This post is about the meaning of iman (faith) and how different groups misunderstood it, leading to extreme views. The Sahabah and early imams all agreed that iman includes belief, speech, and actions, and that it goes up and down. But then two wrong groups appeared:

• The Khawarij said if someone commits a major sin, he is a disbeliever, because they believed actions are part of iman and if you lose any part, you lose all of it.
• The Murji’ah said actions are not part of iman at all, and even someone who never prays or obeys is still a believer if he just believes in his heart.

Both groups were wrong because they confused the outer label of being Muslim with the real iman inside the heart and actions. They also didn’t understand that iman increases and decreases.

Later, more extreme versions of these ideas developed: some groups said almost all Muslims are disbelievers, others said belief alone is enough and actions don’t matter at all.

Ahl al-Sunnah stayed in the middle: they said iman is belief, speech, and action, it increases and decreases, and not doing actions might make your iman weak, or in some cases break it completely.

So, this whole section is about the right meaning of iman, the wrong views of others, and how those mistakes affected takfir (calling someone a disbeliever).

The Foundation of Eman

Eman (faith) is the main thing that the verses of the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet came to make clear. They explained what it is, what breaks it, what reduces it, the reward of the believers, and the end of the disbelievers. This is the main subject that all the verses and teachings return to.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) explained it in the clearest and most complete way. His companions (may Allah be pleased with them) followed him in that and did not disagree about it at all.

Those who came after them from the early generations and the imams of the ummah understood eman the same way. They all agreed on what the companions were upon and passed it on to others after them until our time and until the Day of Judgement. This is because they are the saved group and the victorious group that will remain upon the truth until the end of time.

Even though the people of Sunnah and unity held on to that meaning and all agreed on it, they still used to reply to every new belief that went against that truth. They used to show the truth and bring proof against those who opposed them.

The first disagreement that happened in the ummah was the disagreement about takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever). That happened when the extreme Khawarij called Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) a disbeliever after the well-known story of arbitration. From the time of the Battle of Siffin—when the division started—and until today, the disagreement has continued about the meaning of eman and kufr (disbelief) and the issue of takfir. In fact, the mistake has become worse over time, because people kept reacting to what happened before them, and because the issue became more complicated as people tried to find old religious texts to support their own ways.

Because of this, the disagreement of the groups who went against Ahl al-Sunnah about eman and kufr was not really based on careful thinking or proper study. Instead, it was based on reacting to earlier extremes with new extremes. This is an important historical truth.

When the Khawarij built their belief about takfir of major sins based on the idea that actions are part of eman, others came and said that actions are not part of eman. They responded to the false idea of takfir for sins with another false idea: that actions are not part of eman at all.

The Shared Mistake of Both Groups (Murj’iah And The Khawarij)

The mistake of both sides came from the same wrong idea. That idea is that they did not understand the difference between the outside ruling and the true reality. They also did not understand the difference between the real meaning of eman and the ruling of Islam that applies to someone in this world. They thought eman and Islam were the same.

The Khawarij thought that a person is either a believer or a disbeliever, nothing in between. They said the believer is the one who does all the duties and stays away from all the sins. So if someone does not do that, they said he is a disbeliever.

Their main idea was this: If actions are part of eman, then going against that means the eman is gone. Just like a person cannot be anything other than a Muslim or a disbeliever, they said a person cannot be anything other than a believer or a disbeliever. Just as the ruling of Islam is either fully there or not there at all, they said the same about eman. Then they said eman does not go up or down. If it goes down, that means it no longer exists. So they said the one who does a major sin is not a Muslim.

But the Murji’ah replied to that extreme with another extreme. They said: the ruling of Islam applies to a person just by saying the words of faith, so this means actions are not part of eman, because they are not a condition for the ruling of Islam to apply in the first place. Then they said actions are also not needed to keep the ruling of Islam once it is there.

That is why they used to argue with Ahl al-Sunnah by saying: “Are you believers?” They thought eman is one level with no difference, just like Islam.

One of the most well-known things they used as proof was the hadith of the slave-girl. The Prophet (peace be upon him) asked her: “Where is Allah?” She said, “In the sky.” Then he asked her: “Who am I?” She said: “The Messenger of Allah.” Then he said to her master: “Free her, for she is a believer.” (Reported by Muslim in the Book of Masjids, 537.)

