Philosophers and other thinkers who have a wrong idea of God s

ay that if God’s attributes were to make Him perfect, He would be perfect by means of something other than Himself, which would mean that He is imperfect in Himself. As they imply imperfection on God’s part, they claim, He cannot be said to have them.

Answering this objection we would say, as we have pointed out before, that there is a particular perfection only when it exists and exists without any defects. If this is true the objection that God would be imperfect would be correct only when it is meant that He would be imperfect without these attributes. It is just to avoid this conclusion that we have said that He must have attributes of perfection otherwise He would be imperfect.

But if it is meant that God becomes perfect through the attributes he takes up and is not perfect in His essence divested of those attributes we would say that this objection would hold only if we allow that an essence devoid of all attributes can exist out there, or that there can be a being out there perfect in himself but devoid of all attributes. But if any one of these possibilities is ruled out, He cannot be perfect without attributes. What, then, when both possibilities are ruled out? There is no perfect being in existence without attributes. We know of necessity that a being which is not living, knowing, powerful, hearing, seeing or speaking is not more perfect than one who is living, knowing, powerful, hearing, seeing and speaking.

It is evident to our reason that a being devoid of these attributes is certainly not equal to a being qualified with them, not to say more perfect than it. Our reason clearly pronounces that a being qualified with these attributes is more perfect. We know by necessity that perfection without attributes is inconceivable.

Again, the statement that God would then be perfect by something other than Himself is not correct, for we do not say that God’s attributes are other than He. This is what leading Elders like Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal have said. it is also maintained by everyone who affirms God’s attributes, such as Ibn Al-Kullab and others. Some of them have put it in these words: “We do not say that they are not He, or that they are not other than He, nor do we combine the two negatives and say that they are neither one with Him nor other than He.” This the way a group of people including Al-Ash`arn have put the matter. I believe that Abu Al-Hasan AtTamimi”‘ has also.said it, or something very similar to it. Others, like Qadi Abu Bakr18 and Qadi Abu Ya`la, allow the use of either negative separately.

The reason we have these different formulations is that the word ghayr (‘other’) is ambiguous. It may mean something different from a thing, or what is not identical with it. When words are used without clarification they may give rise to various misconceptions. To turn to the issue, we would ask if the statement, “God would become perfect through something other Him” means that God would be perfect through something which is different and separate from Him, or does it mean that He would be perfect through an attribute which is part of His essence. If the first meaning is intended, it is certainly ruled out. But if the second is meant it is true, for you cannot have the Essence of God without having an attribute which is part of it. And this would mean perfection not through something different but through oneself.

Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and other leading affirmers of divine attributes like Ibn Al-Kullab and others have said that when one says: “Praise be to Allah,” or “I invoke Allah and worship Him,” or “by Allah,” the term Allah means His Essence qualified with His attributes, which are not addition to the Being, named by His beautiful names.

If you ask: are His attributes over and above His Essence? I would say: If you mean by Essence the Essence divested of attributes which the negators of attributes posit, then the attributes are over and above Essence. But if you mean by Essence the Essence that exists out there, it does not exist except with necessary attributes, and then the attributes are not over and above the Essence qualified with them, even though they are over and above it when divested of them in thought.

The Second Objection

If God had attributes which online pharmacy have an existence, He would have to depend upon them, and dependence is a defect. Answer to this objection:

It is objected that if God had attributes which have an existence, He would have to depend upon them, and they would depend upon Him and this would imply God’s dependence on something other than Himself. This objection assumes first the possibility of a substance wherein attributes exist, and second of an essence that may not have any attributes. If either of the two possibilities is rejected the objection will not stand. What if both of them are rejected? An essence devoid of all attributes is only a mental concept; it does not exist out there, just as being as such does not exist out there.

The word dhat is the feminine of dhu, which is not used except in a construct. People say “X is dhu `ilm wa qudrah,” that is, X has knowledge and power; or they say, “Nafs dhat `ilm wa qudrah,” that is, a soul having knowledge and power. Whenever dhu or dhat is used in the Quran or in the language of the Arabs, it is used in a construct, for example, “Fear Allah and set right dhat baynakum ” (8:1), that is, set right the relations between yourselves, or `God is aware of dhat as-sadur’ (5:7), things of the heart; or the word of Khubayb (raa), “This isfi dhat al-ilah ” that is, for the sake of God.

But when people started talking about it, they first said, “dhat `ilm wa qudrah,” that is, one having knowledge and power. Later on, they detached it from the construct and made it definite, adh-dhat, by adding to it the definite article. It is a new-fangled word, not found in the language of the ancient Arabs. That is why scholars like Abu Al-Fath Ibn Barh5n,19 Ibn Ad-Dahhan120 and others have said that it is not an Arabic word, although others like Qadi,121 Ibn `Agil121a and others, have defended its Arabic origin.

The truth is that the word is not found in classical Arabic and is newly coined, as many other words such as al-mawjud, the existent; al-mdhiyyah, the essence; al-kayjiyyah, nature or modality. The word involves the existence of an attribute to which it is ascribed. We say dhat `ilm, dhat qudrah, dhdt kalam, that is, one having knowledge or having power, or one that speaks. There cannot be a thing which exists out there unqualified by any attributes at all. To imagine such a thing is like imagining an accident existing by itself and not by any object. An accident that exists by itself or an attribute that exists by itself, are impossible. Every object must have some attributes, and every attribute must have some object existing in itself of which it is predicated.

That is why even the opponents admit that they do not know of any object existing in itself which does not have attributes, whether they call it a substance (jawhar) or a body (jism) or any other name. They admit that the existence of a substance without any attributes is impossible. Hence, if you imagine something that does not have any attributes, you are imagining something which is not known to exist out there or which cannot possibly exist out there. Why then about something which we definitely know is impossible to exist there outside the mind? Like those who deny the existence of divine attributes, the upshot of all that they say is that God does not exist out there and exists only in mind. We can have an idea of them in mind as we can have ideas of things which are impossible, which neither exist nor can be imagined to exist out there.

Again, if it is possible for God to have attributes, and what is possible for Him is in fact necessary to Him, it means that He cannot be without the attributes of perfection. Hence, to think of Him as an essence without attributes that are essential and necessary to Him is to think of an impossibility. Now, when this idea is ruled out in general and in particular, the objection that God would be dependent on the attributes and they would be dependent on Him can only be raised against those things which may be thought to exist without the existence of the other. Since this is impossible, the objection does not hold.

