Fahd bin Saleh begins by describing a trend among some contemporary people who openly or indirectly declare as disbelievers all jurists, hadith scholars, and commentators affiliated with the Ashari creed, or even those influenced by parts of it. Some state this openly, others hint at it, while a few stop short of clear statements due to personal motives. Still, they approve the principle and let young, zealous followers draw the conclusion.

When questioned about how they can declare generations of pious scholars as disbelievers scholars who upheld the Sharia, protected its limits, and served the Ummah, they reply, “This is the path of the salaf.”

They attempt to link their takfir to the salaf’s rejection of the Jahmiyyah, and apply those rulings to later scholars like the Ashariyyah, claiming continuity.

However, Ibn Taymiyyah stated plainly: “Putting ignorant people in charge of declaring the scholars of the Muslims to be disbelievers is one of the greatest evils.” (Majmuʿ al Fatawa 35/100).

He said this while speaking about takfir of Abu Hamid al Ghazali, who was an imam among the Asharis.

The Disagreement Is About Interpreting The Reports Of The Salaf

Fahd bin Salehshows that this issue is not about “returning to the salaf,” because Ibn Taymiyyah was among the most knowledgeable of the salaf’s path. The real disagreement is over how to understand the words of the salaf, not about whether they should be followed. The path that Ibn Taymiyyah represented was one of deep understanding, nuance, and wisdom, while the other path is a rigid, literal reading that leads to great harm.

This chain takfir approach, when pushed to its natural result, means declaring disbelievers not only those who said the Quran is created or denied Allah’s elevation, but also those who did not declare them disbelievers, and even those who did not declare those people disbelievers, in an unending chain. Salafi statements such as those by Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash, Sufyan ibn Uyaynah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Harb al Kirmani are used to support this. Where they said: “Whoever says the Quran is created is a disbeliever, and whoever does not declare him a disbeliever is also a disbeliever.” (Masail Harb al Kirmani 3/1129; al Sunnah 1/111–115; Sharh Usul Iʿtiqad 1/282–283).

Al Umayri shows that if this logic is followed, it would lead to declaring most scholars of the Ummah as disbelievers. Scholars such as al Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, Ibn Abd al Barr, Ibn Rajab, Ibn Taymiyyah, al Dhahabi, and even the scholars of the Najdi dawah would fall into this ruling. This exposes the flaws in their understanding of the Salaf.

If these people want to be consistent, they must either admit that most of the Ummah has fallen into disbelief or accept that their method is false.

Al Umayri says: “They cannot escape from it.”

They may try to escape by saying that the salaf meant to apply takfir only after establishing the proof upon a person, and only for those who understand the issue.

Abu Hatim (d.277AH) said: “Whoever doubts the disbelief of the one who says the Quran is created, among those who understand and are not ignorant, is a disbeliever.” (Sharh Usul Iʿtiqad 1/197; Tabaqat al Hanabilah 1/286; al Hujjah fi Bayan al Mahajjah 1/240).

Why The Excuse Of “Establishing The Proof” Fails

But this answer does not help.

Firstly, most of the earlier statements from the salaf did not include this condition.

Secondly, if this condition is essential, why has no one been declared a disbeliever based on it, even after centuries of clear proof being widespread?

Why do these same people not bring examples of major scholars they now consider disbelievers because the proof was “established” on them? This shows their inconsistency.

Furthermore, Fahd bin Saleh flips their own logic against them.

He asks, if scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah and al Dhahabi knew the salaf’s statements and still did not declare takfir, do they have an excuse? Can the ignorant be excused for ignorance and the scholar be excused for knowledge? If the salaf’s statements were so clear, how can those who knew them not be judged?

This leads to two choices: either accept that most of the Ummah are disbelievers, or abandon this rigid method.

Even if they argue that falling into disbelief is worse than not declaring disbelievers, the logical result still holds: This leads to mass takfir.

This approach leads to expanding takfir beyond scholars who fell into mistaken views, extending it to those who defended them, or those who stayed silent, or those who simply did not speak against them strongly enough.

Eventually, it reaches ordinary Muslims. Al Umayri observes that this approach is already spreading among laypeople, with some of the most ignorant and unqualified people declaring great scholars disbelievers.

Some even go as far as calling al Bukhari a Jahmi and mocking major scholars as “Taymiyyah Jahmiyyah.”

These are not slips of the tongue, he says, but natural results of a corrupt methodology being followed to its end. He writes: “They are lighting a fire without realising that they will be fuel for it.”

He makes clear that this approach is not from the salaf. It is worse than what the early Khawarij did, who were known for their extremism. Al Umayri compares this phenomenon to the Khawarij who clung to literal meanings of Quran verses and claimed only they understood the religion.

