A Brief Overview: Irja'a of the Madaakhilah

"I feared the danger of the Murji'ah more than the danger of al-Azraqiah [Khawarij] for the
Ummah"
The Tab'i Ibrahim al-Nakhaa' [Al-Lalakaa`i 5/1061]

Edited and Presented to you by http://muwahhidmedia.wordpress.com

Introduction:
In the name of Allh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
May the peace and blessings be upon the last Prophet, Imaam of the Muwahideen
and Mujahideen, Muhammad [salallahu alayhi wasallam], his family and his noble
companions [May Allah be pleased with them all.]
The following article is a brief work covering the Irja'a prevalent today, specifically
maintained by Neo-Salafiyyah/Madaakhilah [New/Recent Salafi's], whom ascribe
to the Aqeedah and Manhaj of Ahlu-Sunnah Wal Jamaah, but have fell into Irja'a
from its most extreme in certain matters.
It has been written and compiled in order to benefit the Muslims so they may be
aware of such a Bidah [innovation] that has been grasped onto by many Shuyookh
and Duaat, in which its fruits are sowed in the land of Saud, and its results reaped
in the West. The Murjiah are a deviant sect that appeared with the emergence of
the Khawaarij and Rawaafid. The trait they attain is that of Irjaa, a separation the
Amal [Actions] from Imaan to be concise.
This sect comes in different sub-groups, as they also differ amongst themselves
although they all fall under the umbrella of Murji'ah. Various works on Irjaa and the
Murji'ah for those who are unaware of their origins and deviancies can be accessed
from the site, with ease inshaAllah. The titles will be named at the end of this
document. It is advised they are to to be read first for those who are unaware of the
Murjiah and their attributes.
This work was put together to display the manifest Irjaa found in these Salafis, in
which they will continue to deny till this day. After having read the document
Biidnillah, one should be able to come to the fact that they in reality do not adhere
to the Creed of as-Salaf-us-Saalih [Righteous Predecessors] in such matters.
The 3 Main areas of Irjaa that have been manifested is that of:
1.
2.
3.

Understanding Jins al-Amal and the consequence of abandoning the

obligatory actions
Irjaa in Allying with the Kuffaar against Muslims
Irjaa in Ruling by other than the law of Allah

Forgive us, as they will only be covered briefly inshaAllah.

1. The negation of actions in Amal [Actions] and the consequences of

abandoning the obligatory actions
The concept of Jins al-Amal has been branded an innovation by some scholars in
Saudi Arabia, which is absurd to say the least. Jins al-Amal is the labeling of actions
in Imaan, and for one to leave Jins al-Amal [leaving of the obligatory actions alltogether], then one of the pillars of Imaan [The Actions] are negated resulting in the
negation of Imaan all together, as a matter is negated with the negation of [any] of
its pillars. There is Ijmaa' amongst the Salaf that Iman is defined by belief/action in
the heart, speech of the tongue, and action of the limbs. Imam ash-Shafee states:
:G(GFE A@"D3 8& A@?+; 8& >+;"=(";< :9( 8& "/65" 3 ":1 0/. ,+*")(&" %!"
" ..VUT"; % QP( 8& ?. ML; % <KJ I/H G! "/E5

{There is consensus among the Sahaabah, the Tbieen, and those who met them, who
all said: Imn is sayings, actions and intentions, and none of these three can exist
without the others.} [Majm al-Fatwa, vol.7, p.209]
This also means that ones Imaan can be negated by any of these means. For e.g. If
one was to insult the Prophet [salallahu alayhi wasallam], he would disbelieve,
regardless if he had intended it or not which has been stated by the scholars in such
a case. Or if one was to invoke upon other than Allah in the land of the Muslims,
this is Shirk Akbar and a clear-cut matter, therefore no one is excused for this
except the one under compulsion, insane or a new Muslim. This action alone is Kufr
Akbar and takes on out of the fold, regardless if he considers it Halal or not. We
find many of those who claim to represent Dawah Salafyyah, in which they state
Imaan is belief, statement and actions, which is correct, however their
understanding is wrong. This is because they have stripped of the actions outside of
Imaan when it comes to the nullifiers of Imaan [i.e the actions that are Kufr Akbar],
so they may state Imaan involves actions, but action alone cannot take one outside
the fold of Islam unless he makes Istihlaal [makes it Halal], Juhood [Rejection] or
Takdheeb [Denial], which takes the view of the Ghulaat al-Murjiah [Extreme
Murjiah].
An innovated statement heard today, is that action is only Kufr [Akbar], when
combined with belief. In other words, it is being stated that actions alone cannot
take one outside the fold of Islam, unless the individual ties it with his heart. This is
in reality nothing but Irjaa. Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab [May Allah
have mercy on him] stated that:

 *_I/+([\ ([]" F("; GZE ;? % ?K.G=( QU %" :1 0/.@" G(? WH 8; ?/:& &"5!"
GHV* VgZ3 ?J"+& V*"3 Gf* 0; I/+E A(? K.G=( VH *_ "/[]&
I6Vd( 8ZE A( a@ 8& ,` I=U
" ."/f("P& hK[;

There is no dispute that Tawheed has to be with the Heart and Tongue and Action. If
one of these lacks the man no longer remains a Muslim, So if he knows Tawheed but
does not act in its accordance then he is a stubborn Kaaffir, similar in Kufr to
Firawn, Iblees, and their likes. [Kashf-ash-Shubahaat]
By the statement of the Sheikh, it is evident Imaan cannot exist except with these 3
components. The actions are a condition for the very existence of Imaan, not its
completeness. Absence of the obligatory actions results in absence of Imaan, not
merely a lack of Imaan. Imaan is not merely Tasdeeq [Conviction], but it must be
accompanied by at-Taa'a [obedience] and Amal [Actions]. Otherwise, Iblees
wouldve still been in the fold of Islam if that was the case - for he makes Tasdeeq in
Allah.
Harb narrated from Ishaaq that Hafidh Ibn Rajab [May Allah have mercy on him]
said:
8& :G(GFE "&G! :Af(G! 8& "p o=. <n6Vm l[k" : !"j":i 8H V. IFJ" :1 0/.\ 6 8;!"
VgZJ % "J" f( G:6 VKk 8& xwVg("&< H v:(" 3M(" t& Gp;" G=Zm G[9( Vq
" ..<n6V& AfJ ,* ,D+E AfK* |` % 8Ea( %{f* VF& G@ ? +; 1 o( V& o6VE

The Murjiah continued to go to extremes, until from their statements was that a
people said, Whoever leaves the prescribed prayers and the fasting of Ramadhan and
the Zakaat and the Hajj and all of the obligatory deeds, without rejecting them, we do
not make Takfeer to him. His reckoning is left to Allah after he has become from those
who accept them [i.e. the obligatory deeds]. So those are the ones about whom there is
no doubt; meaning the Murjiah. [Fath Al- Baari 1/23]
Ibn Taymiyyah [May Allah have mercy on him] said:
I6V( GZE ~ D=/E 0J I/H G! 8& 0K* ?; % 8E?(> Wq ?! ": <K/Kq 8; Qi5} K` !"
VKk % "&"Kp % "3 % Qp % V@" "W6{ E A( 0J"]( 0W[F; 0W[F; 0(Gi 1"; "D&{&
" .."W6G( 8& |(

It became clear that the Religion requires both words and actions, and that it is
impossible that a person is a believer in Allah and His Messenger by his heart, or by
his heart and tongue, and yet did not perform any of these apparent obligations;
neither Salh, or Zakh, or Sawm, or anything else from these obligations. [Majm
al-Fatawa 7/261]

He also said:
~ D=/K* ~FE % "& V* a@ a@ VgZ; </w" !" /J " :0(GF; G9( a@ o[H Qi5} K` !"
8& 0K[H ?FE "& I+gE v:(" K9(" 3M( Q9( 8& 0; V&" /& "nK` I+gE % I6V( GZE
% I; 8"W( ,* 8&{& a@ ~& G@ "f&" ZJ <[WF( VKk o( G Q; Q9( IP& &"V:m
" ..0W[! ,* a(" /E5? +( % (| I+gE

The scholars of Islam have declared Kufr of [that person] because it is assuming
what cannot be, since it is impossible that a man would not perform anything from
what Allah ordered of Salaat, Zakaat, and Hajj, and would do what he can of
prohibitions like praying with no Wudhu facing other than the Qiblah, and marrying
ones mother, and yet such a person would have belief in his heart, rather he does not
do these except because of the non-existence of Imn in his heart. [Majm al-Fatwa
7/218]
Know, May Allah have mercy on you, this matter is the clear distinction between
the different groups of Ahl-Al Irjaa and Ahlu-Sunnah Wal Jamaah, in which they
[the Murjiah] claimed that the who leaves Jins al-Amal has only decreased in Iman,
not negated it. Such statements are from the biggest harms that may afflict the
Muslim community, allowing Irjaa to be prevalent without being able to distinguish
between the true Muwahhid [Monotheist] and the disbelieving Murtad [Apostate]
who abandoned actions all together. Rather there is no difference of opinion on this
issue [that the one who leaves all the obligatory actions is not a Muslim].
Actions according to everyone [from among the Salaf] has been known to be a
condition for the validity of Iman, but they differed with is the minimum
requirement through which ones Iman should be valid. Some of them said Salah,
and this is what the consensus of the companions was upon as narrated by Abdullah
Ibn Saqeeq, others said something different. This Irjaa needs to be clarified by the
Scholars of Tawheed so the masses remain on the straight path. What is evident and
apparent is the existence of many Scholars of Sultan, who distort the texts in order
to defend and protect their Tawagheet, eventually drowning the students of
knowledge and laymen who follow them into the depths of Irjaa.
Imam Al-Awzaee said:
<& o[H A@?DH GU ,` G@ 8& hK( : %GFE !="oK:E "3" : 1 0/. ,H&" 5!"
" .."65 8&

