Aslam

Praise be to Allah.

This issue is very important, and we will discuss it in

the following points:

-1-

There is no difference between excusing a person for forming

a mistaken idea on the basis of a misinterpretation and excusing him for his

ignorance of the religion; in fact the one who bases his mistaken idea on

misinterpretation is more deserving of being excused than one who is

ignorant, because he is not ignorant of what he has to believe; rather he

believes that it (whatever he believes) is true, and he quotes evidence for

it and defends it. It makes no difference whether the matter in question,

for which the one who bases his idea on a misinterpretation, is a practical

matter or a theoretical matter.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him)

said: The one who bases his idea on a misinterpretation, if his intention is

to follow the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), he is

not to be regarded as a kaafir or as an evildoer, if he tried to work it out

but got it wrong. This is something that is well established among people

with regard to practical matters. With regard to matters of belief, many

people regard as a kaafir the one who has mistaken notions concerning them,

but this view is not known from any of the Sahaabah or those who followed

them in truth, or from any of the leading scholars of the Muslims. Rather

this was originally one of the views of the innovators.

End quote from Minhaaj as-Sunnah (5/239)

-2-

This does not mean that they do not deserve the hadd

punishment, as Qudaamah ibn Maz‘oon was given the hadd punishment with

regard to his view which was based on his misinterpretation concerning the

drinking of alcohol – and it does not mean that they do not deserve

punishment and blame, or even that their ideas do not deserve to be

described as misguidance or disbelief, as we shall see in detail below. In

fact the matter may reach the level of fighting them, because the aim behind

that is to put people off this innovation and to protect the religion of

Islam.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him)

said: What I have mentioned – about a Muslim who forsakes some obligatory

duty or does some prohibited action on the basis of misinterpretation and

wrong conclusions, or as a result of following the view of others – is clear

in my mind. Such a person is in a better position, with regard to his view,

than the disbeliever who bases his disbelief on misinterpretation and wrong

notions. But that does not rule out fighting the one who transgresses

(against the Muslims) and holds views based on misinterpretation, or

flogging the one who drinks alcohol and believes it to be permissible on the

basis of misinterpretation, and the like, for misinterpretation does not

waive punishment in this world in all cases, for the aim of the punishment

is to ward off the harm that may be caused by the action of the

transgressor.

End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (22/14)

And he (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

With regard to the one who openly displays that which may be

harmful (of actions or beliefs), his harm must be warded off even if that is

by means of punishing him, and whether he is a Muslim who is an evildoer or

sinner, or a man of good character who tried to work it out but got it

wrong, and indeed even if he is a righteous man or a scholar, whether he is

one over whom we have power or otherwise (we should still try to ward off

his harm)… Similarly, whoever promotes bid‘ah that may harm people with

regard to their religious wellbeing should be punished even though he may be

excused for having tried to work it out (but got it wrong) or for having

followed the view of someone else.

End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (10/375)

-3-

Not every alternative interpretation is justifiable or

excusable according to sharee‘ah. No alternative interpretation is

acceptable with regard to the twin testimony of faith, the Oneness of Allah,

may He be exalted, the affirmation of the message of the Prophet (blessings

and peace of Allah be upon him), the resurrection, or Paradise and Hell.

Calling this  an alternative interpretation in the first place is not

acceptable; rather this is a baatini and heretical approach that leads to

invalidation of religion.

Abu Haamid al-Ghazaali (may Allah have mercy on him) said: It

is essential to point out another principle, which is that if a person holds

a view that is contrary to a mutawaatir text and claims that it is just an

alternative interpretation, but his view that is based on misinterpretation

is far removed from the linguistic meaning, and is not close at all, rather

it is very far-fetched, this is tantamount to kufr and the one who holds

that view is a liar, even if he claims to base his view on his own

interpretation. An example of that is what I have read in the words of some

of the Baatinis, that Allah, may He be exalted, is One in the sense that He

grants and creates oneness, and He is All-Knowing in the sense that He

grants knowledge to others and creates it, and He exists in the sense that

He brings others into existence. But as for Him being One in Himself, or

existing or being All-Knowing in the sense that this is His own attribute,

that is not correct according to their view. This is blatant kufr, because

interpreting oneness as creating oneness cannot be an alternative

interpretation at all, and it has no basis in the Arabic language, and it is

not possible to interpret it in this way at all. These are all examples of

words of disbelief described as alternative interpretations.

