أبو ميمون

What kind of Muslim are you if you don't pray at night and ask Allah to aid and free those imprisoned unjustly in this country and all countries throughout the world? — Shaykh Ahmad Musa Jibril

Takfir of the One Who Excuses Others Among the issues that a number of people have objected to, regarding it as a characteristic of extremism, is the issue of takfir al-adhir (declaring the one who excuses others to be a disbeliever). They have portrayed it as something with no basis in the past, a recent development, and a matter whose foundations were innovated. This stems from ignorance of its true nature. I will therefore present a few words here to clarify the issue in a way that will neither bore the seeker of ilm nor cause him confusion. The Meaning of al-Adhir Takfir al-adhir is a compound expression formed through an idafah construction. There is no ambiguity concerning the meaning of takfir, as everyone knows what it entails. Rather, the source of the error lies in the nature of the adhir (the one who excuses). I have observed that most of those who object conflate matters, then build the conclusions of their investigations upon this error. Whatever is founded upon falsehood is itself false. So, here is what is meant by the adhir: The adhir is one who rules that a person is a Muslim despite knowing that he has committed an act that is the opposite of Islam. The opposite of Islam is disbelief. Thus, according to the adhir, someone who associates partners with Allah out of ignorance is not a polytheist. In other words, despite having committed an act that contradicts Islam - an act necessarily known to be disbelief that expels a person from the religion - he has not, in the adhir's view, departed from the fold of Islam. The issue, therefore, rests upon two matters: First: The nature of the act. The act must be something whose being disbelief is undisputed and is necessarily known to be so. By stipulating this condition, we exclude the issue of abandoning the prayer and similar matters whose rulings are comparable to it. Applying this issue to such matters, as some insist upon doing, is unrelated to the actual point of contention. Second: Knowledge that the act occurred. The adhir must know, or it must have been established to him, that the person committed the act. This excludes someone who is ignorant of the state of the person- that is, someone for whom the act itself has not been established in the first place and who therefore does not declare him a disbeliever. Such a person is not called an adhir. Furthermore, the basis of the adhir's excusing the polytheist rests upon two matters: his ignorance of the true nature of Islam and his denial of the revealed texts. Whoever claims that two contradictory realities can coexist in a single person rejects both realities and does not truly know either of them. Permitting the coexistence of two contradictions also entails permitting the absence of both from the subject in question. Thus, when the adhir says, "So-and-so committed shirk, but he is not a polytheist," he is asserting the coexistence of two contradictions. It also entails permitting the possibility that a person can be neither upon Islam nor upon disbelief. Furthermore, the condition of the adhir is like that of someone who entered Islam without abandoning shirk. Such a person has not understood the true nature of Islam, which is incompatible with the true nature of disbelief; therefore, his Islam is not affirmed. Likewise, according to this underlying principle, the adhir has not understood the true nature of Islam, because knowledge enables one to distinguish what is known from other things. Yet, according to his madhab, shirk cannot be distinguished from Islam. This also constitutes a denial of the revealed texts that affirm the polytheism of the polytheists. He has therefore failed to declare a disbeliever the one whom Allah has declared a disbeliever. This is an implication that must be imposed upon him. If he claims that there is a distinction between the polytheist mentioned in the Quran and a person who affiliates himself with Islam but commits an act on account of which Allah declared the polytheists to be disbelievers, then this is an imaginary distinction. To pursue this argument is to turn away from the reality of the matter, for those mentioned in the Quran are even more deserving of the supposed impediment that the adhir claims prevents shirk from being attributed to the person who affiliates himself with Islam. It is therefore established that the adhir is not someone for whom the occurrence of the act by a particular individual has not been established. Nor is he someone who says that so-and-so is a polytheist but should not be executed or subjected to the rulings of apostasy until the proof has been established against him. Rather, the adhir is one who acknowledges that the act occurred, or that the factor necessitating the ruling is present, but then claims that the act has no effect because an impediment exists. He therefore says: "He committed shirk, but he is a Muslim." There are many further aspects of this issue that warrant detailed investigation, but this much is sufficient to clarify the precise nature of the matter, based on what my studies have led me to understand through discussions with tulab al-ilm and mashayikh. Nevertheless, it is best not to delve too deeply into this matter, especially for those who have not studied this chapter under a scholar as the chapter of Names and Rulings is a difficult one, and many have failed to grasp it properly. And Allah knows best.