Yahya and Qatdah used to say: There is nothing from the desires, which was more
feared by them upon the nation than Al-Irjaa. [Al-Ibanah Vol. 2/885-886]

2. Irjaa in allying with the Kuffr against the Muslims

This is from the many controversial topics today, although the issue is as clear as the
sun in the day. In the book of Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab [May Allah
have mercy on him], Nullifiers of Islam, this is a nullifier that is clearly applicable
with the reality in todays time. Unfortunately, the Murjiah, have distorted this
nullifier with their own Irjaa-like understanding, to protect the throne of the
Tawagheet. As for the issue of allying with the Kuffaar against the Muslims, it
comprises of being either be minor or major. Muwalaah, being the minor Kufr, is in
regards to smiling at the Kuffaar out of honour, sharpening a pen for them, and the
Tawalli, is Kufr Akbar by Ijmaa'. This is from allying with them, aiding them,
assisting them, by any means, as this action alone is Riddah [apostasy] and takes
one out of the fold of Islam. The generality of the Ayah in the book of Allah is clearcut:
AfD& 0dJ_* AZD&
=E 8&
Af(dG

And whoever takes them as allies [Jews and Christians], then he is one of
them. [5:54]
The Irjaa in todays time in regards to this matter is the usual deception of the
Murjiah, who will claim that these actions are not Kufr Akbar unless they are tied
with the heart. So if a one [who claims Islaam], allies with the Kuffaar, supports
them and fights with them against the Muslims, slaughters them, he is still a Muslim
as long as he hates the religion of the disbelievers and loves Islam. A disaster
indeed!
And from the evidences in which Ahl-Al Irjaa use today, is the story of the
companion of the Prophet [salallahu alayhi wasallam] narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari.
He was a Sahabi that fought in Badr, who had relatives residing in Mecca. The
companion Haatib [May Allah be pleased with him] had sent a letter for his family,
which was stopped before it reached to his family by the Muslims. The matter was
taken to the Prophet, and when Umar Ibn al-Khattab [May Allah be pleased with
him] heard about this, he stated Let me strike the neck of this Munafiq [Bukhari],
and in another Hadith, the Hadth of Ibn Abbas narrated by At-Tabari, Umar said:
I drew my sword and said: O Messenger of Allh, enable me over him, as he has
disbelieved!. Ibn Hajar said, Its chain is Sahih.. [Fath Al-Bari Vol 12/309].
The statement of Umar was a clear statement that this action of Haatibs, was
Mudhaaharah [Major Kufr] as this is from what he judged on the apparent. Yet, the
Prophet questioned the matter before rushing into judgement and Haatib replied
that he did not do it out of Kufr, nor to apostatize from his religion, nor being
pleased with Kufr after Islam.

