If the three previous threads are understood, we can now understand a statement of some Najdi scholars that is commonly shared
The three previous threads:
Thread 1:
Thread 2:
Thread 3:
Thread 1:
Thread 2:
https://twitter.com/aal_moalim/status/1436593819475226624?s=21
Thread 3:
https://twitter.com/aal_moalim/status/1436620566279114754?s=21
https://twitter.com/Aal_Moalim/status/1436592017094623236
The statement:
إذا كان يعمل بالكفر والشرك، لجهله، أو عدم من ينبهه، لا نحكم بكفره حتى تقام عليه الحجة؛ ولكن لا نحكم بأنه مسلم، بل نقول عمله هذا كفر، يبيح المال والدم، وإن كنا لا نحكم على هذا الشخص، لعدم قيام الحجة عليه؛ لا يقال: إن لم يكن كافرا، فهو مسلم، بل نقول عمله عمل الكفار
إذا كان يعمل بالكفر والشرك، لجهله، أو عدم من ينبهه، لا نحكم بكفره حتى تقام عليه الحجة؛ ولكن لا نحكم بأنه مسلم، بل نقول عمله هذا كفر، يبيح المال والدم، وإن كنا لا نحكم على هذا الشخص، لعدم قيام الحجة عليه؛ لا يقال: إن لم يكن كافرا، فهو مسلم، بل نقول عمله عمل الكفار
وإطلاق الحكم على هذا الشخص بعينه، متوقف على بلوغ الحجة الرسالية.
وقد ذكر أهل العلم: أن أصحاب الفترات، يمتحنون يوم القيامة في العرصات، ولم يجعلوا حكمه حكم الكفار، ولا حكم الأبرار.
al-maktaba.org/book/3055/4302…
وقد ذكر أهل العلم: أن أصحاب الفترات، يمتحنون يوم القيامة في العرصات، ولم يجعلوا حكمه حكم الكفار، ولا حكم الأبرار.
al-maktaba.org/book/3055/4302…
This was an answer to the following comment:
ظهر لنا من جوابكم: أن المؤمن بالله ورسوله إذا قال أو فعل ما يكون كفرا، جهلا منه بذلك، فلا تكفرونه، حتى تقوم عليه الحجة الرسالية، فهل لو قتل من هذا حاله، قبل ظهور هذه الدعوة، موضوع أم لا؟
ظهر لنا من جوابكم: أن المؤمن بالله ورسوله إذا قال أو فعل ما يكون كفرا، جهلا منه بذلك، فلا تكفرونه، حتى تقوم عليه الحجة الرسالية، فهل لو قتل من هذا حاله، قبل ظهور هذه الدعوة، موضوع أم لا؟
The comment states the following points:
You have X who believes in Allah and His messenger. If he does or says something that is Kufr/Shirk out of ignorance from him on that, you don’t make Takfir of this person until the Hujjah Al Risaaliyyah is applied upon him.
You have X who believes in Allah and His messenger. If he does or says something that is Kufr/Shirk out of ignorance from him on that, you don’t make Takfir of this person until the Hujjah Al Risaaliyyah is applied upon him.
But if someone in this state was killed before this Da’wah (ie the Hujjah Al Risaaliyyah) became apparent, is his blood موضوع?
Note موضوع here is referring to the Hadith of the Prophet
ألا إن دم الجاهلية كله موضوع
Meaning abolished (no rulings of Qisas, Diyah etc is applied)
Note موضوع here is referring to the Hadith of the Prophet
ألا إن دم الجاهلية كله موضوع
Meaning abolished (no rulings of Qisas, Diyah etc is applied)
Let’s make it clearer:
Take X who says he’s a Muslim who believes in Allah & His messenger but at the same time he worships Ganesh & Vishnu due to ignorance.
He was then killed by Y before the Hujjah Al Risaaliyyah could be established upon X.
What do we do?
Take X who says he’s a Muslim who believes in Allah & His messenger but at the same time he worships Ganesh & Vishnu due to ignorance.
He was then killed by Y before the Hujjah Al Risaaliyyah could be established upon X.
What do we do?
The answer to this question by those Najdis is understood as follows:
Point 1:
If X was doing Shirk out of ignorance then we don’t judge upon him Kufr until the Hujjah is established upon him.
إذا كان يعمل بالكفر والشرك، لجهله، أو عدم من ينبهه، لا نحكم بكفره حتى تقام عليه الحجة
If X was doing Shirk out of ignorance then we don’t judge upon him Kufr until the Hujjah is established upon him.
