In Iraq, we have people who pronounce the testimony but perform deeds that contradict the testimony. Do we treat them as Muslims or otherwise? If we look at

The questioner : We have another question. It is about pronouncing the testimony. Many people nowadays pronounce the testimony, but when we observe their actions, they are associating partners with Allah, such as seeking aid and placing reliance in other than Allah. So, do we treat one who pronounces the testimony as a Muslim, or do we also look at his actions?

The Shaykh : Yes, this is the problem of the Muslim youth in the present age. You know that in the Shari'ah there is a name called faith (iman) and another name called Islam. A person may be a Muslim and not a believer, because Islam is what a person displays outwardly. If he says, "There is no god but Allah," then with this good word he becomes a Muslim. But he may have said this word either without awareness or understanding of it, or with understanding of it but denying the meaning he understood. In both cases, his Islam saves him from being killed, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . A Muslim or a person may say, "There is no god but Allah," out of hypocrisy, flattery, or conformity. We cannot treat him except as we treat the general Muslim population. As for his account with Allah, that is with Allah; He knows the secret and what is even more hidden. This is one point: every believer is a Muslim, but not every Muslim is a believer. The hypocrites who were in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) first, and who exist in all societies second, are Muslims who display Islam but conceal disbelief. Outwardly they are Muslims, inwardly they are disbelievers, but they do not declare their disbelief. Therefore, this type of disbeliever, namely the hypocrites, as the Lord of the Worlds said, are in the lowest depth of the Fire. The outward Islamic rulings apply to them. If we see a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah, prays, and fasts, but on the other hand, we find, as I said, matters coming from him that contradict the reality of the meaning of this testimony, then it is obligatory for one who is zealous for these Muslims to perform the duty of warning and alerting him that what he is doing contradicts the testimony he testifies to. If the Muslim performs this duty with a person among those we are discussing, who are Muslims, and he feels that the person is being stubborn and defiant, then he treats him as a non-Muslim, because he knows that after establishing the proof against him, he rejected it. But the reality by which I testify to Allah is that this issue, as they say in this time, is not relevant, because it requires Muslim rulers to hold these people accountable who say with their tongues what they negate with their actions. These people need rulers to give them a choice: either they do not do what negates this good word, or else they face execution. As for us as individuals, what do we gain? We gain nothing except establishing the proof against them. This requires scholars, not small students of knowledge. It requires scholars so that they can establish the proof against these misguided Muslims. Second, we benefit by turning away from them and not caring about them in any way. It is clear. Therefore, the summary of the speech is that we should not pay much attention to these people except to the extent that we advise them. Just to the extent that we advise them and remind them, and then we say, as the Lord of the Worlds said: .