Are there actions that in themselves indicate the intention of their doer?

The questioner : Well, Shaykh, to clarify his question: apostasy requires intention, but are there not actions that in themselves indicate the intention of their doer?

The Shaykh : I answered you, and I am answering you now: the action alone does not indicate the intention.

The questioner: Our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : The example is before you in the Noble Qur'an.

The questioner : Yes, there are indicators in it.

The Shaykh : Ah, so the action alone is not sufficient, and I am judged by what comes from your mouth.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : That is the end of it.

The questioner : Well, Shaykh, are these indicators verbal, or are they also actions?

The Shaykh : It depends on their indication. We have returned to the point: are they necessary? They may be strong, and they may not be strong. The precaution is that we do not consider an indicator strong unless we find no way to weaken it. When that is the case, we say the indicator is strong, and the person is judged by what appears from him, and the indicator shows that he was intentional. But my intention is to remind you of the previous truth: apostasy is not an easy matter, my brother; it is not a drink of water. Apostasy is a very serious matter. Second: the action alone does not indicate apostasy; intention is necessary. There are indicators that point to intention, but the action alone does not indicate intention. The proof is in the verse mentioned in the Qur'an regarding our master Musa (peace be upon him). Out of intense anger, when he was informed of the disbelief of his people, he threw down the tablets. Imagine if a Muslim you know, who is standing praying and fasting, and so on, in a fit of anger had the mushaf in his hand and threw it on the ground. You cannot judge him as an apostate merely because he threw the mushaf on the ground. You must look at the general state in which this person was living and existing. We return to saying that the indicators, as we agreed, some may be strong and one is judged by them, and some may be weak and one is not judged by them. Then why are we delving into this topic now? This is the question: why are we delving into it now? As we said earlier, we do not have the power or authority to apply the rulings and the hudud (fixed Qur'anic punishments), unfortunately. Second: most Muslims today do not care if a man is a disbeliever, and he is my brother-in-law, my sister's husband, my daughter's husband, and so on. If you were to ask me, and I am issuing a fatwa, I would not hesitate: the Muslim wife, if she is under a husband who is an open sinner, not a disbeliever, must seek divorce. He is an open sinner, not a disbeliever. But often we were asked by religious women: "My husband does not come home until the middle of the night, he is drunk, he is living well, in the Syrian expression, and he may be drinking khamr (intoxicants) and not praying." They ask, "What is the ruling of the Shari'ah?" I return and say to her, "It is not permissible for you to remain under his protection." She returns and says to me, "What about the children I have?" I say, "Why are you asking?" She is calculating for the children and the livelihood, and so on. And so we are learning, but we are not benefiting from the knowledge. We must learn what benefits us first, and then benefits people in general. So, the preoccupation with takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) is, in my opinion, regarding our current time, if I say it is from the voluntary knowledge, I may be exaggerating. If I say it is from the voluntary knowledge, not from the obligatory, I may be exaggerating. Why? Because there are things we must learn that we are not learning, while these studies are taking up our time, our era, and our efforts, perhaps for a long time. Allah is the Helper, and there is no power and no strength except with Allah.
Yes.