The Foundation of the Principle

General rulings of kufr are like general threats. But specific takfir requires evidence and fulfilment of conditions. In this life, people are judged outwardly, but in the Hereafter, they may be tested if the message did not reach them. Ibn Ḥibbān reported a hadith showing how some people will be tested on Judgment Day.

Objections to Testing in the Hereafter

Some rejected this test, but Ibn Kathīr said the narrations support each other. The Hereafter is generally not a place of responsibility, but this test can happen before final judgement.

The Principle’s Distinction Between General and Specific Rulings

A belief can be kufr, but a person who holds it is not judged a disbeliever unless clear proof reaches them. Allah said He does not punish until a messenger is sent (al-Nisāʾ: 165, al-Isrāʾ: 15). If there is no punishment in the Hereafter, then they were not judged disbelievers in this life. Ibn Taymiyyah said even if someone denies prayer or wine being forbidden, he is not declared a disbeliever unless proof reaches him.

Statements of the Salaf and Scholars

Many early scholars stated this principle clearly:

• Abū Ḥātim said someone who doubts the kufr of one who says the Quran is created is only a disbeliever if he understands.
• Abū ʿUbayd said the person should first be taught, showing that ignorance is a barrier.
• Imām al-Shāfiʿī said the one who denies Allah’s attributes is not a disbeliever unless the proof reaches him.
• Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim and Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr also affirmed that ignorance can prevent takfir.

Statements from Ibn Taymiyyah

Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed that some statements are kufr, but their speaker may not be a disbeliever due to ignorance or confusion. He explained that takfir of individuals depends on clear evidence and removal of doubts. He gave examples of those who denied known rulings yet were not judged disbelievers until the matter was clarified. He confirmed the position of the Salaf and stressed that this applies to many issues where ignorance is widespread. Even acts of major shirk like calling on the dead require explanation before takfir is applied.

Conclusion

Ibn Taymiyyah and the Salaf held that takfir of individuals must meet conditions and be free of preventives like ignorance or misunderstanding. The principle that general takfir does not mean specific takfir is rooted in justice, mercy, and the method of Ahl al-Sunnah.

The specific issues that fall under this principle

Among these issues are:

• The difference between general takfir and takfir of a specific individual.
• Not everyone who falls into an act of disbelief is to be declared a disbeliever.
• Whoever says something that is disbelief is not necessarily himself a disbeliever.
• Whoever commits an act that is disbelief is not necessarily himself a disbeliever.

The meaning of the principle

Declaring a belief or group to be disbelieving does not mean that everyone who holds that belief or is part of that group is necessarily a disbeliever. This is because the ruling might not apply to the one who has committed disbelief due to certain reasons that are recognised in the Sharia.

Declaring a specific person to be a disbeliever is known among scholars of legal principles as “applying the ruling to a specific case”.

The ruling that is tied to a specific description requires that this description be proven in that individual before the ruling can be applied to them (see Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 22/329).

The Sharia has tied the ruling of disbelief to a particular description that has conditions and barriers. So proving this description, along with its conditions, in a specific person is a matter that requires judgment and examination.

Having the description alone is not enough to pass the ruling. There must also be confirmation that the required conditions are present and the barriers are absent, as will be explained in the following principle.

The fact that the ruling is tied to a description shows the comprehensiveness and universality of the Sharia.

This principle, that general takfir does not necessitate specific takfir, is part of Allah’s justice and mercy to His creation.

This principle applies to the one who has been confirmed to have entered into Islam by declaring the two testimonies. As for one who has not entered into Islam, he is not included in this principle and is not to be excused in the rulings of this world. Among these are Ahl al-Fatrah, the people who lived during the gap between messengers, as Allah said: “O People of the Scripture, Our Messenger has come to you, making things clear to you after a gap of messengers so that you will not say, ‘There came to us no bringer of good tidings and no warner’” (al-Maida: 19). (Al-Alusi said in Ruh al-Maʿani (3/274): “All the commentators agree that this gap means the period when no messenger was sent.”)

The foundation of this principle is that a general ruling of disbelief is like a general threat, and it must be accepted as general and unrestricted. For example, we declare a certain belief to be disbelief because the texts of the Sharia show that clearly.