This is more evidence that Haatib knew his action would be judged as
Mudhaaharah by the apparent, hence why he stated he did not do it out disbelief.
Neither did he intend harm for the Muslims by his letter. The Prophet [salallahu
alayhi wasallam] neither criticized the judgement of Umar, knowing very well such
an action [as it seemed from the apparent] is Kufr.
The Murjiah, claim that his action was not Major Kufr, because his outward
allegiance was not linked with inward allegiance [of the heart], therefore he did not
disbelieve. The point made is a great error and misunderstanding of the reality of
the incident of Haatib. It has been well established, in the Quran, the Sunnah and
Ijmaa', that Mudhaaharah with the Kuffaar is apostasy by itself, an action that takes
one out of the fold of Islam, regardless of the implications within the heart.
There are 2 opinions from the scholars of Ahlu-Sunnah in regards to the incident of
Haatib and why Takfeer was not made upon him.
The first, such as Imaam al-Qurtubi, believe that the very action of Haatib was not
Mudhaaharah, but Muwalah [Major sin]. This is only due to the reality of the letter
he sent in regards to its content, as this [its content] was by no means alliance or
assistance, but rather the content of the letter was a harsh warning to Quraysh, to
know that the Muslims are coming. And for those who do take this opinion, need to
differentiate between the ruling on Mudhaahara, and the ruling on Haatib. The
former is that of Kufr Akbar, and none is excused except the one under compulsion,
and the former is that of his action [i.e Haatib], was a Major sin [held by certain
scholars] due to the reality of the letter.
The other opinion, was that of his action was indeed Mudhaaharah, but he was
excused due to his Taweel [misinterpretation]. Haatib [mistakenly] interpreted that
his fear of the disbelievers upon his family entitled him to a concession for what he
did [as well as assuming there would be no harm upon the Muslims in the first
place] In which he was mistaken, as fear cannot be used as an excuse. The very
verse: And if any amongst you takes them as Awliyah, then surely he is one of them
- those who committed what the verse was revealed for was by fear, and not for
being pleased with the religion of the Kuffaar.
As for the clear meaning of this Ayah, the scholar Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi commented
on this verse stating:
o[H G@ "/J {AfD& 0J_* AZD& Af(G=E 8& }:o("+q 0(G! p" ' :"o[:m ",* 1 0/. M. 8;!"
" ..>/[]m 8& "D 0K* [=E % . a@ F* "gZ([< /6 8& V*"3 0J; V@"

It is correct that this verse is only to be taken literally, meaning that he is a Kaafir
from the group of the Kuffar, and this is the Truth, and not even two Muslims will
disagree on this issue. [Al-Muhlla 11/138]

From the excuses of the Murjiah, is that an individual is still within the fold of Islam
if his Mudhharah with the Kuffaar against the Muslims was due to fear of
possessions in the Dunya, due to their deviant extraction from the incident of
Haatib. The fact of the matter is one commits Kufr even if he does so out of fear for
his worldly possessions, based on the text in the Quran:
T o[H
(
d VU
8EV*"Z( G
F(? fE % 1
d
"KJ?(" K:
( GW:
=i
AfdJ ; |

{That is because they preferred the worldly life over the Hereafter and that Allh does
not guide the disbelieving people.} [16:107]
The Deen of Allah takes precedence over worldly benefits, as for the one that
comes with worldly reasons as an excuse, this person has disbelieved due to placing
his worldly reason above his Dn.
Sheikh Abdul Aziz Ar-Rajihi was asked regarding the one who aids the Kuffr
against the Muslims for fear of worldly possessions. He stated: So Ikraah is only if it
is said to him Commit Kufr! Or else we will kill you! Or if someone threatens to kill him, and
is really going to kill him - and the person really believes that he will be killed - for example if a
king, or if a tyrant threatens him; and there is no one [to help him to escape] and he is ordered
Commit Kufr! Prostrate to the idol! Say these words of Kufr! But if you dont, we will slay
you! [Then such a person is excused] for he is a Mukrah; so if he utters or does Kufr, if his
heart is firmly upon Imn - then he is excused.
"And as for the case he is a Khaaif [under fear], and he is not at the point of Ikraah - then
such a person is not excused, nor does he have any excuse. So the Khaaif is like someone when it
is said to him, Commit Kufr! Or else I will seize all your property and wealth! But if you
commit Kufr, then I will let you have your property and wealth. Such a person is not excused,
nor does he have any excuse. He should let him seize his property for the sake of not committing
Kufr." [Refer to his cassettes in explanation of the end of Kashf Ash Shubaht]
This Tawl of Haatib, was the same of Qudaamah Ibn Mathun, who considered it
permissible to drink by misinterpreting an Ayah from the Quran. All the Scholars
have established, and from them the descendants of Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul
Wahhab, The Scholars of the Najd - the likes of grandson of the Mujadidd, Sheikh
Sulaymn Ibn Abdullh , who stated Mudhhara with the Kuffaar is apostasy even
if he loves the Muslims, or despises the religion of the Kuffar [ad-Dalaail]. Imam
Hamd Ibn Atq said:
d ? Fq ?! ":32 " " Wq%< D]( I@ 8H "(?*",* 1 0/. K=H 8; ?/. }K)(!"
V@"&
8/& VgZ&
a@ I3 0K[H A@ "/; o ;[]" AfDH a(> /[]m GH o[H Af=(%> 3V)m
" ..>/[]m\ :E" gZ( xWE |(" &~ 3 ?qV& Gf* G3am V35 VKk 8& 0D& ?p