End quote from Faysal at-Tafriqah (p. 66, 67).

Ibn al-Wazeer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Similarly,

there is no difference of opinion regarding the kufr of one who rejects that

which is well-known and well-established to all, and tries to conceal it

with the excuse of giving his own interpretation with regard to something

that cannot be interpreted in any way other than its apparent meaning, such

as the heretics in their misinterpretation of all the divine names, and even

of the entire Qur’an and all the rulings of Islam, and matters of the

hereafter such as the resurrection and Paradise and Hell.

End quote from Eethaar al-Haqq ‘ala al-Khalq (p. 377)

-4-

The kind of interpretation that may be valid is that which

does not lead to undermining the religion of Islam, is acceptable on a

linguistic basis according to the rules of the Arabic language, and the one

who holds this view sincerely intends to seek the truth in accordance with

the principles of knowledge. Such people have a valid excuse if their

interpretation turns out to be wrong. This is the very excuse which the

scholars mentioned with regard to the reasons why scholars may have

different views on practical matters.

Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) said: This is

how we should examine people’s statements in cases where the one who holds

such a view becomes a kaafir. The texts that could help a person to reach

the right conclusion may not have reached a scholar; or he may have been

aware of them but they were not proven to him to be sound or he was not able

to understand them; or he may have developed some misunderstanding because

of which Allah may excuse him. Whoever among the believers strives his

utmost to seek the truth, but then reaches a wrong conclusion, Allah will

forgive his mistake, no matter what it is, whether it has to do with

theoretical or practical issues. This is the view of the Companions of the

Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and the majority of the

leading scholars of Islam.

End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (23/346).

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The

scholars said: Anyone who reaches a wrong conclusion but may be excused for

his misinterpretation is not a sinner, provided that his interpretation may

be valid from a linguistic point of view and that he has some measure of

knowledge.

End quote from Fath al-Baari (12/304)

-5-

There is a saheeh hadith which indicates that if a person has

a wrong view on ‘aqeedah (beliefs) that is based on misinterpretation, if

this misinterpretation will not lead to making religion appear meaningless,

then he is not a kaafir. That is the hadith in which the Prophet (blessings

and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The Jews split into seventy-one

sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians

split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one

in Paradise.  My ummah will split into seventy-three sects, one of which

will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.” It was said: O Messenger of

Allah, who are they? He said: “The jamaa‘ah (the main body of the Muslims).”

Narrated by Ibn Maajah (3992); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani.

Abu Sulaymaan al-Khattaabi (may Allah have mercy on him)

said:  The words “My ummah will split into seventy-three sects” indicates

that all these sects are not outside the boundaries of Islam, because the

Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) described them all as

being part of his ummah. This indicates that the one who holds a view that

is based on some interpretation does not go beyond the bounds of Islam, even

if he is mistaken in his interpretation.

End quote from Ma‘aalim as-Sunan by al-Khattaabi

(4/295). See also: as-Sunan al-Kubra by al-Bayhaqi (10/208)

Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The same

applies to all seventy-two sects: whoever among them is a hypocrite is

inwardly a disbeliever, and whoever is not a hypocrite – rather he believes

in Allah and His Messenger inwardly – is not inwardly a disbeliever, even if

he is wrong in some views that are based on misinterpretation, no matter how

serious his mistake.

Whoever says that each of the seventy-two sects are kuffaar

whose kufr puts them beyond the pale of Islam has gone against the Qur’an

and Sunnah, and the consensus of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with

them), and indeed the consensus of the four imams and others. There is no

one among them who ever regarded each of the seventy-two sects as kuffaar;

rather those sects may regard one another as kuffaar because of their views

and beliefs.

End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (7/218, 219)

-6-

Those among the scholars who ruled that some of those who

follow innovation – that does not constitute disbelief – are kuffaar were

referring to kufr of a lesser degree than that which puts one beyond the

pale of Islam.

Imam al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: What we

have narrated from ash-Shaafa‘i and other imams about regarding these

innovators as kuffaar only refers to lesser forms of kufr.

End quote from Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra (10/207).

Imam al-Baghawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: ash-Shaafa‘i

regarded it as permissible to accept the testimony of innovators and to pray

behind them, with no restrictions, even though he regarded that as makrooh.

This view of his indicates that if he describes some of them as kaafirs on

any occasion, what he meant was lesser kufr, as in the verse in which Allah,

may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “And whosoever

does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafiroon (i.e.

disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah’s Laws)” [al-Maa’idah

5:44].

