinion: It is permissible. It is stated in "The Differences of the Scholars by al-Tahawi—abridged by al-Jassas" (3/454):
"On a Muslim who has been granted safe-conduct fighting alongside the polytheists

Our companions said: He should not fight alongside the people of polytheism, because the ruling of polytheism is the one that prevails. This is the view of Malik.


[Page 281]

Al-Thawri said, "They may fight alongside them" (note here that al-Thawri permitted this without qualification).
Al-Awzai said, "They may fight only if they stipulate that, should they prevail, they will return them to the Abode of Islam."
Al-Shafi'i has two opinions.
Abu Ja'far said: "The fighting to which their allegiance has led them is fighting under the banner of unbelief. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, 'I disavow every Muslim who is with a polytheist, such that their two fires are not visible to one another.'
It is also narrated that a polytheist man came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to pledge allegiance to him and fight alongside him while still a polytheist. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him, 'Go back, for we will not seek help from a polytheist.'" 2
"Furthermore, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to prescribe conditions for fighting. One of them was calling them to Islam. Then he said, 'If they refuse, call on them to pay the jizya. If they agree, accept it from them; but if they refuse, fight them.'
If it is said that it is narrated that al-Zubayr fought in Abyssinia alongside the Negus against another enemy,
the response is that the Negus was a Muslim. Moreover, no fighting is mentioned in that report; rather, he went to learn their news, then informed the Emigrants."
The evidence of al-Tahawi's statement that aiding an unbeliever against another unbeliever falls under the hadith, "I disavow every Muslim who resides among polytheists," has also been discussed as follows:
First point: This hadith is weak, and the leading scholars deem it defective on account of its being mursal, including Ahmad, al-Bukhari [51], Abu Hatim [52], al-Daraqutni [53], al-Bayhaqi [54], and others. However, the researcher considers this hadith authentic,
and the leading scholars have continued to cite it and similar reports as evidence for the prohibition on residing among unbelievers.
Second point: Fighting alongside them does not entail residing among them. Armies are for the most part on the move, and someone who travels to them and fights alongside them against other unbelievers is not thereby a resident. Scholars have disagreed over the length of time that, if spent there or intended to be spent there, makes a person a resident: is it four days, fifteen days, twenty days, or is it determined by custom? And there is no…


[Page 282]

No one is declared an unbeliever when there is a possibility [of another interpretation]. The general view is that a traveler who has not resolved to settle somewhere continues to shorten his prayers indefinitely and is therefore not considered a resident. Thus, many cases are not covered by the prohibition in the hadith.
The third argument: The hadith concerns someone who chooses to reside among the polytheists; it does not apply to someone who goes to them out of fear of oppression or the like, or to someone unable to leave because of citizenship issues or similar circumstances. Someone excused for residing there is not covered by the prohibition on fighting alongside the polytheists in such a situation; that is, he is permitted to reside among them for the reasons we have mentioned. If, after that, he assists them, joins their army, and fights alongside them for the sake of money, the hadith prohibiting this does not apply to him!
The fourth argument: The early generations—of whom no innovation is known—did not disagree that choosing to reside among the polytheists is not disbelief. This is demonstrated by their consensus that inheritance passed between the Emigrant and the non-Emigrant. It is well known that an unbeliever does not inherit from a Muslim. Al-Harith al-Muhasibi(56) said: "They agreed that the first verse was abrogated, and that Allah—glorious is His praise—established inheritance among the believers on the basis of kinship, not emigration."(57) He then said: "They used to inherit from one another on the basis of Islam and emigration: a man would embrace Islam but not emigrate, and so he would not inherit from his brother. This was abrogated by: 'And those related by blood are closer to one another in the Book of Allah than the believers and the emigrants.'"(58) Allah made it obligatory to support those who had not emigrated if they sought our help in religion. He, Exalted is He, said: "And those who have believed but have not emigrated—you have no duty of protection toward them until they emigrate. But if they seek your help in religion, then you must help them, except against a people with whom you have a treaty. And Allah sees all that you do."
.
The fifth argument: Scholars have explained this hadith in several ways that do not entail that someone who resides among the polytheists is an unbeliever. These are as follows:
The first interpretation: It means that he is absolved of liability for his blood-money and of retaliation against the person who killed him. Al-Shafi'i said: "If this is established, I think the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) gave what he gave to them voluntarily, and informed them that he was absolved of responsibility for every Muslim among the polytheists—Allah knows best—in the land of polytheism, so that they would know that no blood-money or retaliation was due to them."(59) Ibn Hazm said: "By doing so, he has wronged himself. If someone who does not know that he is a Muslim kills him, there is no retaliation and no blood-money; only expiation is due, according to the explicit text of the Quran."(60)
The second interpretation: It is possible that the hadith means disavowal of their guardianship, which concerns inheritance. This is of the same kind as the meaning of His saying, Exalted is He: "And those who have believed but have not emigrated—you have no duty of protection toward them until they emigrate." The scholars unanimously agreed that this refers to inheritance, but the ruling was abrogated.(61)


[Page 283]

The third interpretation: He is absolved of protecting the blood of any Muslim who chooses to live among the polytheists, because that person has brought harm upon himself, or because rulings follow the territory, as is the position of the Hanafis. Al-Jassas said: "His blood has no value, like that of the people of war who have no covenant of protection."(62)
This is open to objection: Allah made it obligatory to support them if they seek help in matters of religion. He, Exalted is He, says: {Those who believe but have not emigrated—you have no duty of protection toward them until they emigrate. But if they seek your help in religion, then you must help them, except against a people with whom you have a treaty. And Allah sees all that you do.} Supporting them presupposes that their Islam is outwardly established!
The fourth interpretation: It refers to disavowal of his residence and conduct, not disavowal of the person who resides there himself. This is like the saying, "Whoever bears arms against us is not one of us," and "Whoever cheats us is not one of us," and similar sayings.
The fifth interpretation: This applied when emigration was obligatory, but it was abrogated after the conquest of Mecca. This was the view chosen by al-Kiya al-Harrasi,(63) al-Razi,(64) and others.
The sixth interpretation: It refers to someone who lives in the territory of the polytheists and is unable to manifest any aspect of his religion, or fears that he will be tempted away from it there. He is absolved of remaining among them, and must emigrate. If he is safe, then residing in their territory is disliked. Al-Mawardi alluded to this,(65) and al-Shafi'i said: "The Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) indicates that the obligation to emigrate applies to those able to do so only when they are being persecuted for their religion in the land from which emigration will save them. For the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted some people in Mecca to remain there after accepting Islam, among them al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib and others, provided they did not fear persecution. He would instruct his armies to tell those who accepted Islam: 'If you emigrate, you will have what the emigrants have; but if you remain, you will be like the Bedouin Muslims.' He offered them this choice only in matters that were permissible for them."(66)
The seventh interpretation: He disavowed those who joined the unbelievers to fight against the Muslims. Ibn Hazm said: "Whoever voluntarily joins the territory of unbelief and war, fighting against the Muslims in his vicinity, has by this act become an apostate and is subject to all the rulings applicable to an apostate: he must be killed when he can be apprehended, his property may be taken, his marriage is dissolved, and so on. For the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not disavow a Muslim."(67)
Given these various possibilities, it cannot be said that someone who assists a polytheist against another polytheist in fighting is covered by this hadith. Consequently, neither is the voter for the lesser harm covered by it, since such a person is generally unable to emigrate. And if he is able, where is he to emigrate, when rule by other than what Allah has revealed has become widespread throughout the world, except in a few places? And Allah knows best.


[Page 284]

It appears in al-Shafi'i's al-Umm (4/256). It appears in Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir (p. 1422):
[CHAPTER ON SEEKING THE AID OF POLYTHEISTS AND POLYTHEISTS SEEKING THE AID OF MUSLIMS]
.
2754 - Then he mentioned the hadith of al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him), when he was with the Negus and an enemy attacked him. On that day, al-Zubayr fought well alongside the Negus, and thereby attained a good standing with him. On the apparent meaning of this hadith, those who permit Muslims to fight alongside polytheists under their banner rely as evidence. But, in our view, this can be interpreted in two ways. First, the Negus was Muslim at that time, as has been reported, and so al-Zubayr considered it permissible to fight alongside him.
Second, the Muslims had no refuge at that time other than him, according to what has been reported from Umm Salama (may Allah be pleased with her). She said: "When we had settled in the land of Abyssinia, we were in the best of homes, with the best of neighbors, worshipping our Lord, until an enemy of the Negus marched against him. No great misfortune from him had ever befallen us. We said, 'If he prevails over the Negus, he will not recognize our rights as the Negus did.' So we devoted ourselves to supplication, asking Allah to grant the Negus victory. Then we said, 'Who will go and find out what is happening with the people?' Al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam said, 'I will.' He inflated a waterskin, mounted it, and crossed the river. He met the people, and al-Zubayr joined them. We continued to devote ourselves to supplication until al-Zubayr appeared on the Nile, waving his garment and calling, 'Rejoice! Allah, Exalted is He, has granted the Negus victory, established him in the land, and destroyed his enemy.'" She said, "So we remained with the best of neighbors." This hadith makes clear the soundness of the interpretation we have given. And Allah knows best.

.
In sum, after researching and examining the statements of the early generations, I have found no views other than these four. None of them declares an unbeliever anyone who joined their army and fought alongside them against other unbelievers for money or the like;


[Page 285]

The third issue: When the upper hand belongs to the unbelievers and the Muslim is subject to them, is it permissible for a Muslim prisoner—who does not fear that he will be led astray while in captivity—to fight alongside them against other unbelievers in order to secure his release?
The scholars differed on this issue, holding two views:
The first view: It is forbidden to fight alongside them. This is the position of Abu Hanifa and his companions, the position of Malik, and the apparent position of al-Shafi'i's school.
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said: "If the authority of the people of polytheism is dominant, Muslims should not fight alongside the people of polytheism, unless they fear for their own lives, in which case they may defend themselves."(86) Al-Siyar al-Saghir (249). In Al-Siyar al-Saghir, ed. Khadduri (p. 249), it says:
"I asked him about Muslims seeking the help of the people of polytheism against the people of war: Do you see any harm in that, and do they have a share of the spoils? He said: 'There is no harm in seeking their help if authority belongs to the people of Islam and they are the dominant and prevailing power. In that case, there is no harm in seeking the help of the people of polytheism. But if the authority of the people of polytheism is dominant, Muslims should not fight alongside the people of polytheism, unless they fear for their own lives, in which case they may defend themselves.' He said: 'The people of polytheism have no share, but they may be given a discretionary portion.'"
It says in Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir: "If the people of war say to prisoners in their custody, 'Fight alongside us against our enemy, the polytheists,' and the prisoners do not fear for their lives if they refuse, they should not fight alongside them.
"For this fighting involves manifesting polytheism, and the fighter puts his life at risk. There is no dispensation for this except with the intention of strengthening the religion or defending himself. If they fear those others for their lives, there is no harm in their fighting them, because they are now warding off the danger of being killed.
"For they are safe from those who hold them in their custody, but they would not be safe from the others if they fell into their hands. It is therefore permissible for them to fight in self-defense.
"2973. If they say, 'Fight alongside us against our enemy, the polytheists, or we will kill you,' there is no harm in their fighting to ward them off."


[Page 286]

Because they are now warding off the worst kind of killing from themselves, and killing those polytheists is lawful for them. There is nothing wrong with undertaking something lawful when necessity is established because of coercion; indeed, it may even be obligatory, as in eating carrion and drinking wine ... If they were to say to the prisoners, "Fight with us against our enemy from among another people at war, on condition that we release you when our war is over," and they believed that they were sincere, there would be nothing wrong with their fighting alongside them.
Because by doing so they are warding off captivity from themselves. This is no less permissible than when they fear for their lives at the hands of those polytheists: just as they may undertake it in that case, so too may they do so here.
If it is asked: How can this be permissible for them when it strengthens them against the Muslims? For if they defeat their enemy and feel secure from them, they will turn to fighting the Muslims. They may also take their horses and weapons and use them to strengthen themselves against the Muslims.
We say: That is speculative, whereas the deliverance they gain now from captivity at the hands of the polytheists by fighting alongside them is certain, so this consideration takes precedence.
Do you not see that if they asked the Muslim leader to ransom them in exchange for an equal number of polytheists, or for horses and weapons, it would be permissible for him to do so in order to free them from captivity, even if those they received in exchange would use what they took to strengthen themselves against the Muslims? If they were to say, "Fight with us against our enemy from among the polytheists, on condition that we let you remain in our land and do not allow you to return to your families," then they should not fight alongside them ... For if they are safe from harm to their lives or limbs at their hands, there is no difference between their being detained in their land and their being held in their prisons. In either case, they suffer the distress of being cut off from their families and from their fellow believers. So they should not fight to uphold the rule of polytheism when they gain no evident benefit from doing so.
- If they are in distress and affliction, fearing for their lives, there is nothing wrong with their fighting alongside the polytheists if they say, "We will get you out of this."
For they have a valid purpose in this fighting: to ward off the affliction and distress that have befallen them." So consider, may Allah have mercy on you: despite the Hanafi school's strictness in prohibiting this, they nevertheless permitted supporting a disbeliever against another disbeliever, even at the cost of blood and limbs, in order to ward off affliction and harm from themselves. How many afflictions and hardships have befallen Muslims at the hands of unjust rulers, such that they needed only to vote for the lesser harm, without fighting. And Allah knows best.


[Page 287]

The second view: Fighting in their ranks is permissible in order to free oneself from captivity. This is the view of al-Awzai, al-Thawri, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
Al-Awzai said: "They may fight only if they stipulate that, should they prevail, they will return them to the land of Islam."(95) Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama (3/454)
Al-Thawri said: "They may fight alongside them."(96) Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama (3/454)
Abu Dawud said: "I said to Ahmad: If an enemy were to attack the people of Constantinople, and the king said to the captives, 'Go out and fight, and I will give you such-and-such,' what then? He replied: If he tells them, 'I will set you free,' then there is no harm in it, in the hope that they will escape."(97) Masa'il al-Imam Ahmad, narrated by Abu Dawud al-Sijistani (332)
.

Preferred view: It appears to the researcher that the second view is stronger, and that there is no evidence prohibiting fighting alongside them in order to secure one's release from captivity. Accordingly, fighting alongside them in this case does not constitute allegiance to them. And Allah knows best.

It says in al-Muhalla bi al-Athar (11/356):
If we are able to set the unbelievers among the people of war against one another, so that they fight each other, and Muslims enter among them and use them as a means to harm others, that is good.
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Allah supports this religion through people who have no share [in the Hereafter]," as was narrated to us by Abd Allah ibn Rabi, who said: Muhammad ibn Muawiya narrated to us, who said: Ahmad ibn Shuaib informed me, who said: Imran ibn Bakkar ibn Rashid narrated to us, who said: Abu al-Yaman narrated to us, who said: Shuaib—namely, Ibn Abi Hamza—narrated to us, from al-Zuhri, who said: Said ibn al-Musayyib informed me, who said: Abu Hurayra narrated to us that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Allah indeed supports this religion through a wicked man."

