Amongst the actions and
statements are those on account of which a person exits from Islaam and
it is not a condition that he desires to leaves Islaam (qasd), or
desires to commit kufr or that he believes in the statement of kufr he
Ibn Hajr said, "Amongst the Muslims are those
who exit the religion without desiring (qasd) to leave the religion and
without choosing a religion other than that of Islaam".
Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, "And in
essence, whoever says or commits that which is disbelief, kufr,
disbelieves on account of it, even if he did not desire (lam yaqsud) to
become a disbeliever (by the act), since no one desires disbelief except
as Allaah wills."
To illustrate this point, a person may prostrate to an idol and this
act in and of itself is kufr that expels from the religion. The ruling
of takfir may be made upon a person, provided the preventative barriers
to takfir are removed (such as compulsion, error). However, it is not a
condition that a person "intended to perform kufr" by this act., before
he is judged a disbeliever, since the mushriks who worship the dead and
make supplication to them, believing that the dead provide for them and
protect them, they never "intend to perform kufr" by these acts, rather
they consider them to be worship and nearness to Allaah, yet they are
the greatest of acts of shirk and apostasy.
To illustrate with another example, a person who mocks and reviles
Allaah or the Messenger, it is not required that the person "desired
kufr" by his words of mockery or revilement, and neither is it a
condition that he "believed (i'taqada) in what he said" before takfir is
made of him. Rather, if he said these words deliberately, intending to
say these words, desiring to say these words, then that in and of itself
is the kufr that expels from the religion. However, there is a
difference between "desiring the act" and "desiring kufr".
The latter, "desiring kufr" is of no significance and its presence or
absence has no bearing on the ruling of takfir (in those cases where the
action is major kufr that expels from the religion).
However, the former, "having desired the act", meaning that a person
wilfully did the act, then this does have a bearing on the ruling of
takfir, for this is related to the preventative barriers and required
conditions for the performance of takfir, in the sense that it must be
verified that this act did not occur out of compulsion, or error and the
Ibn al-Qayyim said, "It has preceded that the
one who uttered, when he found his lost camel, "O Allaah, you are my
servant and I am your Lord" erred due to extreme joy and he did not
disbelieve by these words, even though he uttered pure and clear kufr.
This is because he did not intend to say it. And the one who is
compelled to utter kufr, has indeed spoken with a word of kufr, but he
does not become a disbeliever since he did not desire to utter this
word, as opposed to the one who mocks or jests (about Allaah, the
Messenger, or the religion). In this case, such an utterance would
necessitate disbelief and divorce, even if he was only joking and
fooling around, since he desired to utter these words (qaasidun
littakallum bil-lafdh). And even if he was just joking, then this would
be no excuse for him, as opposed to the case of the one who is
compelled, or who erred, or who was forgetful. Such a one is excused..."
Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said, "Whoever
uttered with his tongue a word of disbelief without having any need for
it, deliberately saying it, knowing that it is an utterance of
disbelief, then he becomes a disbeliever through that both inwardly and
outwardly, and we do not make it permissible for it to be said, 'It is
possible for him to still be a believer inwardly'..."
Shaikh ul-Islaam added to the above, in explanation of the verse in
Surah Nahl, "Whoever disbelieved in Allaah after
his belief, except him who is compelled and whose heart is at rest with
Imaan. However, those who open their breasts to disbelief, on them is
wrath from Allaah, and theirs will be a great torment (Nahl 16:106)"
- so he said, "And it is known that he did not
intend by the disbelief mentioned here, the disbelief that relates to
belief (i'tiqaad) of the heart only, because a man cannot be compelled
with respect to this (i.e. his heart cannot be forced to hold a
particular belief, even though he may be forced to say it with his
tongue). And He excepted the one who is compelled (to disbelief) but did
not meant the one who uttered (disbelief) and believed in what he said,
because he excepted the one who is compelled..."
In other words, only one who utters disbelief under compulsion is
excused, as for the one who utters disbelief, then he has disbelieved,
irrespective of whether his heart believed in what he said or not, since
although a man can be forced to say something with his tongue, he cannot
be forced to accept and believe it with his heart, and hence the
compulsion being referred to in the verse mentioned above, is the one
that is related to the tongue only. Therefore, it is not a condition
that when someone utters disbelief, that he also believes in what he
uttered for it to be considered disbelief.