Category: Akidah

Praise be to Allah.The important principle that Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, confirms in His revelation and states that it is the foundation of reckoning and the criterion of reward and punishment, is that repentance wipes out whatever came before it, and that Islam erases all that came before it; the gate of repentance is open to every individual, even if he falls into sin and kufr time after time. The grace and mercy of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, towards His slaves decrees that He should accept the repentance of the one who repents and forgive him his sins. 
Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief), their past will be forgiven” [al-Anfaal 8:38]. 
The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Do you not know that Islam destroys whatever came before it, and that hijrah destroys whatever came before it, and that Hajj destroys whatever came before it?” Narrated by Muslim, 121. 
There are also verses which indicate that the repentance of the apostate, if he comes back to Islam and repents sincerely, is accepted. Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“How shall Allaah guide a people who disbelieved after their Belief and after they bore witness that the Messenger (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) is true and after clear proofs had come unto them? And Allaah guides not the people who are Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers).
They are those whose recompense is that on them (rests) the Curse of Allaah, of the angels, and of all mankind
They will abide therein (Hell). Neither will their torment be lightened, nor will it be delayed or postponed (for a while).”
And yet after all that, Allah, may He be glorified, says:
“Except for those who repent after that and do righteous deeds. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[Aal ‘Imraan 3:86-88, 89]. 
But if a person apostatises and then goes further in disbelief and wrongdoing, and he does not repent or come back to Islam, this is the one to whom the verse in Soorat al-Nisa’ –which the questioner mentioned – refers, and the verses from Aal ‘Imraan also indicate that his repentance will not be accepted. 
Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Verily, those who disbelieved after their Belief and then went on increasing in their disbelief (i.e. disbelief in the Qur’aan and in Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) — never will their repentance be accepted (because they repent only by their tongues and not from their hearts). And they are those who are astray.
91. Verily, those who disbelieved, and died while they were disbelievers, the (whole) earth full of gold will not be accepted from anyone of them even if they offered it as a ransom. For them is a painful torment and they will have no helpers”
[Aal ‘Imraan 3:90-91]. 
And He says:
“Verily, those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe (again), and (again) disbelieve, and go on increasing in disbelief; Allaah will not forgive them, nor guide them on the (right) way”
[al-Nisa’ 4:137]. 
Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Tafseer al-Qur’aan al-‘Azeem (1/753): 
Here Allah tells us about the one who enters Islam and then recants, then comes back to it, then recants and persists in his misguidance, and increases in it until he dies: there is no repentance after his death and Allah will not forgive him or grant him any way out from what he is in, and there is no way he could be guided. Hence He says: “Allaah will not forgive them, nor guide them on the (right) way.” Ibn Abi Haatim said: … It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) said concerning the verse, “and go on increasing in disbelief”: They persist in their disbelief until they die. This was also the view of Mujaahid. End quote. 
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (16/28-29): 
Concerning these whose repentance will not be accepted, there were several opinions: 
It was said that it is because of their hypocrisy, or because they repented from sins less grave than shirk but did not repent from shirk, or it was said that their repentance would never be accepted after death. But the majority, such as al-Hasan, Qataadah, ‘Ata’, al-Khorasaani and al-Suddi said: Their repentance will never be accepted when death comes to them. So this is like the verse in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil deeds until death faces one of them and he says: ‘Now I repent;’ nor of those who die while they are disbelievers” [al-Nisa’ 4:18]. 
And the same applies to the verse in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Verily, those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe (again), and (again) disbelieve, and go on increasing in disbelief; Allaah will not forgive them, nor guide them on the (right) way”
[al-Nisa’ 4:137]. 
Mujaahid and other mufassireen said: “and go on increasing in disbelief” means, they remain steadfast in that until they die. 
I [Ibn Taymiyah] say: That is because the one who repents is giving up kufr, whereas the one who does not repent is persisting in it and adding kufr to kufr. The words “and go on increasing in disbelief” are like saying, they persisted in kufr and continued in kufr and remained in kufr. So they became disbelievers after becoming Muslim, then their kufr increased and did not grow less. The repentance of these people will not be accepted, referring to their repentance when they are dying, because the one who repents before death comes has repented soon enough and recanted his kufr, so it did not increase; rather it decreased, unlike the one who persisted in kufr until the time of death. End quote. 
There is no difference of opinion among the scholars that if the apostate repents sincerely and comes back to Islam, Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, will accept him and forgive him for what is past, even if he has apostatized repeatedly. 
This is with regard to Allah in the Hereafter. 
As for the rulings in this world, some of the scholars said that if a person apostatises repeatedly he should be executed and his repentance not accepted. The difference of opinion among the scholars about accepting repentance has to do with rulings in this world only and does not have to do with a person’s standing before Allah in the Hereafter, may He be glorified and exalted. 
Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni (12/271): 
To sum up, the difference of opinion among the imams concerning the acceptance of their repentance has to do with rulings in this world, not executing them, and affirming that they should be treated as Muslims. 
As to whether Allah accepts their repentance and forgives the one who repents and gives up (apostasy) both inwardly and outwardly, there is no difference of opinion concerning that. End quote. 
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa, 30/16: 
When the fuqaha’ differed concerning the acceptance of the repentance of one who apostatises repeatedly and the acceptance of the repentance of the heretic, that only has to do with the ruling on outward appearances, because the repentance of such people cannot be trusted. But if he is sincere in his heart towards Allah in his repentance then he is included in the words of Allah (interpretation of the meaning): “Say: “O ‘Ibaadi (My slaves) who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allaah, verily, Allaah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Zumar 39:53]. 
According to the correct scholarly opinion, the repentance of one who has apostatised repeatedly is to be accepted with regard to rulings in this world too, and he comes under the same rulings as any other Muslim. This is the view of the majority of Hanafi and Shaafa‘i scholars and is the well-known view among the Maalikis, and is the second of the two views of Ahmad ibn Hanbal. 
See Haashiyat Tabyeen al-Haqaa’iq, 3/284; Fath al-Qadeer, 6/68; al-Insaaf, 10/332-335; Tuhfat al-Muhtaaj, 9/69; Kashshaaf al-Qinaa‘, 6/177-178; al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah, 14/127-128. In al-Mabsoot (10/99-100) it is attributed to ‘Ali and Ibn ‘Umar that they did not accept the repentance of one who had apostatised repeatedly. 
Based on that, the repentance of one who had given up prayer is acceptable if he is sincere, even if he repeatedly gave up prayer, but he should beware, because death may come before he is able to repent and Allah may cause his punishment to come in this world before the Hereafter. 
We ask Allah to bestow upon us and you His great mercy. 
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.
Reviling religion is apostasy from Islam. The same applies
to reviling the Qur’aan or the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be
upon him): it is apostasy from Islam, and kufr (disbelief) after faith –
we seek refuge with Allah. But it does not mean that the wife is divorced
(talaaq); rather they should be separated without divorce. It cannot be
divorce; rather she becomes haraam for him because she is a Muslim woman
whereas he is a kaafir, and she remains haraam for him until he repents.
If he repents and her ‘iddah has not yet ended, she goes back to him
without any need for anything, i.e., if he repents and turns back to
Allah, she goes back to him. But if her ‘iddah has ended and he has not
repented, then she may marry whomever she wants. That is like a divorce
but it is not a divorce (talaaq); rather it is like divorce because Allah
has forbidden Muslim women for kaafir men. 