We may also ask what you mean by dependence? Do you want to say that the divine Essence brings into being the attributes or originates them or vice-versa? Or do you mean that they necessarily imply each other, that is one cannot exist without the other? If you mean the first, i.e. the dependence of an object on its agent, it is ruled out; “God does not bring His attributes into being which are essential to Him, nor is He their agent or doer. To be sure, no act which He does, and no object which His action brings into being is necessary to Him. But His attributes are not the things He does, nor the objects He brings into being; they are part of His essence and necessary to Him.

If you have the second meaning in mind, that is, the mutual implication between God’s essence and His attributes is correct, it is like saying that there is nothing that exists by itself which is not also eternal or necessary in itself, or that there is no one knowing and powerful who is not living. Now, if His attributes are necessary to His essence, it will make Him more perfect than when they are not necessary to Him and exists without the attributes of perfection, perfection not being necessary for Him, but only possible, and in that case He would be needing someone else to bring it into being, which would be a defect. Hence, this must be ruled out. It follows, then, that the mutual implication between the Essence and the attributes of perfection is the consummation of divine perfection.

The Third Objection.

Attributes are accidents which exist only in a composite body, and a composite being is contingent and dependent. This would imply a defect on the part of God. Refutation of the objection:

It has been said that attributes are accidents, that accidents only exist in a composite body, that whatever is composite is contingent and dependent, hence to affirm attributes is to impute defects to God.

People who affirm the existence of divine attributes have taken three positions on the issue whether the term accident (`ard) can be applied to divine attributes. Some deny that they are accidents; they say that they are attributes, not accidents. This is the view of Al-Ash`ari, and of many scholars offiqh from among the followers of Allmad and other masters. Others, like Hisham122 and Ibn Karr5m,123 call them accidents. A third group neither denies nor affirms that they are accidents; they pursue the same line as they have done in the case of words like “other” (ghayr) or “body”…

People have similarly differed regarding the term body (jism). In Arabic, jism sometimes means badan orjasad the body of a living being as many scholars of language as Al-Asma`i,’24 Abu Zayd,125 and others have mentioned. From among the theologians, some mean by that term a composite being, and apply it to atoms in combinations of two, four, six, eight, sixteen or thirty-two, or to a composite of matter and form; others apply it to anything that exists or that exists in itself. Both these groups use the term for particular beings as well as for general things.

Since the term means many things, some of which are correct and others incorrect, it is ambiguous. In such cases we have to determine the meaning before we can pursue the discussion. We must ask: What do you mean when you say that the attributes are accidents? Do you mean to say that they exist in something, or that they are attributes of something, or the like? Which answer is correct? Or do you mean to say that they are flaws or defects? Or do you mean to say that they appear and disappear and never survive for two moments? If you mean the first, it is correct; if you mean the second, it is ruled out; and if you mean the third, the answer may vary. One who says that accidents do not persist for a second moment while he believes that attributes persist will not call them accidents. But one who says that accidents persist for a second moment does not desist from calling them accidents.

One may say that an accident does not exist except in a body. We say: You believe, on the one hand, that God is living, knowing and powerful, and on the other, that these names apply only to a body, just as those attributes which you call accidents apply to none but a body. Now the plea that you offer for justifying the application of the names can be offered by the affirmers of attributes for attributes themselves. We further ask: What do you mean by saying that these attributes are accidents and that they exist only in a (composite) body? Do you mean by a composite body something which is first divided into parts and then assembles itself, or is assembled by someone, or which is divisible and breakable into parts one part from the other; or which is formed of indivisible atoms; or which consists of matter and form; or which is something that can be pointed to; or which exists in itself; or which is simply existing? If you mean the first, we would not accept that divine attributes, which you call accidents, do not exist except in a body as you understand the term. But if you mean the second, we will not accept that it follows thereby that He is a composite being, for God exists in Himself, and He can be pointed to, in our opinion. Hence we cannot accept this charge.

To those who understand the composite in the senses noted above, such as assembling oneself after being divided, or being assembled by someone, or being divisible, we say that we do not accept the first premise of the argument, namely that God is a composite being in these senses. But if you mean by the composite. that which can be pointed to, or that which exists in itself and is qualified with attributes, we do not accept the second premise (that whatever is composite is contingent or imperfect). You may see now that when the objection is analyzed, one of the premises or both are refuted, and when one of the premises is refuted the whole argument falls apart.

Author: Ibn Taymiyyah

Islamic Topic: Allah Attributes

Source: Book: [Fatawa 6:95-97, Fatawd 6:98-101 , Fatawa 6:102-104] / Also mentioned in “Ibn Taymiyyah Expounds on Islam”

Other Sources:

Meanings of Allah’s names and attributes

Audio with attributes of Allah

Names and attributes of Allah

A compilation of Allah’s names and attributes

[1] (V.6:31) Narrated Abu Mûsâ The Prophet said, “Whoever loves the Meeting with Allâh, Allâh too loves the Meeting with him; and whoever hates the Meeting with Allâh, Allâh too hates the Meeting with him.” (Sahih Al-Bukhâri, Vol.8, Hadîth No.515).

[1] (V.19:96) Narrated Abu Hurairah The Prophet said, “If Allâh loves a person, He calls Jibrîl (Gabriel) saying: Allâh loves so and so; O

Jibrîl (Gabriel) love him.’ Jibrîl (Gabriel) would love him, and then Jibrîl (Gabriel) would make an announcement among the residents of the heavens, ‘Allâh loves so-and-so, therefore, you should love him also.’ So, all the residents of the heavens would love him and then he is granted the pleasure of the people of the earth.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, Hadith No. 66).

Other Resources:

Hadith about Backbiting

Allah says in the Quran in Surah Al-Hujarat:

“O you who believe! Avoid much suspicions, indeed some suspicions are sins. And spy not, neither backbite one another. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? You would hate it (so hate backbiting) . And fear Allah. Verily, Allah is the One Who accepts repentance, Most Merciful.” Quran [Surah Al-Hujarat (12)]

It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do you know what gheebah (backbiting) is?” They said, “Allaah and His Messenger know best.” He said, “Saying something about your brother that he dislikes.” It was said, “What if what I say about my brother is true?” He said, “If what you say is true then you have backbitten about him, and if it is not true, then you have slandered him.”