But judging a specific person to be a disbeliever depends on specific evidence. The ruling depends on the conditions being fulfilled and the barriers being removed, as will be explained in the next principle.

These people, in this life, are treated as disbelievers and dealt with accordingly. As for the Hereafter, they will be tested, for Allah does not punish anyone until the proof has been established against them.

The Prophet said, “Four will argue on the Day of Judgement: a deaf man, a foolish man, a very old man, and a man who died in the period between messengers. The deaf man will say, ‘My Lord, Islam came but I heard nothing.’ The foolish man will say, ‘My Lord, Islam came but the children would throw dung at me.’

The old man will say, ‘My Lord, Islam came but I was not able to understand.’ The one who died in the gap will say, ‘My Lord, no messenger came to me.’ So He will take their pledges that they will obey Him, then He will send a messenger to them who tells them to enter the Fire. By the One in Whose hand is my soul, if they enter it, it will be cool and safe for them.” (Reported by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih 16/356, no. 7357).

Some objected to this test by saying the hadiths on the matter are weak and that the Hereafter is not a place of responsibility.

Ibn Kathir responded to this in his Tafsir (5/58): “Some of the hadiths in this matter are authentic, as many scholars have confirmed. Some are sound, and some are weak but strengthened by the others. When the narrations in a single subject support each other in this way, they establish proof for those who reflect on them. As for the claim that the Hereafter is a place of reward and not of responsibility, that is true in general. But it does not contradict the idea of a test occurring in the realm of the Hereafter before entering Paradise or Hell.” (See Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 12/498).

This principle is based on a foundational distinction: the difference between a general ruling and a ruling on a specific person. So we cannot infer that a general declaration of disbelief requires us to declare a specific person a disbeliever.

As for declaring a specific person to be a disbeliever, or saying that he is among the people of the Fire, this depends on a specific proof. For such a ruling depends on the fulfilment of its conditions and the absence of its preventives. (see Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 12/498).

The evidence for this principle

There are proofs that support this principle, such as the following:

Allah said, “Messengers as bringers of good tidings and warners so that mankind will have no argument against Allah after the messengers. And Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise” (al-Nisa: 165).

Allah informed us that one of the purposes of sending messengers is to remove the excuse from the creation, so they have no argument in this life or the next. The verse includes both this world and the Hereafter. So a person is not declared a disbeliever in this life until the messengers have been sent, nor is he punished in the Hereafter until the messengers have been sent.

This verse is connected to specific individuals. So even if a particular belief is disbelief, the person who holds it is not a disbeliever until the proof of the message reaches him, because Allah made the absence of the message a reason to remove punishment from a person.

Allah said, “We do not punish until We have sent a messenger” (al-Isra: 15).

Allah denied that He would punish a specific person until the proof was established and the message had reached him. (See Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 12/498).

If someone is not punished in the Hereafter, that means he was not a disbeliever in this life, because Allah only punishes in the Hereafter those who are already blameworthy in this life. The only exception is what is proven by evidence, such as the case of the hypocrite.

Ibn Taymiyyah said, “But some people are ignorant of certain rulings due to a type of ignorance that excuses them. So no one should be judged to be a disbeliever until the proof has been established against him from the message, as Allah said, ‘So that mankind will have no argument against Allah after the messengers’ and ‘We do not punish until We have sent a messenger.’ So if a man becomes Muslim and does not know that prayer is obligatory or that alcohol is forbidden, he is not judged a disbeliever just because he does not believe prayer is obligatory or alcohol forbidden. In fact, he is not even punished until the hadith has reaches him.” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 11/406).

Statements of the Salaf and Scholars On Declaring A Specific Individual To Be A Disbeliever Depends On The Presence Of The Conditions For Takfir & The Absence Of Any Barriers

The Salaf and the leading imams of the Ummah have clearly explained that when it comes to declaring a specific individual to be a disbeliever, it is necessary to ensure that the conditions of takfir are met and the barriers are absent. This is made evident through their statements:

Abu Hatim al-Razi said about the Quran, “Whoever claims that it is created is a disbeliever in Allah, with disbelief that takes one out of the religion. And whoever doubts his disbelief, while being someone who understands and is not ignorant, is also a disbeliever.” (Sharh Usul Iʿtiqad Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaʿah 1/203).