Indeed, assisting the Mushrikeen against the Muslims [Mudhaaharah], and

revealing to them the hidden plans of the Muslims, or defending them with speech, or

being pleased with what [Shirk] they are upon - each of these is a Nullification; Thus
whosoever does any of these - without being under Ikraah - then he is an apostate, even
if he hates the Kuffar and loves the Muslims. [Ad-Dif An-Ahl As-Sunnah WaIttba]
Are we the ones who know what is in their hearts, or is it Allah? How is it possible
for us to know if the collaborators love Islam? And if the Murjiah say Ask him and if he says that he loves Islam and hates Kufr, then we must accept this verbal claim
According to this stipulation, then every single apostate Murtad could save
themselves by claiming But I love the Muslims and hate Kufr!
Mudhaaharah with the Mushrikeen against the Muslims, this being a nullification of
ones Islam which is manifested by the actions and this is judged upon from the
outer. There are those inner matters that are also nullifications. From them are
desiring the victory of the Kufr over Islam, regardless if any action was done
against the Muslims, or to help the Kuffaar. Similarly, Mudhaaharah is nullification
whether or not the collaborator loves Islam or hates Kufr. One is a nullification of
Amal, while the other is a nullification through Itiqaad [Belief]. And for those who
commit them together, have fell more even more deep into apostasy!
Sheikh Naasir al-Fahd said regarding those who make such claims:
V@"& oD+& ,* 0&Q3 A@ GD; ?! A@ @?1 AfF* %{@ :Vi 1? *| fg( Vp"J }K)(*"
I+L* " "F=H% "o(< K[/+(< K(GF( VgZm G@ "65 ,* " Ggp 8; AfL( "Ip o[H "gZ(
ot=F& o[H "gZ( 8E?; "8[+E o=. I+* "/f& VgZE % >/[]m o[H Af( Vp"Dm" gZ[( V@"m
"g!G(" &~ g! " ..VgZE % >/[]m> ? KWK[9( GK6 !"G( Qi( \]=Dm *_ AfW@a&

They have based their opinion regarding Mudhaaharah upon the foundation of
Jahm Ibn Safwan in Irja'a - meaning that they refer the nullifications of actions and
statements back to the heart. So they consider the collaborator and supporter of the
Kuffaar against the Muslims of not having committed Kufr, until he openly admits
that he is pleased with the religion of Kufr. So this opinion of theirs implies that if
someone attaches himself to Islam, and yet leads armies of the Crusaders against the
Muslims, such a leader does not become a Kaafir [according to their deviant
opinion]. [Waqafaat Maa Al-Waqafaat]
In Sheikh Naasir al-Fahds treatise of Waqafaat Maa Al-Waqafaat, he gives a
beautiful example regarding the Qusuriyyah [Palace Worshippers]. He points out
that just as the Quburiyyah [Grave Worshippers] do not make Takfeer for calling
out the dead saints [in which the action is Kufr Akbar by itself], unless the caller
believes in the heart that the saint can benefit or harm; Similarly, the Qusuriyyah do
not make Takfeer for Mudhaaharah [in which the action is Kufr Akbar by itself],
unless the collaborator in his heart loves Kufr or hates Islam.

Both are Murjiah, who refer the nullifying actions of Islam, back to the unseen
affairs of the heart.
The Manhaj of Ahlu-Sunnah Wal Jamaah is to judge the apparent, and the inner
condition is left to Allah. Just like the uncle of the Prophet [salallahu alayhi
wasallam], Al-Abbaas fought with the Quraysh against the Muslims on the Battle
of Badr, even though the Muslims in Mecca were compelled. The same ruling upon
the Kuffaar, was stipulated upon the Muslims, as they were asked to pay ransom to
be released. Al-Abbaas told the Prophet of Allah: O Messenger of Allah, but we were
compelled.. - The Prophet [salallahu alayhi wasallam] replied Your outside was against
us, as for your inside - it is left to Allah. [Mentioned in Fath Al-Bari Vol.7/322 by
Ibn Hajar].
And if the Murjiah stipulate that the heart has to hate the Muslims or love the
Kuffaar for Mudhaaharah to actually be apostasy, then it is for them to know only
Allah knows matters of the Ghayb [Unseen affairs] and what is within the persons
heart!
And from this, come the disaster of the Murjiah of today who claim allying with the
Kuffaar against Muslims is a major sin, and is only Kufr Akbar if they love their
religion. How deluded they are from the truth!