Narrated by Muslim, 2589

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said:

Whoever wrongs a person by slandering him, backbiting about him or insulting him, then repents, Allaah will accept his repentance, but if the one who was wronged finds out about that, he has the right to

settle the score. But if he slandered him or backbit about him and the person did not hear of that, then there are two views according to the scholars, both of which were narrated from Ahmad, the more correct of which is that he should not tell him that he spoke against him in his absence. It was said that he should rather speak well of him in his absence just as he spoke badly of him in his absence, as al-Hasan al-Basri said: the expiation for gheebah is to pray for forgiveness for the person about whom you backbit.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 3/291

Other Resources:

Hadith about Love

Surah Yasin Verse 36

Verse 36: “Glory be to Him,

Who has created all the pairs of that which the earth produces, as well as of their own (human) kind (male and female), and of that

which they know not. ”

Verse 40: “It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in

an orbit. “

Back to Surah Yaseen

Verse 12: “Verily, We give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before (them), and their traces (their footsteps and walking on the earth with their legs to the mosques for the five compulsory congregational prayers, Jihad (struggle in Allahs Cause) and all other good and evil they did, and that which they leave behind),

and all things We have recorded with numbers (as a record) in a Clear Book.”

Back to Surah Yaseen

Islamic Books

The Description of Prayer and Purification

Fortification of The Muslim

Purification of the Soul

O Allah, Forgive Me!

Tears of Hope: Benefits of Repentance

Rationale & Benefits of Salat

Ruqyah Healing With The Quran

Surah Yasin

Verse

38

Verse 38: “And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed). That is the Decree of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing.”

Surah Yasin Verse 38

Back to Surah Yaseen

One of the principles of the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama`ah is that they offer the Friday prayer, the `id prayers, and the regular daily prayers, and never suspend them as do the proponents of bid’ah like the Rawafid and others. If the conduct of the imam is not known or his bid’ah or wickedness is not open, the Friday prayer and all daily prayers in assembly may be offered behind him. All the four imams of the Muslims as well as others are agreed on this point. None of them has ever said that salah is not valid except behind an imam whose private life is known. In fact, Muslims have been praying behind persons whose lives have not been known.

However, if salah is offered behind a person who is known to be guilty of bid `ah or an open sin (fajir) while an alternative imam is available, many scholars say that the salah of those who pray behind him will still be valid. This is the view of Ash-Shafi `I and Abu Hanifah, and this is also one of the two views ascribed to Malik and Ahmad. However, when there is no other alternative available and prayer has to be offered behind a heretic or a sinner (fdjir), as, for example when you do not get anyone other than a heretic or a sinner to lead the Friday prayer, and there is no other place where it is conducted, then you must offer the Friday prayer behind that heretic or sinner. This is the view of the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamd’ah in general. Abu Hanifah, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and all other imams of the Ahl as-Sunnah are agreed on this.

The Companions used to offer prayers behind those whose sins they were aware of. For example, `Abdullah Ibn Masud and other Companions prayed behind Al-Walid Ibn ‘Uqbah Ibn AbI Mu`It,788 who used to drink, and who once, while leading the Fajr prayer said four rak `dt, for which `Uthman Ibn `Affan punished him with lashes. `Abdullah Ibn `Umar and other Companions prayed behind Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf,’89 similarly, many Companions and Successors prayed behind Ibn Abi `Ubayd,790 who was charged with blasphemous views (ilhdd) and of preaching them.

No Muslim should be excommunicated on grounds of any sin or mistake in controversial issues which he commits. God has said, “The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believes in God, His angels, His books and His messengers. (They say): `We make no discrimination between one and another of His messengers.’ They say: `We hear and We obey. Your forgiveness, Lord (we seek), and to You is the end of our journey”‘

(2:285). A hadith in the Sahih collections says that in response to this prayer God forgives the mistakes of the faithful.791

The Prophet commanded fighting the Khawarij as they were renegades. Amir al-Mu’minin `Ali, one of the four rightly-guided caliphs, fought against them, and all the a ‘immah of the religion from among the Companions, the Successors and those that followed them were agreed upon fighting them, even then neither `Ali Ibn Abi Talib nor Sa’d Ibn Abi Waggas792 nor any other Companion declared them kafir. They waged war against them, but they treated them as Muslims. `Ali did not start war against them until they had shed the blood of Muslims and plundered their properties. He fought them only to save the Muslims from their atrocities and not because they were kafir. This is why he did not take their women captive or their properties as spoils. These were the people whom the Scripture and the consensus have declared wrong and mistaken, and whom God and His Messenger have commanded to fight. Even then they were not pronounced kafir. How then can those

be pronounced kafir who could not see the truth on issues in which people more learned than they went wrong! How would anyone of these groups be justified in calling the others kafir, or killing them or confiscating their property, even if they were guilty of a real bid’ah! How could it be when those who pronounce others to be kafir are also committing bid’ah, which is even worse than the bid’ah of others! The fact is that all of them are equally ignorant of the truth in the matters they debate.

The fundamental principle is that the life, property and honor of a Muslim are inviolable and cannot be taken by anyone except by the leave of God and His Messenger. In his farewell address on the occasion of hajj the Prophet said, “Your blood, your property, your honor, everything is sacred just as this day of yours, this city of yours and this month of yours are sacred.”793 He pronounced, “The whole of a Muslim is inviolable for another Muslim: his blood, his property, and his honor. ,794 He declared, “Whoever prays like us, faces our qiblah and eats of the animals we slaughter, is a Muslim and is under the protection of God and His Messenger.”795 He warned, “When two Muslims take out swords against each other, both the killer and the killed go to Hell.” People asked him, “This is true of the killer, but why of the one who is killed, Messenger of God?” He said, “He was trying to kill his companion.”796 He also issued these warnings: “After me don’t turn kafir, one killing the other;”797 and, “When one Muslim calls a brother Muslim kafir, one of the two is kafir. ,798 All these ahadith have been recorded in collections.

But when a Muslim fights a Muslim or calls him kafir in the light of his interpretation of a text, he will not be kafir. We know that when `Umar Ibn Al-Khattab said with regard to Hatib Ibn Al-Balta`ah, “Messenger of God, let me kill this hypocrite,” the Prophet said, “He participated in the battle of Badr. You don’t know if God has looked at the people of Badr and said: `Do whatever you like; I have forgiven you. “’799 This hadith has been mentioned in both Sahih collections. It has also been reported in them that Usayd Ibn Khudayr,800 said to Sa’d Ibn `Ubadah,801 “You are a hypocrite, you are defending hypotcrites!” Then there was a quarrel between them and the Prophet had to intervene and make peace between them. All of them had participated in the battle of Badr, but one called the other a hypocrite. However, the Prophet pronounced neither one nor the other kafir; on the contrary, he gave both of them the glad tidings of Paradise.802 We also have in the Sahihayn that `Usamah Ibn Zayd803 killed a man after he had confessed that there was no god except Allah. When the Prophet came to know of it he was shocked. He asked, “`Usamah, did you kill him after he had said `There is no god except Allah’?” and repeated the words time and again, till `Usamah cried out, “I wish I had embraced Islam only today.”804 But in spite of that the Prophet did not prescribe vengeance, or order any ransom, or any expiation, because `Usamah only erred in his judgment. He killed him because he thought he had made the confession only to save himself from his sword.