If he repents after the ‘iddah has ended and he wants to
(re)marry her, there is nothing wrong with that, but it should be done with
a new marriage contract, so as to be on the safe side and avoid an area
concerning which the scholars differed. Some scholars think that she is
permissible for him without a new marriage contract: if she chose him and
did not marry anyone else after the ‘iddah ended, she remains as she was
(i.e., still married). However, the majority say that when the ‘iddah ends,
she becomes irrevocably divorced from him and becomes a non-mahram to him,
and she cannot become permissible for him except with a new marriage
contract. So it is better and more on the safe side to do a new marriage
contract. This applies if the ‘iddah ended before he repented. But if he
repents before the ‘iddah ends, then she is still his wife, because the
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) accepted the marriage
contracts of men who became Muslim after their wives did, before the wives’
‘iddahs ended. End quote. 

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him)

Praise be to Allah.
The scholars are unanimously agreed that the bed is the
basic principle in establishing lineage. What is meant by the bed is
marriage between the man and the woman. 

However the scholars differed with regard to the zaani if he
wants to acknowledge his illegitimate child and call him after himself: does
that prove the child’s lineage in shar‘i terms, or not? There are two
well-known views: 

1.
That the illegitimate child is not to be attributed to
the zaani even if he acknowledges him and names him after himself.

This is the view of most of the scholars of the four madhhabs,
and of the Zaahiris (literalists) and others. 

Based on this view, the illegitimate child – whether male or
female – is not to be attributed to the zaani and is not to be described as
his child; rather he is to be attributed to his mother, and he is a mahram
to her and inherits from her like her other children. 

Fatwas were issued on the basis of this view by Shaykh Ibn
Ibraaheem, as in his Fataawa (11/146); Shaykh Ibn Baaz, as in
Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (18/124); and by the Standing Committee (al-Lajnah
ad-Daa’imah, 20/387). 

That is because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be
upon him) said: “The child is to be attributed to the bed (i.e., to the
husband) and the adulterer deserves nothing.” Agreed upon. The relevant
point here is that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
did not describe the child as belonging to anyone other than the bed (i.e.,
the husband), and he said that the adulterer did not deserve anything at
all. Attributing the child to the adulterer is attributing the child to
someone other than the husband. 

The words: “The child is to be attributed to the husband”
imply that attribution of the child is to be to the marriage only. 

2.
That if the zaani acknowledges his illegitimate child,
then he is to be attributed to him.

This is the view of ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr, Sulaymaan ibn
Yasaar, al-Hasan al-Basri, Ibn Sireen, Ibraaheem an-Nakha‘i, and Ishaaq ibn
Raahawayh, as was narrated from them by Ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughni
(9/123) 

This view was favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may
Allah have mercy on him) and his student Ibn al-Qayyim. 

