Determining Truth in Islam

Calling Someone a Kafir
Suhaib Webb | January 15, 2011 1:04 am

Question

The other day I was out with some of my friends and we started talking about different groups. One of them said that such and such person is a kafir (infidel). Upon hearing this I told him that was not right. In his defense he told me that he heard one of this person’s talks and what he said was nothing but kufar. What do I do?

Answer

Bismillah wa salatu wa salamu `ala sayydina rasulillah.

Sadly, this is the case of some in our community. Frank Luntz mentions in What American Think…Really that 90% of Americans think they are smarter than other Americans. Unfortunately, it seems that arrogance like this transcends faith and falls into our community as well.

Takfir (declaring apostasy) is not an easy affair. Just like any ruling it has certain conditions that, if not present, will prevent the ruling, in this case disbelief, from occurring.

Here are some of those conditions:

Declaring apostasy cannot be based on probability, meaning if there is a chance that a person may not be a kafir. Imam Malik said, “If I have 99 reasons to believe a person is a kafir and one to believe he is not, I’ll prefer the latter.”
Takfir is made regarding things that are known by default, like God being one and the finality of prophethood. The Malikis listed 33 issues that fall under the heading, malum min al-din bi al-Dururrah.
Takfir cannot be based on following an opinion (ijtihad) of a scholar in fiqh (legal verdict). There is not a kafir in fiqh because fiqh implies knowledge of things beyond the average person’s scope. For that reason a person is not declared a kafir who makes tawassul (praying to Allah through an intermediary). Imam Ahmed said, “We do not declare such people as kuffar.”
Takfir cannot be based on a sincere attempt to interpret or understand a text. Allah subhanahu wa ta`la (Exalted is He) mentions the followers of Christ saying, “Can God send a table from the heavens?” This is a statement of kufur but they were excused because it was a sincere question and an effort to understand.
Takfir cannot be based on actions that are due to ignorance. In the Qur’an we find the followers of Musa alayhi assalam saying, “Make for us idols to worship like they (the people of Egypt) had.” Musa’s response was, “You are an ignorant people.” He did not say that you are a kuffar. This verse servers as the foundation for the axiom “Al-’Uthru bi Jahl” (Ignorance is excused).
Takfir can only be made on an act of pure worship coupled with an intention that is clear kufur. Al-Dhahabi said, “If I saw a Muslim making sujud to a grave, I would not declare takfir until I talked to him.”
Takfir cannot be made upon an action that was done under the threat of harm. Allah (swt) says, “Except for the one who was forced (to say kufur) and his heart was full of faith.”
Takfir cannot be made upon an act that was an emotional burst. The Prophet ﷺ (peace be upon him) said that the man who lost his camel in the desert and later found it, said, “God! You are my servant and I am your Lord.” The Prophet ﷺ did not say this man was a kafir even though the statement is kufur. Ibn Hajar notes that this man was overcome with joy, so his statement was an abbreviation.
Just because someone’s group is not from Ahl-Sunna does not mean they are kafir. For that reason the companions prayed janazah (funeral prayer) for the khawarij. They did not collect the spoils of war from them, but gave it to the deceased’s family according to the Islamic rules on inheritance. Ibn Taymiyya says that this proves the companions considered them Muslims.
Making takfir of others without knowledge is a major sin.
There is no takfir for major sins (only in certain situations).
Takfir is to be made, in most cases, by a Qadi and not a lay person or even a mufti as noted by Khalil. The reason for this is because, in the classical age, this implied a loss of rights. Secondly, a lay person accusing another of kufur falls under qathf, a major sin.

Allah (swt) knows best.

Suhaib

His article was prompted by the horrible massacre of Kuffar at the mall in Kenya. Most of us recall that the al Shabaab jihadi Somalis separated the Muslims from the Kuffar before beginning their murder spree and the torture that went with the murders was gruesome. It just isn't persuasive to look at what these groups say and do and tell us that "Islam" has nothing to do with it. I mentioned in an earlier message that the distinction between Christianity and Islam could not be more stark. Jesus was a man of peace who shed no blood but his own. He taught peace. Muhammad was a successful and bloody general who preached bloodshed.

As the Kenyan government declared that its forces were close to achieving success after three days of carnage which has left 61 dead and 240 injured, a lethal and grim threat was emerging from the fires of the Westland shopping complex – that of international jihad.

“A multinational collection from all over the world” has descended to bring mayhem to Nairobi, were the words of Kenya’s Interior Minister Joseph Ole Lenku. The head of the military, General Julius Karangi, spoke of “foreigners from so many nations” who had taken part in the elaborate attack. “We have an idea who they are, their nationalities. We are fighting global terrorism here,” he stressed. Overnight, Kenya's Foreign Minister Amina Mohamed spoke of a British woman who had "done this many times before," as well as three Americans.

The terrorist “spectacular” with which al-Shabaab sought to demonstrate that it was not confined to Somalia was carried out by fighters from the US, Britain, Canada, Sweden, Syria, Finland, Russia, Dagestan and Kenya as well as Somalia, according to the organisation’s own tweets.

The victims, too, came from different backgrounds: 10 countries. Four of them were UK citizens, among them Ross Langdon, who held dual Australian nationality, and his partner Elif Yavuz, who was due to give birth in a few weeks’ time.

Those among the terrified hostages at the mall who failed to prove they were Muslims were selected for execution. Al-Shabaab said two Britons were among those doing the killing. They were Liban Adam, 23, and Ahmed Nasir Shirdoon, 24, both from London. Security agencies have refused to confirm their identities but acknowledge that it would be no surprise if UK citizens were involved.

Three years ago the then head of MI5, Sir Jonathan Evans, warned that Muslim extremists from the UK were increasingly switching from Pakistan to Somalia to receive training. “It is only a matter of time before we see terrorism on our streets inspired by those who are today fighting alongside al-Shabaab,” predicted Sir Jonathan. At the time, about a 100 UK passport-holders were estimated to be in Somalia. That number is believed to have grown
threefold, along with others from Europe and America seeking to join the jihad. The upward trend has continued despite the recent rush to Syria.

Warner makes a very interesting observation about the relationship between Islam and politics:

Jihad and Kafir are part of a system of Islamic politics. Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years and garnered 150 followers. When he turned to politics and jihad, he died ruler of all of Arabia, and every Arab was a Muslim. The religion of Islam was a failure, and Islam triumphed by the use of politics and jihad -- war against the Kafir.

So the question that needs to be addressed eventually, not necessarily this instant, is which came first and predominates? The religion steeped in blood or the more philosophic version that has won your allegiance? To be honest, I don't think we are at a place historically, where we can dare trust that your version is anything but a minority view.