It is noteworthy that Ibn Hazm's view is that it is permissible to enter the ranks of the polytheists in order to inflict harm on another polytheist, and this is very similar to our present issue.
(Mention of some of the evidence for this issue)


[Page 288]

It is related in the Musnad of Ahmad: Muhammad ibn Mus'ab—namely, al-Qarqasani—narrated to us; he said: al-Awza'i narrated to us, from Hassan ibn Atiyya, from Khalid ibn Ma'dan, from Jubayr ibn Nufayr, from Dhu Mikhmar, from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who said: "You will make a secure peace with the Romans, and you and they will campaign against an enemy behind them. You will return safely and take spoils. Then you will encamp at a meadow with hillocks, and a man (1) from among the Romans will stand up, raise the cross, and say, 'Behold, the cross has prevailed!' A man from among the Muslims will stand up and kill him. At that point the Romans will break their treaty, and the great battles will begin. They will gather (2) against you, and come to you with eighty banners, each banner accompanied by ten (3)
There is no doubt that making peace with the Romans strengthens their unbelieving rule, and fighting their enemy likewise empowers them. But all these harms are merely hypothetical and are not intended by the Muslims; rather, what they intend is to ward off the harm of this other, greater enemy. This is very close to the issue before us.
Al-Sindi said: His words, "secure," mean "possessing security"; the form is one of attribution, or "secure" is used in a figurative attribution.
His statement, "Then you will fight them": that is, you and they, as in the following narration.
His statement, "an enemy," in the accusative; that is, you will unite to fight the enemy, on account of the peace treaty.
His statement, "and you will be safe," means safety.
His statement, "in a pasture": the place where animals graze.
His statement, "mounds," with two dammas and a light l: the plural of "mound," with a fatha, meaning anything gathered on the ground, whether soil or sand.
His statement, "the cross prevailed," means the religion of the Christians, with the aim of nullifying the truce, or merely out of pride and to provoke the Muslims to anger. And Allah, Exalted is He, knows best.
In (M): "A man then stands up to him," with the addition "to him."
(Another proof) is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said regarding the captives of Badr: "If al-Mut'im ibn Adi were alive and spoke to me about these foul men, I would release them to him." Narrated by al-Bukhari. There is no doubt that the Prophet's releasing seventy polytheist captives strengthened them, but this was certainly not what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) intended. What seems apparent—and Allah knows best—is that he (peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to repay al-Mut'im ibn Adi for his kindness.
(Another proof)
Ibn Mas'ud reported: Quraysh were slow to embrace Islam. "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed against them, and they were struck by a drought that lasted until they perished in it, eating carrion and bones." Abu Sufyan came to him and said, "Muhammad, you came commanding the maintenance of kinship ties, while your people have perished. Pray to Allah." He recited: {So watch for the Day when there comes


[Page 289]

The sky with a manifest smoke} [al-Dukhan: 10]. Then they returned to their disbelief. This is what Allah, Exalted is He, says: {On the day We seize with the greatest seizure, We will indeed take vengeance} [al-Dukhan: 16]—the day of Badr. Abu Abd Allah said: Asbat added, from Mansur: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed, and they were given rain. It poured over them for seven days, and the people complained of the excessive rain. He said, "O Allah, let it rain around us, not upon us." The cloud then moved away from above him, and the people around them received rain." There is no doubt that the lifting of drought from the unbelievers strengthened their position, but this was not what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) intended. Thus, not every act that results in strengthening the position of an unbeliever is itself disbelief, especially when its purpose is to lessen another form of disbelief and remove harm from the Muslims.

(Another proof)
Imam al-Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, said (vol. 9, p. 51): Al-Husayn ibn Hurayth narrated to us; Muawiya ibn Amr informed us, from Abu Ishaq al-Fazari, from Sufyan, from Habib ibn Abi Amra, from Said ibn Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas, concerning the words of Allah, Exalted is He: {Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated in the nearest land} (1). He said: They were defeated, and then they would be victorious. The polytheists wanted the Persians to prevail over the Romans, because both they and the Persians worshipped idols, while the Muslims wanted the Romans to prevail over the Persians, because the Romans were People of the Book. They mentioned this to Abu Bakr, and Abu Bakr mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). He said, "Indeed, they will be victorious." Abu Bakr then told them, and they said, "Set a term between us and you: if we prevail, we will have such-and-such, and if you prevail, you will have such-and-such." So he set a term of five years, but they did not prevail. They mentioned this to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), and


[Page 290]

...and blessings be upon him), and said, "Would that you had set it at less than"—I think he said—"ten." Sa'id said, "A few means less than ten." He then said, "After that, the Romans prevailed." This is what Allah, Exalted is He, says: {Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated} up to His words {And on that day the believers will rejoice in Allah's victory}. Sufyan said: I heard that they prevailed over them on the day of Badr.
This is a good, rare hadith. We know it only through the hadith of Sufyan al-Thawri, from Habib ibn Abi Amra.)) The apparent indication of this hadith is that rejoicing at the victory of a disbeliever is not disbelief. There is no doubt that his victory will lead to the establishment of his unbelieving rule on earth. But since the Romans were less unbelieving than the Persians, the Muslims rejoiced at the reduction of disbelief in the world, and wished for the Romans to prevail, not because of their disbelief, but because their disbelief was less than that of the Persians. Here arises the question of weighing good deeds against bad deeds. Allah knows best.
(Some matters in which the person involved has an interpretation excusing him from being declared a disbeliever)
Drawn from al-Jami and al-Thalathiniyya. My purpose in presenting these matters is only to show that the person involved has an interpretation that prevents him from being declared a disbeliever, even if, in my view, some of them involve sin. I quote here the statements of those who hold these views.
(Declaring someone a disbeliever on account of what his words necessarily entail and lead to)
The author of al-Thalathiniyya says: "Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, says: 'As for declaring people disbelievers on account of what their statements lead to, that is an error, because it attributes a lie to one's opponent and makes him say what he did not say. Even if it necessarily follows from his position, nothing has been established beyond contradiction, and contradiction is not disbelief. Indeed, he has done well, since he has avoided disbelief ...'" He continued: "Thus it is established that he is not declared a disbeliever.


[Page 291]

anyone except by his own words and the explicit statement of his belief. It does no one any good to express his belief in words that make its ugliness seem attractive; rather, what is judged is only what his words entail." End quote. Al-Fasl (3/294).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said in Majmu al-Fatawa (29/25–26):
"A person's words have two kinds of implications:
The first is the implication of his words that is true. He must adhere to this, for what truth entails is itself true, and it may be attributed to him if it is known that he would not refuse to adhere to it once it became clear to him.
The second is the implication of his words that is not (1) true. He is not required to adhere to this, since at most it means that he has contradicted himself. It is established that contradiction occurs in every scholar other than the Prophets. Then, if it is known that he would adhere to it once it became clear to him, it may be attributed to him; otherwise, it is not permissible to attribute to him a statement that he would not adhere to if its error became clear to him, since he has said what entails it without realizing that the statement is erroneous, and it does not (2) bind him.
This distinction regarding people's disagreement over the implications of a school of thought—whether they are part of that school or not—is better than stating either position without qualification. Whatever implications the speaker accepts once they have been made clear to him are his words; whatever he does not accept is not his words, even if he is inconsistent." End quote.
As for a Muslim's merely seeking, in times of necessity, the protection or safe-conduct of a disbeliever, or asking him to redress a wrong or support him against another disbeliever, or to repel an aggressive wrongdoer whom nothing deters or frightens,


[Page 292]

Except for that, in the absence of authority and power for the law of Allah, it is not, in the first place, a matter of seeking judgment from anything.

We have already presented the Messenger of Allah's praise for the Alliance of al-Fudul, even though it was an alliance formed in the pre-Islamic era, established by unbelievers. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) witnessed it as a boy and said, "I would not like to have red camels in exchange for breaking it." According to another narration, "If I were invited to it in Islam, I would respond."

Its form was that of a tribal gathering in the pre-Islamic era, whose members pledged to aid the distressed, support the wronged, and restore people's rights to them through their collective strength and power. This was at a time when Islam had neither authority nor a state, before the Prophet's mission, and amid the benighted pre-Islamic age. It was therefore an institution of the pre-Islamic era. The Prophet's praise for that alliance thus entails that there is no blame on a vulnerable person who turns to it, or to something like it among the unbelievers who are able to ward off injustice from him, or protect his honor or property, or secure some of his rights through their strength, power, and authority, against other oppressive unbelievers, in the absence of authority for the Sharia. Were there even the slightest blame in this, let alone prohibition or unbelief, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would have made it clear when praising the alliance. For he (peace and blessings be upon him) was the most God-fearing and scrupulous of the community, and never left any evil unaddressed without warning them against it.


[Page 293]

For this reason, Abraham (peace be upon him), who defied his people and did not fear their blazing fire at one time, despite being alone and without equal, was in another situation considered to be, along with his wife, vulnerable and compelled to comply with the request of the unbeliever when he summoned Sarah. Indeed, al-Bukhari included this in the Book of Coercion. I mean by this the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Abraham migrated with Sarah. He entered a village in which there was a king—or one of the tyrants—and he sent for him, saying, 'Send her to me.' So he sent her. She stood before him, then began to perform ablution and pray, saying, 'O Allah, if I have believed in You and in Your Messenger, then do not give the unbeliever power over me.' Then he was seized and kicked with his leg." Al-Bukhari gave it the chapter heading in the Book of Coercion: "Chapter: If a woman is coerced into fornication, there is no prescribed punishment upon her."

He thus regarded this as coercion, and there was no blame on Abraham or his wife for being alone with that unbeliever, since she had been coerced, as the hadith scholar Ibn Hajar related among the statements of the scholars. They were not blamed or reproached for not fleeing, nor did anyone require them to do so. They knew best their circumstances and situation in that place.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Al al-Shaykh said: "As for matters settled by tribal judges, if this was done by way of reconciliation and the reconciliation did not entail permitting something forbidden or forbidding something lawful, then the reconciliation is valid. But if it was done by way of judgment, then it is invalid, because what is known of tribal shaykhs is their ignorance and lack of knowledge of the rulings of the Sharia. Resorting to them for judgment is therefore a form of resorting to the judgment of the ...


[Page 294]

(the taghut) End quote. From the legal opinions and letters of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim (12/292).
He said regarding defending oneself in courts that rule by other than what Allah has revealed: "Among the things that may properly be cited as evidence in this context is the account of Ja'far and his fellow emigrants to Abyssinia appearing before the Negus before he embraced Islam, and defending themselves as best they could when the two envoys of Quraysh came seeking them. None of them refused to appear or felt uneasy about doing so, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not condemn it. Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir related the account in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, on the authority of Ibn Ishaq; Abu Nu'aym in al-Dala'il; al-Bayhaqi in al-Dala'il as well; and others, with chains of transmission, some of which he deemed good, and others he authenticated and strengthened. See it from (3/69) onward. It includes the account of the Negus granting them protection and supporting them, and refusing to hand them over to Quraysh...
Also suitable in this regard is citing the words of Joseph (peace be upon him), when the wife of al-Aziz accused him, saying: 'What is the recompense for one who intends evil against your family but that he be imprisoned or suffer a painful punishment?'
'He said, "It was she who sought to seduce me." And a witness from her family testified ...' [the verses]. This includes his defending himself among an unbelieving people, and some of them testifying, defending him, and declaring him innocent.
Even clearer than this is what he did in prison, when 'he said to the one of the two whom he thought would be saved, "Mention me to your master ..."' The disbelief of the king of Egypt at that time did not prevent him from doing so.


[Page 295]

And the fact that he had a law and religion of his own, contrary to the religion of Allah, did not prevent him from sending to him to inform him that he had been wronged and cast into prison without committing any sin, in the hope that he might release him, remove the injustice against him, and clear him of the accusation for which he had been imprisoned ... Nor did it prevent him from defending himself and seeking to establish his innocence when the king summoned him later. He said to the messenger: "Return to your master and ask him about the women who cut their hands. Indeed, my Lord knows their scheming." Thus he complains of the injustice done to him—or, rather, mentions it before the unbelieving king in order to establish his innocence,

and all of this was the action of an infallible prophet. Safeguarding the principle of monotheism and its purity was the very message with which all the prophets were sent, and to which all their calls were in agreement, as is well known from the call of the prophets and messengers. It was not for the Prophet of Allah, Joseph, to contravene or contradict that, or to depart even by a hair's breadth from the religion of his forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ... How could he, when Allah, Exalted is He, declared him innocent and protected him from what was lesser than that, saying: "Thus We turned away from him evil and indecency"; then He said: "Indeed, he was one of Our sincere servants."
All of this shows that there is no objection whatsoever to a monotheist doing something like this.

Even if some sins and violations of the Sharia are present in those administrative systems, such as requiring employees to wear a particular garment resembling the clothing of unbelievers, requiring them to shave their beards, imposing financial penalties and unjust or oppressive discretionary punishments, or if those arrangements involve injustices, discrimination, and giving precedence to the wealthy and influential over


[Page 296]

the poor, or because they are influenced by some pre-Islamic, tribal, regional, or similar forms of partisanship, which are forbidden and which it is not permissible to impose on people or adopt as regulations.

All of this, despite the falsehood and sins it may involve, has nothing to do with the idolatrous, unbelieving legislation whose author, supporter, administrator, and anyone who willingly seeks its judgment are deemed unbelievers ... The fact that such things are written down and codified does not change their nature at all. Commanding someone to commit a sin in writing is like commanding it verbally; merely writing it down does not make it idolatrous legislation.

The point is that administrative regulations which are permissible and involve neither sin nor violation are matters on which the Companions unanimously agreed and acted accordingly ... This includes what some scholars call in works of jurisprudence and legal theory "unrestricted interests" (al-masalih al-mursala). If such regulations involve violations that do not amount to deeming something forbidden lawful, then although they are regulations that contravene the Sharia, they are not of the idolatrous legislative kind.
For not every contravention of the Sharia is unbelief; some are sins, while others are unbelief ...

Failure to distinguish between these two kinds has led some astray, prompting them to declare an unbeliever anyone who engages in lease contracts and similar sales, or who abides by transport fares


[Page 297]

or sales, since they claimed that price-fixing is idolatrous, unbelieving legislation that it is impermissible to implement.

He said regarding the issue of elections:

"Some people are brought to see those dazzling advertisements bearing, in bold letters, 'Islam is the solution,' and similar slogans with which the idolatrous legislators deceive ordinary Muslims. They vote for them and choose them out of love for Islam and loyalty to its Sharia, without knowing or intending the blocked, idolatrous method those representatives follow to enforce some of the limits of the Sharia, as they claim. All of this must be taken into consideration, along with the fact that the voter has not personally engaged in legislation, sworn to respect unbelieving laws, submitted to them for judgment, or committed any of the other statements or actions of unbelief that the representatives engage in. It is well known that the voter does not do or personally engage in all of this (*); rather, he votes and appoints as his representative the person he chooses.

If he intends to authorize or appoint someone to act on his behalf who commits these explicit acts of unbelief, then his ruling is the same as that of the person he appointed, for the ruling on one who provides support is the ruling on the one who acts directly ... So long as he supports him with this intention, his ruling is the same ..."


[Page 298]

However, if there is much obfuscation surrounding a matter that is not known or clear to everyone—I mean the true nature of the work of representatives and the acts of disbelief they engage in—and a person is among those to whom this may be unclear and who do not know about it, but elects a representative and appoints him to act on his behalf, intending that he provide some services for him, his clan, or his town or village, then he did not intend to appoint him to engage in acts of disbelief, nor did he choose him for that purpose. He is mistaken, but neither deliberate nor intending to support the acts of disbelief committed by those legislators when he chose them.
Therefore, it is not permissible to hasten to declare someone like him an unbeliever until the proof has been established against him and he has been informed of the true nature of the actions of the legislative representatives and of the acts of unbelief they commit, which contradict the religion of Islam and the oneness of the Lord of all worlds. If he nevertheless persists in electing them, he is an unbeliever. (I say:
It is therefore necessary to distinguish among those who vote: between those who intend to choose the legislator and those who do not intend that, but instead intend to choose something other than the legislator. The latter is not declared an unbeliever until proof has been established against him. For although, outwardly, he may have committed an act of unbelief in the eyes of someone who does not know his intention, the confusion and intermingling of circumstances, and the fact that democracy and parliament are innovations and foreign names and terms whose true nature is unknown to many people, have led some to undertake an act without knowing its real meaning. Such a person is like one who utters a word or says something whose meaning is unknown. The scholars hold that he is not held accountable for it until its meaning has been explained to him and proof has been established against him. In Qawa'id al-Ahkam fi Masalih al-Anam (2/102), in the chapter "On one who utters a word whose meaning he does not know: he is not held accountable for what it entails," al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam (may Allah have mercy on him) said:


[Page 299]

(If a non-Arab utters a word of disbelief, faith, divorce, emancipation, sale, purchase, settlement, or release from a claim, he is not held accountable for any of that, because he has not undertaken its implications and did not intend it. Likewise, if an Arab utters a foreign word that indicates one of these meanings, but does not know what it means, he is not held accountable for any of that, because he did not intend it; for intention can only be directed toward something known or supposed. If an Arab intends, by uttering any of these words, to convey their meanings, knowing what they mean, then that takes effect from him. But if he does not know their meanings—for example, if an Arab says to his wife, "You are divorced according to the Sunnah" or "according to innovation," while she is pregnant (1), without knowing what the two expressions mean, or if he utters the word for khulʿ (wife-initiated divorce), or another word, or the word for taking back a divorced wife, marriage, or emancipation, without knowing what it means, despite being an Arab, he is not held accountable for any of that, since he has no awareness of what it denotes and therefore cannot intend the expression that signifies it.) End quote.
I say: In our time, this applies to someone who does not know the meaning of the word "democracy" and what it denotes, and so praises it, supposing that it means only—as many ordinary people believe—what stands in opposition to oppression, enslavement, and the confiscation of freedoms and rights, and the like ... Such a person is not declared an unbeliever until he is made aware that it fundamentally means the people legislating for the people, or the sovereignty of the masses rather than the sovereignty of Allah alone ... Until he knows this, he has no awareness of its meaning of disbelief and cannot intend it.
For the Sharia does not recognize any distinction between two things that are alike and equivalent ... "Are your disbelievers better than those, or have you been granted immunity in the scriptures?"


