CENTRAL OFFICE OVERSEEING SHAR’I DAWAWIN
The Official translation of the Announcement by the Central Office Overseeing Shar’i Dawawin of the Islamic State,
regarding the hukm (judgment) of the
one who refrains from making takfir of mushrikin who ascribe themselves to Islam and what
that entails of various opinions.
Date: 22 / 8 / 1437 ( 29 / 5 / 2016 )
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE GRACIOUS THE MERCIFUL
All praise is due to Allah. May blessings and peace be upon the imam of the mujahidin, our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all of his companions. To proceed:
Allah SWT said, “And tell My slaves to say that which is best. Verily, Shaytan incites them against each other. Verily, Shaytan is a clear enemy to mankind” (Al-Isra 53).
Lately, an issue has circulated among the soldiers of the Islamic State that has led to disagreements regarding some matters over which the hearts and tongues have disputed, reaching the point of ruining relationships between the disputing parties. We have never held these issues lightly, as Allah’s Messenger SAWS warned us against them, describing them as cutting away the religion, saying, “For verily, ruining the bond of unity is the cutter.” (Reported by at-Tirmidhi, who graded it “hasan sahih.”)
We have looked into the basis of disagreement, which relates to the hukm (judgment) of the one who refrains from making takfir of mushrikin who ascribe themselves to Islam and what that entails of various opinions. What we have found is that the cause of disputation comes from two opinions, both being incorrect due to excess on one hand and negligence on the other. The following, by Allah’s permission, shows both opinions and then what we consider to be the actual hukm of Allah in this matter…
The First Opinion:
“Whoever refrains from making takfir of mushrikin (those who worship other than Allah), who ascribe themselves to Islam, is a mushrik exactly like them, because making takfir of them is part of the religion’s foundation (asl ad-din). So the refrainer is like one who worships other than Allah, and he is absolutely one of them in both name and ruling.”
The Second Opinion:
“Takfir is not part of the religion’s foundation (asl ad-din), but is one of its inferred requirements. So the one who refrains from making takfir of mushrikin, who ascribe themselves to Islam, has not disbelieved until the hujjah (evidenced argument) is established against him, all doubts are removed, and all false interpretations are ended.”
The meaning of the term “the religion’s foundation” (asl ad-din) in both opinions is: that by which tawhid is established before the advent of the prophetic proof.
After reviewing what preceded and seeking Allah’s assistance, we say:
The first opinion implies a corrupt concept, because major shirk (shirk akbar) has a reality and description that, if actualized, designates the one who possesses it as a “mushrik.” So if we were to equate the one who refrains from takfir with the one who worshiped other than Allah, then making takfir of the one who refrains from making takfir of the refrainer is absolutely necessitated, since major shirk is not excused by ignorance and the refrainer (according to the first opinion) is a mushrik like the initial person. And the one who refrains thereafter (from making takfir of the refrainer from making takfir of the refrainer) is also a mushrik, and so on.
This is the actual inference – not an imagined understanding – of this opinion’s line of reasoning, which leads to making “chain takfir,” an invalid bid’ah that originates from an incorrect understanding of the texts and that can never be controlled. This opinion is rejected due to the invalidity of its inference.
The second opinion also implies a corrupt concept, as it makes the takfir of the mushrikin like one of the obscure issues (masail khafiyyah), for which it is impossible to establish an evidenced argument and to make takfir of the refrainer as long as he has some doubt (shubhah) or misinterpretation (tawil). The essence of this opinion is the annulment of an agreed upon nullifier of Islam. And the existence of doubt is a passing matter that must be eliminated within any Islamic state that rules by the Shari’ah. As for making this passing matter a foundation upon which rulings are based, then this would result in the annulment of these rulings and the nullification of what it means to manifest the religion. This is in opposition to what is transmitted from the imams of the religion, including the imams of the Najdi da’wah RA.
It is inadmissible to use the terms “asl (foundational basis)” and “lazim (required inference)” regarding the meaning of “la ilaha illallah” and making kufr in taghut in this polemic way. That is because doing so is a fruitless, invented opinion with which Allah did not burden us. Rather, multiple corrupt inferences necessarily result therefrom, like excluding certain matters established by the advent of the prophetic proof from being part of asl ad-din (the religion’s foundation) according to this definition, and thus excluding belief in the prophethood of Muhammad SAWS from asl ad-din! Likewise, it leads to disputation between the mujahidin regarding what is included in the meaning of “asl” (foundation) and what is excluded from it. This is exactly what we warn against. And we strive to prevent this because disagreeing in this dangerous matter will lead to wrongly making tabdi’ and takfir of those who disagree (since the disagreement revolves around tawhid itself). This is unacceptable in the Islamic State, especially since those who are disagreeing are themselves mujahidin for Allah’s cause, those who disbelieved in the tawaghit, made takfir of them, took them as enemies, fought against them, and showed their disavowal from them and their followers.