The Right Method: Clear Principles From Ibn Taymiyyah

To rescue the issue from chaos, al Umayri brings the methodology of Ibn Taymiyyah. He explains that declaring a statement to be disbelief does not mean declaring the speaker a disbeliever. There is a legal and religious distinction between ruling on a statement and applying that ruling to a person.

A person might say a statement of disbelief, but not be judged a disbeliever due to ignorance, misinterpretation, or lack of understanding. This is not an invented rule it is found in the Quran and Sunnah, and was the practice of the companions.

He quotes Ibn Taymiyyah: “It is not necessary, when a statement is disbelief, that every person who says it becomes a disbeliever.” (Majmuʿ al Fatawa 3/230).

Second, takfir is like threatening punishment. Just as not everyone who does a sin will be punished due to possible excuses, not everyone who says a statement of disbelief will be judged as a disbeliever.

Third, speech must be understood in its context and intention. The salaf, when they said things like “Whoever does not declare disbelievers is himself a disbeliever”, did not mean to lay down a legal cause for takfir, but to show the seriousness of the issue. It was not an invitation to hunt down specific individuals.

Al Umayri compares this to jurists who say things like “Whoever permits musical instruments has disbelieved.”

They do not literally mean such a person is a disbeliever. Rather, it shows how clear they believe the prohibition is. But in real practice, people who allow musical instruments are not declared disbelievers because their view is based on interpretation.

In conclusion, Fahd bin Saleh’s entire argument shows that the chain takfir method is flawed in both principle and consequence.

It goes against the way of the salaf, results in widespread extremism, and opens the door to declaring the entire Ummah outside of Islam. The real salafi path is rooted in wisdom, knowledge of context, and understanding the legal principles behind takfir, as explained by Ibn Taymiyyah and the scholars who followed him.

ARABIC PDF OF FAHD BIN SALEH’S WORDS ON CHAIN TAKFIR —التسلسل في التكفير

A number of contemporary people adopt the view of declaring all the jurists and hadith scholars and commentators who are affiliated with the Ashari creed disbelievers, or who are influenced by some of its principles.

They openly declare all of them disbelievers, or clearly declare some of them disbelievers, or some of them are too timid to speak plainly because of personal calculations they have, so they are content with laying down the premises and leaving the conclusion to young people who do not have those calculations.

Perhaps some of them stay silent from openly declaring disbelief, while still allowing the view that certain specific Ashari scholars may be declared disbelievers.

When this way is ascribed to them, and they are asked how they can declare a huge group of the scholars of Islam, the jurists of the Muslims and their leaders, over extended centuries, to be disbelievers, scholars who were people of piety and religion, who established the acts of worship of the religion, supported its rulings, defended its sacred limits, and were truthful in following it, they make the matter easy for themselves and say: this is the method of the salaf (early generations of the Muslims), and this is their path.

They arrange the issue as follows. They say that the salaf declared the Jahmiyyah (followers of Jahm in creed) disbelievers, and they also declared those who deny that Allah is above the creation disbelievers, and they also declared the one who says “My pronunciation of the Quran is created” a disbeliever. Then they say that these scholars fell into similar matters.

In contrast, we find that Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah says in a famous statement: “Putting ignorant people in charge of declaring the scholars of the Muslims to be disbelievers is one of the greatest evils.” (Majmu Fatawa 35/100)

He said this statement in the context of speaking about declaring Abu Hamid al Ghazali a disbeliever and praising the one who defended him against takfir (being declared outside Islam). It is well known that al Ghazali was affiliated with the Ashariyyah and that he was an imam for them.

So you are in front of two paths.

One path says to you that declaring these scholars disbelievers is the method of the salaf and their consensus.

And a second path says that this is one of the greatest evils.

So there is a very strong clash between the two paths, and it is not correct that both can be ascribed to one and the same methodology.

The people of this direction usually answer by saying that what matters is the statements of the salaf and their consensus, and that it is not allowed to leave this certain consensus because of the statement of a later scholar.

They may force a strained interpretation on the words of Ibn Taymiyyah to make them agree with what they say, and some of them attack the Shaykh directly. All of them say that one must return to the salaf.

Yet Ibn Taymiyyah was not someone who ignored the salaf or did not know them, nor was he someone who merely clung to the words of the Mutazilah or was tied to their statements.

Ibn Taymiyyah was among the most insightful people regarding the methodology of the salaf and their statements, and among the most famous of those who supported it, defended it, and made it known to the people. So the essence of the disagreement is not about returning to the salaf, but about understanding the words of the salaf.