End quote from Sharh as-Sunnah (1/228)

Imam ash-Shaafa‘i may have used the word kufr as a means of

warning against that belief.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him)

said:

It may be narrated from one of them that he regarded as a

kaafir one who held some view, but what he meant was that this view

constituted kufr, so as to warn against it; it does not necessarily mean

that if a view constitutes kufr, everyone who holds that view as the result

of ignorance or misinterpretation of a text is to be regarded as a kaafir.

Affirming kufr in the case of a specific individual is like a confirmation

that he is deserving of punishment in the Hereafter – and there are specific

conditions and impediments with regard to doing that.

End quote from Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah

(5/240)

-7-

With regard to the difference of opinion among the leading

scholars concerning the people of bid‘ah who believe in an idea that that

constitutes kufr, and whether they are kaafirs or not, that is based on the

difference between regarding the view as constituting kufr and regarding a

specific individual as a kaafir. They may rule that a particular belief

constitutes kufr in itself, but they do not apply the ruling of kufr to any

specific individual who believes in that view, unless the conditions are met

and the impediments are absent.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him)

said:

But what we are trying to say here is that the leading

scholars’ views on takfeer (judging someone to be a kaafir) are based on

their differentiation between the idea and the individual who holds this

view. Hence some of them narrated that there was some dispute concerning

this matter, but these people did not properly understand what they said.

Some narrated two reports from Ahmad concerning the issue of regarding the

people of bid‘ah as kuffaar in all cases, to the point that it seems that

there was a conflict between these reports as to whether the Murji’ah and

the Shi‘ah who give precedence to ‘Ali are to be regarded as kuffaar.

Perhaps this group (who narrated the two reports) thought that that they

should be regarded as kuffaar who will abide forever in Hell, but this is

not the view of Ahmad or any of the other leading scholars of Islam. Rather

his view is definitely that he did not regard as kuffaar the Murji’ah who

say that faith is words to be uttered and is not connected to deeds, and he

did not regard as kuffaar those who gave precedence to ‘Ali over ‘Uthmaan.

Rather his statements clearly indicate that we should refrain from regarding

the Khaarijis, Qadaris and others as kuffaar; and he only regarded as

kuffaar the Jahamis who denied the names and attributes of Allah, because

their views are clearly and obviously contrary to that which was brought by

the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and because the

reality of their view is that it leads to denying the Creator. He had dealt

with them and he knew about their reality and that their views boiled down

to denial of the Creator. Moreover, regarding the Jahamis as kuffaar was

something that was well established and was narrated from the early

generations and the leading scholars, but he did not regard specific

individuals among them as kaafirs, because the one who promotes a view is

worse than one who merely holds that view, and the innovator who persecutes

the one who disagrees with him is worse than one who merely calls to it, and

the one who describes anyone who disagrees with him as a kaafir is worse

than the one who merely persecutes him. Furthermore, those who were in

authority (at the time of Ahmad) held Jahami views, that the Qur’an was

created, and that Allah would not be seen in the Hereafter, and so on, and

they called people to that, and tried them and punished them if they did not

agree with them, and they regarded as kaafirs all those who did not agree

with them, to the extent that if they arrested someone they would not let

him go until he accepted the Jahami view that the Qur’an was created, and so

on. They would not appoint anyone to a position of authority or give any

stipend from the bayt al-maal to anyone, unless he held those views. Yet

despite that, Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) would pray for mercy

for them, and pray for forgiveness for them, because he knew that it was not

clear to them that they were disbelieving in the Messenger (blessings and

peace of Allah be upon him) and rejecting what he had brought; rather they

based their views on the interpretation of some text, but they got it wrong

and followed those who taught them that.

Similarly, when Hafs al-Fard said that the Qur’an was

created,  ash-Shaafa‘i said to him: You have disbelieved in Allah the

Almighty, and he explained to him that this view constituted kufr. But he

did not rule that Hafs had apostatised just because he held that view,

because proof had not yet been established to him such that he might be

regarded as a kaafir if he rejected it. If ash-Shaafa‘i had believed that he

was an apostate, he would have tried to get him executed. And he clearly

stated in his books that testimony may be accepted from those who follow

bid‘ah, and prayers may be offered behind them.