The Elders fought each other at the battles of the Camel, Siffin and other occasions. They all were Muslims and men of faith, as God has said, “If two parties from among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make peace between them. But if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, fight against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of God. If it complies make peace between them with justice and be fair, for God loves those who are fair (and just)” (49:9). Thus God has made it very clear that in spite of the fact that they fought each other and wronged each other, they were brother Muslims. He has further asked them to restore peace and amity between themselves and to live together with justice. This is why the Elders made peace among themselves and helped each other even if they had fought among themselves earlier. They did not treat each other like enemies as they did the infidels. They accepted the testimony of one for another, learned knowledge from one another, married among themselves, inherited from one another, and treated one another as Muslims even though they had fought and cursed each other earlier.

In the Sahih collections we have a hadith that Prophet prayed to his Lord not to destroy his ummah through a widespread famine, and God granted that; then he prayed to Him not to place over them an enemy from another people, and He granted that, to; but when he prayed to Him not to punish them at the hands of their own men, He did not grant that.805 Thus he told the ummah that God will not put over them enemies from other nations to suppress them, but they will themselves be killing and suppressing each other. The Sahihayn have also the hadith that at the revelation of the words, “Say: He has power to send calamities on you from above,” as well as the words, “from under your feet,” the Prophet sought protection in God. But at the last part of the verse, “or to cover you with confusion in party strife, giving you a taste of mutual vengeance, each from the other” (6:65), the Prophet said, “These two are lighter (punishments).”806

This is true in spite of the fact that God has commanded maintaining unity and solidarity and has forbidden indulgence in innovations and schisms. “Those who divide their religion,” He has said,  and break up into sects, you have no part in them in the least” (6:159). And the Prophet said, “You must stick to the community (jams `ah) for God’s hand is on the community.”807 And, Satan is close to one, but away from two.”808 “Satan is to a single person as a wolf is to lambs, and you see that the wolf readily pounces on a solitary lamb removed from the flock.”"

So whenever a Muslim passes through a city of the Muslims he should offer with them all the daily prayers, as well as the congregational prayer on Fridays, meet them like friends, not like enemies even if he finds some of them mistaken. If possible he should show them the right path and call them to truth. If they do not listen to him he will not be held responsible, for God charges a soul only with what he can do. Let him put on them, if he can, the best among them to lead their prayers, and let him check the spread of bid `ah and shameful practices among them. But if that is not possible let him offer salah behind one who is more learned in the Quran and the Sunnah and more obedient to God and His Messenger. The Prophet said, “From among the people the one should lead the salah who knows the Book of God most; if they are equal in it, then the one who knows the Sunnah most; if they are equal in it, too, then the one who has migrated first; and if they are equal in that also, then the one who is older than others.s810 However, if one thinks that one would do a better service if one shunned those who are committing bid `ah or evil one may do so. The Prophet dissociated himself from those three men who stayed behind (at the time of the campaign of Tabuk) till God turned to them with His mercy. However, if someone else is made imam of whom one does not approve, and if one does not expect greater good by abstaining from the Friday prayer or the daily prayers in assembly one will only be doing something rash and silly if one abstains, and will be countering one bid’ah through another bid `ah..

Author: Ibn Taymiyyah

Islamic Topic: The purpose of government

Source: Book: [Majmu `at ar-Rasd'il wa al-Masa'il 5: 198-202] / Also mentioned in “Ibn Taymiyyah Expounds on Islam”

Islamic Books and Resources on Prayers

Islamic Prayer Rugs

The Description of Prayer and Purification

Fortification of The Muslim

Purification of the Soul

Let’s Perfect Our Prayer

My Prayer Book

12 Dua’ Immortalized in the Quran

My Dua Book

The proof that the Co

mpanions did not declare the Khawarij kafir is that they offered salah behind them. `Abdullah Ibn `Umar and other Companions, for example, offered salah behind Najdah Al-Haruri.785 They discussed with them various issues, gave them their opinions on religious matters put to them, and addressed them as a Muslim addresses another Muslim. `Abdullah Ibn `Abbas, for example, would answer the questions which Najdah Al-Haruri sent to him. Al-Bukhari has recorded the hadith which Najdah has related. Similarly, Nafi` Ibn Al-Azrag786 answered many of his questions, and used to argue with him on different issues quoting from the Quran just as he did with any other Muslim. This was the practice of Muslims throughout the ages; they did not consider them apostates like those against whom Abu Bakr declared war. They did this even though the Prophet had commanded to fight them, as is reported in authentic ahadith. The hadith that they are the

worst people under the sky to be killed and that the men whom they kill are the best men, which Abu Umamah has reported and At-Tirmidhi has recorded,787 only means that they are more harmful to the Muslims than others. And it is true that they have done greater harm to the Muslims than the Jews and the Christians. They were zealous to kill any Muslim who did not agree with them, since they believed that it was quite lawful for them to take his life and property or kill his children, for he was a kafir in their view. They considered it to be an act of devotion, as they were immersed in ignorance and heresy. But in spite of that the Companions or their righteous Successors did not declare them kafir or apostate (murtadd), nor did they cause them any wrong in word or deed. They feared God with regard to them and were never unfair to them.

This was their practice with all the other exponents of bid `ah, the Shi’ah, the Mu’tazilah, and others. Hence, if anyone declares kafir any of the seventy-two sects, he goes against the Quran, the Sunnah and the Consensus of the Companions and their righteous Successors. It may also be noted that the hadith which speaks of seventy-two sects does not occur in the Sahihayn. Ibn Hazm and others consider it to be a weak hadith, others rate it as hasan, still others like Al-Hakim rate it as sahih, though the compilers of the Sunan collections mention more than one channel through which it has been transmitted. Furthermore, the words of the Prophet, “seventy-two of them will go to Hell and only one will be saved” are not stronger than many words of God such as “Those who unjustly eat up the property of the orphans eat up a fire into their own bodies, they will soon be entering a blazing Fire” (4:10); or, “If any do that in rancor and injustice soon shall We cast them into the Fire, and easy it is for God” (4:30). There are many such verses that threaten with Fire those who commit evil deeds, but they do not do so with regard to any particular person, for it is possible that he may repent or that his good deeds may outweigh his evil deeds, or that God may wash out his sin by subjecting him to one or another tribulation.