We are in front of two paths in understanding the salaf.

One path is that which Ibn Taymiyyah was upon, and it is not limited to him of course, but he is the most famous of those who explained it and supported it with proofs and arguments.

It is the path that the majority of scholars have followed for centuries, and hardly any contemporary scholar disagrees with it. The second path is that which these people follow, and they see that it is the method of the salaf and their consensus.

What you notice is that they lord it over others through the reports from the salaf. They see themselves as the true representatives of the salaf, and that others are not truthful in adopting the statements of the salaf. They describe anyone who does not agree with them on this takfir as “soft” or “compromising” or other insults that I do not know, or that have not yet been invented. They differ in how they judge others according to what each of them has of knowledge, intellect, fairness and justice.

Well then, for you to see clearly the flaw in this understanding and realise its danger, you must push their statements to their logical end and take their necessary consequences. Deviation in a view may not appear to some people until it is followed through to the end, so when its necessary consequences become clear, its corruption appears.

This is a sound rational method, since false consequences show that the original claim is corrupt, because the truth does not lead to false consequences. Rather, false consequences attach themselves to false statements, and by them the corruption of what they follow is known. The necessary consequences of this way of thinking are many.

They cling to what appears to them to be the outward meaning of the words of the salaf, without thinking carefully about the results. I will content myself here with one necessary consequence which reveals the corruption of this path. It is their being bound to apply takfir in a continuous chain, and that by their necessary implication they must declare the majority of the Muslims and most of their scholars over the centuries disbelievers, and not only in our age.

If this binding is correct and sound, they must either openly state this necessary result, and then their savagery against this Ummah will appear and their statement will fall in the sight of every sane person, or they must admit that what they say contains contradiction, and that their ascription of their view to the salaf is false and that they have deviated from the method of the Sharia.

Then it becomes clear that they are lording it over people with a corrupt understanding that they imagine to be the statement of the salaf, and they drag this wild understanding to trample the sacred limits. This obliges any intelligent person to return, in understanding the salaf, to the words of those who are experts in this field and insightful regarding it.

With an emphasis here that what will come is in the form of binding them and following their statements to their end in order to show their corruption. It is not an acceptance of their statement, nor an approval of the proofs or objections that are found in it. After this we will speak about the correct stance regarding the words of the salaf and explain the correct way of understanding them.

Binding them with the sequence in takfir.

There has come from a number of the imams of the salaf statements that declare to be disbelievers those who do not declare the Jahmiyyah disbelievers, and those who do not declare the people who say that the Quran is created disbelievers. Among these statements are the following.

Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash was asked about the one who says that the Quran is created. He said: “He is a disbeliever, and everyone who does not say that he is a disbeliever is himself a disbeliever.”

Sufyan ibn Uyaynah said: “The Quran is the speech of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. Whoever says that it is created is a disbeliever, and whoever doubts his disbelief is a disbeliever.”

Yazid ibn Harun said: “Whoever says that the Quran is created is a disbeliever. Whoever does not declare him a disbeliever is a disbeliever. Whoever doubts his disbelief is a disbeliever.”

Abu Khaythamah Zuhayr ibn Harb said: “Whoever claims that the Quran, the speech of Allah, is created is a disbeliever, and whoever doubts his disbelief is a disbeliever.”

And Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: “Whoever says that the Quran is created is a disbeliever, and whoever doubts his disbelief is a disbeliever.” He also said: “Whoever says that it is created is a disbeliever in Allah the Great, and whoever does not declare him a disbeliever is a disbeliever.” (References for these reports include: Masail Harb al Kirmani volume 3 page 1129, al Sunnah by Abd Allah ibn Ahmad volume 1 pages 111 to 115, al Ibana al Kubra by Ibn Battah volume 6 page 27, Sharh Usul Iitiqad Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaah by al Lalakayi volume 1 pages 282 to 283, Tabaqat al Hanabilah volume 1 page 173, and Tabaqat al Hanabilah volume 1 page 342.)

Harun al Furu said: “The Quran is the speech of Allah, it is not created. Whoever says that it is created is a disbeliever, and whoever doubts concerning the Waqifah (the ones who withhold and say we neither affirm nor deny that it is created) is a disbeliever.”

And Harb al Kirmani said: “The Quran is the speech of Allah, He spoke it, it is not created. Whoever claims that the Quran is created is a Jahmi disbeliever. Whoever claims that the Quran is the speech of Allah but then stops and does not say that it is not created is more disbelieving than the first and more evil in statement. Whoever claims that our utterance of the Quran and our recitation of it is created, while the Quran is the speech of Allah, is a Jahmi, evil innovator. Whoever does not declare all of these people disbelievers is like them.” (Among the references for this are al Sunnah by Abd Allah ibn Ahmad volume 1 page 173 and Masail Harb al Kirmani volume 2 page 175.)