3. Irj in ruling by other than the law of Allh

Another controversial topic, in which Ahl-Al Irjaa of today have deceived the
people. Again, what needs to be stressed is that ruling by other than Allahs law can
be Minor or Major Kufr. The Minor Kufr, is in regards to - When the ruler or
judge, implements the Shariah of Allah generally, but in a few circumstances he
judges according to his whims, while believing that the law of Allah is still superior
and should have been applied, such is Minor Kufr. In such cases, he abandons the
ruling, but does not replace it. As for Major Kufr, it is when the ruler or judge
dismantles the Shariah, replaces the Shariah, and rules by laws other than the
Shariah of Allah, whether it be the Injeel and Torah, or man-made laws. The very
Ayah in the Quran that the Khawaarij took out of context
n * (1
V*"Z( A@
|

MJ " /; AZ:
E A(d 8&

And who so ever does not judge by what Allh has revealed, such are the Kafirn
[disbelievers].. [5:44]
was revealed regarding the Jews, in which the original ruling was that the adulterer
was to be stoned in their laws prescribed by Allah at that time, however the Jews
replaced this Hukm [Ruling] with 100 lashes. Ibn Katheer narrated from Bar Ibn
Azib and Hudhayfah Ibn al-Yamn and Ibn Abbas from Abee Majliz and Abee
Raha al-Atawri and Ikramah and Ubaydah Ibn Abdullah and al-Hasan al-Basr and
others who said:
="Z( I@ ,* <ET

They came down for Ahl-Al Kitb.

And al-Hasan al-Basr added:

<W6" DK[H ,@

And it is obligatory [to apply the verses meaning] upon us as well.

And from Sufyaan Ibn Thawri from Mansur from Ibrahim who said:
<& af( 1 , IKwVi ,D; ,* "ET a@ l(MJ

These Ayt came down for Bani Israil and they are chosen for our Ummah." [atTafsr Vol.2/63-64]
The actions of the Jews were Kufr Akbar, as it is replacement of the Shariah, not a
mere abandonment. The deception of the Murjiah today who state to those who
claim the current rulers are apostates, that whoever says such [rulers being
disbelievers] then they are from the Khawaarij as these same people [who made
Takfeer on the rulers in the past] use the above mentioned Ayah.
What they fail to understand though is that this Ayah was applied upon Ali by the
deviant Khawaarij in which Ali was ruling by the Shariah! And from those in the

Umayyad times, the ruling and judging by other than Allahs law comes to the
former category described above, in which the Sharah was generally implemented
but particular situations were ruled upon by desire. It needs to be known, that
replacing some parts of the Shariah, and ruling by man-made laws, is clear and
manifest Kufr Akbar. Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, made Takfeer upon and
waged Jihad against the Tatars, merely because they ruled by the previous
scriptures and the Quran, in which they judged by their book al-Yaasiq. This was
enough for Imm Ibn Taymiyyah to rule them with apostasy, regardless if they
rejected the Sharah or not. Imm Ibn Hazm states:
Qi5< +EV` ,* ,
. 0K[H D("; E A( "/& IKLJ5 AZ:; AZ. 8& :o("+q 1 0/. M. 8;!"
Qi5 8H "U V)& V*"3 0J_*

Whoever rules by Torah and Injeel in issues where there is no text from revelation in
the Shariah of Islam; then he is a Kaafir Mushrik outside of Islam. With the
consensus of the Fuqahaa [Scholars of Fiqh]. [Ihkm al-Ahkm fi Usul Al-Ahkm,
5/153]
And Imm Ibn Kathr said regarding those who ruled with al-Yaasiq [The Tatars]:
A3":q" KWJ Aq"U 1? WH 8; ?/:& o[H MDm AZ:m V)( Vq 8/* :1 0/. VKP3 8;"* :(!"
"/6_; Vg3 |( I+* 8& 0K[H "f&?! i"K( o( A3":q 8/; KZ* Vg3 <UG]Dm~ wV)( 8& VKk o(
>/[]m

{Whoever does that, he has disbelieved by the Ijmaa' of the Muslims.} [al-Bidayyah
Wal Nihayyah, 13/118-119]
If Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah fought and made Takfeer upon those where
merely judged by the previous scriptures, then what about those who judge by the
laws of the West!? And those who judge by laws from man!? The Muhadith of our
time, Sheikh Ahmad Shaakir [May Allh have mercy on him] stated:
,@ h/)( G < K+G(> JGF( a@ ,* V& " :1 0/. V3"` ?/.} K)(&< Q+(!"
"f; I/+( ,* "3 8& "Dw"3 Qi( \]=DE 8/& ?. aH % &?% 0K* "gU % G; Vg3
" @..0]gJ \K]. V& I3 0]gJ V& a:K[* "@V! "f( Gt(

{The matter in these fabricated laws is clear with the clearness of the sun. It is clear
Disbelief [Kufr] and there is nothing hidden about it and there is no excuse for
anyone who attributes themselves to Islam, whoever they may be be, to act according to
them or to submit to them, or to approve of them. So each person should beware and
every person is responsible for himself.} [Umdt At-Tafseer Mukhtsir Tafsr Ibn
Kathr of Ahmad Shkir, Vol. 4/173-174].
There is much detail to this matter, in which its explanation will not be stated here,
as we want to grasp and understand where the Irjaa lies in this matter of ruling and
judging by what Allah has revealed.