Among contemporary scholars it was also favoured by Shaykh
Muhammad Rasheed Rida in Tafseer al-Manaar (4/382), and by Shaykh Ibn
‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him), as in ash-Sharh al-Mumti‘
(12/127). 

That is because this child was born from his sperm, so he is
his son in reality, and there is no clear, sound, shar‘i evidence to
indicate that he should not be attributed to him. 

With regard to the hadith “The child is to be attributed to
the bed (i.e., to the husband) and the adulterer deserves nothing”, it
refers to the case where there is a marriage, and the issue under discussion
here has to do with a case where there is no marriage. 

This is supported by what is mentioned in the story of the
devoted worshipper Jurayj, when he spoke to the child whose mother had
committed zina with the shepherd: “He said: ‘Who is your father, O child?’
The child said: ‘The shepherd.’” Agreed upon. 

The speech of this infant was by way of a miracle and
extraordinary event bestowed by Allah, and he stated that the shepherd was
his father, even though the relationship was one of zina. This proves that
paternity may be attributed to the zaani. 

Moreover, the Lawgiver seeks to protect lineages and take
care of children, and to give them the best upbringing and protect them from
being lost. 

We have previously discussed the matter in detail and
explained the different scholarly opinions concerning it, and the evidence
for each view, in the answer to question no. 192131. 

Conclusion: 

The view that it is forbidden or permissible (to attribute an
illegitimate child to his father) are two scholarly views that carry weight.
This issue is one of the matters that are open to ijtihaad, so every case
should be examined on its own merits. If the child will miss out on some
religious or worldly interests (by not being attributed to his father), then
we should adopt the view that it is permissible to attribute him to his
father, in the interest of protecting him and ensuring that he will be taken
care of, which is a legitimate shar‘i interest. 

And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.Our response to the one who thinks that ‘aqeedah cannot be proven on the basis of ahaad hadiths because they are based on probability or speculation and ‘aqeedah cannot be based on speculations is: This opinion is not correct, because it is based on something that is not correct. That is for a number of reasons: 
1.The idea that ahaad hadiths are based on probability or speculation does not apply in all cases; there are some ahaad hadiths that are based on certainty if there is corroborated evidence to confirm them, such as if the ummah accepted them. An example is the hadith of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him), “Actions are but by intentions…” It is an ahaad hadith, but despite that we know that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said it. This is what was confirmed by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, al-Haafiz ibn Hajar and others.
2.The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) used to send individuals with basic teachings of ‘aqeedah – testimony that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah – and the fact that he sent them is binding proof. For example, he sent Mu‘aadh to Yemen, and the fact that he sent him is regarded as binding proof for the people of Yemen that they were obliged to accept him.
3.If we say that matters of ‘aqeedah cannot be proven on the basis of ahaad reports, then it is possible to say that practical rulings cannot be proven on the basis of ahaad reports, because practical rulings are accompanied by the belief that Allah enjoined this and forbade that. If this opinion is accepted, then many of the rulings of sharee‘ah would be rendered invalid. If this idea is rejected then the idea that ‘aqeedah cannot be proven on the basis of ahaad reports should also be rejected, because there is no difference between the two, as we have explained.
To sum up: If an ahaad report is supported by corroborating evidence which indicates that this is true, then it becomes part of knowledge and rulings of practice and belief may be established. There is nothing to indicate that there should be any differentiation between the two. Any person who suggests that any of the imams differentiated between them has to prove that with a sound chain of narration from that imam, then he has to explain his evidence.
4.Allah, may He be exalted, has enjoined referring to the people of knowledge for the one who is unaware of what is one of the most important issues of ‘aqeedah, which is Prophethood. Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And We sent not (as Our Messengers) before you (O Muhammad) any but men, whom We sent Revelation, (to preach and invite mankind to believe in the Oneness of Allaah). So ask (you, O pagans of Makkah) of those who know the Scripture [learned men of the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)], if you know not.
44. With clear signs and Books (We sent the Messengers)” [al-Nahl 16:43, 44]
This includes asking one or many. End quote. 
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him)

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.

Praise be to Allah.Atheism, in
modern terminology, means denying the Creator altogether, denying that He
exists and not acknowledging Him, may He be glorified and exalted. The
universe and everything in it, according to their claims, came about purely
by chance. This is a strange view which is contrary to sound human nature,
reason and logic, and is contrary to simple logic and indisputable facts.  
As for shirk
(polytheism or associating others with Allah), it implies belief in Allah,
may He be glorified and exalted, and affirmation of Him, but it also
includes belief in a partner to Allah in His creation, who creates or grants
provision or brings benefit or wards off harm. This is shirk al-ruboobiyyah
(ascribing partners to Allah in His Lordship). Or it means belief in a
partner to whom some kind of worship is devoted as an act of love and
veneration, as it is devoted to that person or thing as it should to devoted
to Allah, may He be glorified and exalted. This is shirk al-‘ibaadah
(associating others with Allah in worship). By studying these two
deviations, we may see that each of them involves sin and evil which tells
us that they are bad and we see how Allah described them as being like dumb
animals. 
Allah says
(interpretation of the meaning):
“Have you
(O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) seen him
who has taken as his ilaah (god) his own vain desire? Would you then be a
Wakeel (a disposer of his affairs or a watcher) over him?
44. Or do
you think that most of them hear or understand? They are only like cattle
nay,
they are even farther astray from the Path (i.e. even worse than cattle)”