Author: Ibn Taymiyyah

Islamic Topic: The purpose of government

Source: Book: [Minhaj as-Sunnah 3:62] / Also mentioned in “Ibn Taymiyyah Expounds on Islam”

llow vain desires. The common element between them will he their deviance from the Quran, the Sunnah and the consensus (of the ummah). However, they will be a small minority. Ibn Taymiyyah was asked about the Prophet’s hadith, “My ummah will divide into seventy-three sects…” In reply he wrote: Praise be to God. This is an authentic and well-known (sahih wa mashhur) hadith, recorded in Sunan and Masanid collections, such as the . Sunan of Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa’i and others. It runs like this: “The Jews divided into seventy-one sects (flirgah), all of which will go to Hell except one; the Christians divided into seventy-two sects, all of which will go to Hell except one; this ummah will divide into seventy-three sects, all of which will go to Hell except one.”"9 In another version of the hadith the words are, “seventy-three millah, communities.”780 In a third version we also have this addition, “Some people asked the Prophet about the sect which will be saved. He said, “The one which will follow the way I and my companions follow today.i781 In a fourth version the last part is like this: “It will be the jams `ah, and the hand of God will be on the jams `ah.s782 This is the reason why the people that will be saved are called Ahl as-Sunnah wa a l Jams `ah, the People of the Sunnah and the Community. They will constitute the overwhelming majority and the common masses.

The remaining sects will expound strange views and heresies and will indulge in vain desires. But even taken together they will neither be equal to nor nearing the number of the people who will be saved. In fact, they will be very few; the common element between them that will distinguish them will be their deviation from the Quran, the Sunnah and the Consensus, for had they adhered to the Sunnah and Consensus, they would have been part of the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah.

As for the identification of these sects, a number of people have written on the subject and mentioned their names in their works on views and doctrines (magalat). But the point that a particular sect named by them is one of those seventy two deviant sects has to be proved. Let.us recall that God has forbidden saying anything without knowledge, particularly in matters like this. He has said, “Say: The things that my Lord has instead forbidden are shameful deeds, whether open or secret, sins and trespasses against truth or reason, assigning of partners to God, for which he has given no authority, and saying things about God of which you have no knowledge” (7:33). And, “You people! Eat of what is on earth lawful and good; and do not follow the footsteps of the Evil One, for he is to you an avowed enemy. He commands you what is evil and shameful, and that you should say of God that of which you have no knowledge” (2:168). Pursue not that of which you have no knowledge” (17:306).

Many people talk about these sects merely on the basis of conjectures and predilections. The sect they belong to or the people that follow their leaders, they call Ahl as-Sunnah wa a 1-Jams` ah, and those who oppose them, they call heretics. This is plainly wrong. For the people of Truth and Sunnah will have no leader other than the Prophet (pbuh), of whom God says, “He does not say anything of (his own) desire, (and) what he says is inspiration (wahi) which is sent down to him- (53:3). What he says is to be believed and what he commands is to be obeyed. No one else enjoys this position, and no one else is to be followed in all that he says. The Prophet (pbuh) is the only exception…

It is clear from this that the people who will be saved are the people of hadith and Sunnah, who do not have any leader other than the Prophet. Of all the people they are those who know his life and words best, who are aware which reports about him are authentic and which are not. Their scholars have a better knowledge and understanding of these things and follow them best. More than anyone else they believe in the Sunnah of the Prophet and act upon it, love those who love him, and oppose those who oppose him. They think over the issues in the light of the Quran and the wisdom (hikmah of the Prophet) and do not raise anything to the status of a principle or advocate it unless it is derived from what has come down from the Prophet. In fact they base their ideas and doctrines on the Quran and the wisdom that the Prophet has given. They refer the issues which people have debated, such as Divine attributes, fore-ordainment (qadr), reward and punishment, the interpretation of terms, the duty of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong… to God and His Prophet. The words that are ambiguous and have been interpreted in different ways by different people, they interpret in the sense which is closest to the Quran and Sunnah, and reject all the other senses which are opposed to them. They neither run after conjectures nor follow vain desires, for they believe that indulgence into conjecture is ignorance and pursuance of desires without any clear guidance from God is folly…

It may be noted, however, that those who follow one scholar or the other in matters regarding the principles of religion and theology (kalam) fall into different categories. Some oppose the Sunnah on major principles, others oppose the Sunnah on minor issues. Furthermore, it is possible that those who refute the views of others which are far more removed from the Sunnah than their own views may be right in what they say in refuting wrong doctrines or supporting the right ones, but they may have gone too far in their refutation and rejected some part of the truth and defended some untruth. That is to say, they may have a great heresy (bid `ah) through a lesser heresy and demolished a greater untruth through a lesser untruth. This is the condition of most of the theologians (ahl al-kalam) within the fold of the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah.

If people like these do not severe their relations from the Muslim community (jamd `at al-Muslimin) on the basis of the heresies they expound, taking them as the criterion for friendship or enmity, they are only guilty of saying something wrong. We hope that God will forgive mistakes like this and pardon those who commit them… But if they take as friends those who agree with them and as enemies those who disagree with them, and divide the Muslim community into their supporters and opponents, and call the latter kafir orfasiq even though they differ from them in matters in which opinions may differ, and think that they should fight them, they will then be called schismatic and secessionist.

That is why the first group of people who seceded from the Muslim community were the Khawarij; they went out of the boundaries of Islam… The hadith which we have about them has come down to us through ten different channels all of which have been noted by Muslim in his Sahih. Some of them have also been noted by Al-Bukhari in his Sahih. The Companions of the Prophet fought them under the command of Amir al-Mu’minin `Ali Ibn Abi Talib, and were one with regard to them… When they seceded from the Muslim community and

regarded its members as kafir and justified taking up the sword against them, the Prophet’s word about them proved true. He said, “You will look down upon your salah in comparison to their salah, your fasting in comparison to their fasting, and you reading the Quran in comparison to their reading. But they will read the Quran and their reading will not go down their throat. They will move out of Islam as an arrow moves out of the prey it kills. Kill them whenever you get them, you will be rewarded for killing them on the Day of judgment.i783

As for identifying those sects condemned to Hell, the first man who discussed the issue was YUsuf Ibn Asbat,784 then `Abdullah Ibn Al-Mubarak.809 Both are outstanding scholars and imams. They have said that all heresies have proceeded from four sects: Rawafid, Khawarij, Qadariyyah, and Murji’ah. “What about the Jahmiyyah?” Ibn Al-Mubarak was asked. He said, “They are not part of the ummah.” He used to say, “We do not quote the words of the Jews and the Christians, nor do we quote the words of the Jahmiyyah.” A number of scholars from the school of Ahmad agree with this assessment. They say that the Jahmiyyah are infidel; they cannot, therefore, be included in the seventy-two sects, just as the hypocrites who have no faith in their hearts, who only pay lip service to Islam and are nothing but zindiqs, are not included in them. Other Hanbali scholars, however, include them in the list; consequently they count the sources of heresy to be five.