These are many texts from a number of the great imams of the salaf. Among them are Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash, Sufyan ibn Uyaynah, Yazid ibn Harun, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Harun al Furu, Zuhayr ibn Harb and Harb al Kirmani.

They are explicit texts that declare disbelievers those who do not declare the Jahmiyyah disbelievers, or do not declare those who say some of their statements disbelievers.

According to the method of these people in exaggeration we could say: these are widespread and well known statements in successive generations, and it is not known that anyone from the salaf of this Ummah ever objected to any of them, especially since they are statements related to takfir. If there had been any excess or going too far in them they would not have been silent about it.

This would then be a kind of consensus on declaring disbelievers all those whom these scholars declared disbelievers when they fell into these innovation based statements that take one outside Islam. We would then not care about their number or their large amount or about the many generations, as long as this is the statement of the salaf altogether.

Then we increase the tone of exaggeration and say: these statements were transmitted by the scholars of Sunnah after them. You find them in the books of Abd Allah ibn Ahmad, Ibn Battah, al Lalakayi and others who were concerned with gathering the words of the salaf. This shows that they approved them and were pleased with them, and that some of them even clearly stated statements similar to them.

We could exaggerate even more and say: Harb al Kirmani mentioned this statement in his creed where he reported the agreement of the salaf upon it, so this would be something upon which he reported the consensus of the salaf. (See al Sunnah by Abd Allah ibn Ahmad volume 1 page 173 and Masail Harb al Kirmani volume 2 page 175.)

Following the method of these people in argument we say: these texts do not mention any condition of establishing the proof, nor do they mention any difference between the description and the specific person.

Rather, they are apparent statements of takfir directed at everyone who says these words. The salaf were not disputing in empty air. They were speaking about real persons in their time. What is the benefit of takfir if its effects are not applied in reality?

This would then show that every scholar or student of knowledge, or even every common person, who did not declare disbelievers those whom the salaf declared disbelievers, is himself a disbeliever. We would not care about the consequences as long as this is the outward wording of the salaf. They openly stated takfir, and they were more fearful of Allah, more pious and more knowledgeable than those later people about whom it is said that they are weak in this issue.

Following their manner of belittling their opponents and lording it over them we could answer in the same style and say: there is no proof from the words of the salaf for not declaring disbelievers those who did not declare disbelievers.

Rather this is an influence of humanist culture and the values of western tolerance, and of the nature of contemporary secular life in which takfir has become rejected. So it has become heavy on the souls to commit themselves to what the salaf were upon in declaring disbelievers those who did not declare disbelievers.

Then we could extend this overreach with aggression and moral corruption as they themselves do and say: objecting to those who declare disbelievers everyone who did not declare disbelievers, and greatly denouncing those who declare all of them disbelievers, is in fact putting the right of the created over the right of the Creator. It comes from exaggerated respect for the status of created beings over the attributes of the Creator.

This would mean declaring most of this Ummah disbelievers after the first preferred generations, from whom we are certain that they did not declare such scholars disbelievers as specific individuals. Hardly anyone would be excluded from that except perhaps a very small number who clearly declared the Ashariyyah disbelievers.

Everyone else would be a disbeliever in person, until we come to our own time and then declare disbelievers the general people in their age, both the scholars, the students of knowledge and the common people, because takfir in this sense is not known except from a limited group, namely these people. They would then be the only ones who remain upon Islam, as they claim about the salaf.

This binding is strong and tight. They cannot escape from it. This is their method in declaring the scholars of the Muslims who fell into some of these innovations, based on interpretation, to be disbelievers. This is their method in attacking those who did not declare them disbelievers, those who interpreted in their favour and those who spoke well of them.

They use the words of the salaf to put themselves above others.

The necessary result of their method is what we have mentioned. So let them commit themselves to it if they are truthful, or let them return to the foundation of the issue and correct the flaw from its root.

What they mention as a proof for declaring the Ashari scholars disbelievers, and what they use to lord it over those who differ with them, turns back against them in declaring disbelievers those who did not declare them disbelievers. It binds them by the same proof and lords it over them in the same way they lord it over their opponents.

Someone from among them might say, to escape this binding: but the salaf clearly said that takfir here applies to the one who understands or knows, so no one is declared a disbeliever except after establishing the proof, unlike the one who denies that Allah is above the creation or says that the Quran is created, where they did not require such a condition.

