All perfect praise is for Allaah alone. We beseech His peace and blessings upon Muhammad (sollaLloohu ‘alayhi wa sallam).
In continuation from where I stopped; Secondly, Ibn ‘Abbass debated with the Khowaarij and yet he never declared them as disbelievers despite establishing evidences against them. This in itself, without an atom of doubt, is enough as evidence that establishing evidence against a person who falls into bid’ah mufassiqoh does not automatically change the ruling to mukaffiroh as against the lies of Rosheed and his teacher. Rosheed said in one of his speeches that mufassiqoh is only applicable before establishing evidences against the one who falls into bid’ah; once evidence is presented and the person continues with the innovation even if the evidence is not convincing to the person, the ruling will change to mukaffiroh and the person leaves Islaam automatically. Apart from the refutation of this blatant lie by Ibn ‘Abbas, we even see more examples from the Prophet and some other Companions. One more example will be mentioned in each case. Aboo Sa’eed Al-Khudree established evidences against Marwaan and yet he never declared Marwaan as a Kaafir. Why didn’t he declare him as a Kaafir? Is there excuse for someone who persists upon ‘a major kufr’ in your creed? What is this ignoramus display by this time of the day? In addition, the Messenger of Allaah established evidences against ‘Uthmaan bn Mazun, yet he never declared him as a Kaafir? How is that? We ask Allaah to free Rosheed and his cohorts from the prison of Muhammad ‘Aliyy Jabata Al-Khoorijee.
Thirdly, we have seen something similar to this statement from other than Shaykh Albaanee. Al-Imaam Maalik bn Anas (rohimohuLlaah) said, “he who innovates an innovation in Islaam regarding it as something good, has claimed that Muhammad (sollaLloohu ‘alayhi wa sallam) has betrayed his trust to deliver the message as Allaah says, ‘This day I have perfected for you your Religion for you, and completed my favour upon you, and have approved for you Islaam as your religion’. And whatsoever was not part of the religion then, is not part of the religion today.” [Al-‘Itisoom] Is it to be understood that Imaam Maalik meant that every innovator is a kaafir. Capital No! This is a figurative statement stating what could be likened to an action. It is not necessarily the same with every innovator. How many innovators have you asked about whether or not they reject that verse? Will anyone of them claim he rejects the verse? There is no difficulty in understanding this statement. It is just an exact case of what was earlier explained. An issue is not to be judged with a verse, or just one hadeeth, or a statement of one of the scholars, rather all the verses, ahadeeth, statements of the Companions and all the people of knowledge regarding it must be explored to establish the correct ruling. Therefore, Imaam Maalik never meant that all innovators positively reject this verse and as such are disbelievers.
Fourthly, Shaykh Muhammad Noosiruddeen Al-Albaanee (rohimohuLlaah) mentioned a positive and negative application of his statement. He said, “POSITIVELY, WE WOULD SAY THAT HE HAS DISBELIEVED, BASED ON THE CONDITION THAT WE MENTIONED EARLIER, THAT EVIDENCE WAS MADE CLEAR TO HIM. AND THE OTHER HAS DISBELIEVED AFTER EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO HIM. NEGATIVELY SPEAKING, THERE’S NO DECLARATION OF DISBELIEF OR APOSTASY IN EITHER CASE, NEITHER THE FIRST NOR THE SECOND, ONLY WITH THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITION WHICH WAS MENTIONED.” This is contrary to your belief because mistakes in the issues of usool a’int excusable. This is the reason you and your ignoramus teacher declared some of the well-respected scholars of Islaam as Kuffar. Is there any such thing as a negative application of his statement in your creed? Why then do you want to romance his statements which do not support your creed? Before looking at the positive and negative applications, it is worth mentioning that the example he mentioned in this case is a bid’ah mukaffiroh not mufassiqoh. How is to be understood that we place the ruling of the two under this same explanation???
Positively speaking, it is to be understood that the one who falls into bid’ah mukaffiroh becomes a kaafir after establishing evidences against him. This is because the innovative reality of the kufr inherent in his actions has been made clear to him, and he rejects it after clear guidance. Positively speaking, the one who says reciting solaatul faatih once is greater than reciting the whole Qur’aan in a number of times has undoubtedly fallen into kufr which takes him out of the fold of Islaam; so if he remains upon that misguidance after evidences have been presented to him, then we would say, he is a kaafir positively. On the other hand, negatively speaking, it is to be understood that there is no declaration of disbelief on the one who falls into bid’ah mukaffiroh because of the possibility that he doesn’t understand the issue from the scratch and/or evidences of the innovative reality of the actions were not known to him and/or simply that evidences were not brought to him. There is no difficulty in understanding the two cases with the respective conditions. The next explanation of Shaykh Muhammad Noosiruddeen al-Albaanee clarifies this issue.
To be continued…
I beseech Allaah to show us the truth as being the truth and to grant us its following, and to show us misguidance as misguidance, and to make it easy for us to abstain from it.
May prayers and peace be upon Muhammad (sollaLloohu ‘alayhi wa sallam), his respected households and companions, and on the generality of the Muslims till the end of time.
Aboo Aaishah Al Odeomeey