They understood from this that if anything other than saying those words was needed to be a believer, the Prophet would not have called her a believer just because she said those things.

This helps to understand the saying of the Karramiyyah that eman is just the statement. What they really meant is the same as the Murji’ah. They did not mean that a hypocrite is a believer just because he says the words. But they did not understand the difference between the ruling of real eman and the ruling of outward Islam. They treated both the same, just like the Khawarij.

The Response from Ahl al-Sunnah

This is why Ahl al-Sunnah replied to both sides by making it clear that eman goes up and down. That idea became something that people know Ahl al-Sunnah by. They also made clear the difference between true eman that saves a person and the outward Islam that gives someone the rulings of a Muslim in this world. This is what Imam Ahmad meant when he followed the view of Imam al-Zuhri: “Islam is the word, and eman is saying and doing.” (See Majmu‘ al-Fatawa of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, 7/141, 476, 550.)

So Islam starts with saying the words, but a person must act according to those words and stay away from what breaks them. Not following them does not always mean the person is a disbeliever, but it does mean his eman is weak. That disobedience goes against the meaning of the words he said. If the disobedience includes something that breaks the words, then the words are no longer valid and do not count.

More Extremism After That

But the matter did not stop there. The two groups went even further in their extremes. The first Khawarij did say that doing a sin is disbelief, but they did not all agree that everyone who disagrees with them is a disbeliever or someone to stop judging about. Some of them, like the Bayhasiyyah, said that if the leader becomes a disbeliever, then the people become disbelievers too. They said: “The land is a land of shirk and the people in it are all idol worshippers,” and they stopped praying behind anyone except those they personally knew. (See Maqalat al-Islamiyyin by al-Ash‘ari, p. 116.)

Others from them, like the Akhnasiyyah, did not give judgement about anyone living in the land of dissimulation unless they knew for sure he had faith, then they would support him. Or if they knew he had kufr, they would cut ties with him. (See the same book, p. 97.)

So this was not a belief held by all the Khawarij. But the people of withholding judgement (tawaqquf) in our time made it a basic belief. They said we must always first find out everything about a person before saying he is a Muslim. For some of them, this led to calling people disbelievers for major sins.

There is a big difference between someone who makes takfir for major sins as a basic idea, while still saying that a person can be called a Muslim if something shows he is one, and someone who makes takfir for major sins only because he thinks there is a minimum level of Islam that must be proven before calling anyone a Muslim.

Some even went so far as to say that kufr has been the rule for most of Islamic history since the fourth century. (See “al-eman” by Ibn Taymiyyah, p. 240.) Some said their group is the only Muslim group left in the world. (See “Dhikrayati ma‘a Jama‘at al-Muslimin: al-Takfir wa al-Hijrah” by Abdur-Rahman Abu al-Khayr, parts 4–5.) This is the highest level of extremism and the greatest wrong and injustice.

The Development of Irja’

As for the Murji’ah, they did not stay with just the idea that actions are not part of eman and that eman does not go up or down.

They went further than that and said eman is only belief in the heart. That happened when the scholars of kalam added eman to their deep philosophical discussions. They tried to define it like they defined things in logic, saying there has to be one shared meaning between all people who have it, and that it cannot have anything extra. They said eman is only to believe in the oneness of Allah, and to believe in the truth of what the Prophet brought. They removed actions from it. They said eman does not increase or decrease. They said all people who have it are equal.

From this, they said: If someone does not do any action at all, he is not a disbeliever—as long as he said the two testimonies once in his life. Some even said: Even saying the words is not part of eman. It is only a condition for the worldly rulings to apply. So if someone believes in his heart, but never says anything and dies like that, they said he will be saved.

They also said: Making laws that go against Allah’s laws is not kufr by itself. It is only a sin. And if someone does that on purpose, he is not a disbeliever unless he says with his tongue that he believes it is allowed and denies Allah’s ruling.

Eman and Kufr

Because of all of this, the topic of eman and kufr has been discussed in three main areas.

The first is about the truth of the eman that saves a person, or what we can call the foundation of the religion, and what kufr really is in comparison to it. Since this writing is about the views of Ahl al-Sunnah about takfir, the talk here will only deal with what is directly connected to that and where the disagreement affects the issue of takfir.