إذا كان يعمل بالكفر والشرك، لجهله، أو عدم من ينبهه، لا نحكم بكفره حتى تقام عليه الحجة
Point 2:
However, we don’t judge that he is a Muslim.
ولكن لا نحكم بأنه مسلم
However, we don’t judge that he is a Muslim.
ولكن لا نحكم بأنه مسلم
Point 3:
Rather, we say that X has done an act of Shirk (by worshipping Ganesh & Vishnu), which is an act that would cause one’s blood and wealth to be Halal
بل نقول عمله هذا كفر، يبيح المال والدم
Rather, we say that X has done an act of Shirk (by worshipping Ganesh & Vishnu), which is an act that would cause one’s blood and wealth to be Halal
بل نقول عمله هذا كفر، يبيح المال والدم
Point 4:
Even though we wouldn’t judge that [ie making his blood & wealth halal] upon X because of the Hujjah not being established upon him.
وإن كنا لا نحكم على هذا الشخص، لعدم قيام الحجة عليه
Even though we wouldn’t judge that [ie making his blood & wealth halal] upon X because of the Hujjah not being established upon him.
وإن كنا لا نحكم على هذا الشخص، لعدم قيام الحجة عليه
Point 5:
In spite of that, we don’t say that just because he’s not judged to be a Kafir [as mentioned in point 1] that he therefore must be a Muslim.
لا يقال: إن لم يكن كافرا، فهو مسلم
In spite of that, we don’t say that just because he’s not judged to be a Kafir [as mentioned in point 1] that he therefore must be a Muslim.
لا يقال: إن لم يكن كافرا، فهو مسلم
Point 6:
Rather, we say that that his act is an act of the Kuffar
بل نقول عمله عمل الكفار
Rather, we say that that his act is an act of the Kuffar
بل نقول عمله عمل الكفار
Point 7:
And releasing the judgement [of Kufr which would result in his blood & wealth being Halal] umupon X as a specific individual rests upon the Hujjah Al Risaaliyyah teaching him.
وإطلاق الحكم على هذا الشخص بعينه، متوقف على بلوغ الحجة الرسالية
And releasing the judgement [of Kufr which would result in his blood & wealth being Halal] umupon X as a specific individual rests upon the Hujjah Al Risaaliyyah teaching him.
وإطلاق الحكم على هذا الشخص بعينه، متوقف على بلوغ الحجة الرسالية
Point 8:
And the logic for this answer stems from how the people of knowledge dealt with the Ahl Al Fatrah who are to be tested on the day of Judgement.
They didn’t give them the Hukm of Kuffar but neither did they give them the Hukm of Al Abrar [ie Islam]
And the logic for this answer stems from how the people of knowledge dealt with the Ahl Al Fatrah who are to be tested on the day of Judgement.
They didn’t give them the Hukm of Kuffar but neither did they give them the Hukm of Al Abrar [ie Islam]
ذكر أهل العلم: أن أصحاب الفترات، يمتحنون يوم القيامة في العرصات، ولم يجعلوا حكمه حكم الكفار، ولا حكم الأبرار
And we mentioned this point here in the third introductory thread:
Therefore, the same is to be applied to X in this context.
And we mentioned this point here in the third introductory thread:
Therefore, the same is to be applied to X in this context.
https://twitter.com/aal_moalim/status/1436620595588907010
Point 9:
As for the ruling of Y who killed X then later accepts Islam, do we judge that Y has to pay the blood money?
The answer is no because Islam breaks what came before it الاسلام يجب ما قبله and this act was done before Islam and Y did the act whilst he was a Kafir
As for the ruling of Y who killed X then later accepts Islam, do we judge that Y has to pay the blood money?
The answer is no because Islam breaks what came before it الاسلام يجب ما قبله and this act was done before Islam and Y did the act whilst he was a Kafir
وأما حكم هذا الشخص إذا قتل، ثم أسلم قاتله، فإنا لا نحكم بديته على قاتله إذا أسلم، بل نقول: الإسلام يجب ما قبله، لأن القاتل قتله في حال كفره
What we can conclude from this:
X is like Ahl Al Fatrah so
He isn’t given the judgement of Kufr ie his blood & wealth is not halal until the Hujjah is established.
He isn’t given the label of Muslim because X is in the state of Shirk (he worships Ganesh) as we explained here:
X is like Ahl Al Fatrah so
He isn’t given the judgement of Kufr ie his blood & wealth is not halal until the Hujjah is established.
He isn’t given the label of Muslim because X is in the state of Shirk (he worships Ganesh) as we explained here:
https://twitter.com/aal_moalim/status/1436620595588907010
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