The reason for this difference lies in the answer that these two group give to the question whether the people expounding heretical ideas (ahl al-bid `ah) may be excommunicated as kafirun. Those who exclude the Jahmiyyah from the list of seventy-two sects do excommunicate the expounders of heresies, for everyone who comes out with a heresy cannot be excommunicated. They rather categorize them with the people that deserve punishment in `ala (ahl al-wa `id) like the intransigent (fussaq) and the sinners (`usat). The words of the Prophet that “they will go to Hell,” they point out, should be understood in the same sense in which it is said about other sinners, such as those who misappropriate the property of orphans. God has said, “Those who unjustly eat the property of orphans, eat up a fire into their own bodies” (4:10). Those, on the other hand, who include the Jahmiyyah in the list are of two kinds, those who call no one kafir and those who call all of them kafir. The latter group is comprised of some scholars of later periods from among the followers of the a’immah or the theologians.

However, in case of the Murji’ah and the Shi’ah Mufaddilah (i.e. those who simply assert that `All was superior to the other three righteous caliphs) and others, the Elders and the a’immah are one that they cannot be called kafir. Ahmad’s statements with regard to them are quite clear that they cannot be called kafir. However, there are within his school scholars who have indiscriminately dubbed all heretical sects including these as kafir, some have also said that they are condemned to Hell forever. This is wrong, and certainly opposed to the principles of Ahmad as well as the Shari’ah.

Those who do not excommunicate any heretical sect do so because they put the heretics (ahl al-bid `ah) with the sinners. They say that just as the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamd’ah do not call anyone kafir because of his sin, they would not like to call anyone kafir on account of his heresy (bid `ah)

The Elders and the a ‘ i m m a h are reported to have excommunicated only the Jahmiyyah, who deny God’s attributes, who say that God neither speaks nor sees, that He is not separate from the world, that He has no knowledge, no power, no hearing, no sight and no life, that the Quran is a created object, that the people of Paradise like the people of Hell will not see God, and so on. With regard to the Khawarij and the Rawafid there is no clear word from Ahmad and others that they are kafir. As for the Qadariyyah, who deny God’s fore-knowledge of (human actions) as well as their fore-ordainment and writing, they have called them kafir; however, with regard to those who affirm God’s foreknowledge but not His creation of human actions, they have abstained from this verdict.

I will state here two principles which, I hope, will clarify the issue. First, of those who offer salah no one would be kafir unless he is a hypocrite, for since the time Muhammad (pbuh) was sent as a messenger, given the Quran, and compelled to migrate to Madinah, people were divided into three groups, those who believed in him, those who rejected him and did so openly, and those who were hypocrites and concealed their rejection of him. When this is the case we may have among the heretical sects (ahl al-bid `ah) those who are hypocrites and enemies of Islam (zindiq); they are kafir. Such people are mostly found among the Rawafid and the Jahmiyyah. Their leaders were hypocrites and zindigs, just as the man who invented rafd was a hypocrite. The school of the Jahmiyyah, too, was raised on the basis of hypocrisy and zandaqah. This is the reason why zindiqs who come from the Karmathian esoterics and pose as philosophers incline towards the Rawafid and Jahmiyyah with whom they have great affinity.

Among the heretical sects we may also have people who have faith in their heart but are guilty of ignorance, wrongdoing, and mistakes with regard to the Sunnah. Such people are neither kafir nor hypocrites. They may be doing things that render them transgressors (fasiq) and sinners, (‘asi). Some of them may be doing so by mistake, erroneously interpreting the texts; such people will hopefully be forgiven. Some may also have faith and piety to a degree which earns for them a kind of God’s love and support (walayah) commensurate with their faith and piety. This is the first principle.

The second principle is that the doctrine that one expounds may be in itself a faithlessness. For example, one may deny that salah, zakah, fasting or hajj is obligatory, or assert that adultery, drinking wine, gambling or marrying within the prohibited circle is lawful. However, it is possible that the expounder of these doctrines may not have knowledge about them or may not have gotten the words of the Prophet regarding them. Such a person will not be called kafir. This may happen with a person who has embraced Islam new, or who is born and brought up in a place that Islam has not reached. He cannot, therefore, be called kafir on the grounds that he denies something revealed to the Prophet, for he does not know that it was revealed to him.

The doctrines of the Jahmiyyah belong to this category, because they negate the attributes with which God is qualified and which He has revealed to the Prophet. There are three reasons why they have been condemned so strongly. First, the texts which contradict their doctrines are in abundance in the Quran, hadith and the Consensus, and are well known, and they just reject them by misinterpreting them. Second, their doctrines amount to negation of the Creator; however, it is possible that some of them may not have realized that their doctrines negate the Creator. Just as the basis of faith is belief in God, the basis of unfaith (kufr) is the denial of God. Third, they contradict truths which are agreed upon in all religions and testified to by human nature.

In spite of this, many Muslims are not able to see the real import of their doctrines; some even think that the truth is with them since they put forth their objections quite forcefully. These Muslims do have faith in God and in His Messenger and sincerely believe in them in their hearts, but the argument which these heretics advance confuse them as they confuse themselves. Certainly these Muslims are not kafir at all; some of them may be transgressors and wrongdoers; some may be mistaken and God may hopefully forgive them; and some may even have, along with their erroneous ideas, the faith and piety which earns them God’s support, and love (walayah) commensurate with their faith and piety.