End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (23/348, 349)

-8-

With regard to the views of Ash‘aris in particular, there can

be no doubt that they have some wrong notions in their beliefs that are

contrary to the beliefs of the early generations, and they have prominent

figures among the scholars to whom they refer and whom they follow, but they

are not all of the same level with regard to beliefs; rather there are

different schools of thought among them. The nearest of them to the three

best generations are the closest of them to the truth. By applying the

argument mentioned above (about differentiating between ideas and

individuals) to the Ash‘aris, we may realise that any of the scholars who

regarded some of what they say as kufr was only referring to elements of

kufr in their ideas, and it does not mean that he ruled that they themselves

as individuals became kaafirs because of that, or that he meant anyone who

holds this view is a kaafir. What he was referring to was a kind of lesser

kufr. This group is not one of the sects that are beyond the bounds of

Islam, and its individuals are not kaafirs. Rather they are to be excused,

because they base their ideas on some misinterpretation with regard to what

they discussed of issues and beliefs.

Shaykh al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said: I do

not know of anyone who regards the Ash‘aris as kaafirs.

End quote from Thamaraat at-Tadween (no. 9) by Dr

Ahmad ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan al-Qaadi

-9-

We may sum up the shar‘i ruling on the innovating groups by

quoting what Shaykh ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan as-Sa‘di (may Allah have mercy on him)

said in a clear and scholarly comment:

Whoever denies that which the Messenger (blessings and peace

of Allah be upon him) brought, or denies some of it, without basing that on

some misinterpretation of a text by the people of bid‘ah, is a kaafir,

because he has disbelieved Allah and His Messenger, and is too arrogant and

stubborn to accept the truth.

(a)

With regard to the innovator among the Jahamis, Qadaris,

Khaarijis, Raafidis and their ilk, if he knows that his innovation is

contrary to the Qur’an and Sunnah, yet he persists in it and supports it,

then he is a disbeliever in Allah the Almighty, and is opposing Allah and

His Messenger after true guidance has become clear to him.

(b)

If a person among the innovators believes in Allah and

His Messenger both outwardly and inwardly, and he venerates Allah and His

Messenger, and adheres to that which was brought by the Messenger,

(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), but he develops a notion or

practice that is contrary to the truth, and gets it wrong in some of his

conclusions, and is wrong in some of his interpretations, without

disbelieving or rejecting the guidance that is clear to him, then he is not

a kaafir, but he is an evildoer and an innovator, or he is a misguided

innovator, or he may be pardoned because the issue was too subtle for him

and he put effort into finding out what was correct, but he did not succeed.

Hence the Khaarijis, Mu‘tazilah, Qadaris and other followers

of bid‘ah are regarded as being of different categories:

(a)

Some of them are undoubtedly kaafirs, such as the extreme

Jahamis who denied the divine names and attributes, although they realised

that their innovation was contrary to that which had been brought by the

Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Such people knowingly

disbelieved the Messenger.

(b)

Some of them are misguided innovators and evildoers, such

as the Khaarijis who based their wrong views on misinterpretation, and the

Mu‘tazilah who do not disbelieve in the Messenger, but they were misguided

because of their innovation, and thought that what they were following was

the truth. Hence the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) were

unanimously agreed that the Khaarijis were innovators and rebels, as was

narrated in the saheeh hadiths that speak of them. But they were also

unanimously agreed that they were not beyond the bounds of Islam, even

though they regarded it as permissible to shed the blood of the Muslims, and

they denied that intercession may be granted for those who commit major

sins, and they denied many other fundamentals of the religion. But because

they based their views on their misinterpretation of some text, they cannot

be regarded as kaafirs.

(c)

Some of the innovators held ideas that were less serious

than this, such as many of the Qadaris, and the Kilaabis and Ash‘aris. These

people are innovators who are misguided with regard to some fundamental

issues, in which they developed views that were contrary to the Qur’an and

Sunnah. This is something that is well known and well established. Their

innovation is of different levels, according to how far away from or close

to the truth they are, and according to their transgressions against the

followers of truth by labelling them as kuffaar, evildoers or innovators,

and according to their ability to reach the right conclusion and their

efforts to do so or otherwise. A detailed discussion of this matter would

take too long.

End quote from Tawdeeh al-Kaafiyah ash-Shaafiyah

(156-158)

We hope that what we have mentioned above has clarified the

matter for you. We ask Allah to help us and you to attain beneficial

knowledge and do righteous deeds.

And Allah knows best.