The Principle on Finding Ninety-Nine Excuses To Avert Kufr

An important clarification, ignorance of which - even momentarily - is unacceptable:

Be informed that it is mentioned in the books of our legal theory that the verdict of kufr (disbelief) will not be pronounced upon the one regarding whom there exists ninety-nine elements of kufr along with a single element of Islam. This has been misunderstood by some who have no acquaintance with fiqh, thus they err regarding its intended meaning. They allege that someone who perpetrates acts of disbelief of the number that we mentioned (i.e. ninety-nine) along with a single act of Islam, has not committed kufr. This is a falsehood, regarding which there isn't even the minutest inkling of uncertainty or doubt. How could there be?! The fact is that if a Muslim perpetrates any of the acts of kufr[2] then he has disbelieved, so how about when the majority of his acts are kufr?

The issue raised by the fuqahā’ (expert legal scholars) was with regard to the category of verbal statements (aqwāl) whereas they shift [and apply] it to actions. Their intended meaning (i.e. that of the fuqahā’) is that if someone from among them had uttered a statement which has scope for a [single] possible meaning that is not kufr then we shall take it to mean that. We shall not take it to mean the possible meanings of kufr, even if there are many, because for as long as we haven't ascertained the reality, nor have we come to know that he intended [by it] this possible meaning [of kufr] we shall not issue a verdict of kufr upon him based on this ambiguous statement, nor shall we be hasty in declaring him a kāfir (disbeliever).

On the other hand, if his deviation rather than guidance is evident; and the milk has separated from the froth; and the truth has become manifest; and falsehood has become evident; and his affair is no longer akin to hearsay roaming from town to town - rather, he publicises his kufr from the minarets and pulpits, and he has blackened with (his kufr) pages and books – he is most certainly a kāfir and is declared so without an iota of doubt, and only the [severely mentally-] afflicted or nameless [devoid of intellect] would hesitate or delay in declaring him a kāfir.

If the meaning of the speech (of the fuqahā’) was what these people allege it to be, the verdict of kufr would never be warranted [on anyone] for all of eternity. For who is unable to extract the weakest [and most absurd] possibility? Take the case of Musaylimah al-Kadhdhāb. He would testify to the prophethood of our master and prophet Muḥammad ﷺ. However, he desired to share with him in the affair [of leadership]. Did this save him from kufr and deviation? The ʿulamā’ should be heedful of this subtle point and not hesitate or delay in areas like these. They must fear The Almighty, The All-Powerful, for indeed He is mighty in prowess.

---

[1] Imām Anwar Shāh al-Kashmīrī, Fayḍ al-Bārī ʿAlā Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī - ed. Dār al-Ḍiyā’ vol.8 p.127 and ed. al-Maktabat al-Rashīdiyyah vol.6 pp.401-2

[2] Explaining the concept of “kufr actions”, ʿAllāmah Anwar Shāh al-Kashmīrī writes:

“The scholars are in agreement that some acts are kufr, even though it is possible for them to not detach from belief (taṣdīq) given they are acts of the limbs & not the heart. This is like: uttering a statement of kufr jokingly even without believing it; prostrating to an idol; killing a prophet; belittling him, or belittling the Muṣḥaf and Kaʿbah. After agreeing that it amounts to kufr, they differed over the reason. It has been said that the lawgiver did not give legal consideration to that belief, even if [belief is] present in reality. Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Taymiyyah reported this in Kitāb al-Īmān as the words of al-Ashʿarī. It has been said one becomes kāfir from whatever is proof of belittlement, even if he does not intend belittlement, as mentioned in Radd al-Muḥtār. It has been said some things are added to mere belief for the īmān that is taken into consideration in Sharīʿah. It has been said the belief that is taken into consideration does not combine with these acts. ʿAllāmah Qāsim stated this in the footnotes to al-Musāyarah, as well as Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Taymiyyah. In brief, one becomes a kāfir from some actions by agreement, even if not detached from the internal linguistic ‘belief’. Qāḍī Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī said, as found in al-Shifā’ and al-Musāyarah: ‘If he engages in disobedience with a statement or act that Allāh and His Messenger ﷺ have stated, or the Muslims have agreed, that it would only occur from a kāfir, or evidence is established of this, he becomes a kāfir.’ Abu 'l-Baqā’ said in his Kulliyyāt: ‘Kufr is sometimes brought about by speech and sometimes by action. The speech that entails kufr is denial of something agreed upon in which there is a clear [and categorical] text, and there is no difference whether this proceeds from belief, obstinacy or mockery. The action that entails disbelief is one that emerges by deliberate intent and is a clear mockery of religion like prostrating to an idol.’” (Ikfār al-Mulḥidīn, Dār al-Bashā’ir al-Islāmiyyah, pp.113-4)