There has, unfortunately, risen a group in our times that declare Muslims as Kuffār (declaring someone a kāfir is called ‘takfīr’), damning them to hell eternally. This is, as every Muslim knows, a dangerous path to tread. It is a path that can in fact take one from the yolk of Islām as our the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa Sallam) said,
“If a man calls his Muslim brother kāfir, it applies to one of the two.” (Reported by Imām Al-Bukhārī in his Sahīh)
Imām Abū Hāmid Al-Ghazālī (1058-1111 CE) wrote a renowned treatise on this issue titled, “Faysal At-Tafriqah bayn Al-Islām wal Zandaqa”. This excerpt briefly talks about some of the finer details of taxing someone with kufr (takfir). Here is a brief translation of what Imām Al-Ghazālī states,
“Know that the explanation of what gives grounds for declaring someone a disbeliever (kāfir), and what does not, calls for a wealth of details which would necessitate citing all the views and doctrines, and mentioning the specious argument and proof of each individual, and the wat he is remote from the literal meaning and the mode of his interpretation (ta’wīl). Many tomes would not contain that, nor would my time be ample enough to explain it. So I am content now with one directive [wasiyya: counsel, recommendation, injunction] and one rule [qānūn].
The directive (or counsel) [wasiyya] is that you restrain your tongue from [criticism of] the people of the Qiblah (i.e. those who face Makkah to pray; the Muslims) so far as you can as long as they continue to affirm “Lā ilāha illa Allāh, Muhammadur Rasūlullāh”, and do not contradict this shahādah (word of witness). Contradiction would be their allowing that Rasūlullāh (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa Sallam) could lie, with a pretext or without a pretext. For takfīr contains a danger: but silence contains no danger.
The rule [qānūn] is that you recognize that speculative matters are of two sorts: one which touches on the roots of beliefs [basic beliefs], and one which touches on the branches [Al-Furu’: ramifications, secondary matters]. Now the roots of the faith are three: belief in Allāh, his Rasūl, and the last day: all other things are branches. Know, too, that there can in no wise be any takfīr on a person regarding the branches [Furu’] save in one matter, viz. that one deny a basic religious tenet which is known [to derive] from Rasūlullāh (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa Sallam) by impeccable transmission. But in some cases there is room for taxing with innovation (note: this is called tabdī’), as in the case of error concerning the Imamate and circumstances involving the companions (sahābah).
Know also that error about the principle of the Imamate, and its specification and its requisites, and what is connected with that principle, is no case necessitates takfīr. Thus Ibn Kaisān denied the principle of the necessity of the Imamate, but it is not necessary to make takfīr upon him. And no heed should be paid to a group who make much of the matter of the Imamate and put faith in the Imam on a par with faith in Allah and his Rasūl, nor to their adversaries who taz them with kufr simply because of their doctrine on the Imamate. All that is exaggeration, since in neither of the two views is there anu imputation at all of lying (or could be translated as denying) to Rasūlullah (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa Sallam), but whenever there is any such imputation, takfīr is obligatory, even though it be regarding branches.
Thus, for example, if one were to assert that the house which is in Mecca is not the Ka’bah to which Allah ta’alā commanded Hajj, this would be unbelief (kufr). For the contrary is sure by reason of impeccable transmission from Rasūlullah (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa Sallam)! And were he to deny the witness of Rasūlullah (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa Sallam) to that house that it is the ka’bah, his denial would not avail him. On the contrary it would be known for certain that he was pigheaded in his denial – unless he were a recent convert to Islam and that was not known to him by impeccable transmission. So also one who would impute adultery to Ā’ishah (Radhiya Allāhu ‘Anhā) after the Qur’ān has indeed revealed her innocence, would be a Kāfir. For this and its likes would be impossible save by charging the Messenger of Allāh (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa Sallam) with lying or by denying impeccable transmission.
A man may deny impeccable transmission with his tongue, but he can not be ignorant of it in his heart. Of course, if he were to deny something established by the reports of individuals, unbelief would not thereby cleave to him. And if he were to deny something established by consensus (ijmā’), this would be open to speculation. For knowing consensus to be a decisive proof is a matter involving a certain abstruseness well known to those who have acquired the science of the principles of jurisprudence (‘ilm usūl al-fiqh). Al-Naththām [a famous mu’tazilite of Basra amd Baghdad d. 836 or 845 CE] denied that ijmā’ is in any wise a proof: so [the question of] consensus being a proof became a disputed question. This, then, is the status of [or: judgment regarding] the branches.”
After further discourse, Imām Al-Ghazzālī gives an interesting example regarding those “claimant” Sufis.
“Of this sort is the claim of one who allegedly follows the path of Sufism that he has attained a state of intimacy with Allāh (ta’alā) which dispenses him from the [five prescribed] canonical prayers (salāh) and permits him to drink wine and to commit sins and to accept the largesse of the Sultan. Such a one is undoubtedly one who ought to be killed, even though his status regarding eternity in the fire may be debatable. Killing such a one is better than killing a hundred unbelievers, since the harm he does religion is greater and thereby a door to licentiousness is opened which cannot be shut. Moreover, the harm wrought by such a man surpasses that of his who holds for licentiousness absolutely, because the obvious kufr (unbelief) of the latter prevents men from hearkening to him. But the former tears down the Law by using the Law itself. He alleges that he has perpetrated regarding the Law only a particularization of something general, since he has restricted the generality of obligations to him who does not have the same rank in religion that he himself has. He may also allege that he takes on and commits sins with his exterior, but in his interior he is innocent of them. Now this would lead to every sinner’s claiming such a state as his and the restraining strap of religion would be loosed.”
[This is the translation of R.J McCarthy. However, we have modified it for easier Muslim understanding.]
Jazaka’allah khair, please review the following quote for probably typos or errors.
[Such a one is undoubtedly one who ought to be killed, even though his status regarding eternity in the fire may be debatable. Killing such a one is better than killing a hundred {believers}, since the harm he {does religion} is greater and thereby a door to licentiousness is opened which cannot be shut. Morever, the harm wrought by such a man surpasses that of his who holds for licentiousness absolutely, because the obvious kufr (unbelief) of the latter prenects men from hearkening to him. But the former tears down the Law by using the Law itself.]
Jazaakum Allahu Khairan brother Abi Shuja’. Indeed “believers” should have been “unbelievers”. As for the [does religion], it is as stated by both Ghazzali and translated by R.J. McCarthy.
Again, Jazaakum Allahu Khairan.