الإجابة | Al-ʾIjābah

Position of The Majority of People of Knowledge Saʿd al-Šhaṯhrī, who is from the senior council of scholars and was condoned by Fawzān, said: “The fourth type: Abandoning the Qurʾān and the Sunnah as the basis of judgment, while believing that they are more deserving of being used for judgment than anything else, and establishing general constitutions that contradict the Qurʾān and the Sunnah. This is a matter that is contrary to the šharīʿah, and, by consensus, is among the gravest of sins. However, there has been disagreement regarding it as to whether the one who does this becomes a disbeliever or not. The majority of the scholars hold that the people of this category are disbelievers, because they fall under the generality of the texts revealed concerning this issue. Nevertheless, takfīr in this case has not been the subject of consensus, and the indication of the textual proofs regarding it is not qaṭʿī (definitive). Šhaykḫ Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm authored his treatise and divided the matter into seven categories. As you can see here, Saʿd completely mentions there is a difference of opinion, that only the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah have differed amongst, and when he mentions a group that made takfīr on this fourth type, he explicitly said earlier that this was the chosen view of the jumhūr (majority) of scholars. Not even that, when he mentioned the rulings of Šhaykḫ Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm, he elaborated that among the forms of kufr (which refers to major disbelief here) is the establishment of general constitutions founded upon opposition to revelation, and he did not mention that he made it a basis point for judgement itself, rather these constitutions that found core laws etc.. are all forms of kufr.

Therefore we see that dīn is interchangable with the judgement/law in this context specifically. So when we say that the "min" is explanatory, it means that the legislation is their dīn. So they took legislation as their religion, and this isn't my statement, this is the statement of the Salaf and Aṭ-Ṭabarī. You see, this is called اطلاق الكل وارادة الجزء in the Arabic language. Why do you think some of these people call this šhirk in legislation, especially the modern day contemporary scholars. It all revolves around this Āyah, that they have taking legislation as their religion, therefore they have commited clear cut šhirk. This does not happen with any other instances, like imitating the creation of Allāh. No one has said this refers to them imitating it - the act of "creating" as their religion, this is false and falsehood.  When people have said, legislation is only for Him. The intended meaning is that he sets out divine laws that cannot be abrogated and the religion. This is blatantly common sense, and I do not know anyone who would say "it just means that Allāh has a right to legislate and no one can make a ruling." this is just a pure misconception that needed more tafṣīl entirely. Anyway, for those arguing that the king was Muslim based on the statement of Mujāhid, this is no refutation at all.. We are making the point that dīn is interchangeable based on the explanatory rule.

{Or do they have partners who have legislated for them in the religion that which Allāh did not permit?} Aṭ-Ṭabarī said: “Or do these polytheists have partners who, in their šhirk and misguidance, have legislated for them a religion that Allāh did not permit?” meaning: they innovated for them aspects of religion which Allāh did not allow them to innovate. Ibn Kaṯhīr said: They do not follow what Allāh has legislated for you of the upright religion. Rather, they follow what their devils among jinn and humans have legislated for them, such as forbidding what they made unlawful for themselves: the baḥīrah, sāʾibah, waṣīlah, and ḥām; and permitting carrion, blood, and gambling. And similar forms of falsehood and ignorance that they had invented in their pre-Islamic era, of unlawful permitted things, unlawful prohibitions, false acts of worship, and corrupt statements. al-Baġhawī said: This means: the kuffār of Makkah. He says: ‘Or do they have gods who have prescribed for them a religion that Allāh has not permitted?’ Muqātil b. Sulaymān said: This means: the kuffār of Makkah. He says: ‘Or do they have gods who have clarified for them aspects of religion that Allāh has not permitted?’ So, lets just address these interpretations here. Their words indicates that “min” in “min al-dīn” is explanatory, not partitive, meaning that legislation itself is called “religion,” whether the legislator attributes it to Allāh or not.  This meaning is known in Arabic, where one of the meanings of “dīn” is judgment, rule, and obedience.    The Āyah for example: {“He could not have taken his brother under the dīn of the king except that God willed.”} Aṭ-Ṭabarī said: Yūsuf could not have taken his brother under the law, judgment, or authority of the king of Egypt, because it was not part of that king’s law or judgment that a person be enslaved for theft. So Yūsuf had no means to take his brother according to the law of the ruler of that land, except by Allāh’s will, through the plan he devised for him. Thus, when the cup was found in his sack, his brothers and companions surrendered him by their own judgment and their souls were content to hand him over. He then said and narrated (next page too): From Qatādah regarding the statement: “He could not have taken his brother according to the dīn of the king, unless Allāh willed” he said: It was not part of the king’s judgment that a man be enslaved for theft. Ibn Zayd said regarding the statement, “He could not have taken his brother according to the dīn of the king”: It was not within the king’s law that a thief be seized for his theft. He said: But the ruling among the prophets, Yaʿqūb and his sons, was that the thief be taken for his theft as a slave and be enslaved. Although the wording differs among those who explained the meaning of “the dīn of the king,” their meanings are close. For whoever is taken under the authority of the king is dealt with according to the king’s system; thus the king’s taking him is by his own rule, not by another’s. And this ruling is itself his judgment, and his judgment is his decree. ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated: From Qatādah regarding the statement of the Most High: “He could not have taken his brother according to the dīn of the king” he said: “It was not part of the king’s law that whoever stole would be taken as a slave.” Ibn Abī Ḥātim narrated: From al-Ḍaḥḥāk regarding the statement: “He could not have taken his brother according to the dīn of the king”, he said: “In the law of their king, if the stolen property was taken from the thief, it would be taken from him along with an equivalent amount from his wealth, and both would be given to the one who had been stolen from.”

LIVE https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT9rbhL13q4C3-Bg8uX/

Allāh did not tie the designation of mushrik to denial following knowledge; rather, He tied it to the act of shirk itself. Likewise, neither the presence nor the absence of knowledge turns someone who has actualised shirk into a muwaḥḥid, for shirk and tawḥīd are two mutually contradictory states that cannot coexist within the same person. How, then, is the denial of Allāh’s ʿuluww by His Essence analogous to this?!

Is one who denies Allāh’s ʿuluww by His essence a kāfir for contradicting ʿaql and fiṭrah? A common point raised by the ghulāh is that the ʿuluww of Allāh by His Essence is known through the ʿaql and the fiṭrah; thus, whoever rejects it is a kāfir, regardless of whether the ḥujjah has been established against him. This—at least partially—leads them to make takfīr of many scholars whom the Muslims have broadly accepted, such as Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, Ḥāfiẓ al-Nawawī, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, and others from among the scholars. Yet the point they raise is utter falsehood. Rejecting ʿaqlī proofs, and even contradicting the fiṭrah, is not, in and of itself, a manāṭ of kufr. Rather, kufr broadly occurs in one of two ways: submission to other than Allāh (by setting up a partner with Allāh in anything specific to Him), or refusal to submit to Allāh. Shaykh Nāṣir al-Fahd (فك الله أسره) stated in al-Fatāwā al-Ḥāʾiriyyah [Question 13]: “The fundamental principle and criterion are as follows: Every person who has fulfilled that which negates his submission to Allāh is a kāfir, with the sole exception of the coerced person. Thus, base your judgement in every scenario upon this criterion. As we know, submission to Allāh is negated by two things: 1. That he submits to Allāh and to other than Allāh, and this is shirk. 2. That he does not submit to Allāh, and this is denial, arrogance, and the like.” Words to this effect were also stated by Imām Abū Muḥammad al-Barbahārī (رحمه الله): “We do not declare anyone from among Ahl al-Qiblah to be outside Islām until he rejects a verse from the Book of Allāh, the Exalted; rejects something transmitted from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ); sacrifices for other than Allāh; or prays to other than Allāh. If he does any of these things, it becomes wājib upon you to declare him outside Islām.” Rejecting an ʿaqlī proof does not, in and of itself, necessarily entail either of these two things, nor does merely rejecting something known by the fiṭrah. It is authentically narrated from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) that five practices are from the fiṭrah: circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, trimming the moustache, clipping the nails, and plucking the armpit hair. Yet would anyone say that someone who is unaware that these practices are legislated in Islām, or someone who hesitates as to whether they are ḥarām or ḥalāl while being among those who are excusably ignorant, has become a kāfir? Likewise, would anyone say that a person who claims that seven times thirteen is eighty-one becomes a kāfir merely for contradicting ʿaqlī proofs? Imām Ibn al-Wazīr (رحمه الله) said: “A person does not become a kāfir for contradicting ʿaqlī proofs, even when those proofs are ḍarūrī (necessary knowledge). For example, were some frivolous or shameless person to say, ‘The whole is smaller than the part,’ this would be a lie, but no Muslim would rule that he had committed riddah, even though he had contradicted something necessarily known through reason … However, were he to say, ‘The Ẓuhr prayer is less than the Fajr prayer,’ he would become a kāfir according to the ijmāʿ of the Muslims. If someone contradicts both ʿaql and revelation, as in the statement of the Qarāmiṭah, ‘That which causes existing things to exist must itself be neither existent nor nonexistent,’ he becomes a kāfir solely because his statement contradicts revelation.” If it is said, “You make takfīr of people who commit shirk ignorantly, so why do you not make takfīr of those who reject Allāh’s being above the Throne by His Essence, when both tawḥīd and ʿuluww are known through the ʿaql and the fiṭrah?” then it is said in response: Labelling a person a mushrik has absolutely nothing to do with whether tawḥīd is known through the ʿaql and the fiṭrah. Were we to say—as a purely hypothetical example—that knowledge of tawḥīd was inaccessible except at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench, almost eleven kilometres beneath the surface of the Pacific Ocean, it would not change the fact that whoever freely commits an act of shirk becomes a mushrik.

Very beneficial channel, join in shāʾ Allāh.

🗂 Channel Index: 1. Imam Sulayman Ibn Abdullah ale-Shaykh on Seeking Judgment from Taghūt 2. Statement of 60 scholars on Ruling by Taghūt and Referring Judgment to it 3. Imām Aṭ-Ṭabarī on taking the Kuffār as allies 4. Imām Ibn Kathīr on Yāsiq 5. Imam Samani on Tahakkum ilat Taghut 6. Imām Ibn Al-Qayyim on Taḥākum and Taḥkīm to the Ṭāghūt 7. Kūfr Duna Kūfr is for individual court Judgment by a Judge not for Legislating a new Shariah according to Salaf 8. Ibn Adīl Al-Hanbali and Qādi Iyād on Tahakumm to Taghūt and refusing to adhere to Shariah 9. Apostasy of Armies and supporters of Tawāgheet by Imam at-Tābari 10. Tahakkum to Taghūt by Imam At-Tabari 11. Land ruled by Man-Made Laws is Dar al-Kufr and Hijrāh away from it is obligatory by Fuqahah of all Madhaib 12. Imam Ibn Qūdamah and Imam Shaf'iee that land ruled by Laws of Kufr is Land of Kufr and Dar al-Harb 13. Murtadd Ibn Baz permitted wearing cross for Maslahah for his rulers 14. Muqatil ibn Sulaiman that ruling of one who does Tahakkum Ilāt Taghut is that of Mushrikeen of Quraish 15. Mufti Ibn Ibraheem and Hamoud At-Tuwaijiri declare Takfir on Egypt and Turkey for implementing Man-Made Laws 16. Sulaiman ibn Sahman that one rules with Qanun is a Kafir and one who doubts his Kufr 17. Ibn Abi Assim student of Imam Ahmad refutes the Hazimis 18. Shaykhul Islam ibn Taymiyyah that one who does Tahakkum Ilāt Taghut is a Kafir even if cause by mere desires 19. What is Shirk 20. Shaykh Abdūl Latīf Al Shaykh on Takfir of one who enforces Man-Made Laws opposing Shariah 21. Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab that one who changes shariah is from Heads of Tawagheet 22. Explanation of Nullifiers of Islam by Shaykh Ali Al-Khūdair 23. Jamaluddin Al-Qasimi, Qadi Iyyad and Hakim An-Nisapuri on Tahakumm ilat Taghūt 24. Taqlid is basis for Shirk 25. Ijmāh on Kufr of one rules by other than Law of Islam by Ibn Hāzm 26. Abūl Aswād Student of Umar ibn Khattab and Abdul Malīk ibn Bushran student of Ibn Battah and Ajurri on Tahakumm ilat Taghūt 27. Imam Ibn Al-Qāyyim that Tahakūmm to Prophet peace be upon him and making him Judge is required for Islam 28. Shaykh Hamad ibn Ateeq that Tahakkum to Taghūt is Nullifier of Islam 29. Shaykh Abdurehman Hassan that Tahakkūm to Taghūt is belief in it 30. Imam Ash-Shawkani on Apostasy of Man-Made Laws and Tahakkūm to them 31. Imam Ibn Kathīr refutes Murji'ah on Tahakumm ilāt Taghut 32. Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah that one who references in other than Shariah is a Taghūt 33. Shaykh Saifurehman Rehman Mubarakphuri that one who turns away from Shariah and seeks Judgment elsewhere is not a Muslim and Madkhalis distorting his words 34. Shaykh Abdullah bin Humaid on Apostasy of Man-Made Laws and Tahakkūm to them 35. Shaykh Hamoud At-Tuwaijiri that those who implemented Western Laws are Tawagheet who falsely claim Islam 36. Imam Al-Qūrtubi that one who refuses to submit to Judgment of Shariah is a Kāfir 37. Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah that one King who departs from Shariah is Taghūt and one who seeks Judgment from him is a Munafiq 38. Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir that Murji'ah play with narrations to excuse Man-Made Laws 39. Shaykh Mohammad Ameen Ash-Shinqiti on Major Kufr of following Man-Made Laws 40. Shaykh Mohammad Ameen Ash-Shinqeeti Takfir on Current Tāwagheet 41. Making Legislation rival to Allah is Shirk since Legislation is sole right of Allah 42. Imam Yāhya ibn Sāllam on Shirk of Legislation 43. Refutation of Madkhali objections on Ijmāh of Man-Made Laws narrated by Imam Ibn Kathīr 44. Imam at-Tābari refutes Murji'ah who say Tahlil and Tahreem must be attributed to Allāh for it to be Kūfr Akbār 45. Shaykh Ameen Ash-Shinqeeti that following the Constitution is Shirk 46. Shaykh Ahmād Shākir that following another Legisaltion is following another Religion 47. Nājdi Takfir on Ottomans for implementing Man-Made Laws 48. Nājdi Takfir on Ottomans from Man-Made Laws Part-2 49. Ibn Taymiyyah barrates Ijma on Ridda of one who follows Abrogated Law 50. Ibn al-Qayyim defines Tawagheet

So when we have seen Aṭ-Ṭabarī use this word بدل or its sub-words then we can see he isn't necessitating by the definition of tabdīl as we have established and what we agree on. This is completely erroneous and to say otherwise would be tāwʾīl entirely.  This is why he said: “And Ahl al-taʾwīl differed regarding the taʾwīl of ‘al-kufr’ in this place. Some of them said the same as we have said about it, that it refers to the Yahūd who falsified the kitāb of Allāh and replaced His ḥukm.” Now the conclusive judgement is that the former [tabdīl] and latter [istibdāl] is kufr, and of course if both are done knowingly. It is completely obvious initself that not either of these two are a condition for the either to be kufr. This is complete tāwʾīl and it has no substantiation. What did Aṭ-Ṭabarī define istibdāl as? He said: “And the aṣl of al-istibdāl is to leave one thing for another in its place, replacing what was abandoned.”

Aṭ-Ṭabarī said: “Meaning, they did not change the covenant which they had contracted with their Lord, not even the slightest change, as the muʿawwiqūn changed it, those who said to their brothers: ‘Come to us,’ and those who said: ‘Indeed, our houses are exposed.’” So what we see here when it comes to the usage of this word and its mention, it would necessitate the intrinsicly rejection by necessity as the change would be long and not temporary, its practically accompanied in meaning. If we see what Ṭabarī narrated just under, we see that from Ibn Zayd he said: “They did not change their dīn as the munāfiqūn changed theirs.” Again, look at how تغير is used here in relation to بدلوا تبديلا.   Allāh said: “Those who stayed behind will say, when you set out toward the spoils of war to take them: ‘Let us come with you!’ They want to alter the word of Allāh. Say: ‘You will never follow us; this is what Allāh said before.’ So they will say: ‘Rather, you envy us.’ But no, they understand little except a very small amount..” Aṭ-Ṭabarī said: “They want to change the promise of Allāh which He promised to the people of al-Ḥudaybiyah. For Allāh had made the spoils of Khaybar for them, and He promised them that as compensation for the spoils of the people of Makkah when they withdrew from them after the truce, having taken nothing from them.” Here we have the wording of change, and this is just semantics of course and replace is still synonymous without a doubt. Of course rejection isn't necessitated but what about when He says. Allāh said: “Have you not seen those who changed the niʿmah of Allāh for kufr, and led their people to the dār of destruction?” Aṭ-Ṭabarī said: “They changed what Allāh had bestowed upon them of His niʿam, turning them into kufr toward Him. And their replacing [Literal: تبديلهم] the niʿmah of Allāh for kufr was in regard to the Nabī of Allāh, Muḥammad ﷺ. Allāh had granted Qurayšh a blessing through him: He brought him forth from among them and sent him to them as a rasūl, a raḥmah for them and a niʿmah from Him upon them. But they committed kufr toward him and belied him, thus changing [Literal: بدلوا] the niʿmah of Allāh upon them through him for kufr.” Look at that, a familiar word is used here from the Imām. Which is tabdīl, however how can one even claim that there had to be a condition of lying first for them to have disbelieved? This contradicts what the Imām said and what the verse says. So we can establish that بدل is used it means change and it obviously in the context provided will necessitate rejection - Inkār/Takḏhīb. Didn't He say: “So woe to those who write the kitāb with their own hands, then say, ‘This is from Allāh,’ so that they may exchange it for a fleeting gain. So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they earn.” This is the specific and direct address of tabdīl from Allāh, so how can even one argue against what Aṭ-Ṭabarī or Allāh said himself? So then, what did Aṭ-Ṭabarī say about this verse itself. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said: “He means by this those who falsified [sayings] within the kitāb of Allāh from among the Yahūd of Banī Isrāʾīl, and who wrote a kitāb according to what they had made up from their own imagination, in opposition to what Allāh had revealed to His nabī Mūsā. Then they sold it to a people who possessed no ʿilm of it, nor of what is in the Torah, ignorant of what is in the kutub of Allāh, seeking thereby a despicable worth from the dunyā. So Allāh said to them: ‘So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they earn’” So, what we can derive here is that when someone ascribed X to the šharīʿah of Allāh, then they have replaced what was actually said by Him and by necessity they have claimed this from Him by the means of distortion -- taḥrīf. Of course these words will not apply when you replace something in a different context or a different thing, which has nothing to do with legislation or this issue initself. So the wordplay is just the axiom of ignorance.

Mālik narrated: The Jews came to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ and mentioned to him that a man from among them and a woman had committed adultery. The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said to them: “What do you find in the Torah regarding the matter of stoning?” They said: “We disgrace them publicly and they are flogged.” ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām said: “You have lied; indeed, it contains stoning.” So they brought the Torah and spread it open. One of them placed his hand over the verse of stoning, then he read what came before it and what came after it. ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām said to him: “Raise your hand.” So he raised his hand, and behold, there was the verse of stoning. They said: “You have spoken the truth, O Muḥammad; it does indeed contain the verse of stoning.”  Now, the point here is that yes, the Jews did lie and alter the ruling of Allāh, however notice how that these narrations contain the wording that Muḥammad ﷺ spoke the truth and the verse was actually there? Its as if that these people did not have the belief that this was from the ruling of Allāh, therein they admit it themselves! So how can anyone of these people say that the Jews did istiḥlāl in this incident or how could anyone say they ascribed the lie to Allāh at all by the means of belief? No, they the Jews attributed this lie to Allāh solely. This is what tabdīl is. Hence, we come to the conclusion that juḥūd comes into the play of tabdīl, this is why its completely kufr.   Aṭ-Ṭabarī said: “Indeed, Allāh, Exalted is He, made general in His report concerning a people who were rejectors of the ruling of Allāh which He had decreed in His Book. So He informed about them that, by their abandoning the ruling in the manner that they abandoned it, they are kāfirūn. And the same applies to everyone who does not judge by what Allāh has revealed while rejecting it, he is a kāfir in relation to Allāh, just as Ibn ʿAbbās said, because by rejecting the ruling of Allāh after knowing that He revealed it in His Book, it resembles his rejecting the prophethood of His Prophet after knowing that he is indeed a Prophet.” He also said: “Allāh, Exalted is His mention, says: Whoever conceals the ruling of Allāh which He revealed in His Book and made a judgement between His servants, then hides it and judges by other than it, like the judgement of the Jews regarding two married adulterers, by tajnīb and taḥmīm, while concealing ar-rajm; and like their ruling in some cases of murder among them that they require a full blood-money, and in others only half the blood-money, and regarding their nobles applying qiṣāṣ, and regarding their lower classes applying blood-money, while Allāh has made them all equal in His ruling upon them in the Torah.” From his words, the conditioning factor which is the necessity is that if you are concealing something then you know that ruling of Allāh in the first place then judging by other than it. Then he said after in the next page: “These people who did not judge by what Allāh revealed in His Book, but instead altered [Literally: Badalu/بدلوا] and changed His ruling, and concealed the truth that He sent down in His Book, ‘they are the kāfirūn’ meaning: they are the ones who covered the truth which it was obligatory for them to expose and clarify, and they hid it from the people and presented to them something else in its place, and they judged by that, for bribes which they took from them for doing so.” Here the Imām uses بدلوا here, but you may ask why is this so significant? With the word play of these ignoramuses, you must understand that the original word derived from بدلوا means to change or to replace X/Y in a singular instance or permanent instance depending on what the referrent suggests to. However, you may ask, how can this prove anything? Well, we should look at when this specific usage is mentioned in the Qurʾān. Allāh said: “Among the believers are men who have been true to what they pledged to Allāh. So among them is he who has fulfilled his vow, and among them is he who still awaits, and they did not alter [بدلوا/تبديلا] in any way.”

Regarding tabdīl First, what is tabdīl? It literally is to change something and ascribe it to Allāh through a lie knowingly. This is what the Jews did when it came to the punishment from the Torah. al-Bukḫārī narrated: On the authority of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar: “The Jews came to the Prophet ﷺ with a man and a woman from among them who had committed fornication. He said to them: ‘What do you do with the one among you who commits fornication?’ They said: ‘We blacken their faces and beat them.’ He said: ‘Do you not find stoning in the Torah?’ They said: ‘We do not find anything in it.’ ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām said to them: ‘You have lied. Bring the Torah and recite it if you are truthful.’ So the one who taught their scripture placed his hand over the verse of stoning, and he began to read what was before it and what was after it, but he did not read the verse of stoning. Then [Ibn Salām] removed his hand from the verse of stoning and said: ‘What is this?’ When they saw that, they said: ‘It is the verse of stoning.’ So the Prophet ordered that the man and woman be stoned, near the place of the graves by the mosque. And I saw the man shielding her with his body, protecting her from the stones.” Abū Dawūd narrated: “The Jews came to the Prophet ﷺ and mentioned to him that a man and a woman from among them had committed fornication. The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said to them: ‘What do you find in the Torah regarding the matter of fornication?’ They said: ‘We expose them and they are flogged.’ ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām said: ‘You have lied, indeed, the Torah contains stoning.’ So they brought the Torah and unrolled it, and one of them placed his hand over the verse of stoning, then he began to read what was before it and what was after it. ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām said to him: ‘Lift your hands.’ When he lifted them, there was the verse of stoning. They said: ‘You have spoken the truth, O Muḥammad, indeed it contains the verse of stoning.’ So the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ ordered the man and woman to be stoned. Ibn ʿUmar said: ‘I saw the man bending over the woman, shielding her from the stones.’” Ibn Mājah narrated: On the authority of al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib who said: “The Prophet ﷺ passed by a Jew who had been blackened and flogged. He summoned them and said: ‘Is this what you find in your Book as the prescribed punishment for the fornicator?’ They said: ‘Yes.’ He then called a man from among their scholars and said: ‘I adjure you by Allāh Who revealed the Torah to Mūsā do you find this as the ḥadd for the fornicator?’ He replied: ‘No. And if you had not adjured me, I would not have informed you. We find the ḥadd of the fornicator in our Book to be stoning, but it became frequent among our nobles. So when we caught a noble, we left him alone; but when we caught a weaker person, we carried out the punishment on him. So we said: Come, let us agree upon something we can apply to both the noble and the lowly. So we agreed upon blackening and flogging instead of stoning.’  The Prophet ﷺ said: ‘O Allāh, I am the first to revive Your command after they had abolished it.’ Then he ordered that the man be stoned, and he was stoned.” Muslim narrated: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was brought a Jewish man and a Jewish woman who had committed adultery. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ went until he reached the Jews and said: “What do you find in the Torah concerning the one who commits adultery?” They said: “We blacken their faces, we make them ride [on a donkey] reversed, we oppose their faces and we parade them.” He said: “Bring the Torah, if you are truthful.” So they brought it and began to read it. When they came to the verse of stoning, the young man who was reading placed his hand over the verse of stoning and read what came before it and what came after it. ʿAbd Allāh ibn Salām, who was with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, said: “Order him to lift his hand.” So he lifted it, and beneath it was the verse of stoning. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ then ordered that the two be stoned, and they were stoned.”

