Statements and sayings of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab regarding the excuse of ignorance, and Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's response to those who accuse him

The questioner: May Allah keep you safe. Here is a phrase I would like to read to you from Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him)

The Shaykh : (May Allah have mercy on him).

The questioner: In the bookThe Shaykh : The honorable Salih al-'Abud saysThe Shaykh : "AndThe Shaykh : he declares as disbelievers those whom the Muslims have unanimously declared disbelievers, namely those against whom the proof has been established, and he does not declare as disbelievers those against whom the proof has not been established"

The Shaykh: That is correct.

The questioner: To the extent thatThe Shaykh : he said (may Allah have mercy on him), "The first of the five pillars of Islam is the two testimonies, and the scholars have unanimously agreed that one who abandons them is a disbeliever and must be fought. As for the remaining four, if a person affirms them but abandons them out of negligence, we may fight him to compel him to perform them, but we do not declare him a disbeliever for abandoning them"

The Shaykh : What Allah willed.

The questioner: "Because the scholars disagreed on whether one who abandons them out of laziness, without denial, is a disbeliever"

The Shaykh : What Allah willed.

The questioner: Also, here is another phrase. Then, may Allah keep you safe, you comment. Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab quotes from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, saying, "When a group of the Companions and Successors, such as Qudamah and his companions, deemed intoxicants permissible, thinking that they were permissible for one who does a good deed, based on their understanding of a verse in Surat al-Ma'idah, the scholars among the Companions, such as 'Umar and Ali and others, agreed that they should be given the opportunity to repent. If they persisted in deeming them permissible, they were declared disbelievers. If they acknowledged their prohibition, they were flogged, but they were not declared disbelievers initially because of the doubt, until the truth was clarified to them. If they then persisted, they were declared disbelievers. For this reason, I used to say to the Jahmiyyah who denied that Allah is above the Throne: 'If I agreed with you, I would be a disbeliever, but you are not disbelievers in my view'"

The Shaykh: That is correct.

The questioner: "Because you are ignorant"

The Shaykh : What Allah willed.

The questioner: And we know by necessity that this is the statement ofThe Shaykh : Now, perhaps this is the statement ofThe Shaykh : Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not legislate for his community, or perhaps this is the statement of Shaykh al-Islam, that one should not call upon any of the living or the dead, nor the prophets or anyone else, neither with the wording of seeking aid nor with the wording of seeking refuge nor otherwise. Just as he did not legislate for them prostration to a dead person or to anyone other than a dead person, and the like. Rather, we know that he prohibited all of that, and that it is shirk (associating partners with Allah) which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. But due to the prevalence of ignorance and the scarcity of knowledge of the reports of the Message

The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar.

The questioner: In many of the later scholars, they were not declared disbelievers for this until what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) brought was clarified to them. For this reason, this issue was never clarified to anyone who knows the foundation of the religion of Islam except that he realized it and said, "This is the foundation of the religion of Islam." And some of the great, knowledgeable Shaykhs among our companions used to say, "This is the greatest thing you have clarified for us"

The Shaykh: May Allah reward him with good. This is certainly the statement of Shaykh al-Islam

The questioner: This is the statement of Shaykh al-Islam. Yes. Here again is a statement from Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab. If you permit me, O Shaykh

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.

The questioner: When he was accused that he declares Muslims disbelievers, he said, "As for the lies and slander, such as their claim that we declare disbelievers in general, and that we obligate migration to us for anyone who is able to manifest his religion, and that we declare disbelievers those who do not declare disbelievers and do not fight, and the like of this, and multiples thereof. That is, their claim that he declares disbelievers those against whom the proof has not been established, and the like. He saysThe Shaykh : All of this is from the lies and slander by which they turn people away from the religion of Allah and His Messenger. And if we do not declare disbelievers those who worship the idol on 'Abd al-Qadir and the idol on the grave of Ahmad al-Badawi and their like, because of their ignorance and the absence of one to alert them, how can we declare disbelievers one who does not associate partners with Allah if he does not migrate to us and does not declare disbelievers and fight? Glory be to You, this is a great slander"

The Shaykh: Glory be to Allah, this is a very great statement. And I say
"So this truth has no obscurity *** So leave me alone from the intentions of the people of the path." We have said in many gatherings, and the brothers present know this, especially this new upstart group whose obsession is declaring the rulers of the Muslims disbelievers, and consequently the ruled. They say about us that we declare the masses disbelievers and do not declare the rulers disbelievers who rule by other than what Allah has revealed. Our ruling regarding ruling by other than what Allah has revealed is known, and there is no need to delve into it. But my intention is to say that I do not declare these common people disbelievers who circumambulate the graves due to the prevalence of ignorance. And I said, and perhaps the brother Abu al-Hasan remembers this, that I am amazed by some scholars who say that there are no people of the period of ignorance (ahl al-fatrah) today. So I say that people of the period of ignorance exist, especially in the lands of disbelief, Europe and America, and so on. Rather, I say a statement that I do not think anyone says today: I say that people of the period of ignorance exist among us, and I mean these ignorant people who find those who support their misguidance, their seeking aid from other than Allah, their vows to other than Allah, and their slaughter for other than Allah, and they call all these shirk (associating partners with Allah) practices tawassul (seeking nearness to Allah through a means). And as you know, tawassul is of two types. So where do we get the right to declare them disbelievers when the call of the Book and the Sunnah has not reached them? I mean these common people and the misguiders from some of the specialists. And some of them may exist in one country and not in another. And therefore, this statement that I recited to you earlier, I am very, very affected by it, to the extent that I said this word: that people of the period of ignorance today live among us, they pray with us, fast, and perform Hajj, but they do not understand what they are saying when they say, "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." As you indicated in your speech and in what you read, it is necessary, before anything else, for us to verify the knowledge of this speaker that he knows what he is saying and means what he is saying. If either of these is absent, it is not permissible for us to do anything with him except ta'zir (discretionary punishment). And recently, a discussion took place between me and one of the brothers in response to those who rush to declare the rulers disbelievers. And as they say in our Syria, "in a lump," meaning in general, some of these Khawarij attribute to us... The point is that I clarified to him the danger of takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) for the one we were discussing with, and I pointed to those who fabricate lies against us, just as they fabricated againstThe Shaykh : Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and others. And we have a precedent in the prophets and messengers, as is known from the Qur'an. I said, if we see a Muslim whom we know is a Muslim, and we see a Muslim trample the mushaf (written copy of the Qur'an) with his foot, there is no doubt this is a reprehensible matter. But it is not permissible for us to rush to issue a ruling of takfir until we verify that first, he did this act intending to insult the mushaf, and he knows that this book he is trampling with his foot is the Noble Qur'an. If he knows that it is the Noble Qur'an and intends to insult it, then this is disbelief, apostasy. But as long as it is possible that he does not think this Qur'an is the word of Allah, or that this book he trampled with his foot is not the book of Allah, and with the other possibility, it is possible that it is the book of Allah and he intended to mock it and insult it, then this is apostasy. But if he did it in a state of angry outburst, he is not judged by that, but rather he is also given ta'zir (discretionary punishment). And I mention on this occasion that I do not distinguish in the result and the outcome between a man taking the mushaf and trampling it, or striking the ground with it. In both cases, it is necessary to consider both possibilities: first, that he knows it is the word of Allah, and second, that he intends to insult and mock the word of Allah. Otherwise, we read in the Noble Qur'an that the one who spoke with Allah, Musa (Moses), struck the tablets on the ground. Is this considered disbelief and apostasy? By no means! But it was out of his jealousy for tawhid (the oneness of Allah), and when he saw his people had worshipped the calf, his anger rose out of jealousy for tawhid, and what happened happened. But what happened was not his intention. Intention is the basis of accountability and punishment. So if this intention is not present along with the utterance, it is not permissible to rush to takfir, but rather to ta'zir. Yes.

The questioner: Perhaps there is a scenario that clearly illustrates what you intended to point to
We might see two men, each tearing the mushaf, so we give this one a ruling and that one a different ruling

The Shaykh: That is correct.

The questioner: This one intended to tear it out of respect for it, so that it would not be insulted, so he has his ruling. And that one intended to tear it because we know his intention was to insult it, so he has his ruling

The Shaykh: Very good. So This is it. Well done. There is no power and no strength except by Allah
Al-Halabi : The words of Ibn al-Qayyim, which we found, perhaps our brother Abu Ahmad will add them to the tape in his own way.

The Shaykh : Good.