He made understanding a condition for declaring the doubter a disbeliever, which shows that he saw disbelief in a specific person as being dependent on the absence of barriers and the presence of conditions.

Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam was asked, “What do you say about someone who says the Quran is created?” He replied, “This is a man who is to be taught and told that this is disbelief. If he turns back from it, then fine. If not, then his neck is to be struck.” (Sharh Usul Iʿtiqad Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaʿah 2/351).

He considered ignorance to be a barrier that prevents takfir of the individual. Thus, a specific person is not to be declared a disbeliever unless all barriers are absent.

Imam al-Shafiʿi, when asked about the attributes of Allah and what is obligatory to believe, said, “Allah, Most High, has Names and Attributes that came in His Book and were conveyed by His Prophet to his Ummah. No one for whom the proof has been established is allowed to reject them, for the Quran was revealed with them and it is established from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ through the trustworthy narrators.

Whoever opposes them after the proof has been established against him is a disbeliever. As for before the proof has reached him, he is excused due to ignorance, because knowledge of such things is not attained by reason or reflection or contemplation. We do not declare anyone to be a disbeliever due to ignorance of them unless the report has reached him, and affirming these attributes is obligatory.” (Ibn al-Qayyim, Ijtimaʿ al-Juyush al-Islamiyyah p. 165).

This shows that al-Shafiʿi did not affirm disbelief upon those who deny the attributes of Allah until the proof is established against them. Before that, he saw ignorance as an excuse. This confirms his affirmation of this principle.

His statement “he is excused due to ignorance” shows that the imams used the expression “excuse by ignorance” and that it is not a newly invented term. Although the wording itself does not occur in the texts of the Sharia, the meanings do occur, in phrases such as “the proof” and “the sending of messengers.” So there is no harm in using this expression because it does not contradict the texts, and the Salaf did use it, although not every type of ignorance is considered an excuse.

Ibn Abi ʿAsim said, “The Quran is the speech of Allah, blessed and exalted, Allah spoke it. It is not created. Whoever says it is created, and the proof has been established against him, is a disbeliever in Allah the Almighty. But whoever says that before the proof has reached him, then there is nothing upon him.” (al-Sunnah 2/1027).

He clearly stated that declaring someone a disbeliever for saying the Quran is created only applies after the proof has been established. If he said it before the proof reached him, he is not to be declared a disbeliever. This is the very meaning of the principle: declaring someone a disbeliever depends on the presence of the conditions and the absence of the barriers.

Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, in his explanation of the hadith of the man who denied Allah’s power, said, “As for the ignorance of this man mentioned in the hadith about one of Allah’s attributes, namely His knowledge and power, that did not remove him from faith.” (al-Tamhid 18/46).

He clarified that ignorance is a barrier to declaring a Muslim a disbeliever, and that falling into something that is disbelief does not mean the person becomes a disbeliever unless the conditions are met and the barriers are absent. So ignorance is a barrier that prevents someone from being removed from the fold of Islam.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah says: The accurate understanding on this issue is that a statement may indeed be disbelief, such as the statements of the Jahmiyyah, who said that Allah does not speak and will not be seen in the Hereafter. However, it may be unclear to some people that such a statement is disbelief, so the general ruling of declaring the speaker a disbeliever is made, as the Salaf said: Whoever says that the Quran is created is a disbeliever, and whoever says that Allah will not be seen in the Hereafter is a disbeliever.

But a specific individual is not declared a disbeliever until the proof is established against him, as was previously mentioned regarding someone who denied the obligation of prayer and zakah, or deemed wine and fornication permissible, but did so through interpretation. The clarity of these rulings among Muslims is even greater than the issues under discussion. So if someone errs in those more well-known rulings and is not declared a disbeliever until the matter is explained to him and he is called to repent, as the Companions did with the group that made wine permissible, then this is even more applicable in the less obvious matters. (al-Sunnah 1/111–232, Sharh Usul Iʿtiqad Ahl al-Sunnah 1/216–322). Ibn Taymiyyah also said in another place in Majmuʿ al-Fatawa (12/485): The well-known position of Imam Ahmad and the majority of the imams of the Sunnah is to declare the Jahmiyyah to be disbelievers, because they deny the attributes of the Most Merciful. Their statements are in direct contradiction to what the messengers brought in the Book, and the essence of their words is a denial of the Creator. Their statements amount to denial of the Lord, and of what He has told us about Himself through His messengers. For this reason, ʿAbd Allah ibn al-Mubarak said, “We are able to narrate the words of the Jews and Christians, but we cannot even narrate the words of the Jahmiyyah.” Others among the imams also said that they are worse than the Jews and Christians in this regard. That is why they declared as disbelievers those who said the Quran is created, or that Allah will not be seen in the Hereafter, or that Allah is not above the Throne, or that He has no knowledge, no power, no mercy, no anger, and other such denials of His attributes.