[Page 300]

The author of al-Jami said, concerning working in the governments of unbelievers: "If it is said that Joseph (peace be upon him), by working for the unbelieving king, was undoubtedly assisting him, the answer is that this is not prohibited unless it is assistance to an unbeliever in something forbidden, in which case it is forbidden, or assistance to an unbeliever in unbelief or against the Muslims, in which case the assistance constitutes allegiance that renders one an unbeliever. The author of al-Risala al-Limaniyya confused assistance with allegiance and made every kind of assistance allegiance. Our Sharia, as well as the laws of all the prophets, forbade allegiance to unbelievers, while permitting dealings with them through buying and selling, partnership, and leasing. I mentioned this earlier among things that might be thought to constitute allegiance but do not. All of this involves a kind of assistance to them, but it is assistance in worldly matters, not assistance in unbelief or against the Muslims. An example is that the unbelievers of Mecca used to bring wheat from al-Yamama. When Thumama ibn
Athal, who was one of the leading men of Yamama, withheld wheat from them until the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) gave permission for it (1). In his commentary, Ibn Hajar said that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did give permission for it (2). This was assistance indeed—but in a worldly matter.
If we consider the question of a Muslim working for a non-Muslim, has our Sharia given guidance on whether this is permissible or impermissible? The answer is: Yes, it has given guidance permitting it, as indicated by what al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, narrated in the Book of Hiring in his Sahih, in the chapter, "May a man hire himself out to a polytheist in enemy territory?" He cited in it the hadith of


[Page 301]

Khabbab ibn al-Aratt (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "I was a blacksmith, and I worked for al-As ibn Wa'il. A debt accrued to me with him, so I went to him to demand payment. He said, 'No, by Allah, I will not pay you until you disbelieve in Muhammad.' I said, 'By Allah, no—not even if you die and are then resurrected.' He said, 'Will I really die and then be resurrected?' I said, 'Yes.' He said, 'Then I will have wealth and children there, and I will pay you.' So Allah, Exalted is He, revealed: {Have you seen the one who disbelieved in Our signs and said, "I will surely be given wealth and children"} (Maryam: 77) (7). A qayin is a blacksmith, and the term is used for any craftsman.
Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, said in his commentary: His words, "Chapter: May a man hire himself out to a polytheist in enemy territory?" He included in it the hadith of Khabbab—who was a Muslim at the time—about his working for al-As ibn Wa'il, who was a polytheist. This took place in Mecca, which was then enemy territory. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) learned of this and approved it. The author did not state the ruling definitively, since it may be that permissibility was restricted to cases of necessity, or that it was permitted before permission was given to fight the polytheists and oppose them, and before the command not to abase oneself as a believer. Al-Muhallab said: "The scholars disliked this, except in cases of necessity, subject to two conditions: first, that his work be something a Muslim is permitted to do; and second, that he not assist them in anything that would bring harm upon the Muslims." Ibn al-Munir said: "The schools of law have settled on the view that craftsmen in their workshops may work for the People of the Covenant, and this is not considered"
That is a form of humiliation, unlike serving him in his home as his subordinate. And Allah knows best. [Joseph's work for the unbelieving king fulfilled these conditions.


[Page 302]

the three conditions: his work was undertaken to secure a benefit, it was permissible, and he did not assist the unbeliever against the Muslims or harm a Muslim.
If it is said: You have listed collecting money for an unbeliever among prohibited acts, yet this was the work of Joseph, peace be upon him. How, then, was his work permissible? The answer is: What is prohibited is collecting money according to the unbeliever's judgment and in accordance with his man-made laws, which are rife with injustice. But if the collection is carried out according to the judgment of the Muslim entrusted with collecting it, then it is justice and reform. This was the situation of Joseph, peace be upon him: he had been given authority to conduct affairs according to his own judgment. This is indicated by the king's words to him: {Indeed, today you are established in position and trusted in our presence} (Yusuf: 54). Allah, Exalted is He, also says: {And thus We established Joseph in the land, to settle wherever he wished} (Yusuf: 56). And Allah, Exalted is He, says, relating Joseph's words: {My Lord, You have indeed granted me authority and taught me the interpretation of events} (Yusuf: 101). What greater authority could there be than this? Al-Shawkani said: "His saying, Exalted is He, {to settle wherever he wished} (Yusuf: 56), means that he could reside wherever he wanted ... This expression indicates the completeness of his power" (1). Another indication of his authority is that he applied his own law in enslaving the thief, as stated in Allah's words: {The one in whose possession we found our property} (Yusuf: 79); that was his law (2). In sum, although Joseph, peace be upon him, took charge of the funds, collecting and disbursing them, he did so on the basis that he would exercise his own judgment in managing them, not according to the unbeliever's choice. This is permissible today: if an unbelieving king appoints a Muslim to oversee finances, judge cases, or hold another office, on the condition that the Muslim exercise his own judgment in it and not the unbeliever's, that is permissible (3).


[Page 303]

He said: The person who abandons the obligatory migration despite being able to undertake it, while unable to manifest his religion in the land of unbelief, may have abandoned migration out of allegiance that constitutes unbelief. If he abandoned it for some worldly benefit in the land of unbelief, then he is sinful, unless his inability to manifest his religion reaches the point of unbelief, such as when he is unable to perform the prayer. But if he abandoned migration out of love for his unbelieving people and preferring to live among them, this is allegiance that constitutes unbelief. The legal characterization of abandoning migration, in the case of this category, is therefore that it is an act that may indicate allegiance; it should not be said that it is manifest allegiance. It is well established that the call is directed only to the leaders of those who refuse, not to each of their individuals by name. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sent invitations to Islam to Khosrow, Caesar, al-Muqawqis, and the Negus, and his letter to them was one and the same. Whoever among them turned away would bear only the sin of the Arysiyyun, who were his followers. These people—and similarly, Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said.))
(How Unbelief Is Established and the Question of Blind Following in Declaring Others Unbelievers)
It is noticeable that some movements go to extremes in declaring other movements working for Islam to be unbelievers, on the grounds of what they call allegiance to another group. That other group's unbelief may not be apparent to the group that did not declare it unbelieving, because of an interpretive doubt. One should not go to extremes in such matters, for the conditions for establishing unbelief are conditions that we have explained in this study.
The author of al-Jami' said ((


[Page 304]

If a person utters or commits an act of disbelief, and some people become aware of it, but only one man, a child, or a woman testifies against him, then this act of disbelief is not established against him, because the required number of witnesses to prove apostasy has not been met in his case. In outward legal judgment he is a Muslim, though in reality he is a disbeliever. ......This third scenario was the usual state of the hypocrites in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). They would speak words of disbelief among themselves, but none of them would testify against another, as Ibn Taymiyya said: "He would be a hypocrite inwardly, but would be unable to manifest apostasy; rather, he would speak hypocritically with those close to him" (3). Sometimes a Muslim would hear them and testify to what he had heard, but this was not sufficient to establish it. Thus Zayd ibn Arqam testified against Abdullah ibn Ubayy that he had said, "If we return to Medina, the mightier will surely expel the humbler," as is established in the Sahih. Although revelation confirmed that Zayd was truthful, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not hold them accountable on the basis of revelation, but rather according to the legally prescribed means of proof. Moreover, much of what the hypocrites said was ambiguous in meaning, not explicit, as Allah, Exalted is He, says: {And you will surely recognize them by the tone of their speech} Muhammad: 30. The tone of speech is what is understood from its meaning without being stated explicitly; this was mentioned by al-Qurtubi.
This is how the scholars answered the question: Why did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) not kill the hypocrites? Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "Most of them did not say things amounting to disbelief that could be established against them by evidence; rather, they would outwardly profess Islam, and their hypocrisy would sometimes be recognized by a word that someone heard"


[Page 305]

The believing man would convey it to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and they would swear by Allah that they had not said it—or they would not swear. At other times, their hypocrisy was evident from their lagging behind in prayer and jihad, their finding the payment of zakat burdensome, and the aversion they showed toward many of Allah's rulings. Most of them could be recognized by their manner of speech—until he said: All these hypocrites outwardly professed Islam and swore that they were Muslims, and they had taken their oaths as a shield. Given their condition, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not impose the prescribed punishments on the basis of his own knowledge, a report from a single narrator, revelation alone, or circumstantial evidence and indications, until the grounds for the punishment had been established by legally admissible testimony or confession—up to where he said: He refrained from killing them, despite their being disbelievers, because their disbelief had not been established by legally valid proof. This is further indicated by the fact that he did not call them individually to repent. It is well known that the best course regarding someone whose hypocrisy and heresy have been established is to call him to repent, as one would an apostate: if he repents, then well and good; otherwise, he is killed. We have no report that he called any one of them individually to repent. It is therefore known that disbelief and apostasy were not established against any one of them individually in a manner that required him to be killed as an apostate. For this reason, their outward professions were accepted, and their inner realities were left to Allah. If this was the case with someone whose hypocrisy had become apparent without legally admissible testimony, then what of someone whose hypocrisy had not become apparent? [(1). (A useful point here): Is someone who knows that a man is guilty of disbelief entitled to regard him as a disbeliever—as in the case described above—even if it is not possible to establish his disbelief through the legally prescribed means of proof?
The answer is yes; indeed, he is obliged to judge him a disbeliever, but on two conditions:
First: The person must be qualified to make the judgment himself, or to seek a legal opinion from someone else, so that he can distinguish disbelief from other things and consider any impediments to making the judgment.


[Page 306]

The other is that he should not be punished with the penalties that are Allah Most High's right, such as permitting his blood to be shed or his property to be seized, lest he be held accountable for this without complete legal proof. Were this permissible, it would lead to chaos, with blood and property being deemed lawful on the basis of mere accusation. Rather, he may be punished with lesser measures, such as shunning him, refraining from marrying him or arranging a marriage for him, and refraining from performing the funeral prayer over him when he dies, and the like (1). Ibn Taymiyya said concerning the hypocrites: "At first, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would perform the funeral prayer over them and seek forgiveness for them, until Allah forbade him to do so, saying: {And never pray over any of them who dies, nor stand at his grave} (al-Tawba: 84), and saying: {Whether you ask forgiveness for them or do not ask forgiveness for them, even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah will never forgive them} (al-Tawba: 80). So he would neither perform the funeral prayer over them nor seek forgiveness for them. Yet their blood and property remained inviolable; he did not deem lawful against them what he deemed lawful against the unbelievers who do not claim to be believers, but instead openly profess unbelief and not faith" [(2).
Evidence that an individual may judge another to be an unbeliever when he knows that the person has committed unbelief is Allah Most High's saying: {Set forth for them the parable of two men: We gave one of them two gardens of grapevines, surrounded them with date palms, and placed crops between them. Both gardens yielded their produce and fell short of nothing; and We caused a river to flow through them. He had wealth, and he said to his companion, as he conversed with him, "I have more wealth than you and a stronger following." He entered his garden, wronging himself, and said, "I do not think this will ever perish. Nor do I think the Hour will come; and even if I am returned to my Lord, I will surely find a better place of return than this." His companion said to him, as he conversed with him, "Do you disbelieve in the One who created you?"} (al-Kahf: 32–37). The first man disbelieved by doubting the Resurrection: {Nor do I think the Hour will come}.


[Page 307]

Al-Kahf: 36. The other then declared him an unbeliever on that account. They were only two men, as Allah Most High says. There are many examples of this among the early generations, including al-Shafi'i's declaring Hafs al-Fard an unbeliever during a debate (3). Ibn Taymiyya held that al-Shafi'i did not declare this Hafs an unbeliever, but rather applied the term unbelief to his statement. However, the established account of the two of them is contrary to what the Shaykh of Islam said (4).
It is not permissible to require other Muslims to follow the judgment of someone who has declared another an unbeliever, so long as what was established for him has not been established for them, and so long as this person's unbelief has not been established by sound legal proof. .......
Is it permissible for someone who knows that a man is an unbeliever to make this known among the people, even if the unbeliever conceals his unbelief? The answer is: Yes; indeed, it is obligatory when harm from him is feared, especially if this unbeliever is one of the callers to innovations, someone from whom knowledge is taken, or someone seeking to marry a Muslim woman, or the like. For religion is sincere counsel. On this, Qadi Iyad (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "If the person who says this is someone from whom people seek to acquire knowledge or transmit hadith, or whose judgment, testimony, or legal opinion concerning people's rights is relied upon, then whoever hears him must make what he heard known, warn people against him, and testify against him regarding what he said. Any Muslim leaders to whom this reaches must likewise denounce it and explain his unbelief and the corruption of his statement, in order to avert his harm from the Muslims and uphold the right of the Master of the Messengers. The same applies if he is someone who preaches to the general public or teaches children, for a person with such an inner state cannot be trusted not to instill this in their hearts. Thus, the obligation is all the more emphatic in their case, in defense of the Prophet's right and the right of his Sharia [(2).


[Page 308]

This concerns legal establishment, that is, correctly establishing that the cause of disbelief has in fact been committed by the person who committed it.))
Therefore, members of movements are not obliged to obey their leaders in declaring another group unbelievers until this has been correctly established according to the Sharia. It is well known that declaring someone an unbeliever is a legal ruling, like all other legal rulings, and disagreement over declaring people unbelievers on certain grounds is a matter of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), like other matters. Thus, a caliph in an Islamic state may not compel people to adopt one view on this matter, nor require them to declare an unbeliever anyone whom he himself declares one, if an individual believes that this declaration is unjustified and contrary to the Quran and Sunnah. A state governed by Islam should therefore accommodate differences arising from independent legal reasoning, even on the question of declaring people unbelievers; not all students of knowledge understand matters in the same way. The caliphs likewise did not compel anyone to follow their school of thought when another interpretation was possible.
It is stated in Majmu al-Fatawa (27/296):
"The twelfth point: When scholars disagree over a matter, no judge may settle the dispute by issuing a ruling. No judge may say, 'I have ruled that this opinion is correct and that the other opinion is rejected, along with the person who holds it.' Rather, in matters over which Muslim scholars disagree, or on which they have reached consensus, the ruler's statement is like that of any individual scholar, if he is a scholar; if he is merely an imitator, he is like the ordinary people who imitate others. Holding office and authority do not make someone who is not a learned jurist capable of independent reasoning into one. If authority and office were what qualified someone to speak about knowledge and religion, then the caliph and the sultan would be the most entitled to speak about knowledge and religion, and people would seek their legal opinions and refer to them when matters were unclear.


[Page 309]

in knowledge and religion. If the caliph and ruler do not claim this for themselves, nor impose their ruling on the subjects in this matter in favor of one opinion over another, except by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, then anyone whose authority is less than that of the ruler has even greater reason not to exceed his bounds or set himself up in a position he is not entitled to occupy. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali—the Rightly Guided Caliphs—were all the more entitled to do so than anyone beneath them. For they, may Allah be pleased with them, only required people to follow the Book of their Lord and the Sunnah of their Prophet. Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, used to say, "I have only sent my officials—that is, my deputies—to you to teach you the Book of your Lord and the Sunnah of your Prophet, and to distribute your spoils among you." Rather, this is a matter on which Muslim scholars who know what the legal proofs—the Book and the Sunnah—indicate may speak. Whoever has greater knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah is more entitled than another to speak on it, even if he is not a ruler. A ruler has no say in it merely by virtue of being a ruler; rather, if he has knowledge, he may speak on it like any other scholar. These people have ruled on a matter over which, by consensus, they have no authority to rule. This is a form of ruling that is invalid by consensus.
Thirteenth: The general rulings that Muslims share—whether agreed upon or disputed—are not for judges to rule on. Rather, a learned ruler, like any other scholar, states what he knows; a judge only rules on specific cases. As for whether this act is obligatory, recommended, or forbidden, this is one of the general rulings over which no one has authority to rule except Allah and His Messenger. And the scholars of


[Page 310]

Muslims infer the ruling of Allah and His Messenger from the relevant proofs. These people have ruled on general rulings, and their ruling in this matter is invalid by consensus."