[al-Furqaan 25:43-44] 
“And
surely, We have created many of the jinn and mankind for Hell. They have
hearts wherewith they understand not, and they have eyes wherewith they see
not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like
cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones”

[al-A’raaf 7:179].

Nevertheless, the atheist who denies the existence of Allah and rejects His
Messengers and disbelieves in the Last Day, is in a greater state of kufr
and his beliefs are more reprehensible than the one who believes in Allah
and the Hereafter, but he associates something of His creation with Him. The
former is stubborn and arrogant to an extent that can not be imagined or
accepted by sound human nature. Such a person would transgress every sacred
limit and fall into every sin; his worldview would be distorted to an
inconceivable level. Yet many scholars who discussed the issue of atheism
doubted that this has deep roots in the hearts of the atheists, and they
affirmed that the atheist is only professing atheism outwardly; deep down he
believes in one God. 
Shaykh
al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said a great deal which indicates that this group of
atheists who deny and reject the existence of God are in a worse state of
kufr than the mushrikeen who associate partners with Him. We will quote a
little of what we have come across: 
He (may
Allah have mercy on him) said: Kufr (disbelief) means not believing in Allah
and His Messengers, whether it involves rejecting or it consists of doubt
and uncertainty about the issue or ignoring the issue altogether, out of
envy or arrogance or following whims and desires that divert a person from
following the Message. However, the kaafir who rejects and disbelieves is in
a state of greater kufr, although the one who rejects and denies out of
envy, even though he believes that the Messengers brought the message of
truth, is also in a state of kufr. End quote. 
Majmoo’
al-Fataawa, 17/291 
He also
said: 
The one who
denies the Hereafter but believes that this universe is created is described
by Allah as a kaafir. The one who denies it and says that this universe
existed from eternity is a worse kaafir in the sight of Allah, may He be
exalted. End quote. 
Majmoo’
al-Fataawa, 17/291 
He said (may
Allah have mercy on him) refuting those who deny the Divine attributes: 
(Denying the
Divine attributes) implies complete denial which reaches the point that
says: There is nothing that must exist and cannot have not existed. If he
believes that and says: I do not affirm either existence or non-existence,
then the answer to that is: Suppose you state that verbally and in your
heart you do not believe either of the two; rather you turn away from
knowing Allah and worshipping and remembering Him, so you never remember
Him, worship Him, call upon Him, put your hope in Him or fear Him; (in that
case) your denial of Him is worse than that of Iblees who (at least)
acknowledged Him. End quote. 
Majmoo’
al-Fataawa, 5/356. 
And he (may
Allah have mercy on him) said: 
The arrogant
one is the one who does not acknowledge Allah outwardly, like Pharaoh. He is
in a worse state of kufr than them (meaning the mushrik Arabs). Iblees, who
enjoins all of that and loves it and is too arrogant to worship his Lord and
obey him, is in a worse state of kufr than them (the mushrikeen), even
though he was aware of the existence and might of Allah, just as Pharaoh was
also aware of the existence of Allah. End quote. 
Majmoo’
al-Fataawa, 7/633 
He also
said:  
The view of
the philosophers — those who say that the universe is eternal and that it
is dependent on that which inevitably must exist — came from the minds and
hearts of those who worshipped heavenly bodies and made images of them on
Earth, such as Aristotle and his followers. This view is worse kufr and is
more misguided than that of the Arab mushrikeen who believed that Allah
created the heavens and the earth and everything between them in six days by
His will and power, but they attribute falsely without knowledge sons and
daughters to Him (cf. al-An’am 6:100) and joined others in worship with
Allaah, for which He had sent no authority (cf. Aal ‘Imraan 3:151).
Similarly, the permissive people, who do not believe in any command or
prohibition at all and refer to the Divine will and decree as an excuse for
their evil deeds, are worse off than the Jews, Christians and Arab
mushrikeen, because even though the latter are kaafirs, they still believe
in some kind of command and prohibition, and the promise and warning (i.e.,
the Hereafter), but they had partners with Allaah (false gods) who
instituted for them a religion which Allaah had not ordained (cf. al-Shoora
42:21), unlike the permissive people who ignore all laws altogether. They
are only pleased with whatever suits their whims and desires, and they get
angry on the basis of their whims and desires; they do not get pleased for
the sake of Allah, or angry for the sake of Allah, or love for the sake of
Allah, or hate for the sake of Allah; they do not enjoin that which Allah
has enjoined and they do not forbid that which Allah has forbidden, unless
that suits their whims and desires, in which case they do it for that
purpose and not as an act of obedience to their Lord. Hence they do not
denounce what takes place of kufr, evil doing and sin unless it goes against
their whims and desires, in which case they will denounce it, prompted by
their devilish nature and not prompted by sharee’ah and love of Allah. Hence
the devils plunge them deeper into error, and they never stop short (cf.
al-A’raaf 7:202), and the devils may show themselves to them and address
them and help them with some of their whims and desires, as the devils used
to do with the mushrikeen who worshipped idols. End quote. 
Majmoo’
al-Fataawa, 8/457-458. 
Shaykh Ibn
Baaz (may Allah be pleased with him) said: It is shirk to worship something
other than Allah completely; that may be called shirk or kufr. Whoever turns
away from Allah altogether and directs his worship to something other than
Allah, such as trees, rocks, idols, the jinn or some of the dead, those whom
they call awliya’ (“saints”), worshipping them or praying to them or fasting
for them, and forgetting Allah altogether — and this is the worst kind of
kufr and shirk. We ask Allah to keep us safe and sound. 
The same
applies to denying the existence of Allah and saying that there is no God
and life is material, like the Communists and atheists who deny the
existence of Allah. These are the worst disbelievers among mankind, the most
astray, the most involved in shirk and the most misguided. We ask Allah to
keep us safe and sound. End quote. 
Majmoo’
Fataawa Ibn Baaz, 4/32-33 
He also said
(may Allah have mercy on him): 
Meat
slaughtered by Communists is haraam and is like the meat of the Magians and
idol worshippers; in fact their meat is even more haraam, because their
degree of kufr is greater due to their atheism and denial of the Creator
(may He be glorified and exalted) and His Messenger, and other kinds of
kufr. End quote. 
Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn Baaz, 23/30 
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.
It was narrated by Abu Ya‘la
in his Musnad (2349), al-Laalkaa’i in Sharh I‘tiqaad Ahl as-Sunnah
(1576), Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Istidhkaar (2/154) via Mu’ammil ibn
Ismaa‘eel: Hammaad ibn Zayd told us: ‘Amr ibn Maalik an-Nukri told us,
from Abu’l-Jawza’, from Ibn ‘Abbaas – Hammaad said: I do not know but that
he attributed it to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
– he said: “The bonds of Islam and the foundations of the faith are three,
on which Islam is based; whoever forsakes one of them becomes a
disbeliever thereby whose blood may be shed. (They are) the testimony that
there is no God but Allah, the prescribed prayer, and fasting in
Ramadan.” 