Another excuse to defend the Tawagheet of today used by the Murjiah is the
statement of Ibn Abbas [May Allah be pleased with him], who said: Kufr Duna
Kufr. This was a reply to the Khawaarij who understood ruling and judging by
other than what Allah has revealed is Kufr Akbar in all matters which further
resulted I Takfeer of Ali [May Allah be pleased with him], and the reality was the
ruling of the Ummayads of that time fell into Kufr Asghar, not Kufr Akbar. The one
who believes ruling by man-made laws is Kufr Duna Kufr is an ignorant and
misguided individual. The Minor Kufr has already been explained above briefly,
and this was what had occurred in the Ummayad times.
Getting to the main Irjaa in this area, it is important to understand that Istihlaal
[Making Haraam to Halal] only occurs in matters of sins, and not the Nawaaqid
[Nullifiers]. For e.g. to commit theft, is a sin and does not take one out of the fold of
Islam, unless he makes it Halaal [replacing the Hukm of prohibition from Allah and
allowing it]. Ahlu-Sunnah Wal Jamaah believe that Imaan increases and decreases,
it increases with good deeds and decreases with sins. Contrary to the Khawaarij
who believe the Iman is nullified in its entirety by committing a sin, or on the other
hand the belief of the Murjiah who believe sins do not affect ones Imaan.
What is also vital to understand is that Istihlaal cannot be applicable to the
Nawaaqid, due to the fact that the Nawaaqid are actions in itself that nullify ones
Islam, regardless of the implications of the heart [in this case Istihlaal]. So the one
that invokes upon other than Allah, or the one that allies with the Kuffaar against
the Muslims by Mudhaaharah, in which these are Nawaaqid, renders one an an
apostate as this action alone is Kufr Akbar, and it is not a condition that he only
disbelieves by committing such Nawaaqid until he makes these actions Halal, which
is the speech of the Murjiah and their manifest deception they bring upon the
Muslims today.
The Irjaa comes in their understanding of ruling by other than the law of Allah and
the argument they bring forward which is based upon the Kalaam [Speech] of the
Murjiah. That even if the ruler judges by Kufr, he only disbelieves by rejecting the
Shariah of Allah or when he makes his law [of Kufr] Halal. This is a great
misconception, based upon the misunderstanding of classical scholars who stated
We do not make Takfr on those who commit sins. All such statements were all
made to refute the deviant the Khawaarij. The Nawaaqid of Islam is also considered
sins, but the difference is great. The one that commits theft is disobedient to the
rulings of Allah and his prohibitions, by which his Imaan decreases. Where as the
one that commits Shirk or Kufr Akbar loses his Islam [A general statement - It is
important to note the only one that may be excused from such is the one under
Ikraah (compulsion), one that resides in a remote land where the evidences have
not reached him, or a new Muslim who has not been taught such matters.].
As there are certain sins in Islam [those of the Nawaaqid] that take one outside the
fold, and there are the many sins that keep one inside the fold unless he makes
Istihlaal.