Clarification of our stance on the Madākhilah The term "Madkhalī" must be precisely defined, and the precise ruling on them depends on how the term is being defined. Broadly speaking; most of those who are called "Madākhilah" could be said to share the following traits: - Strong [claimed] adherance to those ascribed to knowledge in Bilād al-Ḥaramayn; such as ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Bāz, Muḥammad ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthāymīn, Nāṣir al-Din al-Albānī, Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān and those like them. - The belief that judging by what other than Allāh revealed - in all of its forms - falls under the general category of minor kufr. Some of them may state that replacement of the Sharīʿah entails major kufr if all or most of it is replaced. - The absence of takfir on Ṭawāġhīt, despite their many kufriyyāt; and the opposition to those who make takfīr of them. - The excusing of mushrikīn under the pretext of ignorance. And people who hold those traits are of two kinds: The first kind: those whose absence of takfīr on the Ṭawāġhīt leads them to support them in their kufr, by enlisting in their armed forces or police, or calling people to do so; or by declaring the kufr of the Ṭawāġhīt as ḥalāl; or by granting legitimacy to the war of the Ṭawāġhīt against the people of tawḥīd by passing fatāwā; or anything that is similar to that. This kind of Madkhalī is a kāfir; he has left the folds of Islām, even if he claims taʾwīl, shubhah or jahl [of the rulings]. The second kind: those who oppose the kufr of the Ṭawāġhīt, do not join their banner nor support their war against the people of tawḥīd; yet as a result of their false beliefs do not make takfīr of the rulers, nor of their supporters or armies, and oppose those who make takfīr of them. If their denial of takfīr will necessitate denial of a clear-cut text of the Sharīʿah; then they are kuffār. The least that can be said about this type is that they are from the Murjiʾah. They may be excused by jahl or taʾwīl, and there may be some sincere, confused people amongst them. Their misconception is built around the failure to appropriately understand the athār of kufr dūna kufr. If their misconceptions are removed and the truth is made clear to them; and they remain stubborn upon their creed, then they are kuffār - but there is scope for excuse before that, depending on the clarity of the kufr of those they don‘t make takfīr of and [depending on] their own knowledge. As for those who differ with us on the ruling of specific rulers or movements, while affirming the general principle that replacing Allah‘s Sharīʿah is major kufr, and agreeing with us in the foundational matters of creed, then he does not belong to the Madākhilah in first place. Rather, he may not even be from the people of bidʿah. That is because people differ in their knowledge of the actual realities of certain rulers or political entities; and one may misapply originally preventatives of takfīr without becoming a kāfir or mubtadiʿ for it. Likewise, someone may praise or express support for a specific ruler or movement that has fallen into kufr, but not fall into kufr himself due to the lack of knowledge about the facts on the ground. And Allāh knows best. Written by the humble servant, Abū Khuzaymah al-Atharī حفظه الله