This is a da‘eef (weak) hadeeth;
there are several problems with it: 

Firstly: Mu’ammil ibn Isma‘eel
has a poor memory. Abu Haatim said: He is sadooq and strictly adheres to the
Sunnah, but makes many mistakes. Al-Bukhaari said: his hadeeth is to be
rejected. Abu Zar‘ah said: there are many mistakes in his hadeeth.

Mizaan al-I‘tidaal
(4/228) 

Secondly: it is mawqoof.
Someone who is more trustworthy disagreed with it and ended the isnaad with
Ibn ‘Abbaas. 

Ibn Rajab said: 

It was narrated by Qutaybah
from Hammaad ibn Zayd, who narrated it as a mawqoof hadeeth, and left it
incomplete and cut it short. 

It was also narrated by Sa‘eed
ibn Zayd – the brother of Hammaad – from ‘Amr ibn Maalik in a marfoo‘ report
(i.e., attributed to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him)). 

The more correct view is that
it is mawqoof and the isnaad ends with Ibn ‘Abbaas. 

End quote from Fath al-Baari
(1/23-24) 

Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah
have mercy on him) said: 

It is most likely that this
hadith, if it has a basis that was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas, is mawqoof and
the isnaad ends with him. Hammaad ibn Zayd was hesitant about attributing it
to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Yes, S ‘eed ibn
Zayd, the brother of Hammaad, confirmed that it is to be attributed to the
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), but this Sa‘eed cannot
be taken as an authority, as as-Sa‘di said. An-Nasaa’i and others said: He
is not qawiy (strong).

End quote from Silsilah al-Ahaadeeth
ad-Da‘eefah (1/212). 

Thirdly: ‘Amr ibn Maalik an-Nukri
was not regarded as trustworthy by anyone except Ibn Hibbaan. He is one of
the unknown narrators, because Ibn Hibbaan (may Allah have mercy on him) was
lenient in regarding narrators as trustworthy, but despite that he said in
his biography of him: His hadeeth, other than those narrated from him by his
son, are regarded as containing errors and being odd.

See: at-Tahdheeb (8/96) 

Therefore this hadeeth is
da‘eef and is not saheeh in any report, whether it is attributed to the
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) or otherwise. It was
classed as da‘eef by al-Albaani in ad-Da‘eefah (94). 

Even if we were to assume that
it is proven, it is to be understood – with regard to things other than the
prayer – as being a stern warning and that the disbelief mentioned is a
lesser kind of disbelief (minor kufr), or it is to be understood as
referring to the one who thinks it is permissible not to do these things. 

Ibn Rajab said:

Ibn ‘Abbaas regarded forsaking
these pillars of Islam as constituting disbelief, but in some cases it is
disbelief that makes shedding blood permissible, and in other cases it is
not. This indicates that in some cases disbelief puts one beyond the pale of
Islam, and in other cases it does not. 

Most of the scholars of hadeeth
are of the view that abandoning prayer constitutes disbelief, unlike other
pillars of Islam. This was narrated from them by Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Marwazi
and others.

End quote from Fath al-Baari
(1/25) 

Al-Mannaawi (may Allah have
mercy on him) said:

This hadeeth is more akin to a
warning and highlights the seriousness of the matter, or may be understood
as referring to the one who regards it as permissible to abandon these
pillars.

End quote from Fayd al-Qadeer
(4/311) 

Secondly: 

It was narrated by Imam Ahmad
(25121), Abu Ya‘la (4566), and al-Haakim (49) from ‘Aa’ishah that the
Messenger of Allah (blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “There
are three things I swear to: Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, does
not regard one who has a share in Islam like one who does not have a share.
The shares of Islam are three: prayer, fasting and zakaah. Allah, may He be
glorified and exalted, does not take care of anyone in this world then
abandon him to someone else on the Day of Resurrection. And no man loves
people but Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, will join him to them.
And there is a fourth thing – if I swear to it, I hope that I will not be
sinning: Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, does not conceal a person’s
faults in this world but He will also conceal his faults on the Day of
Resurrection.” 

It was classed as saheeh by al-Haakim.
Al-Haythami said:

It was narrated by Ahmad and
its men are thiqaat (trustworthy). It was also narrated by Abu Ya‘la.

End quote from Majma‘
az-Zawaa’id (1/37) 

Al-Busayri said in Ithaaf
al-Kheerah (1/102): Its isnad is jayyid 

It was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani
in as-Saheehah (1387) 

This is the correct view. As
for the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas, it is da‘eef and is not saheeh as either a
marfoo‘ report or a mawqoof report, as stated above, so it cannot be quoted
as evidence. 

See also the answer to question
no. 9400 and 106481

And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.The ruler who does not rule according to the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger should be obeyed in matters that do not involve disobedience towards Allaah and His Messenger, and it is not obligatory to fight him because of that; rather it is not permissible to do so unless he reaches the level of kufr, in which case it becomes obligatory to oppose him and he has no right to be obeyed by the Muslims. 
Ruling according to anything other than that which is in the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger reaches the level of kufr when two conditions are met:
1.When he knows the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger; if he is unaware of it, then he does not commit kufr by going against it.
2.When what makes him rule by something other than that which Allaah has revealed is the belief that it is a ruling that is not suitable for our time and that something else is more suitable than it and more beneficial for people.
If these two conditions are met, then ruling by something other than that which Allaah has revealed constitutes kufr which puts a person beyond the pale of Islam, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the Kaafiroon (i.e. disbelievers)” [al-Maa’idah 5:44]. The authority of the ruler becomes invalid and he has no right to be obeyed by the people; it becomes obligatory to fight him and remove him from power. 
But if he rules by something other than that which Allaah has revealed whilst believing that ruling by that – i.e. that which Allaah has revealed — is what is obligatory, and that it is more suitable for the people, but he goes against it because of some whims and desires on his part or because he wants to wrong the people under his rule, then he is not a kaafir; rather he is a faasiq (evildoer) or a zaalim (wrongdoer). His authority remains, and obeying him in matters that do not involve disobedience to Allaah and His Messenger is obligatory, and it is not permissible to fight him or remove him from power by force or to rebel against him, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) forbade rebelling against rulers unless we see blatant kufr for which we have proof from Allaah. End quote.

Praise be to Allah.Firstly:
These words that are attributed to Ja‘far as-Saadiq refer to the passage in which Allah, may He be exalted, tells us the story of the believer of the household of Pharaoh and what he said to his people:
“ ‘And you will remember what I [now] say to you, and I entrust my affair to Allah. Indeed, Allah is Seeing of [His] servants.’
So Allah protected him from the evils they plotted, and the people of Pharaoh were enveloped by the worst of punishment”
[Ghaafir 40:44-45].
Shaykh Muhammad al-Ameen ash-Shinqeeti (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The words of Allah, may He be exalted, in this passage: “ ‘…and I entrust my affair to Allah. Indeed, Allah is Seeing of [His] servants.’ So Allah protected him from the evils they plotted” clearly indicate that sincerely relying on Allah and entrusting one’s affairs to Him are a means of being protected from all ills.
This verse indicates that Pharaoh and his people wanted to plot against this believer, and that Allah protected him and saved him from the harm of their plotting and scheming to cause trouble to him, because of his reliance upon Allah and his entrusting his affairs to Him.
End quote from Adwa’ al-Bayaan (7/96-97).
This verse is like another verse (interpretation of the meaning):
“Those to whom hypocrites said, ‘Indeed, the people have gathered against you, so fear them.’ But it [merely] increased them in faith, and they said, ‘Sufficient for us is Allah , and [He is] the best Disposer of affairs.’
So they returned with favor from Allah and bounty, no harm having touched them. And they pursued the pleasure of Allah , and Allah is the possessor of great bounty”
[Aal ‘Imraan 3:173-174].
Entrusting one’s affairs to Allah, may He be exalted, means relying on Allah alone.
At-Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The words “and I entrust my affair to Allah” mean: I submit my affairs to Allah and leave them to Him, and I rely on Him, for He will suffice the one who puts his trust in Him.
End quote from Tafseer at-Tabari (20/335).
Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
“and I entrust my affair to Allah” means: and I rely on Allah and seek His help.
End quote from Tafseer Ibn Katheer (7/146).
Secondly:
Entrusting one’s affairs to Allah, may He be exalted, and relying on Him is something that is required in all one’s affairs, both religious and worldly. This is enjoined in many texts, such as the following:
“And upon Allah rely, if you should be believers”
[al-Maa’idah 5:23]
“…and rely upon Allah. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs”
[an-Nisa’ 4:81]
“And to Allah belong the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth and to Him will be returned the matter, all of it, so worship Him and rely upon Him. And your Lord is not unaware of that which you do”
[Hood 11:123]
“And rely upon the Ever-Living who does not die”
[al-Furqaan 25:58].
The point is that entrusting one’s affairs to Allah with regard to raising children means relying on Allah, may He be exalted, and turning to Him to achieve this goal. Entrusting all one’s affairs to Him is something good and is something that one is required to do. Relying on Allah is one of the most important acts of worship.
But relying on Allah and entrusting one’s affairs to Him in the correct sense must be accompanied by taking permissible measures, as is indicated in the hadith of Anas ibn Maalik, who said: A man said: O Messenger of Allah, should I tie up [my camel] and rely on Allah, or should I leave it loose and rely on Him? He said: “Tie it up and rely [on Allah].”
Narrated by at-Tirmidhi (2517); classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh Sunan at-Tirmidhi (2/610).
Al-Mubaarakfoori (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
With regard to the words “Tie it up”, it says in al-Qaamoos that tying up a camel means hobbling it by tying its foreleg up. “Rely” means rely on Allah after tying up the camel.
“or leave it loose” means leaving it untied.
“He said: ‘Tie it up…’” – al-Minnaawi said: That is, tie up your camel’s foreleg with a rope. “And rely” that is, depend on Allah. That is because tying it up is not contrary to relying on Allah.
End quote from Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi (7/186).
The one who truly relies on Allah takes the prescribed measures, especially if they are obligatory.
Ibn Rajab (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
It should be understood that truly relying on Allah does not cancel out taking the measures by means of which Allah, may He be glorified, causes to happen what He has decreed; this is the way that Allah has ordained for His creation, for Allah, may He be exalted, has enjoined us to take measures, yet he has also enjoined us to rely on Him. So striving to take measures is an act of obedience to Him, and relying in our hearts on Him is an act of faith in Him.
Moreover, the deeds that a person does are of three types, one of which is:
Acts of obedience that Allah has enjoined upon His slaves and has made the means of salvation from hell and admittance to paradise. These deeds must be done whilst relying on Allah and seeking His help to do them, for there is no power and no strength except in Him; whatever He wills happens and whatever He does not will does not happen.
Whoever falls short in anything that Allah has enjoined upon him is deserving of punishment in this world and in the hereafter.
End quote from Jaami‘ al-‘Uloom wa’l-Hikam (2/498-499).
Upbringing of children must combine reliance upon Allah, may He be exalted, with taking of appropriate measures and using different valid approaches in child-rearing, as Allah has enjoined. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O you who have believed, protect yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is people and stones, over which are [appointed] angels, harsh and severe; they do not disobey Allah in what He commands them but do what they are commanded”
[at-Tahreem 66:6].
Shaykh Muhammad al-Ameen ash-Shinqeeti (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The man is enjoined to instruct his family – such as his wife, children and so on – to do what is right and proper and forbid them to do what is wrong and evil, because Allah, may He be exalted, says “O you who have believed, protect yourselves and your families from a Fire…” And the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Each of you is a shepherd, and each of you is responsible for his flock…”
End quote from Adwa’ al-Bayaan (2/209).
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.Firstly:
What is required of the Muslim is to understand and believe in Tawheed (the Oneness of Allah) and to follow the Qur’an and Sunnah according to the understanding of the righteous early generations (salaf), and to avoid innovation (bid‘ah) and its people. The Sufi tariqahs (paths) come under the heading of people of innovation, so the Muslim should keep away from their path and not follow in their footsteps.
Secondly:
It is not permissible to take the issue of calling a Muslim a disbeliever (kaafir) or an evildoer (faasiq) lightly, because that comes under the heading of fabricating lies against Allah and fabricating lies against His Muslim slaves. It is not permissible to call a Muslim a disbeliever or an evildoer unless he commits that which would support that appellation in word or deed, based on clear evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Moreover, it is not permissible to call him a disbeliever or evildoer until all conditions required for calling him such are met, and all impediments to that are absent.
One of those conditions is that he should be aware that his words and practice contradict the teachings of Islam, which led to him becoming a disbeliever or evildoer.
One of the impediments to that is if he bases his action on a misinterpretation, or he may have some specious argument that he thinks provides evidence for his practice, or he is in such a situation that he cannot understand the shar‘i evidence in a proper manner. A person can only be deemed a disbeliever after there is certainty that he is deliberately going against the teachings of Islam and he is not ignorant of the issue.
For more information on the guidelines on whether or not a person may be deemed a disbeliever, please see the answer to question no. 85102.
Thirdly:
The correct view with regard to the issue of ignorance and whether ignorance is a valid excuse is that if a Muslim is proven to be a Muslim, he cannot be stripped of this description on the basis of mere doubt; rather he cannot be stripped of this description except on the basis of certainty and after establishing proof against him in such a way that leaves him with no excuse.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
If we do not describe as a disbeliever one who worships the idol  on the grave of ‘Abd al-Qaadir or worships the idol on the grave of Ahmad al-Badawi [the “idols” in question are structures over the graves, to which some people devote practices that constitute worship], and the like, because of their ignorance and because there is no one who ever alerted them to their mistake, then how could we regard as a disbeliever one who never associated anything with Allah if he does not migrate to us, or if he does not regard others as disbelievers and fight them? “Exalted are You, [O Allah]; this is a great slander” [an-Noor 24:16].
End quote from ad-Durar as-Saniyyah (1/104)
it is well-established that basically these non-Arabs have grown up in countries and societies where ignorance of many of the rulings and teachings of Islam is the norm, especially with regard to issues having to do with the Sunnahs and also the foundations of Tawheed. Rather they believe in general terms, but are ignorant of many of the details.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Regarding someone as a disbeliever is like a warning of hellfire, even if it is because the one who is so described is saying something that implies rejection of what the Messenger taught; that man may be new in Islam, or may be living in the wilderness, far from centres of teaching.
Such a person should not be deemed a disbeliever for something he rejected of the teachings of Islam until proof has been established in his case. A man may not have heard of some particular text, or he may have heard of it but it was not proven to him to be sound and correct, or he may have already some idea established in his mind that contradicts the text and so he misinterpreted the text.
I always remember the hadith in as-Saheehayn about the man who said: “…When I die, burn me then crush (my bones), then scatter me in the wind and in the sea, for by Allah, if Allah grasps hold of me, He will punish me as He has never punished anyone. They did that to him, then He said to the land: Return what you have taken, and he was standing there. Then He said to him: What made you do what you did? He said: Fear of You, O Lord. And Allah forgave him because of that.”
This was a man who doubted the might of Allah, and doubted that He would be able to bring him back to life after his ashes were scattered; in fact he believed that he would not be resurrected, which constitutes disbelief according to the consensus of the Muslims. But he was ignorant and did not know that, yet he was a believer who feared that Allah would punish him, so Allah forgave him because of that.
If a person misinterprets a religious text when he is qualified to engage in ijtihad and is keen to follow the Messenger, it is more appropriate that he should be forgiven than someone like the person who is mentioned in the hadith.
End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (3/231).
He also said:
Many people may grow up in places and times where there is not much left of knowledge of the revelations of Allah, to the extent that there is no one left who can teach others that with which Allah sent His Messenger of the Book and wisdom, so they do not know much of that with which Allah sent His Messenger, and there is no one there to teach them that. Such people cannot be deemed disbelievers. Therefore the leading scholars were unanimously agreed that whoever grew up in the wilderness, far away from people of knowledge and faith, and is new in Islam, if he rejects some of these well-known, mutawaatir rulings of Islam, he is not to be deemed a disbeliever until he learns the message with which the Messenger was sent.
End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (11/407).
Their merely knowing a translation of the meanings of the Qur’an is not enough; rather even if they are able to read it in Arabic, that is not enough. How many of those who speak Arabic and have some knowledge of the language still cannot understand from reading the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah that what they are doing is wrong or invalid, or whether it is shirk or not.
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Al-Ghazaali said in his book at-Tafriqah bayna al-Eemaan wa’z-Zandaqah: What we must be very careful not to do is to call people disbelievers, and we should avoid that as much as possible, for the error in not labelling one thousand disbelievers as a disbelievers is less grave than the error of shedding the blood of one Muslim.
End quote from Fat-h al-Baari (12/300).
What the questioner in this case should do is strive to call his relatives and acquaintances by teaching them true Tawheed and Sunnah, and bearing with patience their offence, rejection and harshness. The greatest attitude that he can have towards people is as Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And who is better in speech than one who invites to Allah and does righteousness and says, “Indeed, I am of the Muslims’?
And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend.
But none is granted it except those who are patient, and none is granted it except one having a great portion [of good].
And if there comes to you from Satan an evil suggestion, then seek refuge in Allah . Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Knowing”
[Fussilat 41:33-36].
See also the answer to question no. 111362
And Allah knows best.