Extremism in Takfeer
Extremism in Takfeer and Making the Inviolable Blood Permissible
by Dr. Fahd ibn Saalih al-'Ajlaan
Al-Bayan Magazine, issue #321, Jumaadal-Oolaa 1435, March 2014
Translated by Ehsanul Islam Sadequee
March 2014
Somebody on his Twitter page was celebrating the news of a car loaded with explosives penetrating into the ranks of Mujaahideen in a suicide operation that resulted in dozens of deaths and injuries.
Someone posted rebuking him, "Fear Allaah! How can you permit him to kill himself and slaughter his brothers?! *"And whosoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense will be Hell, dwelling eternally therein, and the Wrath of Allaah is upon him, and Allaah curses him, and has prepared for him a tremendous torment."* [An-Nisaa': 93]
And someone else posted, "Where is the sanctity of Muslim blood? How can you declare your Muslim brothers to be kuffaar, and make their blood permissible? Where is the prohibition of killing one's self? *"And do not kill yourselves, indeed Allaah has been Merciful to you. And whoever does such in aggression and oppression, We will burn him in a Fire."* [An-Nisaa': 29-30].
I did not finish reading the debate that took place amongst them, nor did I read the original writer's response to the admonitions and sincere advice. But I am convinced that the response (to the previous questions) will be given in the following manner: "No doubt about the prohibition of takfeer without a right, and the sanctity of blood which is protected; but the one who commits kufr, he is deserving of takfeer (being labelled as a kaafir) after all the conditions (shuroot) have been met, and the preventive factors (mawaani') have been eliminated; and so, when he is killed, he is killed for a legitimate Sharee'ah-based reason. Indeed, I take the issue of blood seriously, and I fear Allaah in all of these matters, and if weren't for the fear of Allaah, I wouldn't have supported this type (of operation).
We are thus in front of a mindset that finds no benefit in being reminded and admonished with taqwaa, and (being reminded of the seriousness) of blood, and the serious consequences of takfeer. This is because you are warning him about something when he himself does not think that he has done anything worth fearing. This is because he thinks he is in fact exemplifying the taqwaa of Allaah by his evil deed. Thus, to continue on this way (of reproaching him) is useless. To speak to this type of person about the usool (fundamental principles) of blood and the seriousness of takfeer is fruitless. Because he will agree with you on this principle without any dispute. Rather, he may even say to you the same thing you have said to him, of the inviolabilty of Muslim blood, and the necessity of safeguarding it; and he may even repeat to you your own words about the dangers of the manhaj (way) of the Khawaarij. But yet at the same time, he defends symptoms and actions which contradict these principles, such serious matters which make the hair turn white out of horror. Such a person finds no problem in killing Muslims, rather even killing Mujaahideen in the Path of Allaah. He is even prepared to kill himself in order to kill Mujaahideen!
We are facing a bewildering and problematic phenomenon. (This type of person) will not differ with you about respecting and the magnifying the principles of the Sharee'ah, such as the sanctity of Muslim blood, and the necessity of caution in it, warning against doing takfeer of a Muslim, the gravity of killing a soul, and to not do takfeer based on major sins, nor (other) sins, etc..
Then when it comes to the particulars, he contradicts these very same principles, in such a way that he completely demolishes these fundamental principles, as if the existence of these fundamental principles are meaningless. So what value is there to "your respect for Muslim blood" and what meaning does "your taking seriously the issue of doing takfeer of a Muslim without right" have?- if you think that it is legal in the Sharee'ah for a person to kill himself for the sake of killing his Mujaahideen brethren!
So what is the explanation of this strange two-folded (self-contradiction): of acknowledging the Sharee'ah's foundations and principles, accepting them and believing in them, and yet the same time accepting and believing in certain details, and applications/implementations which completely tear apart and heinously violate the very foundations?
It is possible for us to lay down a number of factors which may help us understand this striking, repulsive contradiction of this phenomenon:
The First Factor:
To have ijmaalee (general, summary, brief) knowledge of the subjects of takfeer, while not having a grasp of the details, nor the profoundly deep fiqhee-research and investigation of the intricacies of takfeer.
So you will notice that with regards to matters of takfeer, there is a group of youth who abstain from giving fatwa on intricate matters of 'ibaadaat [worship] and mu'aamalaat [dealings between people] or other matters of fiqh - because they are aware that there are differences of opinion, which require long research into the different opinions, different proofs; and they are aware that such a long research necessitates that one already has mastered the tools related to Usool (principles), Fiqh (jurisprudence), and linguistics. So these groups of youth refer these matters to those who are fit for giving fatwa on these matters, and they are used to saying in these matters "I don't know", or they refer the questioner to go to someone they trust from the People of 'Ilm (knowledge), or narrates to the questioner the fatwa of the one he follows from the People of 'Ilm. So generally find that there is reservation or caution when dealing with these types of issues. And they will frequently quote to you a Verse like, *"And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing, or of (feeling in) the heart will be inquired into."* [al-Israa': 36]
But as for when discussing the takfeer of specific groups, or declaring their blood and wealth lawful, or carrying out suicide operations against them - it is very easy for you to find this same one who is cautious in giving fatwa in well-known matters of 'ibaadaat, becoming (like) a famous mufti, and a great pioneer, very easily and comfortably saying about thousands of Muslims, "It is permissible to kill and fight them, because they are kuffaar and murtaddeen (apostates)."
How strange it is, to be so bold in these issues yet be so cautious in those other issues!
Even though, at the theoretical level, the matters of blood and fighting, and takfeer, are much more complex than the issues of 'ibaadaat - while at the practical level the effects and consequences are much, much more serious because these matters lead to the destruction of life and property. So it is (supposed) to be natural that caution, reservation and care increases in these subjects.
But instead, what has made these subjects, as if these are just some easy and simple subjects, is that some people memorize some general principles, and then think the issue is completely clear and does not require any further research and delving into. Rather he applies these general principles immediately. And then when someone comes who raises an objection to his (application of takfeer) he thinks the topic did not warrant any objection, and then he begins to look for any fault in the intention or Deen (practice, piety) of the one who raised the objection. Rather, it is even to the point that someone who is cautious and careful (out of the fear of Allaah) in giving a fatwa on the issues of blood and takfeer, it is very easy for him to be accused of irjaa', ignorance, and treachery!
So for example, he has memorized that, "To support the kuffaar against the Muslims is one of the Nullifiers of Islaam," or that, "To legislate laws in contradiction to what Allaah has revealed is kufr," - then builds all of his verdicts and fiqh-system on this brief introductory knowledge of these Nullifiers. Even though every serious seeker of 'Ilm (Sharee'ah knowledge) is well aware that these Nullifiers have further categorizations and finer details that require research, investigation and pausing (i.e. not being hasty). And when he moves to the stage of applying these Nullifiers on specific situations and specific individuals, then this requires further care and reservation, just as its application necessarily impacts many fiqhi rulings, which itself requires the person (applying the takfeer) to be more vast in knowledge. But the one who has this brief summarized knowledge is not aware of any of this, and so he supports his boldness with his ignorance, that is why it is said, "The people who are boldest in takfeer, are the people who have the least knowledge about it." Because such a person deals with takfeer as if it is a set of mathematical questions, with precise calculations, he has to only add and subtract!
This is why we find those who, based on their brief knowledge of the rulings of "takfeer for supporting kuffaar against Muslims," applying takfeer on someone who sits with the kuffaar, or one who makes a sul'h (peace treaty) with them, or if the kuffaar praise someone or if someone praises the kuffaar. Or you find them looking for any type of help or assistance that took place between a person and any individual whom they have labelled as a kaafir, so they can do takfeer of that person also!
And we find those who know the principle, "Whoever does not do takfeer of the mushrikeen, then he is a kaafir," in a brief summarized manner, doing takfeer of someone who diffrentiates between the takfeer of the category and characteristic in the issues of Tawheed and gives the excuse of ignorance and misconception to some of those who fall into shirk - so he (takfeeree) views that they (those who give the excuse of ignorance and misconception in shirk) - and there are many great 'Ulamaa among them - are kuffaar because they did not do takfeer of the mushrikeen!
And we have seen those who heard in a summarized manner that, one who legislates laws other than Allaah's Laws, is guilty of kufr. So then they go based on this, doing takfeer of every individual who praised the democratic system, even if the individual swears the strongest oaths that he meant a Shooraa-based (consultation-based) government ruling according to the Sharee'ah.
And take any of the examples of which there is no shortage. These are the results of being bold in these subjects despite having an obvious deficiency in the proper qualifications in the knowledge of Sharee'ah, from those who are satisfied with merely brief summary information which we can learn in the course of a few hours. After this, he then confronts the people, attacking the great 'ulemaa of the Ummah, because they did not understand Tawheed yet; and then he feels that with this little knowledge of his, he has no need to ask the People of Knowledge, because "asking" is only for those who do not have knowledge!
And since he has memorized general principles and he knows that the methodology of the Khawaarij regarding takfeer is to do takfeer based on major sins, and he says, "I contradict them completely, because I do not do takfeer based on adultery, drinking wine or murder, nor do I say that the original principle about people is that they are upon kufr; so my usool (fundamental principles, beliefs) are completely different from the Khawaarij." So he feels at rest that he is far from being one of them when others accuse him of such ghuluww (excessiveness, extremism) that resembles the Khawaarij; but he does not realize that when the Khawaarij did takfeer of 'Alee (ra) and those Companions who were with him, they did takfeer of them not on the basis of major sins, but for setting up men to arbitrate in the Deen of Allaah. Meaning, they would do takfeer without there being a mukaffir (an actual Nullifier of Islaam). So they would expel people from the Deen of Allaah, without a legitamate indisputable proof. And for this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) described them as "... killing the people of Islaam..." [Recorded by Bukhaaree #7432, Muslim #1064]. And they (the Khawaarij) did not kill the people of Islaam except after they judged them to be kuffaar without there existing any actual Nullifier. Those who do takfeer of Muslims and make their blood permissible by building upon their ignorance of the principles of the Sharee'ah have fallen into exactly this.
So he does takfeer of someone because he sat with a well-known kaafir, which must mean that the individual "is pleased with the kaafir and has walaa' (loyalty) to him," or because there was some negotiations between them, or because he is suspected of having some link to some country which somehow proves that "he supports kuffaar against Muslims," or he judges someone to be "against the Islaamic movement" just because that person is against a particular endeavor (of a particular group); or he sees someone praising "democracy", or he sat with someone who "reviled the Deen"... or other Nullifiers which are widespread, which is of the same type of ghuluww which the Khawaarij fell into. So they expel people from the Deen of Allaah due to their ignorance, transgression, or based upon principles and rulings for which Allaah did not send down any authority. And because he is content with knowing only the general principles, so of course he will fall into an abyss without even realizing it, and then he is astonished that people say he is upon the way of the Khawaarij! And he indeed should be astonished, because he does not know these detailed categorizations which would have let him realize the defects of his position.
This is why it is common amongst those who only know general principles, that they do takfeer upon blanket generalized descriptions. So you hear of someone who throws accusations of kufr and riddah (apostasy) against Muslims because of deeds like "standing in the way of the Islaamic movement," or "threw an obstacle in the way of the Islaamic Khilaafah," or "has animosty towards the Islaamic State," or he "had dealings with the kuffaar, which means he is pleased with them..." And so on and so forth, with these types of generalizations which every serious seeker of 'Ilm (Sharee'ah knowledge) knows that no Sharee'ah ruling can be given based on these generalizations, let alone takfeer and bloodshed! These are unrestricted generalizations, about which it can be said, if ten men were to be gathered to explain them, they would come up with eleven different interpretations!
Rather indeed, the flood of these unrestricted descriptions has increased to the point that we've seen those who judge someone to be kaafir because he attended a gathering wherein a statement (of kufr) really took place, and that someone didn't say anything, and the one who remains silent is just like the one who speaks. So now takfeer can be done due to a statement, action, or silence! Indeed the issue is even more alarming, as we've seen those who do takfeer of people just because hostile kuffaar are pleased with them, or have praised them. So takfeer has become an issue that is not about what the person himself has committed in terms of speech, actions, or beliefs - but rather, it is now based on what others say about him, their actions towards him, or what they believe about him!
And all of this is because those who are absolutely unqualified are intruding into the subject of takfeer and making permissible the blood Muslims, and because ignorant people who only know some general principles put themselves forward and begin to spread mischief and corruption in the laws of the Sharee'ah, while they don't know any of the detailed explanations. He thinks he is abiding by the foundations of the Sunnah, and then he strays from the principles of the People of 'Ilm (knowledge), due merely to the fact that he has a legitimate Sharee'ah principle as his starting point, but after it, he goes on and on in making specific judgements and practical applications without any knowledge or proof.
The Second Factor:
A person authoritatively states that his objective is not to spill the blood of Muslims nor to do takfeer of them, rather the objective is only to give victory to the Deen of Allaah and fight against the apostates and to prevent puppets from fulfilling the goals of the enemies. So, he feels it is wrong and unjust that he is accused of being "bloodthirsty" or taking takfeer lightly. He has only come for Jihaad in the Path of Allaah, and to repel the aggression against the blood and wealth of the Muslims.
It should be noted, that this intention does not motivate him to keep in mind what he is in fact doing which actually contradicts this intention. So his reason is invalidated. Because the intention (niyyah) is righteous, but in reality, it is heedlessness of a clear-cut principle of the Sharee'ah - that a good intention does not change a deed into being a righteous deed. For indeed, how many people have desired to do good, but they did not achieve it. Even the Khawaarij whom the Sharee'ah has condemned, and the Companions fought against them, these Khawaarij were people who excelled in 'ibaadah (worship), jihaad, and strove hard in obedience, but this factor did not prevent them from being deserving of the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) condemnation, "... they will exit from the Deen the way an arrow exits from the animal it was shot at..." [Bukhaaree #4351, Muslim #1066]. So what matters is that the deed must conform to the Sharee'ah. But if the deed contradicts it, then the intention does not impact the ruling upon the deed. Rather, to depend upon a good intention in such a situation, it is feared that this could be a form of being impressed at one's ownself, where the individual believes that it connot be said to someone like himself, that "you are breaking clear-cut laws of the Sharee'ah." So this is from the category of hawaa (caprice, whims, baseless opinions) that misguides man from the Guidance in ways he may not even percieve, *"... and do not follow hawaa, lest it lead you astray from the Way of Allaah..."* [Saad: 26].
And the issue of hawaa (caprice, desires) is usually not brought up while discussing the phenomenon of ghuluww (extremism), regarding that ghuluww is based on excess in religiousness, worshipfulness, and magnification of the Sharee'ah. So the person can't imagine that hawaa exists amongst these people the way it is present in the overly lax/watered-down movements (such as the modernists, etc.). But the reality is that hawaa is present in both ends of the spectrum. Hawaa can be from the angle of laxity/negligence, as well as from the angle of strictness/rigidness. And this is why the Ulamaa' refered to the Khawaarij as Ahl al-Ahwaa' (People who follow their caprices). So hawaa does not just mean that a person abandons an obligation (waajib) in the Sharee'ah because it doesn't fit his hawaa. Rather, there are many forms of hawaa which might be unknown to many people. And what hawaa is more obvious, that the state of that person who persists in his aggression and oppression, and is not deterred by any sincere advice nor reminder of Allaah, who runs with his own ideas- and in matters of Sharee'ah, does not care about what the People of Knowledge say, nor does he pay any attention to them, and then he attacks the most virtuous people of Islaam, from the Ulamaa' of the Ummah and the muraabiteen (those guarding and defending the Muslims) in the Cause of Allaah, accusing them of kufr, treachery and corruption. While at the same time he thinks that he and those who are in his group are closer to the truth. And then he plunges into the grave matters and finds no motivation in his soul to even pause a little bit to listen to sincere well-wishing advisors, lest there is anything in his position that calls for some self-restraint or precaution. So these are the waves of hawaa which plays with a person in ways he does not even realize.
The Third Factor:
Too much trust in some individuals, or movements, or groups, which the individual believes are on the truth. So he then accepts everything that they say or do without any distintion, because he thinks that they have reached such a high level of piety and trustworthiness that it is impossible for them to fall into even small mistakes, let alone the likes of these tremendous crimes. So the severe criticism that is directed towards these actions (which) requires him to go back and revisit the fundamentals and principles; (this) does not move him a bit. This is because he thinks that so-and-so person or group has already seen this position and this so-and-so person and group is more knowledgable, has more taqwaa, and is more virtuous; and hence, it is impossible for their actions to contradict these fundamental principles. So he remains believing in these fundamentals theoritically, while his practice in reality nullifies them, because he is blindly-following someone else. And this is the blameworthy taqleed (blind-following) that no human being is excused for. So what is obligatory upon him is to judge everyone according to the Sharee'ah. For when the killed one comes with his blood arguing against you in front of Allaah, it will not benefit you to say, "So and so told me his blood was permissible, or the ameer (commander) told me to kill him." This is the blind following which is the category of the blind-following the kuffaar did to reject what the Messengers of Allaah (peace be on them all) brought: *"Just in the same way whenever We sent a warner before you to any people, the wealthy ones among them said, "We found our fathers following a certain religion, and we will certainly follow in their footsteps."* [az-Zukhruf: 23]
The Fourth Factor:
The impact of disputes and arguments that take place between parties and groups regarding ahkaam (rulings) and labels of the Sharee'ah. So instead of returning all disagreements back to the Book of Allaah (and the Sunnah), and the Sharee'ah being used to judge between those who differ, so that the fundamental principles can regulate the actions, and the particular applications (i.e. actions, statements) can be brought to be judged (and examined) in the light of the principles of the Sharee'ah; (instead of this), to some people, the topic becomes an issue of rivalry against some parties or groups or ideas. So his stance is the partisan stance in favor of his group and its position towards other groups. To such a point that he doesn't even keep in mind the Islaamic morals and values, and ahkaam (laws) that are binding upon each and every individual regardless of what jamaa'ah (group) he is in. He then only views the members of the other jamaa'ah in accordance to a biased position, thus he has nullified the Islaamic fundamentals by being overcome by a partisan frame of mind.
Some of them chillingly say, to justify an incident of killing, "They were on the way to becoming sahawaat ("Awakenings", like those that took place in 'Iraaq) in the future!" Let's assume that they would become like that in the future - is there anything in the Sharee'ah that would make it lawful for you to kill someone who you suspect might become a kaafir in the future?
And another one speaks about his jamaa'ah, that it has a project which the East and West are all waging war on, and that he defends an Islaamic project against those the aggressors. Let's assume that that is all true. Does this give you an "Islaamic blank check" to make lawful the blood of whoever you wish from amongst those whom you percieve to be a threat to you!
And thus, the topic is changed to a hizbee (factionalism) rivalry/contest, wherein the "group" is Islaam itself, so whoever fights the group, then in fact he is fighting Islaam, and his blood is lawful; and whoever is with the group, then he is a believer, a muwahhid, a mujaahid; and whoever is outside of the group, then if that person isn't an apostate kaafir, then most likely he isn't too far from apostasy. And even if he doesn't say this explicitly, his actions are pointing towards this nature of behaviour.
So partisan disputes blind the person from that which is obligatory upon him in the Islaamic Sharee'ah, when it comes to ascribing a kufree statement or action to someone. Perhaps indeed the statement or action is kufr without a doubt, but before you ascribe it to any particular person, you must definitely have with you undeniable, clear-cut proofs to establish that it occurred from the person. But the partisan dispute blinds some people such that all self-evident criteria/standards for verification are absent. So it becomes very easy for him to do takfeer of a person, or even an entire jamaa'ah, or even a vast movement of people, based on a piece of news in a Western newspaper, which he read on an online social media forum, from a translation whose source he doesn't even know! And when he is asked to verifiably establish it, which would require precision in objectivity and methodology, he begins to list what this movement is doing and what that jamaa'ah has done; which means that hizbee (partisan) problems and the struggle with other groups is the biggest motive to do takfeer, so he took the verification process lightly; thus he thereafter looks for anything to support his takfeer.
The Fifth Factor:
Holding on to certain situations of exception to the basic principle (asl) that have come in the Sharee'ah. But this exception becomes over-inflated in his mind and view, to the point where he nullifies and abolishes the actual principle (asl) itself.
So for example, he believes that it is haraam to kill a Muslim, but then he sees that there are a couple of legitimate situations wherein the Sharee'ah has pardoned the (act of) killing, in consideration of it having been a mistake or it having been done due to a ta'weel (misinterpretation where the killer thought it was okay to kill the victim). As has come in the story of Usaamah ibn Zayd (ra) when in a ghazwah (expedition) he killed a kaafir who said "Laa Ilaaha IllAllaah", so the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) rebuked him, but didn't subject him to qisaas (equal retaliation, i.e. a life for a life, an eye for an eye), nor did he tell him to pay blood-money nor obligated on him any expiation. [Refer to Bukhaaree #6876, and Muslim #96]. And also the story of Khaalid ibn al-Waleed (ra), when he killed the tribe of Banoo Judhaymah after they had accepted Islaam. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do more than say, "O Allaah! I declare to You my baraa'ah (disassociation) from what Khaalid has done." [Bukhaaree #4339].
So these situations increase in his mind until it becomes very easy for him to immediately declare after any incident of wrongful killing, that it was a mistake, just like the mistake of Khaalid, and that it requires no blood-money, nor expiation, and it is sufficient enough for him to disavow, in a general sense, from killing any Muslim. The situation has reached a point where some of them declare a case where someone was killed mistakenly, that it requires no blood-money, nor expiation, nor even an indemnity, and even there is no need for a qaadhee (judge) to look into the matter!
And when he hears of any incident of wrongful killing or transgression, he immediately responds that this is something normal in any warzone, and things like this took place amongst the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), so it is not correct to exaggerate the issues.
So we are facing a situation where the exception has been inflated and has begun to push aside the actual general rule. Rather, it is as if the general rule regarding bloodshed is that it is not a crime to murder, and to nullify any consequences to a killing, no qisaas, nor blood-money, nor expiation, because it was a mistake. So in reality, he nullifies everything that the Sharee'ah has brought with regards to how seriously it takes the matters of blood, and all the rights necessitated by it.
And this was not the manhaj (way) of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Rather, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was the qaadhee (judge) who looked into each particular case, and judged if it was a mistake, and after it was confirmed that it was indeed a mistake, he was harsh with those who did it. And still, this is the exception. The original rule still remains, that the one who kills (without right) deserves qisaas (equal retribution, a soul for a soul), and the requirement of all other (related) ahkaam (rulings) upon him, and the burden of proving that it was a mistake or due to ta'weel, is upon him as well. And this requires a qadhaa' (judicial process) to investigate the particular incident, to know if in fact it is confirmed that it was a mistake or there was a ta'weel (misinterpretation); and then look into whether or not this ta'weel is of the type that the Sharee'ah excuses or not; and while keeping in mind the necessity of safeguarding by punishing anyone who took the matter lightly, so that this particular case remains in the confines of the exception, the way it is supposed to be in the shariah. And it should not be inflated so that Muslim blood can be easily shed and just moments thereafter simply claim "there is no need for blood money nor expiation, nor qisaas." So if such a person speaks of how he takes the matter of blood seriously - it is a belief in theory, nullified in practice; because the exception to the rule has dominated and overcome him.
There is an example similar to this: if someone defends himself or his wealth, or his womenfolk, and kills the one who was attacking him, then there is no blame on him. As the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to someone who asked him, "What should I do if a man comes to me to take my wealth?" He said, "Don't give it to him." He asked, "What if he fights me?" He responded, "Fight him." He asked, "What if he kills me?" He responded, " You will be a shaheed(martyr)." He asked , "What if I kill him?" He replied, "He will be in the Hellfire." [Recorded by Muslim #140] But the asl (basic rule) is that he is someone who has killed a person without a right until it is established/proven to a qadhee (judge) that the killing was in self-defense.
Conclusion:
So these are 5 factors:
1) brief summarized knowledge of general Islaamic principles, without knowing its further details/categorizations and limits;
2) to turn away from critically judging his deeds in accordance with the Sharee'ah, due to his trust in his intention and pure objective;
3) the taqleed wherein a person shuts off his intellect, 'ilm and religion in order to follow someone else;
4) the partisan rivalry/dispute, wherein the guidelines of the Sharee'ah evaporate because of the heat of dispute/rivalry;
5) the over inflation of exceptions from their proper place.
These are some of the main factors which make the Islaamic Sharee'ah's fundamental principles and beliefs become nullified theoritical principles that do not have the impact of safeguarding a person from deviant actions, nor prevent him from falling into monstrous implementations.
The phrase "Fear Allaah" shakes the heart of any Muslim, and admonishing about blood, and the Divine Accounting (Hisaab), and the rights of people would tremble the entire body of a layman amongst the Muslims, even if he may have whatever shortcomings he may have. And this may even push him to even have extra caution, wara' (intense fear of Allaah that pushes someone to be on the safe side) and reservation, so that he doesn't have to bear the consequences on the Day of Resurrection, and he may even prefer to let go of his own rights and prefer to be the "murdered servant of Allaah" out of fear of being the "murderer servant of Allaah." [A reference to the two sons of Aadam (peace be on him), see Al-Maa'idah: 27-32] But the extremist individual deals cold-heartedly with such deep profound feelings in the souls. He looks at those who take such stances (of wara') as doing so due to ignorance and a deficient understanding of the reality of Tawheed. So admonition and sincere advice do not increase him except in further misguidance. And this confirms the meaning of what the Salaf warned against, that the danger of twisted arguments/interpretations is more dangerous than the danger of lusts and desires, because its followers think they are upon the truth and they don't desist or repent, and they don't think there is anything in their action that requires them to review their actions, so he continues to persist upon his extremist way until he destroys himself and those around him.
The phenomenon of "Nullified Islaamic Principles" is a glaring condition on the scene of present-day extremism (ghuluww). This is when the extremist speaks in the most beautiful manner about Islaamic principles and fundamentals, and will disassociate himself with the most magnificent words from the beliefs and theoritical priciples of extremists (i.e. the Khawaarij). But when it comes to implementation in practice he breaks loose from the perfect and precise compass of the Islaamic principles, thus manifesting monstrous ideas and shameful deviances, through which we discover a state of affairs where there exists a disconnect between the belief (in theory) and the implementation (in practice). And we also discover that one who disassociates himself from the principles of the extremists (i.e. Khaawarij), may himself be perpetrating exactly the same actions as them; rather, he may even be worse in ways he percieves, or in ways he might not even percieve.
--- Translated by Ehsanul Islam Sadequee
Rajab, 6, 1435 years after the hijrah of the Messenger of Allaah, may the peace and salutations of Allaah be upon him, his family, his Companions, and all those who follow him till the Last Day.
May Allaah make this work be for His Face, and accept it, and bless it, make it beneficial for the Ummah, and make it heavy on the scales of good deeds on the Day of Resurrection, indeed, He is Generous, and Kind. wal-HamduLillaahi Rabbil 'Aalameen.