Author: Ibn Taymiyyah

Islamic Topic: The purpose of government

Source: Book: [Fatawd 3:345-55] / Also mentioned in “Ibn Taymiyyah Expounds on Islam”Rich Text AreaToolbarBold (Ctrl / Alt+Shift + B)Italic (Ctrl / Alt+Shift + I)Strikethrough (Alt+Shift+D)Unordered list (Alt+Shift+U)Ordered list (Alt+Shift+O)Blockquote (Alt+Shift+Q)Align Left (Alt+Shift+L)Align Center (Alt+Shift+C)Align Right (Alt+Shift+R)Insert/edit link (Alt+Shift+A)Unlink (Alt+Shift+S)Insert More Tag (Alt+Shift+T)Toggle spellchecker (Alt+Shift+N)▼
Toggle fullscreen mode (Alt+Shift+G)Show/Hide Kitchen Sink (Alt+Shift+Z)
FormatFormat▼
UnderlineAlign Full (Alt+Shift+J)Select text color▼
Paste as Plain TextPaste from WordRemove formattingInsert custom characterOutdentIndentUndo (Ctrl+Z)Redo (Ctrl+Y)Help (Alt+Shift+H)

The ummah will divide into seventy-three sects, of which only one, the AN as-Sunnah wa al-Jama `ah will be saved. They will constitute the great majority of the ummah. Other sects will have their own strange views, will indulge in heresies and follow vain desires. The common element between them will he their deviance from the Quran, the Sunnah and the consensus (of the ummah). However, they will be a small minority. Ibn Taymiyyah was asked about the Prophet’s hadith, “My ummah will divide into seventy-three sects…” In reply he wrote: Praise be to God. This is an authentic and well-known (sahih wa mashhur) hadith, recorded in Sunan and Masanid collections, such as the . Sunan of Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa’i and others. It runs like this: “The Jews divided into seventy-one sects (flirgah), all of which will go to Hell except one; the Christians divided into seventy-two sects, all of which will go to Hell except one; this ummah will divide into seventy-three sects, all of which will go to Hell except one.”"9 In another version of the hadith the words are, “seventy-three millah, communities.”780 In a third version we also have this addition, “Some people asked the Prophet about the sect which will be saved. He said, “The one which will follow the way I and my companions follow today.i781 In a fourth version the last part is like this: “It will be the jams `ah, and the hand of God will be on the jams `ah.s782 This is the reason why the people that will be saved are called Ahl as-Sunnah wa a l Jams `ah, the People of the Sunnah and the Community. They will constitute the overwhelming majority and the common masses.
The remaining sects will expound strange views and heresies and will indulge in vain desires. But even taken together they will neither be equal to nor nearing the number of the people who will be saved. In fact, they will be very few; the common element between them that will distinguish them will be their deviation from the Quran, the Sunnah and the Consensus, for had they adhered to the Sunnah and Consensus, they would have been part of the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah.
As for the identification of these sects, a number of people have written on the subject and mentioned their names in their works on views and doctrines (magalat). But the point that a particular sect named by them is one of those seventy two deviant sects has to be proved. Let.us recall that God has forbidden saying anything without knowledge, particularly in matters like this. He has said, “Say: The things that my Lord has instead forbidden are shameful deeds, whether open or secret, sins and trespasses against truth or reason, assigning of partners to God, for which he has given no authority, and saying things about God of which you have no knowledge” (7:33). And, “You people! Eat of what is on earth lawful and good; and do not follow the footsteps of the Evil One, for he is to you an avowed enemy. He commands you what is evil and shameful, and that you should say of God that of which you have no knowledge” (2:168). Pursue not that of which you have no knowledge” (17:306).
Many people talk about these sects merely on the basis of conjectures and predilections. The sect they belong to or the people that follow their leaders, they call Ahl as-Sunnah wa a 1-Jams` ah, and those who oppose them, they call heretics. This is plainly wrong. For the people of Truth and Sunnah will have no leader other than the Prophet (pbuh), of whom God says, “He does not say anything of (his own) desire, (and) what he says is inspiration (wahi) which is sent down to him- (53:3). What he says is to be believed and what he commands is to be obeyed. No one else enjoys this position, and no one else is to be followed in all that he says. The Prophet (pbuh) is the only exception…
It is clear from this that the people who will be saved are the people of hadith and Sunnah, who do not have any leader other than the Prophet. Of all the people they are those who know his life and words best, who are aware which reports about him are authentic and which are not. Their scholars have a better knowledge and understanding of these things and follow them best. More than anyone else they believe in the Sunnah of the Prophet and act upon it, love those who love him, and oppose those who oppose him. They think over the issues in the light of the Quran and the wisdom (hikmah of the Prophet) and do not raise anything to the status of a principle or advocate it unless it is derived from what has come down from the Prophet. In fact they base their ideas and doctrines on the Quran and the wisdom that the Prophet has given. They refer the issues which people have debated, such as Divine attributes, fore-ordainment (qadr), reward and punishment, the interpretation of terms, the duty of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong… to God and His Prophet. The words that are ambiguous and have been interpreted in different ways by different people, they interpret in the sense which is closest to the Quran and Sunnah, and reject all the other senses which are opposed to them. They neither run after conjectures nor follow vain desires, for they believe that indulgence into conjecture is ignorance and pursuance of desires without any clear guidance from God is folly…
It may be noted, however, that those who follow one scholar or the other in matters regarding the principles of religion and theology (kalam) fall into different categories. Some oppose the Sunnah on major principles, others oppose the Sunnah on minor issues. Furthermore, it is possible that those who refute the views of others which are far more removed from the Sunnah than their own views may be right in what they say in refuting wrong doctrines or supporting the right ones, but they may have gone too far in their refutation and rejected some part of the truth and defended some untruth. That is to say, they may have a great heresy (bid `ah) through a lesser heresy and demolished a greater untruth through a lesser untruth. This is the condition of most of the theologians (ahl al-kalam) within the fold of the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah.
If people like these do not severe their relations from the Muslim community (jamd `at al-Muslimin) on the basis of the heresies they expound, taking them as the criterion for friendship or enmity, they are only guilty of saying something wrong. We hope that God will forgive mistakes like this and pardon those who commit them… But if they take as friends those who agree with them and as enemies those who disagree with them, and divide the Muslim community into their supporters and opponents, and call the latter kafir orfasiq even though they differ from them in matters in which opinions may differ, and think that they should fight them, they will then be called schismatic and secessionist.
That is why the first group of people who seceded from the Muslim community were the Khawarij; they went out of the boundaries of Islam… The hadith which we have about them has come down to us through ten different channels all of which have been noted by Muslim in his Sahih. Some of them have also been noted by Al-Bukhari in his Sahih. The Companions of the Prophet fought them under the command of Amir al-Mu’minin `Ali Ibn Abi Talib, and were one with regard to them… When they seceded from the Muslim community and regarded its members as kafir and justified taking up the sword against them, the Prophet’s word about them proved true. He said, “You will look down upon your salah in comparison to their salah, your fasting in comparison to their fasting, and you reading the Quran in comparison to their reading. But they will read the Quran and their reading will not go down their throat. They will move out of Islam as an arrow moves out of the prey it kills. Kill them whenever you get them, you will be rewarded for killing them on the Day of judgment.i783