It is stated in Majmu al-Fatawa (35/378):
"Allah has made it obligatory upon the Muslim rulers to follow the Sharia, which is the Book and the Sunnah. If some Muslims disagree over any matter of religion, even if the disputant is one of the ordinary students of knowledge, the rulers may not compel him to follow a judge's ruling. Rather, they must make the truth clear to him, just as a learner makes the truth clear to an ignorant person. If the truth with which Allah sent His Messenger becomes clear to him and is manifest, yet he then opposes it out of obstinacy, he deserves punishment. As for someone who says, 'What I have said is my own view, or the view of a group of Muslim scholars, and I have said it by way of independent reasoning or following another,' then, by the agreement of the Muslims, he may not be punished, even if he has made an error that contradicts the Book and the Sunnah. Were such a person punished, all Muslims would be punished, for there is not one among them who does not hold views based on his own reasoning or on following another, in which he is mistaken. Were Allah to punish those who err, He would punish all creation."

Imam al-Shafii said: "People are agreed that if the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) has become clear to someone, he may not abandon it for anyone else's opinion." I'lam al-Muwaqqiin


[Page 311]

This means that individuals within the abode of Islam and belonging to it must pursue the truth to the extent of their ability, even if that truth differs from the caliph's legal judgment. Likewise, the caliph must not compel people to follow his school of thought. Rather, both are commanded to follow what they each find sound in the Book and the Sunnah; otherwise, they fall into the sin of obedience, taking rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah. May Allah protect us from that. I have discussed this in detail elsewhere. For further benefit, consult the chapter on invalidating blind following in Ibn Hazm's book al-Ihkam, and al-Shawkani's book The Beneficial Discourse on the Invalidity of Blind Following, since this is not the purpose of this discussion. And Allah knows best. There is no objection to a ruler considering a particular group to be unbelievers on the basis of an interpretation he holds, while one of those engaged in religious learning holds otherwise because evidence from the Book or the Sunnah has become clear to him that rules this out. Both should counsel one another by presenting the evidence they have, while not withdrawing their hand from obedience. I have previously mentioned the Companions' disagreement with the greatest of the Rightly Guided Caliphs when evidence from the Book or the Sunnah appeared to indicate otherwise, so there is no need to repeat it here. There is no doubt that those below them have even greater reason to do so.

Is the one who declares the person who excuses someone to be an unbeliever a Kharijite?


[Page 312]

It is noticeable that many who belong to the Islamic movement accuse anyone who declares the excuser to be an unbeliever of being a Kharijite. Here we find them falling into what they tried to avoid: they condemn the person who declares the excuser to be an unbeliever because the excuser is acting on a mistaken interpretation.
So how can someone who interprets the matter and errs be declared an unbeliever, when the evidence from the Book and the Sunnah rules that out? Yet they also find that the person who declares the excuser to be an unbeliever is acting on a mistaken interpretation in this matter, but they do not excuse him on account of his interpretation. Instead, they hasten to call him a Kharijite. You know what this term entails in the way of condemnations and attributes described by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): that they are "the worst of creation," and his command to kill them, "Wherever you find them, kill them," and his calling them the dogs of Hell. If they accuse someone of being a Kharijite, they must therefore apply this severe threat to him. Hence the need to examine who the Kharijites are.
(Who are the Kharijites?)
Some scholars, such as Ibn Hazm, defined the Kharijites. In al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa wa al-Nihal (2/90), he wrote:
"Whoever agrees with the Kharijites in rejecting arbitration, declaring those who commit major sins to be unbelievers, advocating revolt against unjust rulers, holding that those who commit major sins will remain in the Fire forever, and holding that the imamate may belong to someone other than Quraysh, is a Kharijite. But if he disagrees with them on these matters, while agreeing with them on other matters over which the Muslims differ, then he is not a Kharijite."
There is no doubt that if we wish to apply a ruling to someone, we must first determine the effective cause of that ruling—that is, what is the cause whose presence in a person leads us to judge him to be a Kharijite?


[Page 313]

Second: Determining the effective cause of this ruling and its meaning means verifying that the effective cause we have identified is present in a person, so that we may judge him to be one of the Kharijites.
Let us begin by identifying the effective cause. The first question that comes to mind here is: What characteristics of the Kharijites did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) mention? First, we list the descriptions that could constitute the effective cause of the ruling. Then we refine the effective cause by excluding incidental descriptions (those that do not affect the ruling). What remains are the descriptions that may serve as the effective cause of the ruling, upon which the designation and, in turn, the punishment follow.
The characteristics mentioned by the Messenger of Allah are that they are young in age (that is, young people), and foolish in understanding (that is, ignorant, with foolish minds). They speak with the words of the best of creation (that is, they recite the Quran or quote hadiths). In the hadith it says, "They recite the Quran, but it does not go beyond their throats." It has been said that this means they do not act upon it, and it has also been said that their recitation is not accepted. Then they kill the people of Islam and leave the idolaters alone. Then they leave the religion as an arrow passes through its prey (that is, they leave it entirely and become unbelievers, or they leave it through innovation or misguidance without becoming unbelievers, as Ibn Battal related from the majority). Then, "they will not return to it until the arrow returns to its notch." "People will emerge from the direction of the East." He said: "Their distinguishing mark is shaving"—or he said, "removing the hair" (and removing the hair means shaving it off). Then: "Their sign is a black man, one of whose upper arms is like a woman's breast, or like a piece of flesh that wobbles. They will emerge at a time when the people are divided." Abu Sa'id said: "I testify that I heard this hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and I testify that Ali ibn Abi Talib ..."


[Page 314]

"Fight them, and I am with him." He then ordered that man to be sought out, and he was brought to him, until I saw him matching the description the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had given of him: "Among them is a black man, one of whose upper arms has no bone in it; it is like a woman's breast, quivering like a woman's breast." Then, when Ali saw this man killed, he said, "Indeed, my close friend told me that they are three brothers from among the jinn. This is the eldest of them; the second has a large following, and the third is weak." Shu'ayb deemed its chain of transmission good, and Ahmad Shakir authenticated it. Thus, if we consider this hadith authentic, one of the leaders of these jinn who took human form was among them. Then: "the worst of creation and creatures"—al-Albani authenticated it (and it is clear that they are unbelievers). Then: "The worst of those killed beneath the sky are they, three times over; and the best of those killed beneath the sky is the one they killed." Shu'ayb authenticated it. Then he considers insignificant...
"one of you [would consider] his prayer alongside their prayer, and his fasting alongside their fasting." Then: "fierce and stern"—that is, harsh and strong.
By tracing the hadiths and the characteristics reported concerning the Kharijites, we find that, alongside the characteristics mentioned, they include rulings. These rulings are that they are "the worst of creation" and "wherever you find them, kill them." Abu Umama, one of the Companions who narrated the hadith, said that they "disbelieved after their faith." These are three rulings concerning this world; then, in the Hereafter, they are "the dogs of Hell." We then ask whether these hadiths concern specific people—that is, people whom the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) knew through revelation would deliberately leave the religion, following their desires without interpretation, and whom Allah informed him about by their characteristics. If we find the characteristic, we recognize them and apply the ruling to them, namely that they...


[Page 315]

The Kharijites are among the worst of creation, the dogs of Hellfire. They must be fought without the need to establish proof against them on account of a form of interpretation. This is like the Dajjal: the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) described him by physical characteristics and actions, so when we find them, we know that he is the Dajjal—for example, that he is one-eyed, has tightly curled hair, and has a wiped-out left eye. The apparent meaning is the first possibility, and Allah knows best, for several reasons.
First: He (peace and blessings be upon him) informed us that they must be killed. It is known that if killing is on account of disbelief, it can only take place after proof has been established. Likewise, if it is on account of armed rebellion, it can only take place after it is known that the one who rebels against the imam has no valid interpretation. Since the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered that they be killed—and this includes any one of them who can be apprehended—we know that proof was certainly established against them. The apparent meaning of the hadiths is that they are disbelievers, for several reasons.
First: He informed us that they "leave the religion and then do not return to it." They deliberately opposed revelation, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) knew this through revelation. If you say that they may have been ignorant people acting on an interpretation, you fall into the very position you sought to avoid: if they were acting on an interpretation, then they were ignorant in a compounded way. The fact that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) judged that they would leave the religion and that they were the worst of creation, while, according to your view, they were ignorant, indicates that ignorance is no excuse, and that whoever falls into disbelief through interpretation or ignorance is a disbeliever. Al-Tabari used this as evidence for declaring those who act on interpretations to be disbelievers, and the contemporary group that declares such people disbelievers and does not accept ignorance as an excuse followed him in this. You certainly do not hold that view. It is therefore clear that they were deliberate opponents, because one who errs is excused, in light of the words of the Exalted: "There is no blame upon you for what you do by mistake, but only for what your hearts intend." And he (peace and blessings be upon him) knew this through revelation.


[Page 316]

Second: what shows that they are unbelievers is his saying "the worst of creation"
and his saying "the dogs of the people of the Fire", which shows that their standing is lower than that of the people of the Fire. This is also the evident view of Abu Umama, in his saying "These were Muslims and then became unbelievers". As for what Ibn Battal reported in his words: ((The majority of scholars hold that, in this rebellion of theirs, they did not leave the body of the believers, because of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "and he has doubts about the notch of the arrow", for having doubts is uncertainty, and when there is uncertainty about this, it cannot be ruled with certainty that they have left Islam entirely, since one whose bond of Islam is established with certainty is not ruled to have left it except with certainty. And it is narrated from Ali ibn Abi Talib by several routes that he was asked about the people of Nahrawan: "Are they unbelievers?" He said: "It is from unbelief that they fled." It was said: "Then are they hypocrites?" He said: "The hypocrites remember Allah only a little." It was said: "Then what are they?" He said: "They are a people whose effort went astray and who were blind to the truth; they rebelled against us, so we fought them."))
The reply to this is found in Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar (12/299):
"It has been cited as evidence by those who hold that the Kharijites are unbelievers, and this is what al-Bukhari's arrangement implies, since he placed them alongside the heretics and gave those who interpret a separate chapter heading. Judge Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi stated this plainly in his commentary on al-Tirmidhi, saying: The correct view is that they are unbelievers, because of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) 'they pass out of Islam', and his saying 'I will kill them as 'Ad were killed', and in another wording 'Thamud', and each of these perished only through unbelief; and because of his saying 'they are the worst of creation', and only unbelievers are described in this way; and because of his saying 'they are the most hateful of creation to Allah, Exalted is He'; and because they judge everyone who differs from their creed to be an unbeliever who will abide forever in the Fire, so they are more deserving of the name than those they judge. Among the later imams who inclined to this view is Shaykh Taqi al-Din al-Subki."


[Page 317]

He said in his fatwas: "Those who declared the Kharijites and the extremist Rafidites unbelievers argued that their declaring the leading Companions unbelievers entailed rejecting the Prophet's testimony that they were destined for Paradise (peace and blessings be upon him)." He said: "In my view, this is a sound argument." He said: "Those who did not declare them unbelievers argued that judging them to be unbelievers would require that they had prior, definitive knowledge of the testimony mentioned." This is open to question, for we know with certainty that those whom they declared unbelievers were deemed upright until the time of their deaths, and that is sufficient for us to hold that those who declared them unbelievers are themselves unbelievers. This is supported by the hadith, "If a man says to his brother, 'You are an unbeliever,' then one of the two has incurred it." In Muslim's wording: "Whoever accuses a Muslim of unbelief, or says, 'Enemy of Allah,' it will rebound upon him." He said: "It has been established that these people accuse a group of unbelief, people whose faith we know with certainty. Therefore, in accordance with the implication of the Lawgiver's report, they must be judged unbelievers. This is similar to what they have said about one who prostrates to an idol and the like, even though there is no explicit denial in such an act, after they had defined unbelief as denial. If they argue that there is consensus that whoever does that is an unbeliever, we say: These reports concerning these people likewise entail that they are unbelievers, even if they did not hold with certainty that those whom they declared unbelievers were deemed upright. Nor will their general belief in Islam and their performance of the obligatory acts save them from being judged unbelievers, just as that would not save one who prostrates to an idol." I say: Among those who inclined toward some aspects of this discussion was al-Tabari in his Tahdhib. After citing the hadiths in this chapter, he said: "It refutes the view of those who say that no one among the people of the qibla leaves Islam, after becoming subject to its rulings, except by knowingly intending to leave it. This view is invalidated by the hadith's words: 'They speak the truth and recite the Quran, yet they pass out of Islam and do not cling to any part of it.' It is well known that they only deemed the blood and property of Muslims lawful because they erred in their interpretation of Quranic verses, understanding them in a sense other than what was intended." He then transmitted with a sound chain from Ibn Abbas, and mentioned the Kharijites to him and what they experience when reciting the Quran. He said:


[Page 318]

They believe in its clear verses and perish at its ambiguous ones. The command to kill them supports the view mentioned, along with the previously cited hadith of Ibn Masud: "It is not lawful to kill a Muslim except for one of three reasons," including "one who abandons his religion and separates from the community." Al-Qurtubi says in al-Mufhim: "The example mentioned in the hadith of Abu Sa'id"—that is, the hadith to be cited in the following chapter—"supports the view that they are unbelievers. For its apparent intent is that they left Islam without retaining any part of it, just as an arrow passes through its prey because of its speed and the strength of the archer, without catching on anything from the prey. He alluded to this with his words, 'It passed beyond the dung and the blood.'" The author of al-Shifa' says: "We likewise decisively judge as an unbeliever anyone who makes a statement that leads to declaring the community misguided or the Companions unbelievers." The author of al-Rawda cited this from him in the chapter on apostasy and endorsed it. Most Sunni scholars of legal theory held that the Kharijites are sinners and that the rulings of Islam apply to them, because they profess the two testimonies of faith and persist in observing the pillars of Islam. They were deemed sinners only because they declared Muslims unbelievers, relying on a corrupt interpretation; this led them to deem the blood and property of those who opposed them lawful, and to testify that they were unbelievers and polytheists. Al-Khattabi said: "Muslim scholars unanimously agreed that the Kharijites, despite their misguidance, are a sect among the Muslim sects. They permitted marrying them and eating their slaughtered animals, and held that they are not declared unbelievers so long as they adhere to the foundations of Islam." Iyad said: "This question nearly became more difficult for theologians than any other, to the point that the jurist Abd al-Haqq asked Imam Abu al-Maali about it, and he excused himself, saying that admitting an unbeliever into the faith and expelling a Muslim from it is a grave matter in religion." He said: "Before him, Qadi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani had refrained from giving a ruling, saying, 'The people did not explicitly declare unbelief; rather, they made statements that lead to unbelief.'" Al-Ghazali said in The Distinction Between Faith and Heresy: "What is proper is to avoid declaring anyone an unbeliever whenever there is a way to do so, for indeed...


[Page 319]

Deeming it lawful to shed the blood of worshippers who affirm the oneness of Allah is an error, and the error of leaving a thousand unbelievers alive is less grave than the error of shedding the blood of a single Muslim. Among the proofs cited by those who did not declare them unbelievers is his statement in the third hadith of the chapter, after describing them as passing out of the religion as an arrow passes through its target: "The archer looks at his arrow," until he said, "Then he examines the notch to see whether anything has caught on it." Ibn Battal said: The majority held that
The scholars held that the Kharijites were not outside the body of the Muslims, based on the words, "he doubts about the arrowhead," since doubt is a form of uncertainty. And since uncertainty arose in this matter, they could not be definitively judged to have left Islam, for whoever has entered Islam with certainty does not leave it except with certainty. He said: Ali was asked about the people of al-Nahrawan, "Have they disbelieved?" He replied, "They fled from disbelief." I say: If this report from Ali is authentic, it may be understood to mean that he had not learned of the belief they held which led those who declared them unbelievers to do so. There is room to question his use of the words, "he doubts about the arrowhead," for in some versions of the hadith mentioned—as previously indicated and as will be discussed later—nothing of it clung to the arrow, while in others it passed through the dung and blood. The way to reconcile the two is that he was uncertain whether anything was on the arrowhead, then became certain that nothing had clung to the arrow, nor to any part of it, from what had been shot. It is also possible to attribute the difference to differences among individuals within their ranks, and to understand the words, "he doubts," as indicating that some of them may have retained something of Islam. Al-Qurtubi said in al-Mufhim: "The view that they are unbelievers is more apparent from the hadith." He said: "According to the view that they are unbelievers, they are fought and killed, and their property is taken as spoils. This is the view of a group of hadith scholars regarding the property of the Kharijites. According to the view that they are not unbelievers, they are treated as rebels when they break allegiance and take up arms. As for one who conceals himself..."


[Page 320]

"...among them an innovation. If he is apprehended, is he to be killed after being asked to repent, or not killed, but rather efforts made to refute his innovation? There is disagreement on this, corresponding to the disagreement over whether they are to be declared unbelievers." End quote.
From the foregoing, the following becomes clear: Some scholars held that they were unbelievers, for the reasons mentioned above, while most held that they were not to be declared unbelievers, for several reasons. First, they said that they were acting on an interpretation. Yet the hadiths do not mention that they were acting on an interpretation; rather, what is apparent is that these particular people, unlike others, were not acting on an interpretation. But how do we know that they were not? We say: We know this from the Messenger of Allah's ruling that they had left the religion, that they were the worst of creation, and that they must be killed—and nothing else—while also ruling that there is no blame on one who errs unintentionally. If it is said, "If others fall into some of the same things as these people, do you declare them unbelievers without qualification?" The answer is no, because we do not know from the report of the infallible that these people were unbelievers, as we know from the report of the infallible concerning the particular people mentioned, who were described precisely—unless they disbelieve in something necessarily known to be part of the religion and their interpretation is untenable. Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) held this view, saying that these hadiths were revealed concerning a particular group, namely the Azariqa. It says in Lawami al-Anwar al-Bahiyya (1/87):
The Azariqa were the followers of Nafi ibn Abd Allah al-Azraq, the accursed Kharijite. A group from Basra, al-Ahwaz, and other towns in Persia and elsewhere went out with him. Their power grew, and they took control of the provinces. He had views and doctrines that they adopted along with him. Among these was his declaring Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) an unbeliever because of the arbitration. He claimed that the words of the Exalted, "And among the people is one whose speech pleases you" [al-Baqara: 204], and the rest of the verse, were revealed concerning him. He also claimed that the words "And among the people is one who sells himself, seeking Allah's pleasure" were revealed concerning Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam (may Allah curse him).


[Page 321]

[Al-Baqara: 207], and among their doctrines was that they declared anyone who did not accept their opinion an unbeliever and deemed his blood lawful; declared those who stayed behind from fighting unbelievers and disavowed anyone who stayed behind; held that whoever committed a major sin left Islam and would remain forever in the Fire alongside all the other unbelievers; prohibited dissimulation; permitted killing the children and women of those who opposed them; and said: "There is no prescribed punishment for slander or for fornication."))
))The hadith of Abu Umama has already been mentioned. In a narration by Ahmad from Abu Ghalib, he said: When the heads of the Azariqa were brought and set up on the steps of Damascus, Abu Umama (may Allah be pleased with him) came. When he saw them, his eyes filled with tears, and he said: "Dogs of the Fire" (three times). "These are the worst of those killed beneath the sky, and the best of those killed beneath the sky are those whom these people killed." He said: I asked, "Why are your eyes filled with tears?" He replied, "Out of compassion for them; they were among the people of Islam." We asked, "Did you say that these are dogs of the Fire based on your own opinion, or is it something you heard from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)?" He said, "I would be bold indeed!" Rather, I heard it from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) more than once, twice, or three times." He said: Then he counted them many times.))
Here, the Companions Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa and Abu Umama report that these particular people, the Azariqa, are dogs of the people of the Fire. It is authentically reported concerning the Khawarij who came before those fought by Ali that they would leave the religion. These hadiths, then, concerned specific people. For this reason, Ibn Hazm said in al-Muhalla bi al-Athar (12/173):
"As for the Azariqa, they are not among the sects of Islam, because they are the ones about whom the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) reported that they would leave the religion, just as


[Page 322]

"The arrow passes through the prey." Despite his statement in Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa wa al-Nihal (3/144):
"Whoever among the people of Islam exercises interpretation and errs: if the proof has not been established against him and the truth has not been made clear to him, then he is excused and rewarded with one reward for seeking the truth and intending to reach it, and his error is forgiven, since he did not deliberately adopt it, in accordance with the words of Allah, Exalted is He: {There is no blame upon you for what you have done by mistake, but only for what your hearts have intended.} If he is correct, he has two rewards: one for being correct and another for seeking it. But if the proof has been established against him and the truth made clear to him, and he turns away from the truth without opposing Allah, Exalted is He, or His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), then he is a transgressor, for his audacity toward Allah, Exalted is He, in persisting in what is forbidden. If he turns away from the truth in opposition to Allah, Exalted is He, and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), then he is an unbeliever, an apostate, whose blood and property are lawful. In these rulings, there is no difference between erring in belief concerning any matter of the Sharia and erring in a legal opinion concerning any matter, as we explained earlier."
Abu Muhammad said: "Here, Allah willing, we shall be brief, and clarify everything on which we have elaborated. Allah, Exalted is He, said: {We would never punish until We had sent a messenger.} And He, Exalted is He, said: {So that I may warn you by it, and whoever it reaches.} And He, Exalted is He, said: {But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you judge concerning what they dispute among themselves, then find no resistance within themselves to what you have decided, and submit wholeheartedly.} These verses clarify this entire subject. It is therefore established that no one is declared an unbeliever until the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) reaches him. If it reaches him and he does not believe in it, then he is an unbeliever. But if he believes in him, then adopts whatever belief Allah wills him to adopt, or gives whatever legal opinion or performs whatever act Allah, Exalted is He, wills him to, without the Prophet's ruling to the contrary reaching him in that matter, then he bears no blame at all for what he believed or did until it reaches him. If it reaches him..."


[Page 323]

And it was sound in his view. If someone disagrees with him, exercising independent reasoning about something whose true basis has not been made clear to him, then he is mistaken, excused, and rewarded once, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "When a judge exercises independent reasoning and is correct, he receives two rewards; if he is mistaken, he receives one reward." Anyone who holds a belief, makes a statement, or performs an act is a judge with respect to that matter. If he disagrees with him through his actions, while knowingly opposing the truth and believing otherwise than what he acts upon, then he is a sinful believer. If he knowingly opposes him in his words or in his heart, then he is a disbeliever and an idolater. This applies equally to matters of belief and to legal opinions, in light of the texts we have cited. This is the view of Ishaq ibn Rahawayh and others, and it is what we hold. Success is granted by Allah, Exalted is He." End quote. However, Ibn Hazm stipulated that an interpretation must have some basis in language or the Sharia, must not contradict what is necessarily known of the religion—which is what consensus means in his view—and must not be a stubborn rejection of the proof after it has been established against the person.
He said in al-Muhalla bi al-Athar (11/343):
"Whoever adopts an interpretation in which he is mistaken, but does not thereby contradict consensus, does not intend to oppose the Quran and the ruling of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), deliberately opposing them, nor stubbornly reject them after proof has been established against him; or whoever sets out seeking worldly dominance, but does not waylay travelers, shed blood wantonly, or take property unjustly—such a person is the rebel, between whom and those against whom he has rebelled reconciliation should be made, in accordance with the verse concerning the rebels and with what he (peace and blessings be upon him) said about the Khawarij emerging between two groups of his community: one of them is rebellious, and it is the group that kills Ammar; the other is closer to the truth. He (peace and blessings be upon him) praised those who brought reconciliation between them.
As we have narrated through al-Bukhari: Sadqah related to us; Ibn Uyaynah related to us; Abu Musa related to us, from al-Hasan, who heard Abu Bakrah say: 'I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)...'


[Page 324]

(peace and blessings be upon him) on the pulpit, with al-Hasan beside him, looking once at the people and once at him, and saying, "This son of mine is a leader, and perhaps Allah will bring reconciliation through him between two groups of Muslims." If matters escalate to the point that they terrorize the roads and seize the Muslims' property by force, without any interpretation, or shed blood in the same way, then they are waging war, and the rulings on those who wage war apply to them. If matters escalate further, to the point that they violate the consensus, then they are apostates: all their property is then taken as spoils, one-fifth is set aside, and the remainder is distributed. And success is from Allah, Exalted is He.)) For Ibn Hazm, consensus meant matters known by necessity. He explained how the Kharijites violated consensus, saying in al-Muhalla bil-Athar (11/334):
Thus it is established that interpretation varies. Any group that, in pursuing its aim, interpreted the texts in a way that erased some part of the Sunnah—such as those who adopted the Kharijite position in order to remove authority from Quraysh; to return people to the view that stoning is invalid; to declare sinners unbelievers; to demand loans from the Muslims; to kill children and women; to proclaim that divine decree is invalid; to deny the vision of Allah; to claim that Allah, Exalted is He, knows nothing until it comes to be; to disavow some of the Companions; to deny intercession; to invalidate acting upon established Sunnahs from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him); and to call for recourse to anyone other than the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him); or to refuse to pay zakat, or to withhold any right owed to a Muslim or any right owed to Allah, Exalted is He—such people are not excused on the basis of their corrupt interpretation, for it is utter ignorance.
Ibn Taymiyya says: "As for killing an individual from among the Kharijites who has been captured, such as the Haruriyya, the Rafida, and the like, the jurists hold two opinions on this, which are also two reports from Imam Ahmad. The correct view is that it is permissible to kill an individual among them, such as one who calls others to his doctrine, or someone similar whose presence entails corruption. For the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:


[Page 325]

Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: {Wherever you find them, kill them.} And he said: {If I live to see them, I will kill them as the people of Ad were killed.} Umar said to Sabigh ibn Asal, "If I found you with your head shaved, I would strike the part of you that contains your eyes." Ali ibn Abi Talib sought to have Abdullah ibn Saba, the first of the Rafidah, killed, until he fled from him. These people are among the greatest corrupters on earth. If their corruption can be stopped only by killing them, then they are to be killed. But it is not obligatory to kill every one of them if this view has not become manifest, or if killing him would cause a greater harm. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) initially refrained from killing that Kharijite, lest people say, "Muhammad kills his companions." At that time, he was not causing widespread corruption. For this reason, Ali refrained from killing them when they first appeared, because they were numerous, and outwardly they remained within obedience and the community; they had not fought the people of the community, and it was not clear to him that they were the ones in question.
As for declaring them unbelievers and judging them to remain in Hell forever, the scholars likewise have two well-known positions on this, which are two reports from Ahmad. These two positions concern the Kharijites and those who have seceded, including the Haruriyya, the Rafidah, and others like them. The correct view is that the statements they make, which are known to contradict what the Messenger brought, constitute unbelief; likewise, their actions that are of the same kind as the actions of unbelievers against Muslims also constitute unbelief. I have set out the evidence for this elsewhere. However, declaring any particular individual among them an unbeliever and judging that he will remain in Hell forever depends on the conditions for declaring someone an unbeliever being established and the impediments to doing so being absent. We state the general rulings found in the texts concerning promise, threat, declaring someone an unbeliever, and declaring someone a sinner, but we do not judge that a particular individual falls under that general ruling until the cause for it is established in his case, with no countervailing factor. I have explained this principle at length in "The Principle of Declaring Someone an Unbeliever." End of quotation.


[Page 326]

Consider how he said that the reason Ali did not fight them and kill them was that it had not become clear to him that they were the people intended by those hadiths. It is evident from the words of these scholars that these hadiths refer to specific people against whom proof had been established, as it must be. Whoever agrees with them in any of their doctrines, and whose ignorance could be excused and whose interpretation could be considered, has proof established against him. But if his ignorance cannot be excused, because the matter is necessarily known to be part of the religion, he is judged to be an unbeliever. Al-Tabari judged them to be unbelievers even though, in his view, they were interpreting the texts, because his school of thought does not excuse ignorance in matters of creed, as will come, Allah willing. However, as stated earlier, it has not been established that these people were interpreting the texts, so there is a basis for al-Tabari's statement.
Second: Those who held that they were not unbelievers did so on the basis of the Prophet's statement, "And he doubts about the arrowhead"—that is, he is uncertain ("he doubts about the arrowhead"): the archer wonders whether there is any trace of the prey in the notch of the arrow or not. This means that one is uncertain whether these Kharijites retain any remnant of religion or not.
However, as stated earlier, this uncertainty on the part of the observer is countered by the Prophet's explicit statement that they are the worst of creation and the dogs of the people of Hell, and other such statements. This statement (that is, the one who wonders whether any trace of the prey remains in the arrowhead or not) concerns the observer of their condition, not the reality of their case. What the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said did indeed come to pass: some people doubted whether they were unbelievers and did not judge them to be so, as is clear from the words of Ibn Hajar cited earlier.
Third: They cited Ali's statement, "They fled from unbelief." It is found in Abd al-Razzaq's work, and its chain includes someone who is unnamed. As stated earlier, it is possible that this was Ali's personal reasoning before he came to know their true nature, as indicated by the discussion cited earlier from Ibn Hajar.


[Page 327]

And if we wish to return to refining the effective cause (tanqih al-manat), we find that there are incidental attributes whose possessor is not judged sinful or declared an unbeliever. Examples include shaving the head, reciting the Quran, being fierce, and other such attributes that are not sins. Mentioning such attributes and dwelling on them extensively is evidence that the punishments mentioned apply to specific people. This is like the descriptions of the Messiah as one-eyed, with curly hair, and so on: these are identifying signs by which a particular person is specified, not grounds for imposing the ruling on everyone who happens to possess these attributes.
Then we find attributes that are sins, whether or not they reach the level of unbelief. The first is Dhu al-Khuwaysira's statement about the distribution, "It was not just." And his statement, "He will have followers," after which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) described their attributes. What is apparent here is that these people will be followers and supporters of this man, and that they will share his position of diminishing the Prophet's standing (peace and blessings be upon him), since that is the only thing the man had manifested. This is the first attribute, and it is an attribute that constitutes unbelief, without doubt. The second is: "They delve deeply into religion until they leave it," and, "They leave the religion and do not return to it until the arrow returns to its bow." These two descriptions indicate that these people committed unbelief and departed from the religion. This is an effective cause that permits the Prophet's statement, "Wherever you encounter them, kill them," for leaving the religion entails being killed. The third is: "They call to the Book of Allah, yet have nothing to do with it." This also indicates that these people are unbelievers, since having nothing to do with it necessarily includes having no faith in it. They are therefore unbelievers. In Iqtida al-Sirat al-Mustaqim li-Mukhalafat Ashab al-Jahim (1/176), it says:
Allah, Exalted is He, said to His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): {You have nothing to do with them} [al-An'am: 159]. This entails that he disavows them in every respect.


[Page 328]

Whoever follows another in some of his affairs is of him in that matter. For when someone says, "I am of this, and this is of me," he means, "I am of his kind, and he is of my kind," since two people can be one only in kind, as in the words of the Exalted: {Some of you are from others} [Al Imran: 195] (2) (3), and his words (peace and blessings be upon him) to Ali: "You are of me, and I am of you" (4). Thus, when someone says, "I have nothing to do with this," he means, "I share nothing with him; rather, I disavow all his affairs."))
It is stated in al-Muhalla bi al-Athar (12/125):
We know that whoever leaves the Abode of Islam for the Abode of War has deserted Allah, Exalted is He, and the imam of the Muslims and their community. This is made clear by his hadith (peace and blessings be upon him): "He is free of responsibility for every Muslim who resides among the polytheists." He (peace be upon him) only disavows himself of an unbeliever. Allah, Exalted is He, says: {The believing men and believing women are allies of one another} [Al-Tawbah: 71].))
Fourth: His words (peace be upon him), "Their faith does not pass beyond their throats." It is stated in Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar (12/293):
This is like his other statement about them: "Their faith does not pass beyond their throats," meaning that they utter the two testimonies of faith but do not know them in their hearts.)) It is also stated in Fath al-Bari by Ibn Hajar (12/288):
What is meant is that they believe through speech, not through the heart.)) This too is a basis for the obligation to kill, and a basis for declaring someone an unbeliever. It is the same basis as before: the Prophet informed us that these people's faith does not pass beyond their throats. One who is an unbeliever in his heart is an unbeliever, but no one can know this; therefore, it is clear that he knew it only through revelation.


[Page 329]

Fifth: The statement of Abu Umama: "These people had been Muslims, but became disbelievers" and "They had been among the people of Islam." Sixth: There are grounds that do not constitute disbelief, but are sins: they kill the people of Islam. Killing the people of Islam is not disbelief, and they agree with us on this. But it makes killing them permissible and constitutes armed banditry if it is not based on a valid interpretation. Thus, it too is a valid ground, in light of his statement (peace and blessings be upon him), "Wherever you encounter them, kill them," on account of their armed banditry.
Seventh: "And they invoke the people of idols." This is a basis for a ruling, but it does not constitute disbelief; rather, it is a sin and does not permit killing. The apparent conclusion is that this is not the basis here for the obligation to kill these people, unless it is said that they invoke them as an act of religious devotion and hold that fighting them is forbidden, as some have maintained, as will be discussed.
If these people, in all the cases mentioned above, are a group who have committed disbelief, combined with killing the people of Islam and leaving the idolaters alone.
And now let us examine: what is the disbelief they committed? And what are the characteristics of these people that the scholars mentioned in their books?
First: It is stated in al-Muhalla (al-Muhalla bi al-Athar, 11/334):
It is thus established that interpretation varies. Any group whose interpretation in pursuit of its aims seeks to erase some part of the Sunnah—such as one who adopts the view of the Kharijites in order to take authority away from Quraysh; or to lead people back to the view that stoning is invalid, that people who commit sins are unbelievers, that Muslims may be borrowed from, or that children and women may be killed; or to proclaim the view that divine decree is invalid, or that the vision of Allah is impossible, or that Allah, Exalted is He, knows nothing until it comes to be; or to disavow some of the Companions; or to deny intercession; or to reject acting upon the established Sunnahs of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and calls people to refer instead to someone below the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ...


[Page 330]

and blessings be upon him—or to refusing to pay zakat, or to withholding a Muslim's due, or a due owed to Allah, Exalted is He: such people are not excused on account of a corrupt interpretation, because this is complete ignorance. As for one who calls people to an interpretation that does not invalidate any Sunnah, but rather to something like Muawiya's interpretation that he should exact retribution from Uthman's killers before pledging allegiance to Ali, he is excused, because this involves no rejection of any part of the religion; it is merely a particular error concerning a specific incident, which does not extend beyond it.
As for one who rose up solely for worldly gain, as Yazid ibn Muawiya, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, and Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan did when they rose against Ibn al-Zubayr; as Marwan ibn Muhammad did when he rose against Yazid ibn al-Walid; and as those who also rose in support of Marwan did, such people are not excused, because they have no interpretation at all: it is sheer transgression.
As for one who calls people to enjoin what is right, forbid what is wrong, uphold the Quran and the Sunnah, and rule with justice, he is not a rebel. Rather, the rebel is the one who opposes him. And Allah, Exalted is He, is the source of success.)) Here Ibn Hazm mentioned the matters for which the Kharijites declared others unbelievers and by which they contradicted the established consensus; among them he mentioned the abrogation of stoning.
It is stated in al-Tanbih wa al-Radd ala Ahl al-Ahwa wa al-Bida (p. 185):
Hassan ibn Farukh said: Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (may Allah be pleased with him) asked me what the Azariqa say. I told him. He said, "What do they say about stoning?" I replied, "They declare it unbelief." He said, "Allah is greatest! They have disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger.")) And among the matters Ibn Hazm mentioned were declaring someone an unbeliever for a sin, deeming the killing of women and children lawful, denying divine decree, denying the vision of Allah, believing that Allah knows nothing until it comes to be, disavowing some or most of the Companions and declaring them unbelievers. The basis for unbelief here is denying the verses that praise the Companions.


[Page 331]

by promising them Paradise ("And to all Allah has promised the best reward"), or those that report that Allah is pleased with them; denying intercession; rejecting the practice of solitary-report hadiths, since the Kharijites reject solitary reports; and mentioning other grounds that do not constitute unbelief.
Therefore, the researcher holds that the two sects referred to in the hadiths are the Muhakkima and then the Azariqa. In al-Farq bayn al-Firaq (p. 62), it says:
"The Azariqa were a people who held the view of the first Muhakkima." Thus, it is clear here that the two sects held the same view. We mention here some of the characteristics of these two sects:
In al-Farq bayn al-Firaq (p. 174), it says:
Among the views of the Azariqa was that Allah, Exalted is He, would punish the child of a polytheist for the deed of his father.
In al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa wa al-Nihal (4/144), it says:
The rest of the Azariqa, who were the followers of Nafi ibn al-Azraq, held that stoning an adulterer who was married was invalid. They cut off a thief's hand at the shoulder, and required a menstruating woman to pray and fast during her menstruation. Some of them said, "No; rather, she must make up the prayers when she becomes pure, just as she makes up the fasts." They deemed the blood of children lawful if they were not in their army, and also killed women who were not in their army. The Azariqa disavowed anyone who stayed behind from going out to fight, whether due to weakness or for any other reason. They declared anyone who opposed this view an unbeliever after the death of the first among them to hold it, but did not declare as an unbeliever anyone who opposed it during his lifetime. They said that they should test everyone they encountered who was not from their army, and kill him if he said, "I am a Muslim." They prohibited killing anyone who belonged to...


[Page 332]

the Jews, the Christians, or the Magians. In this way, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) testified that they would depart from the religion as an arrow passes through its prey, when he said (peace be upon him) that they would kill the people of Islam and leave the idolaters alone. This is one of the signs of his prophethood (peace and blessings be upon him), for he foretold this, and it is one of the particulars of the unseen; it came to pass exactly as he said." End quote.
Here the meaning of his words (peace and blessings be upon him), "and they will leave the idolaters alone," becomes clear. They used to deem it forbidden to kill the People of the Book and the polytheists, as Ibn Hazm said. Thus, this rationale is also one that entails disbelief: their apparent leaving them alone indicates that they do so as an act of religious devotion, and this too is a rationale that entails disbelief.
It is stated in al-Milal wa al-Nihal (1/120):
The Azariqa had eight innovations:
The first was that he declared Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) an unbeliever, and said that Allah revealed concerning him: {And among the people is one whose speech about the life of this world pleases you, and who calls Allah to witness what is in his heart, yet he is the fiercest of opponents.} 1 He declared Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam—may Allah curse him—correct in his action, and said that Allah, Exalted is He, revealed concerning him: {And among the people is one who sells himself, seeking Allah's pleasure.} 2
Imran ibn Hittan, the Kharijite jurist, ascetic, and greatest poet, said of Ibn Muljam's blow3—may Allah curse him—to Ali (may Allah be pleased with him):
"O blow from one who sought nearness, intending by it ... only to attain the pleasure of the Lord of the Throne.
Whenever I remember him, I deem him ... the weightiest of all creation in Allah's sight."
The Azariqa followed this innovation, and went further by declaring Uthman, Talha, al-Zubayr, Aisha, and Abd Allah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) unbelievers,


[Page 333]

And the rest of the Muslims with them, and their being consigned to the Fire forever, all of them, ... The eighth: The Azariqa agreed that whoever commits one of the major sins becomes an unbeliever in the sense of apostasy, thereby leaving Islam altogether, and will remain forever in the Fire with the rest of the unbelievers." End quote.
Al-Fakhr al-Razi said: "In his discussion of the Kharijite sects:
The other sects among them agree that a servant becomes an unbeliever through sin. They declare Uthman and Ali, may Allah be pleased with them, as well as Talha, al-Zubayr, and Aisha, unbelievers, while holding Abu Bakr and Umar in high regard." End quote.
Al-Ashari said in Maqalat al-Islamiyyin, ed. Zarzur (1/84):
"The general position of the Kharijites:
The Kharijites unanimously agreed that Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, was an unbeliever if he ruled; but they differed over whether his unbelief constituted associating partners with Allah.
They unanimously agreed that every major sin is unbelief, except the Najdat, who do not hold this view.
They unanimously agreed that Allah, Exalted is He, punishes those who commit major sins with everlasting punishment, except the Najdat, the followers of Najda."
"It is stated in Fath al-Bari that Shaykh Taqi al-Din al-Subki said in his fatwas: 'Those who declared the Kharijites and the extremist Rafidites unbelievers argued that they did so because they declared the leading Companions unbelievers, which entails accusing the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of falsehood in his testimony that they would enter Paradise. He said: In my view, this is a sound argument.'"


[Page 334]

Among what was mentioned earlier were the criteria found in the hadiths, as well as the descriptions of this group. It became clear from these that many of the criteria are grounds for declaring them unbelievers, making them highly deserving of the command to kill them and of being called the dogs of the people of Hell. Those actions mentioned are sufficient to rule that they have left the religion.
After that came two very strange and vile opinions, based on two false premises. The first opinion is that everyone who rebels against the imam is a Kharijite, and therefore all the hadiths about the Kharijites apply to him.
The second opinion is that everyone who declares a Muslim an unbeliever is a Kharijite, and therefore the hadiths about the Kharijites apply to him.
First: Refuting those who hold the first opinion:
None of the criteria mentioned in the hadiths refers to rebelling against the imam. The criteria mentioned by the scholars likewise contain no reference to rebelling against the ruler. Indeed, in the hadiths, every expression meaning "leaving" refers to leaving the religion, as in the words, "They delve deeply into religion until they leave it," and "They pass out of the religion." Al-Shawkani said: (Nayl al-Awtar, 7/187)
"His words: 'Chapter on fighting the Kharijites': They are the plural of kharija, meaning a group. They were so called because they left the religion and introduced innovations, or because they left the best of the Muslims." End quote.
Their leaving "the best of the Muslims" means that they separated from them; they were not part of their company. It does not mean that they rebelled against them, since "from" is not "against." The apparent meaning, then, is that they separated from the community through the unbelieving practices they introduced.


[Page 335]

Some restricted them to the group that rebelled against Imam Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). Al-Ashari said: "The reason they were called Kharijites was their rebellion against Ali ibn Abi Talib." (1) .. However, some cited the following statement by al-Shahrastani as evidence that everyone who rebels against the imam is called a Kharijite, and that all the preceding hadiths therefore apply to him.
Ali)
From the scholars' statements, three reasons for the name can be identified. First, they departed from the religion; this is what is mentioned in the hadiths. Second, they were called this because they rebelled against Ali. Third, they were called this because they rebelled against the rightful imams. The latter two definitions have no support in the hadiths. But some people have confused the reason for the name with the criterion for the ruling, making the reason for the name the criterion for the ruling. This is manifest ignorance and clear misguidance. We will give examples to make the distinction clear. Among the names of the Kharijites are: "The Kharijites," because they rebelled against Ali ibn Abi Talib; "the Arbitrators," because their slogan was "There is no judgment except Allah's"; "the Haruriyya," because they settled at Harura at the beginning of their affair; "the Sellers," because they said, "We have sold ourselves in obedience to Allah," meaning that they had sold them in exchange for Paradise; and "the Apostates," because they departed from the religion just as an arrow passes through its target—as the Messenger described them. Another name for them is "the Doubters."
That was because, when they rejected arbitration, they said to Ali, "You doubted your own position and appointed your enemy to judge you." Thus they were called the Shakkakiyya. These are some of the names and some of the reasons for their designation. There is no doubt that not everyone who says, "There is no judgment except Allah's," is necessarily subject to the rulings concerning the Kharijites, even if, linguistically, he is called a Muhakkim for Allah. Likewise, not everyone who settles in Harura is subject to those rulings, even if he is called a Haruri; nor is every...


[Page 336]

Whoever says, "I sell myself, seeking Allah's pleasure," is subject to the rulings, even though he is called a seller, and its plural is "sellers." Likewise, not everyone who rises up against a ruler is subject to the hadiths, because the criteria mentioned by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and stated in the hadiths, for classifying someone as a Kharijite do not apply to him.
Otherwise, Muawiya and those with him rose up against Ali, yet no one said that these people were Kharijites in the technical sense. Al-Husayn and those with him, among the most virtuous of the Companions, rose up against Yazid; and Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and those with him, among the best of the Companions, also rose up against him. Zayd ibn Ali, who was one of the virtuous, rose up against Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik with the support and funding of Imam Abu Hanifa. Yet none of the scholars said that these men are called Kharijites in the technical sense. This issue has already been discussed above, but in al-Shahrastani's words there are two qualifications that the compromisers deliberately overlook. The first is his phrase, "the rightful imam." Are these tyrants rightful imams? Is their appointment as imams valid?
The second is his phrase, "whom the people have agreed upon." There is no doubt that by "the people" he means the believers, not the polytheists who call for secularism, socialism, or democracy, and associate other tyrants with Allah in His rule. So have the monotheistic believers, who affirm Allah's sole authority to rule, agreed to choose these tyrants to govern them by the laws of disbelief? These are two questions that need to be answered before judging everyone who rises up against a tyrant to be a Kharijite. If you cannot answer them, then know that you are following your own desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his own desire without guidance from Allah? Distinguish between a specific label and the criterion for a ruling; otherwise, you would have to call everyone who supported the Messenger an Ansari and rule that Allah is pleased with him. And everyone who settled


[Page 337]

A town is Christian, yet you rule that its people will abide forever in the Fire. Everyone who turns to Allah and repents to Him, you declare to be a Jew, and rule that he deserves to be cursed. Everyone who separates from a group, you declare to be a Mu'tazilite; everyone who supports Ali, you declare to be a Shi'i. Wake up, may Allah have mercy on you.
As for the second group, they held that the basis for judging these people to be Kharijites is their declaring Muslims unbelievers and consequently deeming it lawful to kill them.
In response to them, we say that declaring someone an unbeliever takes several forms and types.
First: declaring someone an unbeliever for something that, by the consensus of Ahl al-Sunna, does not in itself constitute unbelief: namely, committing major sins. This is what the scholars have said about the Kharijites, but it is not mentioned in the hadiths, unless it can be inferred by implication from the Prophet's words (peace and blessings be upon him): "They kill the people of Islam." If so, one may say that this is among the grounds for the ruling. But, as noted earlier, since this occurred among a group other than the one mentioned, proof must be established before ruling that they are unbelievers, because the grounds for the ruling in the hadith are mixed together: their leaving the religion by rejecting the Sunnah, or denying something necessarily known to be part of the religion, such as solitary reports, and their deeming it unlawful to kill the people of idolatry, among other things mentioned earlier. Therefore, proof must be established.
But do you not see that the Mu'tazilites held that a person who commits a major sin will abide forever in the Fire, even though they did not declare him an unbeliever? Nevertheless, the imams deemed many of their leading figures upright, and some of them were caliphs, such as al-Mu'tasim. Likewise, the Mu'tazilites do not excuse people on the grounds of ignorance. They say that reason is sufficient to determine what is good and bad, even if a person has not received the scriptural text. Yet I know of no one who said that they were Kharijites and applied the Prophet's hadiths about the Kharijites to them, even though


[Page 338]

Their presence in the generations of the early Muslims, among the Successors, shows that, in their view, the absence of an excuse on grounds of ignorance or interpretation when declaring someone a disbeliever was not what made that person an extremist.
Second: Declaring someone an unbeliever on account of a sin concerning which there is disagreement as to whether it constitutes unbelief. There is no doubt among any of the imams that if someone declares another person an unbeliever over a matter concerning which the scholars disagree as to whether it constitutes unbelief, the one who declares him an unbeliever is not called a Kharijite, nor do the hadiths about the Kharijites apply to him.
And mention here some of the individuals whom the Sunnis differed over whether to declare unbelievers. It appears in al-I'tisam by al-Shatibi, edited by al-Shuqayr, al-Humayd, and al-Sini (1/223)
This is because the scholars among the earliest generations and others differed over declaring many of their sects unbelievers, such as the Kharijites, the Qadariyya, and others (7)(8)(9).
It is stated in
((Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa 'ala Ahl al-Rafd wa al-Dalal wa al-Zandaqa (2/630):
Know that the Sunnis differed over whether to declare Yazid ibn Mu'awiya and his successor after him unbelievers. One group said that he was an unbeliever, citing the well-known report from Sibt ibn al-Jawzi and others: when the head of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was brought, he gathered the people of Syria, began prodding the head with a cane, and recited verses by Ibn al-Ziba'ra.))
(Mirqat al-Mafatih Sharh Mishkat al-Masabih, 4/1641)


[Page 339]

They differed over whether one who is ignorant of one of the attributes of Allah, Exalted is He, is to be declared an unbeliever. Qadi Iyad said: Among those who declared him an unbeliever was Ibn Jarir al-Tabari. Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari initially held this view as well. Others said that he is not declared an unbeliever for this, unlike one who denies the attribute. Abu al-Hasan later returned to this position, and it became the settled view of his school. He said: "This is because he holds that belief with certainty that he is correct, and regards it as a religious doctrine prescribed by the Sharia. Only one who believes that his own doctrine is true is declared an unbeliever."
It is stated in
"Al-Irf al-Shadhi: Commentary on Sunan al-Tirmidhi (1/81):
They differed over whether the Rafidites are to be declared unbelievers. The Hanafis have two opinions: one says that they are unbelievers, and the other says they are not. The preferred view is that they are unbelievers, for whoever declares the majority of the Companions unbelievers is an unbeliever, and the Rafidites restrict Islam to nine or seven Companions."
It is stated in
"Sharh al-Tahawiyya by Yusuf al-Ghufays (19/18, according to the automatic numbering of al-Maktaba al-Shamila):
Disagreement over declaring one who abandons fasting and pilgrimage an unbeliever
As for fasting and pilgrimage, a group of the early generations held that abandoning the fast is unbelief, and a group of the early generations held that abandoning pilgrimage is unbelief. The vast majority of the early and later generations hold that abandoning fasting alone, or abandoning pilgrimage alone, is not unbelief."