After this, the author has precious words that should be reviewed carefully regarding his ruling on most of the well-known sects and groups that deviated from the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamaʿah. He also drew attention to a very important foundational principle, which is that general takfir does not necessitate takfir of a specific individual, because there are conditions that must be fulfilled and barriers that must be absent in the case of an individual before the ruling of disbelief can be applied to him.

The author has addressed this important matter in several places in his Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, including 28/500 and 35/165.

Sharh Hadith Jibril By Ibn Taymiyyah Pg 572-573

He said, “Declaring a specific person a disbeliever and permitting his execution depends on the hadiths reaching him, a proof whose rejection leads to disbelief.” (al-Istighatha 2/252).

He said, “General takfir is like a general threat. It does not necessitate declaring a specific person to be a disbeliever until the proof is established, the one whose rejection leads to disbelief.” (al-Istiqaamah 1/164).

He also said, “So too, the statements whose speaker is declared a disbeliever may be said by someone who has not been reached by the texts that would oblige him to know the truth. Or perhaps the texts have reached him but are not firmly established in his mind. Or he may be incapable of understanding them. Or there may be doubts that Allah excuses him for. So, if someone is a believer, striving to know the truth, and he makes a mistake, then Allah forgives his mistake, whatever it may be, whether in theoretical or practical matters. This is the view of the Companions and the majority of the scholars of Islam.” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 23/346).

He also said, “Once we know what the Messenger brought, it becomes absolutely clear that he did not permit his Ummah to call upon any of the dead, whether prophets or righteous people or others, using words of seeking help or any other form, nor words of seeking protection or any other form. Nor did he permit them to prostrate to anyone, dead or alive, or anything like that. In fact, he forbade all of these things, and they are among the acts of shirk that Allah and His Messenger have forbidden.

However, due to the widespread ignorance and the limited knowledge of the teachings of the message among many later people, it is not possible to declare them disbelievers for such acts until what the Messenger brought, and what contradicts their actions, has been made clear to them. Indeed, whenever this issue is explained to someone who understands the foundations of Islam, he quickly realises it and says: ‘This is the foundation of the religion of Islam.’” (al-Istighatha 411–412. See also al-Istighatha 252–253, 352, and Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 23/345, 11/407, 35/165, 28/501, 12/478, 12/493, 12/498).

Thus, Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed that a person should not be declared a disbeliever for uttering words of disbelief unless the conditions for takfir are fulfilled and the barriers are removed.

He also made it clear that the proofs from the prophet, whose rejection leads to disbelief, must be established. This is exactly what the earlier imams stated.

He went on to explain some of the barriers that might be present in a person who falls into disbelief. He mentioned that a person may not have received the texts that would require him to know the truth. Or he may have received them but not found them convincing. Or he may have been incapable of understanding them. Or doubts may have occurred to him for which Allah will excuse him.

He added that Allah forgives mistakes, whatever they may be, whether in theoretical beliefs or in practical actions, and he attributed this to the Companions and the majority of the imams of Islam.

This is further confirmation that a specific person is not to be declared a disbeliever unless the conditions are fulfilled and the barriers are absent.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s attribution of this principle to the Salaf shows his concern for faithfully following their views.

He also did not differentiate between different issues, because widespread ignorance and weak knowledge of the teachings of the message apply to many areas.

He only considered takfir permissible when it has been made clear to the person what the Messenger brought, and that what he is doing contradicts that. In this, he did not depart from what the Salaf had stated.

It is therefore clear from the above that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah agreed with the Salaf and the imams of the Ummah in affirming this principle.