Amongst the actions of kufr are those for
which it is not necessary that a person make istihlaal of them (i.e.
declare them to be lawful with his heart) before he be considered a
disbeliever, outside the fold of Islaam.
Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said, "And it is
necessary for it to be known that the statement that 'the disbelief of
the one who reviled (Allaah, the Messenger or the religion) is only
disbelief because he made istihlaal of his act (i.e. declared this
revilement to be lawful)' is a repugnant mistake and very great
error...and this is from numerous angles..."[1]
When a person reviles the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) or
throws the Qur'an into some filth, or kicks the Qur'an without
compulsion or out of error for example, then it is not a requirement
that he makes or considers this act to be lawful (istihlaal) as a matter
of belief before takfir is made upon him. Rather it is sufficient to
known that he intended his act and did it wilfully, not being under
compulsion or the likes.
As for Istihlaal (having the belief that something that Allaah has
made unlawful is lawful), then it is of two types, that which is related
to action, and that which is related to belief.
Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen said, "Istihlaal is that a
person believes that something that Allaah has made unlawful is lawful.
As for Istihlaal of action, then we need to observe: If this Istihlaal
(is related to something) that expels from the religion then a person
becomes a disbeliever and apostate by it. So for example, if a person
worked with usury (i.e. took or gave usury) without believing in its
lawfulness, yet he persists in working with it, then such a one does not
become a disbeliever because he did not declare it to be lawful.
However, if he said, "Usury is lawful" and he intends by this the usury
that Allaah has declared unlawful, then he becomes a disbeliever, since
he is a denier (mukaddhib) of Allaah and His Messenger (sallallaahu
alaihi wasallam). So in this circumstance, Istihlaal would be that of
action and also that of belief, with his heart. However, the Istihlaal
in action, we need to look at the action itself, is it something which
in and of itself, expels from the religion or not? And it is known that
consuming interest does not make a person a disbeliever, rather it is
one of the major sins. However, if a person prostrated to an idol, then
he becomes a disbeliever. Why? Because this act itself expels from the
religion. This is the principle, however it is necessary for us to
observe another condition, and this is that the person who made
something lawful (by istihlaal) is not excused due to ignorance, for if
he is excused due to ignorance, then he does not become a disbeliever."[2]
So Istihlaal is of two types, that which is related to action and
that which is related to belief. That which is related to belief is
disbelief in all circumstances, regardless of whether this istihlaal was
in relation to something that only reaches the level of minor kufr or
something reaching the level of major kufr. For example, if one made
fornication lawful as a matter of belief, or drinking and likes then he
is a disbeliever. Likewise, if he made reviling the Messenger (sallallaahu
alaihi wasallam) or the religion to be lawful, then regardless of
whether he did the act or not, then he becomes a disbeliever by this
istihlaal.
As for the istihlaal that is related to action, and this merely means
that a person commits the act - in other words he makes it lawful for
himself in terms of his action only, in the sense that he performs the
act - then in such a situation one must look at the action he committed.
Is it something that does not reach the level of major kufr? Such as
fornication, stealing, gambling and the likes. In this case he is not a
disbeliever by this Istihlaal of action. However, if it is an act (or
statement) which expels from the religion, such as prostrating to an
idol, then he becomes a disbeliever by this Istihlaal of action. And
this is the principle concerning Istihlaal in the view of our Ulamaa. In
light of this, the well known statement of Imaam at-Tahaawi,
"We do not declare someone a disbeliever on
account of a sin he committed, so long as he does not declare it lawful",
is subject to the above clarification and is not taken absolutely.
With respect to Juhood, then Imaam Abu Ja'far at-Tahaawi said,
"A servant does not exit from Imaan except by
denial (juhood) of that which brought him into it." Shaikh Ibn
Maani' commented, "He intends to refute the
Khawarij and the Mu'tazilah by this, those who expel such a person from
Imaan on account of a sin that he commited".