Shaykh Sulayman Ibn ‘Abdillah Ibn Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhab TA was asked about a similar issue:
(The Sixth Issue: Regarding wala’ and bara’, is such part of the meaning of “la ilaha illallah” or one of its inferred requirements?
The answer is to say that Allah knows best. But it is sufficient for a Muslim to know that Allah made it a duty upon him to take the mushrikin as enemies and to not take them as awliya’, and He made it obligatory to love the believers and to take them as awliya’. He made this a condition of iman, just as He negated the iman of whoever shows love to whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their fathers, sons, brothers, or tribesmen. As for that being part of the meaning of “la ilaha illallah” or one of its inferred requirements, then Allah did not burden us with looking into that. He only burdened us with knowing that Allah made what was mentioned above a duty and obligation, and obligated acting upon so. This is fard and necessary without any doubt. And whoever considers that to be part of its meaning or inferred requirements, then that is fine and an added benefit. But whoever does not consider such, then he is not burdened to do so, especially during an argument or dispute, which leads to something wicked, including disagreement and division between the believers – those who upheld the obligations of iman, waged jihad for the sake of Allah, took the mushrikin as enemies, and took the Muslims as awliya’. Therefore, remaining silent on such matters that lead to division is definitely obligatory. This is what is apparent to me, keeping in mind that the two opinions over which there is a dispute are similar in meaning. And Allah knows best). (Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah fil-Ajwibat an-Najdiyyah (8/166).)
It is unacceptable to use the term “takfir al-‘adhir” (making takfir of the “excuser”) to describe the ruling of the one who refrains from making takfir of mushrikin who ascribe themselves to Islam because it is an inaccurate term.
While we do not accept ignorance as an excuse for major shirk, the innovated opinion of ‘udhr bil-jahl (to excuse the ignorant in their practice of major shirk) does not necessitate that every excuser refrains from making takfir, as there are those of them who might consider ignorance an excuse, but do indeed make takfir of the mushrikin because he considers the proof to have been established against them all, so he is therefore not actually a refrainer.
Just as refraining from making takfir of the mushrikin is not confined to the issue of “al-‘udhr bil-jahl,” it is also quite likely one refrains from making takfir of them out of arrogance, defiance, following desires, or by citing general texts that indicate the merits of “la ilaha illallah.”
So the term “takfir al-‘adhir” does not accurately describe the one who refrains from making takfir of the mushrikin, such a refrainer being whom the people of knowledge meant regarding this nullifier.
The one who refrains from making takfir of the mushrikin who claim to be Muslims commits an agreed upon nullifier, but his kufr is based upon establishment of the proof, unlike the one who worships other than Allah.
Making takfir of the mushrikin is an issue established by apparent, plethoric texts, which all people can understand. Establishing the argument thereof is by the Quran’s advent, by either it being conveyed to the people or them having the ability to reach it. Allah said, “Say, ‘What thing is greatest in witness?’ Say, ‘Allah is a witness between me and you, and this Quran has been inspired unto me that by it I might warn you and whomever it reaches’” (Al-An’am 19).
The mujaddid Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhab RA said, “Know that the evidences for making takfir of the otherwise righteous Muslim who commits shirk with Allah or sides with the mushrikin against the muwahaddin, even if he does not commit shirk, are more than one can compile. They are in the speech of Allah, the words of His Messenger, and the discourses of all people of knowledge.” (Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah (10/8).) Shaykh ‘Abdul-Latif Ibn ‘Abdir-Rahman Ibn Hasan RA said, “It should be said that the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger, and the opinions of the people of knowledge are explicit, repeatedly reported, and clearly prove making takfir of anyone who supplicates other than Allah, calling upon someone for something only Allah can do… and the entire Quran demonstrates and confirms this, even coming in different ways and expressions to explain and make note of this.” (Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah (12/190).) Some other scholars of the Najdi da’wah said, “The one who does not make takfir of the mushrikin has not affirmed the Quran, and the Quran has made takfir of the mushrikin and ordered making takfir of them, taking them as enemies, and fighting against them.” (Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah (9/291).)
However, this matter could be obscure regarding some mushrikin who ascribe themselves to Islam. That is due to the spread of ignorance, weakness of da’wah, and circulation of doubts. Here, the proof is established by demonstrating the clear, indicative texts regarding the kufr of these mushrikin. If someone refrains after this clarification is made, he commits kufr. Shaykh Sulayman Ibn ‘Abdillah TA said, “If someone doubts their kufr or is ignorant of their kufr, it is clarified to him using evidences about their kufr from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger SAWS. After that, if he doubts or hesitates, then he is a kafir according to all of the ‘ulama, since the one who doubts the kufr of a kafir is himself a kafir.” (Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah (8/160).)
But if the matter becomes manifest by the rise of the religion, its voice being raised, and its da’wah being conveyed (as is the case in the Islamic State, may Allah strengthen it), then there is no consideration given to any doubt that would suspend the legal ruling. This is what is known from the imams of guidance like those of the Najdi da’wah who faced this issue and died upon goodness. Some of the imams of the da’wah RA said, “So whoever does not make takfir of the mushrikin of the Ottoman State and the grave worshipers, like the people of Makkah and otherwise, of those who worship righteous people, deviate from the tawhid of Allah to shirk, and replace the Sunnah of His Messenger SAWS with innovations, then he is a kafir just like them, even if he hates their religion, despises them, and loves Islam and the Muslims. For the one who does not make takfir of the mushrikin has not affirmed the Quran, and the Quran has made takfir of the mushrikin and ordered making takfir of them, taking them as enemies, and fighting against them.” (Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah (9/291).)
It is a duty of those who give da’wah and those who seek knowledge inside the Islamic State to warn the people against shirk and falling into it and to warn them against refraining from making takfir of the mushrikin. As part of their duty to warn and convey the message, they must also expose the doubts of those who quarrel in defense of the mushrikin. This is the religion of the Prophets AS and by this the religion becomes manifest.
Shaykh ‘Abdul-Latif Al ash-Shaykh RA said, “Exposing ignorant people to the fundamentals of Islam, the fundamentals of iman, decisive texts, and agreed upon issues by the people of knowledge is a hujjah (established argument) according to the scholars, and by it the proof is made, rulings are put in order, whether the rulings are on apostasy or otherwise; and the Messenger SAWS ordered conveying his message and encouraged it to be done. Regarding establishing proof and giving warning, Allah said in His Book, ‘that by it I might warn you and whomever it reaches’ (Al-An’am 19),” until he (‘Abdul-Latif) RA said, “In total, the argument in every time is made by the people of knowledge, the inheritors of the prophets.” (Misbah adh-Dhalam fir-Radd ‘ala Man Kadhdhab ash-Shaykh al-Imam (1/207).)
The issue of making takfir of the mushrikin being manifest is the default, and we are in a state that rules by the Shari’ah of Allah. It is therefore a compulsory duty upon those who give da’wah therein to warn, convey, employ the legal rulings, and remove whatever became suspended thereof due to doubts. Amongst these rulings is making takfir of whoever refrains from making takfir of the mushrikin who ascribe themselves to Islam. It is not that they should base their actions and da’wah upon the doubts of those who deceptively raise them, making such doubts the foundation, by which they would annul the agreed upon legal ruling, and refuge is with Allah.
We remind our sons, the soldiers of the Islamic State, of the order from Allah and His Messenger SAWS regarding the obligation of listening and obeying those whom Allah has appointed over them, as well as the obligation of uniting and avoiding division, hating one another, and disputation. Allah said, “And obey Allah and His Messenger and do not dispute lest you fail and your might depart, and have patience. Verily Allah is with the patient” (Al-Anfal 46). And He said, “Verily those who divided their religion and became factions, you have nothing to do with them. Their matter is only up to Allah. Then He will inform them about what they used to do” (Al-An’am 159). And Allah’s Messenger SAWS said, “Shall I tell you about what is better in degree than fasting, prayer, and charity?” They said, “Indeed!” He said, “Rectifying the bond of unity, for verily, ruining the bond of unity is the cutter.” (Reported by at-Tirmidhi, who graded it “hasan sahih.”) In another version, “I do not mean that it cuts hair, but it cuts the religion.” May Allah send blessings upon our prophet Muhammad and upon his family and all of his companions.