Among these texts are what came in the letter of Abu Zurah and Abu Hatim al Razi: “Whoever claims that the Quran is created is a disbeliever in Allah the Great, a disbelief that takes him outside the religion. Whoever doubts his disbelief among those who understand is a disbeliever.”

It also came from Abu Hatim al Razi something similar where he said: “Whoever claims that it is created and made is a disbeliever in Allah, with a disbelief that takes him outside the religion. Whoever doubts his disbelief, among those who understand and are not ignorant, is a disbeliever. Whoever is ignorant is taught, and if he then submits to the truth by declaring him a disbeliever, then good. Otherwise he is forced to the ruling of disbelief.” Some other scholars after them mentioned this meaning, such as Abu al Shaykh al Asbahani, who said: “Whoever doubts the disbelief of the one who says that the Quran is created, after knowing and after hearing this from the trustworthy scholars, is like him.” (Among the references for these reports are Sharh Usul Iitiqad Ahl al Sunnah volume 1 page 197, Tabaqat al Hanabilah volume 1 page 286, and al Hujjah fi Bayan al Mahajjah by al Asbahani volume 1 page 240.)

These texts do not help them escape. Rather the rope of binding becomes even tighter. This can be shown from two sides.

The first side is that all those imams mentioned earlier, and they are many and famous, did not mention this condition. So what is now mentioned of conditions and restrictions is a pure assumption that is being imposed on clear explicit words that do not contain such conditions. It is not valid, as a binding against those who are literal and rigid, to restrict the words of most of the early scholars by the words of one or two scholars after them.

This restriction can be a statement of some scholars, but the majority are on something else. The result remains that most of the salaf did not have this condition in mind.

The second side is that even with this restriction the problem remains. We will judge them by their own method of judging their opponents and say: when exactly is the proof established against the one who does not declare disbelievers, since all these centuries have passed without any real effect of this proof?

The salaf have made the proof clear, explained the argument and clarified the issue. Centuries have passed after that and the explanation continued, so has the proof of Allah disappeared from the earth to the point that this matter has become hidden and obscure in a way that does not allow the proof to be established regarding it?

We can measure them with the same measure they use to lord it over the servants of Allah and say: this condition of establishing the proof may be applicable to one or two people or more who had a specific excuse.

But what excuse is there for the experts and major scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyyah for example, or his students, or those after them who know the words of the salaf, memorise them and use them as proofs? Can the ignorant be excused because of his ignorance and the scholar be excused because of his knowledge of these texts? Is this accepted?

Following their own method we can also say: giving an excuse can be applied to specific individual cases. It cannot be said that everyone who did not declare disbelievers is a Muslim or that he is treated as a Muslim. Nor can we describe them as an entire Muslim group while they are persisting in a foundation of disbelief that is apparent, which the salaf explicitly declared to be disbelief. General takfir, even if it does not apply to every single person involved, must apply to most of those who fall into that thing. At the very least it must apply to many of them.

According to this same corrupt method we say: establishing the proof has become an excuse not to declare anyone a disbeliever at all, to the point that it is as if takfir no longer exists in reality. It is as if it is a purely theoretical thing that the salaf spoke about, in their view, that has no connection to real life.

We repeat their own claim back against them: so when will the proof be established, and in what situation?

Then we say in the same way: bring us a list of many names of scholars and jurists whom you did not declare disbelievers in the past, but whom you now see to be disbelievers because the proof has been established upon them. Mention to us a particular scholar whom you declared to be a disbeliever because he did not declare those other scholars disbelievers, so that we know what special thing this scholar had, that made him disbeliever in your eyes and not others.

We can then draw the map that they themselves draw when they declare scholars disbelievers. They say that the salaf agreed on declaring disbelievers those who did not declare disbelievers. They say that it may be said that they declared them disbelievers without detailed explanation, or that they declared all of them disbelievers as specific individuals, or that they differentiated between the ignorant and the scholar. As for saying that none of them is a disbeliever, this is something that no one from the salaf ever said.

We can repeat against them the same proof that they never tire of repeating. Even if we suppose that there is an excuse for those who did not declare disbelievers such as Ibn Taymiyyah, al Dhahabi and the rest of the scholars in later times, this does not allow them to be imams for the Muslims nor figures who are greatly respected among them. The most that can be said is that they fell into disbelief, while being excused in it. So what leadership and what great status is there for someone whose situation is like that?

And so you see that the binding is choking them in both directions.

On one hand, you have many texts that do not mention anything about establishing the proof. On their view, the least that can be said about these texts, even if they are not consensus, is that they are the statement of the majority of the salaf. So at the very least this would be a valid statement that they saw as permissible, and it would lead to permitting the declaration of disbelief for the majority of the Muslims in our age and in the ages before us.

On the other hand, even if we say that establishing the proof is a condition, and even if we assume that this is the statement of all of them, it remains that establishing the proof relates to excusing some specific individuals. It is not valid that this condition prevents declaring entire groups disbelievers so that they are not described as being Muslims while they are persisting upon a foundation of disbelief, and neither the scholar among them nor the common person who has been informed is excused.

One of them may try to answer this binding by saying: but issues have different levels. Falling into disbelief is not like failing to declare disbelievers those who have fallen into it.

The answer is very easy. This binding is not claiming that they are exactly on one level, and this point has nothing to do, at all, with the nature of the binding that surrounds them, so that they could use it as an answer.

We say: even if they have different levels, they are all matters that cause disbelief. Even if the second one needs establishing the proof while the first one does not, establishing the proof cannot be cancelled in the topic of takfir until it becomes something imaginary, so that the takfir of the salaf becomes, according to them, something that they only speak about without it having any effect in real life.

As you can see, it is very easy to pull these people towards smashing the door of takfir wide open, and it is very easy to push them toward exhausting the Ummah of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, through takfir. The matter does not stop at declaring disbelievers those scholars who fell into such innovations by way of interpretation. It can reach the point of declaring other scholars of the Muslims disbelievers, or at least describing them as misguided or foolish and attacking them. This then spreads and grows according to the level of knowledge and intelligence of each person among them.

When you know that declaring the scholars of the Muslims disbelievers has become an open field for the general masses, and that different levels of common people are taking part in declaring scholars disbelievers, and that some of those who speak in takfir of the scholars of the Muslims are among the weakest of the creation of Allah in intellect and knowledge, then it becomes clear to you that the matter of takfir will spread in length and width.

It may even reach these very people who misled them into such takfir, so that they themselves are declared disbelievers because of it. They are lighting a fire without realising that they will be fuel for it. So what excuse do they have in not clearly declaring disbelievers those who did not declare these scholars disbelievers? Why can you not hear them declare anyone at all a disbeliever, no matter what that person does?

Someone among them might say: but we do not say such a statement, and we do not declare people disbelievers in the way you are describing.

The answer is that we are not interested in attributing such a statement to them, because it is truly a statement of extreme ugliness and horror. Rather the benefit of this binding is to reveal the root of the mistake and the source of the deviation. The corruption of the result is a proof of the corruption of the original statement. If this corrupted necessary result follows from what they say, then this shows that what they say is itself a corrupt and deviant statement. If it were correct, such enormous corruption would not follow from it. True statements do not lead to falsehood. Falsehood arises from false statements.

This binding also has another benefit. It warns of where such false statements are heading and allows us to foresee their future direction. If some of them stop short of following the statement to its end because they see how ugly it becomes, you will certainly find others who commit themselves to it fully and do not see it as ugly.

Just as they do not see declaring scholars of the Muslims who fell into some innovation by way of interpretation disbelievers, such as al Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, al Qarafi, al Izz ibn Abd al Salam, al Bayhaqi and countless others whose number only Allah knows, to be ugly despite the fact that it is seen as a horrible thing by other Muslims, you will also find others who do not see any problem in declaring Ibn Abd al Barr, Ibn Taymiyyah, al Dhahabi, Ibn Rajab, Ibn al Mubarrad, the imams of the Najdi dawah and all contemporary scholars and most of the common Muslims with them, to be disbelievers, because in their view they are simply following through the statements of the salaf.

This following through is not something imagined or merely expected. It has real examples known to anyone who follows the situation of these people. We have heard some of them describe al Bukhari as a Jahmi, and some call others “the Taymiyyah Jahmiyyah”, and there are other examples we do not wish to mention here.

These are not cases of accidental slips or mistakes in expression. They are in reality the result of following the statement to its necessary end and walking along its consequences. In terms of logic they are more consistent with the method and more tightly committed to it, even though they are more corrupt and clearly more deviant.

Well then, after all this, does this mean that we attribute these necessary results to the method of the salaf?

Far be it. Allah forbid. This wide spreading corruption, which leads to declaring the majority of the Ummah of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, disbelievers, is one of the ugly forms of extremism and one of the horrible deviations that even goes beyond what is narrated about the extremist Khawarij in early times.

This cannot possibly be the statement of the salaf, nor of any one of them. The result of this binding is to nullify their clinging to the edges of the salaf and to free the method of the salaf from them. The flaw goes back to a bad understanding and weak intellect. Their claim to follow the salaf and their boasting about that does not benefit them after this.

Allah knows that I dislike mentioning these statements related to takfir and that I feel tightness in my chest because of them, due to the great status these imams have in Islam. One fears that this might become a trial for some people, leading them to fall short in giving these imams their rightful respect. Yet it is a necessity that is needed in order to expose the corruption of this way and to nullify its ascription to the salaf.

This following through is logically sound in terms of argument. It binds them to attribute this corrupt meaning to the salaf, and in that there is a great insult to the imams of the salaf and an ugly attack on them, and a very strong means of turning people away from them. These people show outwardly that they respect the salaf and use that to lord it over others, yet by this way of reasoning they open doors for others to belittle the salaf and insult them. They do this when they attribute to them a statement that leads to such horrible necessary results. So the harm of this distorted thinking comes from two directions.

The first direction is that it opens the door of takfir wide so that it tears apart the Ummah of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. They no longer remain an Ummah that receives mercy, but an Ummah that is under anger, with some of them declaring others disbelievers and most of them judged to be outside Islam. This produces severe extremism in this area.

The second direction is that it opens the door to insulting the salaf and attacking them, or accepting twisted ideas about them or turning away from benefiting from them. This way is, in truth, a fitnah for the people, because it attributes corrupt meanings to the salaf without any thought for the consequences.

So then, how do we deal with these statements that are reported from the salaf?

This is what I want to reach in this essay. This is the aim of this binding, to drive an intelligent person back to the root of the matter so that he examines where the flaw entered upon him. These reports have been known to the scholars for centuries.

They were not hidden from them, nor are they from the subtle points that only rare individuals can reach. Rather, they are well known statements in famous books. The scholars, however, had a way of understanding them and had principles in dealing with them that differ from the way of this corrupt path which has given rise to such horrible necessary results.

The flaw here is similar to the flaw that entered upon the Khawarij in their understanding of texts that are greater than the statements of the scholars of the salaf, namely the texts of the Quran. They found, according to their understanding, apparent texts that pointed to their creed, and they saw them as clear in the Quran. They thought that no one else read the Quran or knew its verses except them. They clung to what appeared to them of the literal meanings of the verses and so went astray themselves and led others astray. They made the shedding of sacred blood lawful because of their rigid and shallow understanding of the text, together with their self admiration. They thought that they had more fiqh (deep understanding) than the companions, that they knew the Book of Allah better and that no one had understood the Quran except them.

Likewise here. Clinging rigidly to the apparent wording of some statements, then following them through according to what appears to a person of meaning, without considering the legislative texts that rule over the issue, or the aims of the speech, and while ignoring the way of the majority of the scholars of the Ummah, produces the kind of phenomenon we are discussing.

For this reason Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah took great care with such issues. He was among the most knowledgeable of people about the statements of the salaf, and among the most insightful regarding their history, their foundations and their effects.

He was among the strongest people in supporting them, being proud of them, explaining them and clarifying them. He laid down a number of general rules that regulate this and similar issues. We will limit ourselves here to three meanings that have a connection with this binding.

The first meaning is that declaring a statement to be disbelief does not necessarily mean declaring the person who says it to be a disbeliever. Takfir here is directed at the statement itself, describing how horrible it is and warning against it. It does not mean that every single person who says it is, as a specific individual, a disbeliever. This takfir is not tied to that.

There is a decisive difference between the ruling on a description and the ruling on a specific person. Whoever does not understand this and supposes that every descriptive ruling found in the words of the salaf must be realised, according to them, in every specific person who falls under that description has treated them unjustly and insulted them with this false attribution. If such a person used this same thinking with the texts of the Book and the Sunnah he would go astray and make mistakes, so how then with the words of those who are not infallible.

He clarifies this meaning further with another meaning.

The second meaning is that takfir is of the same type as threat of punishment. The texts of threat in the Quran show that whoever does that action is deserving of punishment. This does not mean that every threat will definitely apply to every person who does that action. There are barriers that can stop the threat, and among the greatest of these in the topic we are speaking about is interpretation and the effort of the person, according to his ability, to reach what he thinks is the intent of Allah.

This difference between the ruling on the description and the application of that ruling to specific individuals is not something invented by Ibn Taymiyyah. It is a firmly established legal principle with clear evidence from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him. It is also the way of the companions, may Allah be pleased with them, and those after them.

The Shaykh spoke at length about this principle in many places because of the pressing need for it. Among what he said is: “I used to explain to them that what has been transmitted to them from the salaf and the imams of general statements declaring disbelievers those who say such and such is also true, but there must be a difference between general statements and specific individuals.

This was the first issue over which the Ummah differed in the major topics of the fundamentals. It is the issue of threat of punishment. The texts of the Quran regarding threat are general, such as His saying: ‘Those who devour the wealth of orphans unjustly’ and so on, and such as every text in which it is mentioned that whoever does such and such has such and such punishment.

All of these are general and are of the same type as the statements of some of the salaf, such as whoever says such and such is such and such. As for the specific individual, the ruling of threat may be lifted from him because of his repentance, his good deeds that erase sins, his calamities that expiate sins or an accepted intercession.” (Majmu al Fatawa 3/230)

He clarifies the difference between declaring the description disbelief and declaring the specific person a disbeliever when he says: “This is not the statement of the four imams nor others. None of them said that every innovator is a disbeliever. The clear statements transmitted from them contradict such a claim.

It may be transmitted from one of them that he declared someone who said a certain statement to be a disbeliever, but what he meant is that this statement is disbelief, so that it will be avoided. It is not necessary, when a statement is disbelief, that every person who says it becomes a disbeliever, if he said it out of ignorance or interpretation. The establishment of disbelief for a specific individual is like the establishment of the threat of punishment in the Hereafter for him. Both of them have conditions and barriers.”

What is noticed here in the way of the salaf is that they speak very strongly when it comes to takfir related to descriptions. In many of their statements they explicitly declare that. As for applying that to specific individuals, it is very rare compared to takfir related to statements and actions. In some cases it may even be completely absent.

Notice here, for example, what came regarding declaring disbelievers those who did not declare disbelievers. In this matter you will not find any real example. You will not find that they declared any particular person a disbeliever because of that, nor that they demanded that anyone repent from that or implemented the legal effects of disbelief upon him.

You will not find in this regard the slightest hint or indication. All of this confirms that what they meant by such statements was to emphasise the ruling of the topic itself and to show its great status in the Sharia. It was not to place a legal cause for takfir that would be used to chase specific individuals among the Muslims and judge them to be disbelievers because of that.

This distinction reveals insight, wisdom and deep understanding of the religion. Being very strong in describing statements as disbelief protects the religion, clarifies the Sharia and guards people from falling into what conflicts with the foundations of Islam.

As for applying that to specific individuals, this is another matter that relates to knowing the situation of each person and his excuse. Leaving the application to specific individuals does not harm the original ruling.

This is the opposite of those who turn the matter upside down. They are busy chasing specific individuals and applying rulings to them. They chase the living and the dead with takfir. This creates disputes about the ruling itself, raises objections to it and makes people turn away from it. They neither preserved the rights of people nor guarded the clear statement of the legal ruling. Rather, they have caused a reason that drives people away from the truth.

The third meaning is that the speech of each person must be understood according to what he intended and for the sake of which he spoke. The context and the circumstances that had an effect on his speech must be taken into account.

If this principle is required from scholars when they understand the speech of Allah and the speech of His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, then it is even more important in the speech of others. In fact, some legal texts must be understood as relating to specific individuals and situations, and it is not allowed to generalise them beyond that. If this is the case with the speech of the one who is protected from error, how then with the speech of those who are not infallible.

This confirms the importance of understanding the aims of what is being said. Speech should not be interpreted only according to what appears of its wording, without understanding the aim behind it.

So when some of the great salaf say here “whoever does not declare disbelievers is himself a disbeliever” they do not intend by this to lay down a legal cause for takfir that is of the same type as saying “whoever insults Allah has disbelieved” or “whoever abandons the prayer has disbelieved”, which are from the statements and actions upon which the ruling of takfir is made to hang. Rather, what is intended is to stress the ruling and to show how firmly established and clear it is, that it is a kind of disbelief that is completely clear, which every Muslim knows. The aim is not that you start searching for specific individuals among the people to declare them disbelievers because of that. Whoever thinks that what they meant was to place a cause for takfir and to hang the ruling upon it has belittled their understanding.

Something similar in some respects is what we find in the speech of some jurists when they say that a person becomes a disbeliever if he makes some matters of disagreement lawful, such as musical instruments. Their intention is that in their view the ruling of prohibition is completely clear and is of the same type as matters that are known necessarily in the religion, which no Muslim would be ignorant of.

They do not mean that saying that musical instruments are allowed is something that makes a person disbeliever. It is not imagined, in their view, that this is a place where takfir is appropriate, because everyone who permits musical instruments does so based on interpretation or juristic effort.

This is not something that is known necessarily in the religion, such that it could be said that it could not be hidden from any Muslim, and that none could deny it except someone who stubbornly rejects the truth.