Shaikh Ibn Baaz said, further clarifying this,
"This absolute generalisation requires further examination. For a
disbeliever enters into Islaam by the two testifications if he had not
uttered them previously, and if he was one who had uttered them, then he
will enter into Islaam (again) after repenting from what had
necessitated his disbelief. And a person can exit from Islaam without
showing Juhood (denial, rejection) for many reasons which the people of
knowledge have explained in the discussion of the rulings pertaining to
the apostate. Amongst them: when he reviles Islaam or the Prophet (sallallaahu
alaihi wasallam), or mocking Allaah, His Messenger or His Book or
anything from His Legislation - free is he of imperfection - due to his
saying, "Say: Was it in Allaah, His Signs and His Messenger that you
were mocking? Do not seek to make excuses, for you have disbelieved
after having had faith" (9:65-66). And also amongst such (actions) are
worshipping idols, calling upon the dead, seeking help from them,
seeking assistance from them and other such things. Therefore, whoever
directs any of these (acts of worship) to other than Allaah, such as to
idols, the angels, the jinn, those in the graves and others from the
creation then such a one has committed Shirk with Allaah and has not
actualised the meaning of "Laa ilaaha ilallaaha". All of these matters
cause a person to exit from Islaam by unanimous agreement of the
Muslims, and they are not from the matters of Juhood (denial,
rejection). The proofs for these matters are well known from the Book
and the Sunnah, and the Scholars have mentioned them in the chapters
related to the ruling upon the apostate, so refer back to them if you
will. And in Allaah lies success."[3]
Just like our discussion with Istihlaal above, there are some actions
for which Juhood, that is denial or rejection, is not a requirement for
an action to be considered as major disbelief (kufr akbar) and what
expels from Islaam. Rather such actions, in and of themselves are major
disbelief and expel from Islaam. However, it is worth noting here, for
the sake of completeness, that some of the Scholars have said that all
of those matters which expel from Islaam, then the basis of all of that
is Juhood (denial, rejection) of what the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi
wasallam) came with.
Shaikh 'Abdur-Rahmaan bin Naasir as-Sa'dee said, "Chapter: The Ruling
upon the Apostate. "The apostate, murtad, is the one who exits from
Islaam and enters into disbelief on account of an action, statement, a
belief or doubt. And the Scholars - may Allaah have mercy upon them -
have mentioned the specific detail and explanation of the matters by
which a servant leaves Islaam. And all of them have their basis in the
rejection, jahd, of what the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam)
came with, or rejection, jahd, of some of it. So the one who apostatises
should be asked to repent during the course of three days. If he repents
and returns, then fine, otherwise he is to be killed with the sword."[4]
If one was to consider this statement to mean that the acts of kufr,
such as those mentioned above in the statement of Imaam Ibn Baaz are not
to be considered as major disbelief unless they are accompanied with
Juhood, then this is an error. Rather such acts in and of themselves are
major disbelief. Hence, there is an element of error in the statement
above[5], if understood in this manner and it
is not to be taken absolutely. However, if what is understood from it is
that a person only becomes an apostate and the hadd punishment applied
after the proof has been established (iqaamat ul-hujjah) and the person
does not repent or desist or recant from his act or statement of kufr,
but persists, then this is in conformity with the principle of takfir
concerning those who fall into these acts which is establishment of the
proof (iqaamat ul-hujjah). So if a person shows wilful denial (juhood)
after this, he is then an apostate who is killed. Shaikh Muhammad bin
Abdul-Wahhaab said, "[The apostate] is the one who
has disbelieved according to the concensus (ijmaa) of the Muslims, and
he is the one upon whom the proof has been established. The one upon
whom the proof has not been established is not to be declared a
disbeliever." [6]
In summary, we say that the amongst the actions of kufr are those
which do not require that istihlaal of the heart or juhood of the heart
be present for them to be considered actions of major kufr and which
expel from Islaam.