That is why there is a special focus on two truths:

The First Matter: The True Meaning of Tawhid

The first matter is showing the real meaning of tawhid (oneness of Allah). It is not just to believe that Allah is one in His essence, attributes, and actions—as the people of kalam (theologians) say, even though they differ among themselves in that. Rather, tawhid is to make Allah alone the one we turn to with our will and purpose, and to make our worship and servitude sincere to Him alone. This includes believing that He is one in His essence, attributes, and actions. (For more about irja’ and its development and what it led to, see: “Zahirat al-Irja’ fi al-Fikr al-Islami” by Dr. Safar al-Hawali.)

Because of this disagreement about what tawhid really means, we do not find the idea of shirk (polytheism) in will and intent mentioned by the Murji’ah among the theologians. To them, shirk is only to believe that someone shares with Allah either in managing the world or in deserving worship. So, in their view, seeking help through intermediaries or asking for things only Allah can do is not shirk—unless the person asking believes that the one being asked has power to create or act on his own. Also, offering acts of worship like slaughtering or making vows to someone other than Allah is not shirk according to them—unless the person believes that the one he did that for deserves worship.

This was the point of disagreement between them and Imam Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him). He insisted that shirk in intention and will is the same as shirk in belief, and there is no difference. He said that shirk in will is shirk by itself, even if there is no belief in the other being’s power to create.

But since they believed that such actions are either mistakes in causes that have nothing to do with shirk, or just sins that do not reach the level of shirk, they accused him of declaring Muslims disbelievers because of sins. They said he was a Khariji and a Haruri who made the blood of Muslims lawful. This argument is still going on today and will not stop as long as there is disagreement about what tawhid really means.

The Second Matter: Outward Actions and Its Place in the Deen

The second matter is to show that outward commitment to action is part of the foundation of the religion. It is a condition for being saved in the next life and part of the core of the religion. Breaking this general outward commitment—like leaving off all actions completely, or not doing something that clear proof shows the one who leaves it is a disbeliever, or doing something that clearly goes against this commitment—is major kufr that takes a person out of Islam. There is no difference between that and breaking the inward commitment, like not accepting Allah’s rule and not being pleased with His law. That is the kufr of the hypocrites. Going against the general outward commitment is kufr in itself. It does not need someone to believe it is allowed or to deny the religion.

But when the Murji’ah settled on the idea that iman is only belief in Allah’s oneness and belief in what the Prophet (peace be upon him) brought, they said that breaking the general outward commitment is not kufr in itself. They said it is just a sin, and takfir only happens if someone believes it is allowed or denies the religion. But these things cannot be known just from the person’s actions or from refusing to act. They said the person has to clearly say it with his tongue.

So, they believe that someone who does no actions at all is not a disbeliever, and just saying the words of Islam is enough for him. And they believe that someone who makes laws besides Allah’s law and rejects Allah’s Sharia is not a disbeliever—unless he believes it is allowed, denies Allah’s law, and says that openly with his tongue. This is not just a conclusion forced on them; they fully accept it.

This disagreement will also not end as long as there is disagreement about what it means to commit to the Sharia.

The Root of the Disagreement Between Ahl al-Sunnah and the Murji’ah

From looking at both of these matters, it becomes clear that the disagreement between Ahl al-Sunnah and the Murji’ah is about the real meaning of the foundation of the religion, with its two parts: tawhid and general commitment to the Sharia. The root of the disagreement about takfir between Ahl al-Sunnah and the Murji’ah is this disagreement about those two matters. There is no point in talking to them about the rules of takfir, its conditions, and what prevents it until there is agreement about the meaning of tawhid and the meaning of general commitment to the Sharia.

The Third Main Topic: Conditions for Declaring a Specific Person a Disbeliever

The third main topic in this subject is about showing the conditions that must be present and made clear before ruling that a specific person is a disbeliever, and about explaining the true connection between what appears outwardly and what is in the heart.

Two groups went astray in this matter:

The First Group: The Murji’ah

The Murji’ah said that outward kufr (disbelief) does not mean that a person is truly a disbeliever on the inside. According to them, it is just a sign of kufr, not certain kufr.

