Indeed, from the matters where differences and mistakes have increased is the issue of “al-‘udhr bil-jahl” (excuse of ignorance) in Asl ad-Dīn (the foundation of the Deen)
By ash-Shaykh al-‘Allāmah ‘Abdul-‘Azīz at-Tuwayli’ī rahimahullāh
All praise belongs to Allāh, and Salah and Salam be upon the Messenger of Allāh, to proceed:
Indeed, from the matters where differences and mistakes have increased is the issue of “al-‘udhr bil-jahl” (i.e. excuse of ignorance) in Asl ad-Dīn (the foundation of the Deen), and many of those who view that the jāhil who commits major shirk is excused, make the basis and reason for that his affiliation to Islām and his claim that he’s from the Muslimin. So if he worshiped other than Allāh, and made du’ā to it and sacrificed to it, and was raised upon that since his birth till his death, and he would profess with his tongue “I am a Muslim”, he would consider him from the Muslimin, and if he worshiped other than Allāh, and made du’ā to it, and sacrificed to it, and would profess with his tongue, “I’m upon the way that Allāh has commanded me to be upon”, he would not excuse him, and this is from the contradictions, without a doubt. And if he is cited with the comparison between the grave-worshipers and the idol worshipers, and not excusing either one of them with ignorance, he made the affiliation to Islām the difference (between the two), and due to this affiliation (to Islām), he rules upon the idol worshiper with kufr, and rules upon the grave worshiper with Islām.
And affiliation to Islām, if it meant solely ascribing to Islām without the rest of the obligations (like Salāh etc…), then it is a ruling without any proof for it, and if it means ascribing to the Deen of Allāh, the Exalted and Majestic, whether that affiliation was to the Islām which Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was sent with, or too judaism or christianity or other laws which the Messengers were sent with, The one who says this statement must rule the ignorant ones among the jews and christians and other than them with Islām, because they attribute themselves to the Deen of Allāh which He ordered them to follow, and they fell into nullifiers due to ignorance, and whoever excuse those has disbelieved and left fold of Islām, and denied the authentic and explicit (texts) from the evidences.
In fact, he must rule upon the mushrikīn of Quraysh with Islām before the advent of the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم), because they say they are upon the Millah of Ibrāhīm (عليه السلام) according to what they claim and assume, and they had some obliations taken from him, and Ahkām (i.e. rulings) such as Hajj, circumcision, exalting the rites, and they acknowledge that Allāh is the Lord with no partners with Him in creating, sustenance, bringing to life, causing to die, however they commit shirk with others besides Allāh, so it can bring them closer to Allāh, believing that Allāh has permitted him to be a mandate on His behalf, and an intermediary between Him and His creation, Allāh is Exalted from what they claim. And the grave worshipers are exactly like them in all of this, except that the grave worshipers attribute themselves to the seal of the Prophets instead of the jāhiliyyīn who attribute themselves to Ibrāhīm (عليه السلام). Moreover, they and them are the same in everything and the grave worshipers will have no benefit in following the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) or adhering to some of his obligations in the Deen, just like the kuffār of Quraysh had no benefit in following Ibrāhīm (عليه السلام) or adhering to some of his obligations in the Deen.
So affiliation to Islām is in contrast with affiliation to the way of Ibrāhīm, and some of the obligations which they abide by in worship is in contrast with those (the mushrikīn perform), and the more, or less, (one performs of these) doesn’t make a difference in affirming Imān and kufr, and acknowledging the Rubūbiyyah of Allāh is in contrast with those (mushrikīn) who affirm the Rubūbiyyah, and both parties are disbelievers in Allāh, outside the fold of Islām, emitted from the Dīn. And if he was affiliated to the correct Dīn (i.e. upon pure Tawhīd) and committed apostasy when he first grew up, as is the case with many of the qubūriyyah and amongst the jāhiliyyīn. And after that has surpassed of being upon the fitrah of Islām (they became apostates afterwards) as is the case with some of the qubūriyyīn and the early ones who fell into apostasy from the jāhiliyyīn.
In fact, the grave-worshipers even claim that what they are doing is what Allāh and His Messenger has ordered, in contrast with the statement of the mushrikīn in jāhiliyyah, as Allāh, the Exalted and Majestic spoke about them, “And when they commit an immorality, they say, “We found our fathers doing it, and Allāh has ordered us to do it.” [7:28]
And this is the proof of the over-whelming majority of the mushrikīn amongst the grave worshipers today, rather I met with one of the major leaders from the people of shirk performing ‘Umrah, and he uses the same proof of the first kuffar, and he said, “It’s not allowed for you to rebuke what the people (i.e. grave worshippers) are practicing, because they took it from their fathers, and there’s no doubt that they (also) took it from their fathers, and the khalaf took it from the Salaf, so then it (is taken) from the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم)!”
This is exactly what is mentioned in the Āyah from the ‘proofs’ of the mushrikīn in two things: That they found their fore-fathers practicing it, and that Allāh has ordered them to do it. Al-Hāfidh Ibn Kathīr (رحمه الله) said, “And they believe that the practice of their fore-fathers is traced back to a command from Allāh and the Sharī’ah.” And even though this is in the context of “al-Fāhisha”, which was interpreted as being their tawāf around the Ka’bah naked, except that it’s indicative to the practice of their fore-fathers as an evidence (for them), and it’s their assumption that the practice of their fore-fathers is stemmed back to a Legislation from Allāh. And this wrong mistake, just as it occurs with some of the opponents in the issue of “excuse of ignorance” from the students of knowledge, for verily it occurs amongst the laymen alot in excusing the stubborn person (who refuses to accept the Hujjah) that ascribes himself to Islām, so they don’t make Takfīr upon the one who ascribes himself to Islām at all, rather I heard from some of those who were called “Du’āt as-Sahwa” (i.e. revivalist preachers), who flipped and turned so much say, “I do not make Takfīr upon whoever says I’m Muslim,” when he was asked about the likes of Hāfidh al-Assad (i.e. Bashār’s father, may Allāh curse his soul) and the Arab tawāghīt amongst the apostate rulers. And this is the exact blind misconception, and only if I knew, if this was the path of guidance and truth, then why did as-Siddīq (i.e. Abū Bakr) bother with fighting Musaylamah (the liar) and those with him, to the extent that the best Sahābah went out and died, and killings intensified among the Reciters, Scholars and people of the Qur’ān?! And the majority of those who the Scholars have ruled upon with kufr were among the murtaddīn, even though the over-whelming majority of them attributed themselves to Islām, and refused to be labelled with other than that.
Rather (to the extent that) this statement has ousted: That the one who says “I’m upon the religion of Mūsa” doesn’t disbelieve, or “I’m upon the religion of ‘Īsa” among the jews and christians, and this statement is extravagantly pored in the furthest of misguidance from the Deen of Allāh, and the Book of Allāh, and the Sunnah of His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم). And if it is said, “This is not acceptable, for they disbelieved after the advent of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and the abrogation of their ways,” so this necessitates that if they attributed themselves to Islām after the advent of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and remained upon what they are upon, their ignorant ones would be excused and be a Muslim, and it also necessitates that their ignorant ones were all Muslim believers during the advent of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and they only disbelieved due to his advent, and this is obviously invalid and false.
What we just mentioned doesn’t mean that we say there’s no difference at all between the one who ascribes himself to Islām and the one who doesn’t ascribe to it among the mushrikīn. Rather, the affiliation of a person to Islām after he has disbelieved has Islām affirmed upon him in what is the “Dhāhir” (i.e. what’s apparent), so if he didn’t adhere to its rulings, or he committed acts of kufr that nullify the Asl (i.e. Foundation) of Tawhīd, then he is judged with apostasy. But as for the disbelieving groups that are raised upon this view (of shirk), then affirming Islām for them due to their affiliation to Islām has two statements among the Scholars. Some of them view that Islām is affirmed for them due to the affiliation, and apostasy is affirmed (right after) from what they commit from the acts of kufr, and others view that they are originally disbelievers (i.e. kuffār asliyyīn), and that their affiliation to Islām is just like the affiliation of the mushrikin of Quraysh to the Millah of Ibrāhīm, and this is what’s correct for what has surpassed of not differentiating between both affiliations, and Allāh knows best. (see note)
This, and peace and blessings be upon His slave and Messenger Muhammad, and upon all of his household and companions.
NOTE: It is only relatively recently that the Scholars have formed two opinions with regards to those who ascribe to Islām and have shirk with them. An ijmā’ was stated by ash-Shaykh ‘Abdul-Latīf from the ‘Ulamā of the Da’wah Najdiyyah Salafiyyah Jihādiyyah that they are ruled upon with riddah. This is what the Khilāfah holds onto as well. But, that does not suggest that they were ever Muslim for a day, as it is based on the principle that whoever says the Shahādah enters into Islam and whoever commits shirk leaves it.
Allāh tabāraka wa ta’ālā knows best.