As for identifying those sects condemned to Hell, the first man who discussed the issue was YUsuf Ibn Asbat,784 then `Abdullah Ibn Al-Mubarak.809 Both are outstanding scholars and imams. They have said that all heresies have proceeded from four sects: Rawafid, Khawarij, Qadariyyah, and Murji’ah. “What about the Jahmiyyah?” Ibn Al-Mubarak was asked. He said, “They are not part of the ummah.” He used to say, “We do not quote the words of the Jews and the Christians, nor do we quote the words of the Jahmiyyah.” A number of scholars from the school of Ahmad agree with this assessment. They say that the Jahmiyyah are infidel; they cannot, therefore, be included in the seventy-two sects, just as the hypocrites who have no faith in their hearts, who only pay lip service to Islam and are nothing but zindiqs, are not included in them. Other Hanbali scholars, however, include them in the list; consequently they count the sources of heresy to be five.
The reason for this difference lies in the answer that these two group give to the question whether the people expounding heretical ideas (ahl al-bid `ah) may be excommunicated as kafirun. Those who exclude the Jahmiyyah from the list of seventy-two sects do excommunicate the expounders of heresies, for everyone who comes out with a heresy cannot be excommunicated. They rather categorize them with the people that deserve punishment in `ala (ahl al-wa `id) like the intransigent (fussaq) and the sinners (`usat). The words of the Prophet that “they will go to Hell,” they point out, should be understood in the same sense in which it is said about other sinners, such as those who misappropriate the property of orphans. God has said, “Those who unjustly eat the property of orphans, eat up a fire into their own bodies” (4:10). Those, on the other hand, who include the Jahmiyyah in the list are of two kinds, those who call no one kafir and those who call all of them kafir. The latter group is comprised of some scholars of later periods from among the followers of the a’immah or the theologians.
However, in case of the Murji’ah and the Shi’ah Mufaddilah (i.e. those who simply assert that `All was superior to the other three righteous caliphs) and others, the Elders and the a’immah are one that they cannot be called kafir. Ahmad’s statements with regard to them are quite clear that they cannot be called kafir. However, there are within his school scholars who have indiscriminately dubbed all heretical sects including these as kafir, some have also said that they are condemned to Hell forever. This is wrong, and certainly opposed to the principles of Ahmad as well as the Shari’ah.
Those who do not excommunicate any heretical sect do so because they put the heretics (ahl al-bid `ah) with the sinners. They say that just as the Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamd’ah do not call anyone kafir because of his sin, they would not like to call anyone kafir on account of his heresy (bid `ah)
The Elders and the a ‘ i m m a h are reported to have excommunicated only the Jahmiyyah, who deny God’s attributes, who say that God neither speaks nor sees, that He is not separate from the world, that He has no knowledge, no power, no hearing, no sight and no life, that the Quran is a created object, that the people of Paradise like the people of Hell will not see God, and so on. With regard to the Khawarij and the Rawafid there is no clear word from Ahmad and others that they are kafir. As for the Qadariyyah, who deny God’s fore-knowledge of (human actions) as well as their fore-ordainment and writing, they have called them kafir; however, with regard to those who affirm God’s foreknowledge but not His creation of human actions, they have abstained from this verdict.
I will state here two principles which, I hope, will clarify the issue. First, of those who offer salah no one would be kafir unless he is a hypocrite, for since the time Muhammad (pbuh) was sent as a messenger, given the Quran, and compelled to migrate to Madinah, people were divided into three groups, those who believed in him, those who rejected him and did so openly, and those who were hypocrites and concealed their rejection of him. When this is the case we may have among the heretical sects (ahl al-bid `ah) those who are hypocrites and enemies of Islam (zindiq); they are kafir. Such people are mostly found among the Rawafid and the Jahmiyyah. Their leaders were hypocrites and zindigs, just as the man who invented rafd was a hypocrite. The school of the Jahmiyyah, too, was raised on the basis of hypocrisy and zandaqah. This is the reason why zindiqs who come from the Karmathian esoterics and pose as philosophers incline towards the Rawafid and Jahmiyyah with whom they have great affinity.
Among the heretical sects we may also have people who have faith in their heart but are guilty of ignorance, wrongdoing, and mistakes with regard to the Sunnah. Such people are neither kafir nor hypocrites. They may be doing things that render them transgressors (fasiq) and sinners, (‘asi). Some of them may be doing so by mistake, erroneously interpreting the texts; such people will hopefully be forgiven. Some may also have faith and piety to a degree which earns for them a kind of God’s love and support (walayah) commensurate with their faith and piety. This is the first principle.
The second principle is that the doctrine that one expounds may be in itself a faithlessness. For example, one may deny that salah, zakah, fasting or hajj is obligatory, or assert that adultery, drinking wine, gambling or marrying within the prohibited circle is lawful. However, it is possible that the expounder of these doctrines may not have knowledge about them or may not have gotten the words of the Prophet regarding them. Such a person will not be called kafir. This may happen with a person who has embraced Islam new, or who is born and brought up in a place that Islam has not reached. He cannot, therefore, be called kafir on the grounds that he denies something revealed to the Prophet, for he does not know that it was revealed to him.
The doctrines of the Jahmiyyah belong to this category, because they negate the attributes with which God is qualified and which He has revealed to the Prophet. There are three reasons why they have been condemned so strongly. First, the texts which contradict their doctrines are in abundance in the Quran, hadith and the Consensus, and are well known, and they just reject them by misinterpreting them. Second, their doctrines amount to negation of the Creator; however, it is possible that some of them may not have realized that their doctrines negate the Creator. Just as the basis of faith is belief in God, the basis of unfaith (kufr) is the denial of God. Third, they contradict truths which are agreed upon

in all religions and testified to by human nature.
In spite of this, many Muslims are not able to see the real import of their doctrines; some even think that the truth is with them since they put forth their objections quite forcefully. These Muslims do have faith in God and in His Messenger and sincerely believe in them in their hearts, but the argument which these heretics advance confuse them as they confuse themselves. Certainly these Muslims are not kafir at all; some of them may be transgressors and wrongdoers; some may be mistaken and God may hopefully forgive them; and some may even have, along with their erroneous ideas, the faith and piety which earns them God’s support, and love (walayah) commensurate with their faith and piety.
Author: Ibn Taymiyyah
Islamic Topic: The purpose of government
Source: Book: [Fatawd 3:345-55] / Also mentioned in “Ibn Taymiyyah Expounds on Islam”
Path: