Please read the introduction to this section.
There are various proofs indicating that a Muslim will be under an excuse if he falls into a mistake or an act of ignorance in any of the matter whereby he opposes Allâh; there is no difference in that whether the matter is of creed or an ordinary act, this is because we are not aware of any clear proof distinguishing a mistake in an ordinary act from a mistake in ‘Aqeedah. What we have come across in what has been written by people who say a different thing in this matter is of no worth because of its lack of proof whereby a mistake or act of ignorance with respect to the creed is disntisguidhed from that of the ordinary act.
Allâh the Mighty said:
وَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ فِيمَا أَخْطَأْتُمْ بِهِ وَلَكِنْ مَا تَعَمَّدَتْ قُلُوبُكُمْ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا
‘…and there is no sin on you if You make a mistake therein, except In regard to what Your hearts deliberately intend. And Allâh is ever OftForgiving, Most Merciful.’ [Al-Ahzaab: 5]
He the Mighty also said:
رَبَّنَا لَا تُؤَاخِذْنَا إِنْ نَسِينَا أَوْ أَخْطَأْنَا
"Our Lord! Punish us not if we forget or fall into error..." 2: 286 That is what the author of the book, ‘Ilaanun-Nakeer ‘Alaa Ghulaatit-Takfeer,’ began the topic of ‘Excuse of ignorance’ with. The name of the writer of the book is Ash-Shaykh Ahmad bn Ibraaheem Abul-‘Aynayn who was a student of many of the scholars of the century such as al-Imaam al-Albaanee, al-Imaam Muqbil Al-Waadi’ee, and host of others.
Al-Imaam Muqbil Al-Waadi’ee said while making a comment on the book and other books of the author, said: ‘When I read his book, ’ ‘Ilaanun-Nakeer ‘Alaa Ghulaatit-Takfeer,’ I was very happy and I saw it a just and balanced book to the peak…’
The meaning of the title of the book is ‘Announcing Reproof for the Extremists who [Unjustly] Excommunicate the Muslims [from Islam].’
How many times does a mistake occur due to one’s ignorance? A puzzle for them.
The following are the proofs that there are excuses for ignorance or otherwise in the matters of creed or otherwise:
Aboo Waaqid al-Laythee reported that they came out from Makkah with the Messenger of Allâh (salaLlaahu ‘alayhi wa sallaam) to Hunayn; he said the Kuffar had a lot tree which they used to stay beside and hung their weapons; the name of the tree was Dhaat An’waat. He said: We then walked by the green mighty lote tree and we said: O Messenger of Allaah! Make our own Dhaat An’waat for us.
The Messenger of Allâh (salaLlaahu ‘alayhi wa sallaam) replied: ‘I swear by He in Whose Hands is my soul, you have said as the people of Moosa said “O Mûsa (Moses)! make for us an ilâhan (a god) as they have âliha (gods).”; indeed those are ways; you will indeed follow the tradition of those before you each by each.’
Al-Imaam Ahmad recorded the hadith (musnad 5/218) as well as al-Imaam At-Tirmidhee (2180); it was also recorded by several other collectors of hadith. In the hadith, it was very glaring that the Companions fell into an error of creed out of their ignorance but the Messenger of Allâh (salaLlaahu ‘alayhi wa sallaam) did not expel them from Islam; he gave them an excuse, and of course, taught them what was more correct.
Another proof: the two Imaams: al-Bukhaaree and Muslim recorded in their collections on the authority of Abû Hurairah (may Allaah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (salaLlaahu ‘alayhi wa sallaam) that there was a man who sinned against himself so when it was the time of his death, he said to his sons: When I die, burn me then grind me after which you can spread my ashes into the air. By Allâh, if Allâh were to catch me, He will me punish me so severely the way He will not punish others.’ So when the man died, the instruction he gave was carried out. Then Allâh commanded the earth thus: ‘gather what you contain of him.’ The earth did as was ordered. So the man stood (in front of Allâh). Allâh asked him: ‘Why did you do what you did?’ The man replied: ‘O Lord, out of Your fear!’ So Allâh forgave him. End of the hadith.
Scholars of the Deen say the man was, out of his ignorance, glaringly doubtful of Allah’s power to raise him if what he instructed was carried out. Yet Allâh forgave him.
Shaykhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah in Majmoo’ul-Fatawaa 11/407 said: ‘The man thought Allaah did not have the power to resurrect him whenever he was made to disperse as he had instructed. So he thought Allâh would not bring him back to account…but with his faith in Allâh as well as his belief in His Command and fear of Him, the man was ignorant regarding the matter, therefore he was astray as regard this thought yet Allâh forgave him!’
Nobody will dispute that fact except a person trained upon Greek and Roman Philosophy borrowed into Islam. May Allâh despise the noses of the Jabtawis if they say otherwise.
On the matter of Udhr Bil-Jahl, Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said also in Majmoo’ul-Fatawaa 11/407, inter alia: ‘Many people grew up in places and periods of time whereby the knowledge of Islam has dwindled such that there is none to spread the what Allâh has sent His Messenger with in the Book and Sunnah; many of those people will not know much of what the Messenger of Allâh has been sent with; this kind of a person is not to be declared as a Kaafir. This is the reason the people of knowledge have agreed that whoever grows up in a village far away from where the people of knowledge and faith are, and he is just new to Islam and later denies one of the clear and widely-believed rulings of Islam, such a person will not be declared a Kaafir until he knows what the Messenger of Allaah (salaLlaahu ‘alayhi wa sallaam) had come with. This is the reason the Messenger of Allâh (salaLlaahu ‘alayhi wa sallaam) has said: ‘A time will come upon the people whereby they will not know salaah nor zakaah nor fasting nor hajj, except an old man or an old woman who will say to the people: We met our fathers saying: Laa ilaa-ha illa Allaah’ and they would not know what is salaah nor zakaah nor hajj.’ He said: even no fasting yet they will be saved from the hell…’
[As if I can see the Jabtawis trying to say Shaykul-Islaam was a mur’ji!]
Shaykhu-Islaam also cited another long hadith (recorded by Muslim: 974) wherein Aaisha (may Allaah be pleased with her) asked the Messenger of Allâh (salaLlaahu ‘alayhi wa sallaam): ‘Does Allâh know what people hide?’ The Messenger of Allâh (salaLlaahu ‘alayhi wa sallaam) replied, ‘Yes!’ Shaykhul-Islam brought the hadith as a proof for excuse in matter of ignorance that has to do with the creed.
The question Aaisha asked, once again, is ‘does Allâh know what people hide?’ is that of ‘aqeedah or an ordinary statement?
O Allaah, we ask You for Your guidance.
Before you say Shaykhul-islaam was saying something else, hear his declaration:
‘The ignorant person and the person who made a mistake, if he carries out a kufr or shirk act, he will not become a mushrik or a kaafir, he will be excused due to his ignorance until the proofs of his errors will be made clear to him…’
He also said: ‘Al-Imaam Ahmad did not declare the khawaarij, the murji’ah and the qadariyyah as kuffaar what was rather reported from him and his like was that he declared the Jahmiyyah as kuffaar yet he did not declare specific persons among them as kuffaar. He did not declare whoever said: ‘I am a Jahmee’ as a kaafir rather he prayed behind Jahmis who called people to their thought; those who put test across to the people, who inflicted pains on whomever did not go along with their thought. Ahmad and his like did not declare them as Kuffaar rather he believed in their having belief (in Allâh in some other ways) and leadership, he would supplicate for them (being the rulers) and would complete his prayers behind them…’
What else do the Jabtawis want?
Some of the proofs of the Jabtawis-takfeeris and answers to them:
They do cite the Word of Allâh: ‘And (remember) when your Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their seed (or from Adam's loin his offspring) and made them testify as to themselves (saying): "Am I not Your Lord?" they said: "Yes! We testify," lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: "Verily, we have been unaware of this."
Or lest you should say: "It was only our fathers aforetime who took others as partners in worship along with Allâh, and we were (merely their) descendants after them; will you then destroy us because of the deeds of men who practised falsehood.’ They just follow some conjectures regarding the Verses. The Verses only establish the Knowledge and Power of Allâh, that He knew what would become of His Slaves. When He punishes them, He would do so with Justice because Allâh will not be unjust on the least.
They failed to grasp the meanings of the Verses that they are really against what they are upon. Allâh the Mighty Lord said about the people: ‘will you then destroy us because of the deeds of men who practised falsehood?’ Thus Allaah would not destroy them if they had acted rightly even though their fathers were polytheists but would punish them if they had done as their fathers did because the matter of Tauheed has been made very clear to them, so there will be no claim to ignorance here otherwise there would have been. As Allâh said that He sent the Messengers to explain the Tauheed so that people would not claim ignorance. He the Mighty said:
‘Messengers as bearers of good news as well as of warning In order that mankind should have no plea against Allâh after the Messengers. And Allâh is ever AllPowerful, AllWise.’ [Nisaa: 165]
He the Mighty also said:
“Whoever goes right, Then He goes Right Only for the benefit of his ownself, and whoever goes astray, Then He goes astray to his own loss. no one laden with burdens can bear another's burden. and we never Punish until we have sent a Messenger (to give warning).” [Israa: 15]
He the Mighty also said:
“And if we had destroyed them with a torment before This (i.e. Messenger Muhammad and the Qur'ân), they would surely have said: "Our Lord! If only You had sent us a Messenger, we should certainly have followed Your Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), before we were humiliated and disgraced." [Ta-ha: 134].
Will they now understand?
They also cite the statement of the Messenger of Allâh (salaLlaahu ‘alayhi wa sallaam) to a Bedouin when he asked him: O Messenger of Allâh, where is my father?’ and the Messenger of Allâh (salaLlaahu ‘alayhi wa sallaam) replied: ‘Your father is in hell.’ When the man left in sadness, the Messenger of Allâh (salaLlaahu ‘alayhi wa sallaam) called him: ‘My father and your father are in hell.’
A hadith recorded by Muslim and other collectors.
Their point is that the ignorance of the parents of the Messenger of Allâh (salaLlaahu ‘alayhi wa sallaam) was no excuse for them. A good point you would say!
The hadith simply implies that the polytheists of Quraysh were not people upon al-Fitrah (the natural instinct); whoever did worship other deities with Allâh was guilty of shirk because they all knew the legacy left by Prophet Ibraaheeem and Ismaeel - alayhimas-Salaam.
Shaykhul-Islaam had explained the difference between the polytheists in the time of Jaahiliyyah and any Muslim who falls into some acts of Jaahiliyyah after Islam.
[The Prophet (salaLlaahu alahyi wa sallam) did say to Aboo Dharr because of a mistake the latter committed: ‘Indeed you are a person with traits of Jaahiliyyah!’]
Shaykhyul-Islaam said about the Mushrikoon of Jaahiliyyah: ‘They were upon misguidance, ignorance, shirk and evil.’
As for the Muslims who fall into acts of Jaahiliyyah: ‘If a Muslim commits any act of Jaahiliyyah such that he could be called a Kâfir, he will not be so-called until knowledge comes to him sufficiently as a proof.’
Like someone among the Jabtawis said Ash-Shaykh Muhammad bn Abdil-Wahaab too used to do general takfeer without any consideration for ignorance or otherwise. The Imaam answers them here:
‘Whatever you are told about me that I make general takfeer such is a big slander from the enemies.’
He also said: ‘As what some enemies say about me that I make takfeer upon mere suspicions or indicators, or that I make Takfeer of an ignorant person whom no proof has been established against, that is a big slander with which they wish to dissuade the people from the Deen of Allâh and His Messenger’s. ’
From the foregoing, it has become clear that ignorance is an excuse that can make us refrain from declaring a person a kaafir.
When ignorance will not be tenable as an excuse:
Scholars says whoever abuses Allâh or the Messenger or the whole Deen, or makes jest of any of them, or of anything revealed by Allâh, or upon His Messenger; ignorance is no excuse.
Allâh the Mighty said:
“If You ask them (about this), they declare: "We were Only talking idly and joking." say: "Was it at Allâh (عز و جل), and his Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and his Messenger that you were mocking?"
Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after you had believed. If we pardon some of you, we will punish others amongst you because they were Mujrimûn (disbelievers, polytheists, sinners, criminals, etc.). [At-Taubah: 65-66]
Yet Allâh the All-Forgiving said He would still forgive some people who fall into that category of sins. He the Mighty said: ‘…If we pardon some of you, we will punish others amongst you.’
The concept of the write-up is variously adapted from ‘Ilaanun-Nakeer ‘Alaa Ghulaatit-Takfeer.’ Pp.80-107. May Allaah reward the author of the book best.
We pray once again that Allâh should guide all of us, including the Jabatawis, to what is more correct.
The refutations continue, Insha Allaah, until the Deen is for Allâh alone.