Their reason for not saying the person is definitely a disbeliever in the heart was not because they might be wrong about the outward judgement. It was because they did not believe there is a real link between the outside and the inside. They believed that iman could still be present—and even complete—in the heart, even while the person shows kufr on the outside.

Because of this, some of them had to say: Anyone we judge to be a disbeliever outwardly must be someone who deep down is denying the truth. This went against what basic reason tells us. Then they had to divide belief and denial into two types: one that is forced and one that is chosen. They did this to try to explain how someone like Abu Talib—who believed the Prophet (peace be upon him) was truthful—could still be judged a disbeliever.

If they had just corrected their mistake at the root and accepted the real meaning of iman as explained by the Prophet (peace be upon him), understood by the companions, and agreed on by the ummah, they would not have been forced into all these wrong ideas.

The Second Group: Those Who Declare Disbelief Without Conditions

The second group that went astray in the matter of takfir of specific individuals are those who declare someone a disbeliever just based on their outward action—without checking if the conditions are met or if there is anything that stops the ruling from applying.

They did not excuse people because of ignorance or because of misinterpretation. They said anyone who does something that looks like shirk is a polytheist who has left Islam. Even if he says he was ignorant, they still say he is a true disbeliever who never had the basic foundation of the religion and was never a Muslim to begin with.

Some of them even said that just not speaking against those who rule by laws other than Allah’s law is enough proof that the person is pleased with that. They did not consider whether the person was forced. Because of that, they made disbelief the default state for most people.

Many became confused about excusing people because of ignorance or misinterpretation. Some made ignorance an excuse in all cases, with no limits. Others said ignorance does not matter at all when it comes to doing things that look like shirk. So it was necessary to explain the difference between excusing someone for ignorance when it comes to the foundation of the religion—which is worshipping Allah alone and being generally committed to His Sharia—and things that a person can only know about clearly if the proof from the message reaches him in detail.

It was also important to explain that someone might fall into something that is kufr, but he does not know it is kufr. If the reason he did it was that he misunderstood something from the religion, and not because he was stubborn or arrogant, then he is not a disbeliever. Only when someone turns away from Allah’s command after knowing it, and does so with pride and stubbornness, can he be judged a disbeliever.

After that, it is also necessary to explain what it means to be allowed to hide one’s religion under pressure (taqiyyah), and where the limits are. There is a difference between hiding one’s religion and not showing it at all, and actually showing kufr. Disbelief only happens with actions done openly and freely—not actions done while being forced.

The Root of the Disagreement in Takfir

Based on what has been mentioned, the disagreement about takfir goes back to two main issues:

The first is about the meaning of iman and what comes from that, including the meaning of kufr.

The second is about the relationship between the outside (what appears) and the inside (what is hidden in the heart).

The first issue was discussed in the first two sections. The first section explained the meaning of the iman that saves a person, and how it is different from the Islam that gives someone the ruling of being a Muslim in this world. It also looked at the wrong ideas about both of these and answered them.

The second section explained what major kufr is—the kind that takes someone out of the religion—and answered those who disagreed with that, especially the Murji’ah. It also explained the difference between major and minor shirk and kufr, and it showed how other paths differ from the way of Ahl al-Sunnah in this and answered those views.

The second issue, which is the link between the outside and the inside, and everything related to the rules and conditions of making takfir of a specific person, was discussed in the third section. That section explained the things that stop a person from being declared a disbeliever, like ignorance, misunderstanding, and being forced. It also looked at the wrong ideas about that and answered them. This was linked to what was explained earlier in the first section about how Ahl al-Sunnah judge whether a person is Muslim, and how they answer those who disagree.

Imam Al-Muzani, a giant student of Al-Shafi’i said: “Iman is words and actions. They go together, are joined together, and cannot be separated. There is no iman without action, and no action without iman.

The believers differ in their levels of iman, and they grow in it through good deeds. They do not leave iman because of sins, and they are not declared disbelievers for falling into a sin or disobedience.

The one who does good is not guaranteed Paradise just because of that—except for the one whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) clearly promised it. And we do not say that the one who does wrong is going to Hell.”

Sharh As-Sunnah from Al-Muzani Page 81