[Page 340]

Ibn Hubayra said: "They differed concerning one who learns magic and practices it. Abu Hanifa, Malik, and Ahmad said that he thereby becomes an unbeliever. Some of Abu Hanifa's companions, however, made a distinction: if he learns it in order to guard against it or avoid it, he does not become an unbeliever; but if he learns it believing it to be permissible, or believing that it will benefit him, then he becomes an unbeliever. They did not regard the ruling as absolute. If he believes that the devils do whatever they wish, then he is an unbeliever. Al-Shafi'i said: 'If someone learns magic, we say to him: Describe your magic. If he describes something that entails unbelief, such as the belief of the people of Babylon that one draws near to the seven planets and that they do whatever is asked of them, then he is an unbeliever. But if it does not entail unbelief, then if he believes it to be permissible, he is an unbeliever.'"
The disagreement over declaring one who abandons prayer an unbeliever is well known.
Likewise, at the beginning of this study, we mentioned the disagreement among the early scholars over declaring those who interpret the texts figuratively to be unbelievers, and cited those who transmitted this disagreement, such as Qadi Iyad. We established that this was the position of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari. I know of no one who said that these early scholars were Kharijites, nor did anyone accuse Ibn Jarir al-Tabari of being a Kharijite. The position of this contemporary group, which declares those who interpret the texts figuratively to be unbelievers and does not excuse them on grounds of ignorance, is very close to Ibn Jarir al-Tabari's position on this issue. Whoever says that they are Kharijites must say the same of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, without distinction; otherwise, he is contradicting himself.
In all these matters, scholars differed over the individuals who fell into them: according to some, they are unbelievers, abiding forever in the Fire, while according to others, they are believers. The group that declared them unbelievers did not say that the other group were Kharijites, because an error in declaring someone an unbeliever is not something for which one is held accountable. There is much evidence for this, including what is reported in the…


[Page 341]

1 Musnad al-Bazzar = al-Bahr al-Zakhkhar (1/309)
Umar said: "So I drew my sword and said, 'Messenger of Allah, let me deal with Hatib, for he has disbelieved; let me strike off his head.' The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'Ibn al-Khattab, how do you know? Perhaps Allah looked upon this company of the people of Badr and said, "Do as you wish, for I have forgiven you."' This hadith concerning the story of Hatib has been narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) through more than one chain of transmission" [p. 310]. The hadith has been authenticated by scholars.
In this hadith, Umar declared Hatib a disbeliever, and the Messenger of Allah excused him; he did not say that he was one of the Kharijites.
2 It is stated in Sahih al-Bukhari (3/175):
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) stood up that day and sought redress concerning Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Who will excuse me concerning a man whose harm to my family has been reported to me? By Allah, I know nothing but good of my family, and they have mentioned a man of whom I know nothing but good; he never entered my home except in my company." Sa'd ibn Mu'adh stood up and said, "Messenger of Allah, by Allah, I will deal with him for you. If he is from the Aws, we will strike off his head; and if he is from our brothers, the Khazraj, command us, and we will carry out your order concerning him." Sa'd ibn Ubadah then stood up—he was the chief of the Khazraj, and had been a righteous man before that, but zeal overcame him—and said, "By the life of Allah, you lie! You will not kill him, nor are you able to do so." Usayd ibn Hudayr stood up and said, "By the life of Allah, you lie! By Allah, we will surely kill him, for you are a hypocrite arguing on behalf of the hypocrites." The two clans, the Aws and the Khazraj, erupted into dispute until they were on the verge of fighting, while the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was on the pulpit. He came down and calmed them until they fell silent, and he too fell silent.


[Page 342]

Here, Usayd ibn Hudayr accused Sa'd ibn Mu'adh of disbelief, and he excused him (peace and blessings be upon him).
And he did not say that he was a Kharijite.
3. It is related in Sahih Muslim (1/96):
On the authority of Usama ibn Zayd—and this is the hadith of Ibn Abi Shayba—who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent us on an expedition. We attacked the Hurqat of Juhayna at dawn, and I caught up with a man who said, 'There is no god but Allah.' I stabbed him, but I felt troubled by what I had done. I mentioned it to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, 'Did he say, "There is no god but Allah," and you killed him?' I said, 'Messenger of Allah, he only said it out of fear of the weapon.' He said, 'Did you split open his heart so that you could know whether he said it or not?' He kept repeating this to me until I wished that I had only become Muslim that day." Here, Usama thought the man was an unbeliever, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) excused him and did not punish him.
4 It is stated in
Sahih al-Bukhari (5/160)
From Salim, from his father, who said: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sent Khalid ibn al-Walid to Banu Jadhimah and called them to Islam. They could not properly say, "We have embraced Islam," so they kept saying, "We have become Sabi'ah, we have become Sabi'ah." Khalid began killing some of them and taking others captive, and he gave each of us a captive. Then, one day, Khalid ordered each of us to kill his captive [p. 161]. I said, "By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive," until we came to the Prophet.


[Page 343]

(peace and blessings be upon him), and we mentioned him. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) raised his hands and said, "O Allah, I disavow before You what Khalid has done," twice.
Here, Khalid assumed that these people remained in disbelief, yet the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not punish him or dismiss him, nor did he say that he was one of the Kharijites.
Ibn Taymiyyah says (Majmu al-Fatawa, vol. 3): "If a Muslim acts on the basis of an interpretation in fighting or declaring someone an unbeliever, he does not become an unbeliever on that account. This is like when Umar ibn al-Khattab said to Hatib ibn Abi Balta'a, 'Messenger of Allah, let me strike the neck of this hypocrite.' The Prophet said, 'He was present at Badr. How do you know? Perhaps Allah looked upon the people of Badr and said, "Do as you wish, for I have forgiven you."' This is in the two Sahihs. Also in them, in the hadith of the Slander, Usayd ibn Hudayr said to Sa'd ibn Ubadah, 'You are a hypocrite, arguing on behalf of the hypocrites.' The two groups disputed, and the Prophet reconciled them. Among these people of Badr, one said to another, 'You are a hypocrite,' yet the Prophet declared neither of them an unbeliever; rather, he testified that they would all enter Paradise."
What preceded were proofs cited by those who say that one is not held accountable for an interpretation in declaring someone an unbeliever.
Its perpetrator is not called a Kharijite; otherwise, we would be accusing half the scholars of the Muslim community of Kharijism. This invalidates the claim of those who say that anyone who interprets matters in declaring someone an unbeliever is one of the Kharijites.
The fourth type of declaring someone an unbeliever is when an act is unanimously agreed to constitute disbelief, but the person who pronounces the ruling of disbelief applies it to specific individuals without considering the impediment of ignorance; that is, he does not excuse the person who committed the act, because in his view ignorance is no excuse at all.
So, is someone who does not excuse ignorance on the basis of an interpretation considered one of the Kharijites?


[Page 344]

The question of being excused on account of ignorance is one on which the scholars differ. It should be noted that this type of declaring someone an unbeliever is less severe than the previous type, since the previous type involves declaring someone an unbeliever who has not committed any act of unbelief at all, but whose act some people mistakenly thought was unbelief. Here, however, the person has committed an act of unbelief on which there is consensus, but is not excused on account of ignorance. Thus, all the evidence cited above is even more applicable here, and Allah knows best. The researcher's view is that a person who interprets matters incorrectly should be excused on account of ignorance if he has not been negligent in seeking knowledge and has not fabricated lies against Allah. But the question under discussion here is whether someone who is not excused, despite being an interpreter, is a Kharijite. Let us first review
the views of the scholars who did not excuse people on account of ignorance, either because they did not consider ignorance an excuse, or because they considered it an excuse but held that knowledge had become widespread and that the legally responsible person had been negligent in seeking knowledge, and so had no excuse:
Ibn Hazm reported the disagreement on the question of being excused on account of ignorance. He said in al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa wa al-Nihal (3/137):
Discussion of those who are declared unbelievers and those who are not
Abu Muhammad said: People have differed on this subject. One group held that anyone who disagrees with them on any matter of belief or any matter of legal opinion is an unbeliever. Another group held that such a person is an unbeliever in some matters and a sinner, but not an unbeliever, in others, according to what their intellects and conjectures led them to conclude. Another group held that anyone who disagrees with them on matters of belief is an unbeliever, but that anyone who disagrees with them on matters of rulings and acts of worship is neither an unbeliever nor a sinner, but rather a qualified interpreter who is excused if he errs and rewarded for his intention. A group said the same about those who disagreed with them on matters of worship, and said of those who disagreed with them on


[Page 345]

Issues of beliefs: If the disagreement concerns the attributes of Allah, Mighty and Exalted, then he is an unbeliever; if it concerns anything less than that, then he is a sinner. A group held that no Muslim becomes an unbeliever or a sinner because of a statement he makes concerning belief or a legal opinion, and that anyone who exercises independent reasoning on any such matter and adopts as his religion what he considers to be the truth is rewarded in every case: if he is right, he receives two rewards, and if he is wrong, one reward. This is the view of Ibn Abi Layla, Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i, Sufyan al-Thawri, and Dawud ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with them all). It is also the view of everyone among the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) whose position on this issue we know; we know of no disagreement among them on this at all, except for the disagreement we have mentioned concerning declaring an unbeliever one who deliberately abandons prayer until its time has passed, or fails to pay zakat, or abandons the pilgrimage, or fails to fast Ramadan, or drinks wine. Those who declared people unbelievers on account of disagreements in matters of belief argued from various points, which we shall present, if Allah, Mighty and Exalted, wills.
Abu Muhammad said: They have cited a hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that the Qadariyya and the Murji'a are the Magians of this community, and another hadith stating that this community will split into seventy-odd sects, all of them in the Fire except one, which will be in Paradise.
Abu Muhammad said: These are two hadiths that are not sound at all in terms of their chains of transmission. Anything of this kind is not proof even according to those who accept solitary reports, so how much less according to those who do not accept them? They cited as evidence the established report from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): "Whoever says to his brother, 'O disbeliever,' one of them has incurred disbelief." The first of them
Abu Muhammad said: They have no proof in this, because its wording indicates that he incurs sin by accusing him of disbelief; the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not say that he thereby becomes a disbeliever.


[Page 346]

Abu Muhammad said: The majority of those who use this report as evidence do not declare a person to be an unbeliever for saying to a Muslim, "You unbeliever," during an exchange of insults between them. In this, they have contradicted the report they cited as evidence.
Abu Muhammad said: The truth is that anyone whose status as a Muslim has been established does not cease to be one except by a text or consensus. Mere claims and false accusations do not suffice. Therefore, no one should be declared an unbeliever for something he has said unless he contradicts what he knows to have been said by Allah, Exalted is He, or by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and thus deems it permissible to oppose Allah, Exalted is He, and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). This applies equally whether the matter concerns a religious belief, a sect, or a legal opinion, and whether what is authentically reported from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) has been transmitted by mass transmission establishing consensus or by solitary reports. However, one who opposes a consensus whose authenticity is certain and definitive is more clearly subject to the severing of his proof and the obligation to declare him an unbeliever, because everyone agrees that the consensus is known and that one who opposes it is to be declared an unbeliever. The proof that our position is correct is the saying of Allah, Exalted is He: {Whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him, and follows a path other than that of the believers, We shall leave him to what he has chosen and admit him to Hell—and what an evil destination.}
Statements of those who say that ignorance is no excuse:
Ibn Jarir, may Allah have mercy on him, said in his commentary on the saying of Allah, Exalted is He, in Surat al-A'raf: "A group He guided, while another group deserved misguidance. They took the devils as allies instead of Allah, while thinking that they were rightly guided." He said: The group that deserved misguidance strayed from Allah's path and deviated from the straight way by taking the devils as supporters and allies instead of Allah, out of ignorance of the error in what they were doing. Rather, they did so while thinking that they were rightly guided and correct, and that what they had done and undertaken was right. And this


[Page 347]

Among the clearest indications of the error in the claim that Allah punishes no one for a sin he commits or a misguidance he believes in unless he commits it after knowing that it is correct, and does so in defiance of his Lord, is that, were this so, there would be no difference between the party of misguidance, who went astray while thinking that they were rightly guided, and the party of guidance. Yet Allah distinguished between them in their names and rulings in this verse." End quote.
And Aba Butayn quoted Ibn Jarir in his commentary on the words of the Exalted: {A group He guided, while another group deserved misguidance. They took the devils as allies instead of Allah, yet they think that they are rightly guided.}
) Ibn Jarir said: "This indicates that the ignorant person is not excused." End quote. Al-Durar, 10/392. Also see Ibn Jarir's discussion of verse 104 of Surat al-Kahf.
Al-Tabari's statement concerning the Kharijites, which Ibn Hajar quoted from him, has already been mentioned: "Among those who inclined toward some of this discussion was al-Tabari in his Tahdhib. After citing the hadiths in this chapter, he said: In them is a refutation of the view that no one among the people of the qibla leaves Islam, after becoming subject to its ruling, unless he knowingly intends to leave it. This view is invalidated by the hadith's words: 'They speak the truth and recite the Quran, yet they pass out of Islam and do not cling to anything of it.' It is well known that they deemed the blood and property of Muslims lawful only because of an error in their interpretation of Quranic verses, taking them to mean something other than what was intended. He then related, with an authentic chain of transmission, from Ibn Abbas, who was told about the Kharijites and what they encounter when reciting the Quran. He said: 'They believe in its clear verses, but perish over its ambiguous ones.' The view mentioned is further supported by the command to kill them, alongside the previously cited hadith of Ibn Masud: 'It is not lawful to kill a Muslim except for one of three reasons,' including 'one who abandons his religion and separates from the community.'"


[Page 348]

Ibn Mandah, may Allah have mercy on him, said in his book al-Tawhid, 1/314: "Chapter: Citing the evidence that one who exercises independent reasoning but errs in knowing Allah, Mighty and Majestic is He, and His oneness is like one who stubbornly resists." Then he said: "Allah Most High said, informing us of their misguidance and stubborn resistance: {Say, 'Shall We inform you of those who are the greatest losers in their deeds, those whose efforts in the life of this world have gone astray, while they think that they are doing good?'}"

Al-Qurtubi said in his Tafsir, 7/319, regarding the verse of the covenant, at its end: "There is no excuse for the imitator in matters of divine oneness." End quote.

Abu al-Wafa Ibn Aqil, may Allah have mercy on him, said that whoever calls upon the occupant of a shrine and slips written petitions into graves has committed major shirk. The imams of the da'wa have often quoted him on this matter approvingly. Shaykh Muhammad said in Tarikh Najd, p. 266: "Ibn Aqil stated that they are unbelievers on account of this act"—meaning calling upon the occupant of a shrine and slipping written petitions into graves. Shaykh Aba Butayn said: "Ibn Aqil's statement has already been cited, in which he unequivocally declared unbelievers those whom he described as ignorant of the excesses they committed regarding graves. Ibn al-Qayyim quoted him approvingly." Al-Durar, 10/386.

Ibn Farhun said in Tabsirat al-Hukkam, in the chapter on apostasy: "A question: Whoever worships the sun, the moon, a stone, or anything else is to be executed and not asked to repent."

The sons of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Hamad ibn Nasir said in Al-Durar, 10/136–138, when asked: "If a person who believes in Allah and His Messenger says or does something that constitutes unbelief, out of ignorance of that fact, do you refrain from declaring him an unbeliever until the proof of the message has been established against him? And if someone in this state was killed before this da'wa appeared, is that an issue or not?"


[Page 349]

They replied, saying: "If someone engages in disbelief and associating partners with Allah out of ignorance, or because there is no one to alert him, we do not rule that he is an unbeliever until proof has been established against him. But we do not rule that he is a Muslim either. Rather, we say: This deed of his is disbelief that makes his property and blood lawful. Although we do not rule on this particular person because proof has not been established against him, it should not be said, 'If he is not an unbeliever, then he is a Muslim.' Rather, we say: His deed is the deed of unbelievers, and applying the ruling to this particular person depends on the prophetic proof reaching him. The scholars have mentioned that the people who lived during intervals without prophets will be tested on the Day of Resurrection in the gathering place, and they did not assign them the ruling of unbelievers or the ruling of the righteous." Al-Durar, 10/137.

Shaykh Abd al-Aziz, the judge of Diriyah, said in Al-Rasa'il wa al-Masa'il al-Najdiyya, 5/576, in response to a question about a believer in Allah and His Messenger who says or does something that constitutes disbelief, being unaware of that: "Do you not declare him an unbeliever until proof has been established against him?"
He replied: "If someone engages in disbelief and associating partners with Allah out of ignorance, and because there is no one to alert him, we do not rule that he is an unbeliever until proof has been established against him. But we do not rule that he is a Muslim either. Rather, we say: This deed of his is disbelief that makes his property and blood lawful. Although we do not rule on this particular person because proof has not been established against him, it should not be said, 'If he is not an unbeliever, then he is a Muslim.' Rather, we say: His deed is the deed of unbelievers, and applying the ruling to this particular person depends on the prophetic proof reaching him. The scholars have mentioned that the people who lived during intervals without prophets will be tested on the Day of Resurrection in the gathering place, and they did not assign them the ruling of unbelievers or the ruling of the righteous."


[Page 350]

Shaykh Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab said in Al-Rasa'il wa al-Masa'il, Part One of Volume One (p. 79): "As for one who died while committing shirk out of ignorance, not obstinacy, we leave his affair to Allah, Exalted is He. One should not supplicate for him, ask for mercy for him, or seek forgiveness for him. This is because many scholars say that whoever has received the Qur'an has had the proof established against him, as Allah, Exalted is He, says: {That I may warn you thereby and whoever it reaches}."

Al-Qarafi, Al-Furuq li al-Qarafi = Anwar al-Buruq fi Anwa al-Furuq (2/150):
"Whoever proceeds despite ignorance has sinned, particularly in matters of belief. For the Lawgiver has imposed great strictness regarding the creeds of the foundations of religion, to the extent that if a person exerts all his effort and exhausts his capacity to dispel his ignorance concerning one of the attributes of Allah, Exalted is He, or concerning something that must be believed as part of the foundations of religion, yet that ignorance is not dispelled, then he is sinful and an unbeliever for abandoning that belief, which is part of faith, and will abide in the Fire forever, according to the well-known position."

It is clear from what has preceded that there is disagreement over the question of whether ignorance is an excuse in matters of creed. Therefore, one who does not accept it as an excuse should not be accused of being a Kharijite; otherwise, let them say this of the imams mentioned above, or else they will inevitably fall into contradiction.

Then, if the criterion for judging someone to be a Kharijite is that he declares someone an unbeliever who does not deserve to be declared one, even on the basis of an interpretation, and consequently the hadiths about the Kharijites apply to him and he must be killed, and some even declare him an unbeliever, then I do not know why they have not applied this to...


[Page 351]

These hadiths are directed against the Mu'tazilites, for they declare the people of the Sunnah unbelievers on the basis of an interpretation they hold. Ibn Taymiyyah said: "In Minhaj al-Sunnah (5/158): 'The Kharijites declare the people of the community unbelievers, and so do most of the Mu'tazilites when someone disagrees with them (10). The same is true of most of the Rafidites. Those who do not declare them unbelievers call them sinners. Likewise, most of the people of heretical views introduce an opinion and declare those who disagree with them unbelievers. The people of the Sunnah follow the truth from their Lord, which the Messenger brought; they do not declare those who disagree with them unbelievers. Rather, they know the truth better and are more merciful toward creation, as Allah described the Muslims when He said: {You are the best community brought forth for mankind}.'"
Likewise, some Ash'aris declare the people of the Sunnah who affirm Allah's exaltedness and attributes unbelievers, and call them Hashawiyya, anthropomorphists, and assimilators. I do not know of anyone among the people of the Sunnah who called these people Kharijites.
In a study written by Professor Ridwan Shakdani, it says: "Shaykh Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi, the leading Ash'ari of his time and author of al-Muhadhdhab, upon which Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote his commentary, said: 'Whoever believes anything other than what we have indicated of the belief of the people of truth affiliated with Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (may Allah be pleased with him) is an unbeliever. Whoever attributes anything else to them has declared them unbelievers, and is therefore an unbeliever for declaring them so, because it is reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: "No man declares another man an unbeliever without one of them incurring it..."' See his Sharh al-Luma' (1/111).
Al-Subki said in his "wooden" Sayf al-Saqil, commenting on the eminent Imam Ibn al-Qayyim: 'He is the heretic, may Allah curse him! How shameless he is, and how audacious! May Allah disgrace him!' Sayf al-Saqil, p. 37. Al-Kawthari edited it and disfigured it!
Al-Kawthari went further, hurling at Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah Most High have mercy on him) words of unbelief, abuse, and vilification that decent people would recoil from hearing. He gathered them in his treatise entitled Tabdid al-Zalam al-Mukhayyim min Nuniyyat Ibn al-Qayyim.
Al-Kawthari also said: "Ibn Taymiyyah declared the judges of the four schools in Egypt unbelievers when he prohibited visiting the Prophet's grave." Takmilat al-Sayf al-Saqil, p. 155.
Ibn Nujaym al-Hanafi al-Maturidi (d. 970 AH) said in al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, "Chapter on the Rulings Concerning Apostates" (5/129): "A person becomes an unbeliever by affirming that Allah Most High has a place. If he says, 'Allah is in heaven,' then if he intends to relate what has come in the apparent wording of the reports, he does not become an unbeliever; but if he means a place, he becomes an unbeliever."
Abu al-Mu'in al-Nasafi al-Hanafi al-Maturidi (d. 508 AH) said in Tabsirat al-Adilla (1/169): "Allah Most High has denied any likeness between His essence and anything else. Thus, the claim that He has a place contradicts this definitive text—that is, His saying, {There is nothing like unto Him}—which admits no interpretation other than its apparent meaning. Whoever rejects the text is an unbeliever. May Allah protect us from that." End quote.
Second: Declaring the generality of Muslims who have not received their creed concerning Allah Most High through rational inquiry—that is, the arrangement of rational syllogisms—to be unbelievers. You find them stating in their books that rational inquiry is obligatory in order to establish Allah's existence, and they call anyone who does not rely on these rational methods an imitator, then they assert that


[Page 352]

That the faith of the imitator is invalid is the position of al-Ashari and the leading scholars among his followers, and the choice of Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Sanusi (d. 895), author of Umm al-Barahin and other works on kalam relied upon by later scholars. He said in his book al-Manhaj al-Sadid (p. 48): "This is the position of the majority, and some report consensus on it."
According to these scholars, an imitator is someone who has not established proof for the articles of creed; and, in their view, the proofs are the proofs of kalam.
Al-Bajuri said in his commentary on Jawharat al-Tawhid: "The phrase 'some of the people' means: because of his confusion and hesitation, the scholars differed over whether his faith is valid or invalid. The disagreement amounts to several positions, including:
that the faith of the imitator is invalid, in which case the imitator is an unbeliever; this is the position of al-Sanusi."

If the criterion for accusing someone of Kharijism is simply declaring others unbelievers, then that criterion must apply to these people mentioned above. According to their own claim, these hadiths must be applied to them, since in their view the hadiths are not restricted to particular people. They must therefore declare each of them an unbeliever and kill any one of them whom they are able to reach. But they do not say this, and so they have fallen into contradiction, inevitably.
One of the strange things about these people is that if you ask them, "Why are you fighting these people?" they say, "Because they declare us unbelievers and fight us." They are then asked, "Do they implement Allah's law in their territories, or not?" If they answer, "Yes," they are told: "The Crusaders, whom you allied yourselves with and fought alongside, also declare Muslims unbelievers and fight them, and do not implement Allah's law in their territories. So which of the two groups is more deserving of having the hadiths about the Kharijites applied to them, and which group is more deserving of allegiance? Unless you say that those whom you have called Kharijites have apostatized through this act of theirs and become unbelievers, and that an apostate is more deserving of being fought than an unbeliever." They are then told: "You have fallen into the very thing you sought to escape: declaring others unbelievers and refusing to excuse them on grounds of ignorance or misinterpretation. You have declared a large group unbelievers and pronounced them apostates, without excusing them. The hadiths about the Kharijites therefore apply to you, since the relevant criterion is present in you. Another criterion is that you have left the idolaters among the Christians and the polytheists alone, and made an alliance with them.


[Page 353]

The reconciliations over fighting your brothers: you fought the people of Islam and left the people of idols. Indeed, you accepted democracy, which forbids interfering with religious freedoms and with the sovereignty of other states, even if those people are idolaters. Thus you truly left the people of idols alone and accepted a constitution and law that forbids fighting them. You therefore fell into the description, "They kill the people of Islam and leave the people of idols." This is the clear criterion mentioned in the hadiths, whereas you chose a criterion not mentioned in the hadith.
If they say, "Rather, we do not say that they are apostates," we say: Then come, let us see what the scholars have said about such a case:
Scholars' statements:
Ibn Taymiyya said, after mentioning the disagreement among later scholars over whether declaring the people of innovation unbelievers constitutes unbelief that takes one out of the religion or not, and whether they remain eternally in the Fire or not … He said: "The reality of the matter is that, with regard to the general wording of the imams' statements, they suffered the same problem as the early generations did with the general wording of the Lawgiver's texts. Whenever they saw the imams say, 'Whoever says such-and-such is an unbeliever,' the listener assumed that this wording applied to everyone who said it, without considering that declaring someone an unbeliever has conditions and impediments that may be absent in the case of a particular individual, and that declaring someone an unbeliever in general does not entail declaring a particular individual an unbeliever unless the conditions are present and the impediments absent. This is made clear by the fact that Imam Ahmad and most of the imams who made such general statements did not declare most of those who uttered those very words to be unbelievers. For example, Imam Ahmad personally confronted the Jahmiyya, who called upon him to affirm that the Quran was created and to deny the divine attributes. They put him and all the scholars of his time to the test, and persecuted the believing men and women who did not agree with their Jahmiyya doctrine by beating and imprisoning them … He mentioned that most of the foremost …


[Page 354]

They used to declare as unbelievers everyone who was not a Jahmi and in agreement with them, and to treat them as unbelievers … and so on, up to his statement: "It is well known that this is among the most extreme forms of Jahmism, for calling people to a doctrine is graver than merely holding it, and rewarding one who professes it and punishing one who abandons it is graver than merely calling people to it …"

Then Imam Ahmad prayed for the caliph and others who had beaten and imprisoned him, sought forgiveness for them, and absolved them of what they had done … Had they been apostates from Islam, it would not have been permissible to seek forgiveness for them, for seeking forgiveness for unbelievers is impermissible according to the Book, the Sunnah, and scholarly consensus. These statements and actions of his and of other imams clearly show that they did not declare individual Jahmis to be unbelievers(( ….
So consider, may Allah have mercy on you: despite the repugnance of the Jahmis' doctrine, he did not declare their individuals to be unbelievers. Rather, he prayed for them, did not support the polytheists and Crusaders against them, but rejoiced at the conquest of Amorium and openly expressed his joy at it. Nor did he surrender Muslim lands governed by the Sharia to the Crusaders on the pretext that the Jahmis and Mu'tazilites declare us unbelievers.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya says in his response to Ibn al-Bakri: "For this reason, the people of knowledge and the Sunnah do not declare those who oppose them to be unbelievers, even if those opponents declare them unbelievers. For unbelief is a legal ruling, and a person may not retaliate with the like of it. If someone lies about you and commits adultery with your wife, you may not lie about him or commit adultery with his wife, because adultery and lying are forbidden as a right owed to Allah, Exalted is He. Likewise, declaring someone an unbeliever is a right owed to Allah, Exalted is He, so no one is declared an unbeliever except one whom Allah and His Messenger have declared an unbeliever." End quote, p. (257).
He also mentioned that "among the faults of the people of innovation is that they declare one another unbelievers, whereas among the merits of the people of knowledge is that they make mistakes but do not declare others unbelievers." End quote (9).


[Page 355]

He said in Minhaj al-Sunna (5/158): "The Kharijites declare the people of the community to be unbelievers. Likewise, most of the Mu'tazilites declare those who oppose them to be unbelievers,(10) as do most of the Rafidites. Those who do not declare them unbelievers deem them sinful. Likewise, most of the people of heretical doctrines introduce an opinion and declare those who oppose them in it to be unbelievers. The people of the Sunna follow the truth from their Lord, which the Messenger brought, and do not declare those who oppose them in it to be unbelievers. Rather, they know the truth better and are more merciful toward creation, just as Allah described the Muslims when He said: {You are the best community brought forth for mankind}."

He also said: "Among the people of innovation are those who have faith inwardly and outwardly, but also have ignorance and injustice, so that they err in some of the Sunna. Such a person is neither an unbeliever nor a hypocrite. He may then commit aggression and injustice that make him sinful or disobedient; he may be mistaken in his interpretation, with his error forgiven; and, alongside that, he may possess such faith and piety as grant him a share of Allah's friendship, in proportion to his faith and piety." End quote. Majmu al-Fatawa (Dar Ibn Hazm edition), 3/220.

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Zad al-Ma'ad: "Among the principles is that if polytheists, people of innovation and immorality, rebels, or oppressors seek something that honors one of the inviolable matters of Allah, they should be granted it, given it, and assisted in it, even if they are denied other things. They are to be helped in what honors the inviolable matters of Allah, not in their unbelief or rebellion, and they are to be prevented from anything beyond that. Whoever seeks assistance in something beloved to Allah and pleasing to Him should be granted it, whoever he may be, so long as assisting him in that beloved thing does not result in something even more hateful to Allah."


[Page 356]

Ibn Taymiyyah said (28/212): "If it is impossible to establish the obligatory duties of knowledge, jihad, and the like except through someone who has an innovation, whose harm is less than the harm of abandoning that obligation, then securing the benefit of the obligation alongside an outweighed harm is better than the reverse." End quote.
I have cited these texts for those who, as they claim, give precedence to allegiance to the original disbelievers over those who have an innovation, even though the Crusaders possess all the qualities they condemn in innovators: they declare them disbelievers and kill Muslims. Moreover, they do not uphold the Sharia, and they do not let anyone uphold it; rather, they rain bombs down on him. So take heed, people of understanding: which of these is more deserving of allegiance?
(Conclusion) After researching this issue, namely being excused on account of ignorance, the researcher has concluded the following: A person who commits disbelief out of ignorance, after having uttered the two testimonies and embraced faith in general terms, is one of two kinds. Either he did so on the basis of an interpretation that has some basis in the Sharia or in language; such a person is excused. Or he was negligent in seeking knowledge and spoke about Allah without knowledge, either denying or affirming; such a person is not excused. Whoever does not excuse people on account of ignorance and declares those who interpret matters to be disbelievers is himself excused on account of his ignorance; he cannot be declared a disbeliever for that, nor accused of Kharijism. Likewise, whoever excuses someone on account of ignorance based on an interpretation cannot be declared a disbeliever or accused of Murji'ism. And Allah knows best. Any error in this research that contradicts the words of Allah and the words of His Messenger, I retract. May Allah have mercy on whoever points out an error to me. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.


[Page 357]

The fourth type of declaring someone an unbeliever is when the unbelief is unanimously agreed upon, and the one who declares him an unbeliever excuses him on account of ignorance, but believes that the person who committed the act of unbelief had knowledge, and therefore has no excuse of ignorance. This is like Umar's treatment of Hatib, according to some interpretations.
And likewise the action of Sa'd ibn Mu'adh toward Usayd ibn Hudayr. This is the mildest form of declaring someone an unbeliever, and exercising independent judgment on this matter is quite plausible and has considerable scope. If the first three issues admit of interpretation, is it not possible that this one does too?