The Khawaarij would denounce people Kafir for any sin, in contrast Ahlu-Sunnah
do not denounce people Kaafir for all sins, but only those sins in which there is clear
evidence that if one commits such an action, he has disbelieved. The view that one
becomes a Kaafir except the one who rejects [the ruling] is the view of the Murjiah
of all kinds. The one, who denies that alcohol or adultery is Haraam, is a Kafir by
Ijmaa'. As for the one that replaces the Shariah and rules by another law [Kufr
Akbar], he disbelieves even if he does not reject the ruling of Allah, as this action
alone is clear apostasy. The statements by previous scholars in which they had
stated as long as the ruler believes the law of Allah is more superior and should have
been applied, is only in regards to the few situations the ruler does not rule
according to the law of Allah, by which he abandons the ruling [while still believing
that the Hukm of Allah should have been implemented].
A certain example in which we find the scholars are upon consensus, is Kufr Akbar,
is that of insulting the Prophet [salallahu alayhi wasallam]. Which is committed by
statements, and that the mere act in itself of insulting is Major Kufr, whether one
believes it be permissible or not. And this is the opinion of Ahlu-Sunnah Wal
Jamaah, contrary to the Murjiah who claim the one who insults the Prophet
[salallahu alayhi wasallam] cannot be considered a Kaafir unless he rejects the
ruling.
The Murjiah were accused of this great innovation, by the Salaf, which [the beliefs
of al-Murjiah] opposed the texts which describe the one who commits action of
Kufr as being Kaafir without stipulation the condition that it should be accompanied
by denial [Takdheeb] or rejection [Juhood].
A brief round up to conclude, by which Sheikh Sulayman al-Alwn states: What
the general population of the Muslims are upon such as Al Hfidh Ibn Kathr
narrated their Ijm in Al Bidyah wa Nihayyah, in the thirteenth volume in the
biography of Gengis Khan, is that the action on its own is Kufr and Riddah without
looking and without tying it in with the beliefs or Juhd or Takdhb or Tafthl or
things like that.. So we make Takfr from the action itself, without looking to the
beliefs. This is further demonstrated by the scholar, ash-Sheikh Muhammad Ibn
Ibrahm, a reply to the Murjiah of today who claim that ruling by other than the
law of Allah [replacing the Sharah which consists of Kufr Akbar as implemented
today by the Tawaght] is not Kufr as long as he believes his rule is falsehood whom stated:
I"; 0J? F=H" J GJ"F( AZ. 8& !"G( GFq [| +[* :1 0/. AK@V; 8; ?/:& <&Q+(} K)(!"
6/189 :="g(( I"; "fJ? F=H? " WH" J :?.G( !" G( "/3 V)[( MH G@ I; 0( V % af*

Anyone who rules by man-made law and says I believe that it is falsehood it [his
saying] has no value, rather he is withdrawing [or isolating] the Shariah and it is
equivalent to someone saying I worship the idols but I believe it is
falsehood. [Fattwaa Muhammad Ibn Ibrahm v6 p189]

Concluding Statements
Ahlu-Sunnah Wal Jamaah are neither like the Khawaarij, who declare Takfeer on
the one who commits a sin or Minor Kufr, nor are they like the Murjiah who claim
nobody can become Kaafir from the actions of Kufr except by making Istihlaal or
Juhood.
The Murjiah of today who claim to upon Ahlu-Sunnah Wal Jamah, time and time
again have brought forward their arguments based upon the founations of Irja'a, to
defend their Tawagheet who have committed the Nawaaqid. Beautifully put, by the
Noble Sheikh Sulayman Al-Alwn, when he said:
<n6Vm GF; G(GFE % (| G[:=]E A("& Vw"WZ( I@ VgZE Q* <n6Vm G( ;> i< D]( I@
I:=]E o=. VgZ/; oq 8& VgZE % \ J" /E5 &~ VtE %

Ahlu-Sunnah tread a middle path between the Khawrij and the Murjiah. They do
not denounce those commit major sins as Kaafirs, so long as they do not believe that
their actions to be permissible [Halal]. Neither do they agree with the view of the
Murjiah, the sins does not undermine a persons faith at all, and that no one can be
denounced as a Kaafir unless he is known to believe that his action is permitted."
This is the reality of the Murjiah today - who claim to follow the Salaf and their
Aqeedah and Manhaj when in reality they follow the Aqeedah of the Salaf mixed
with the Aqeedah of the Murjiah. And this Bidah of Irja'a is from the most harmful
and needs to be detested and warned about to the Muslims, as Imam Zuhri [May
Allah be merciful to him] said:
Imam az-Zuhree said:
"65 ,D+E a@ 8& 0[@ o[H V ,@ <H?; Qi5 ,* "&" ;=?: !" V@M( 8H

No innovation (Bidah) was innovated in Islam that was more harmful to its people
than this; meaning Al- Irj. [Al Ibanah Vol. 2/885]
As for their charge against us, that we are Khawaarij. We do not make Takfeer on
Kabaair, We do not kill the Muslims and leave the Mushrikeen, neither are we of
those who are harsh with the Muslims and soft with the Kuffaar, nor do we believe
in rebellion against the ruler unless he nullifies his Imaan or commits open Kufr - but
the Murjiah of today, restrict Kufr to matters of the heart, claim actions are
completeness for Imaan, not its existence. They claim Tawalli with the Kuffaar is
only Kufr if one loves the Dn of the Kuffaar, which their misguided Shuyookh
propagate.

For this understanding is nothing but that of the deviant Murjiah, for they twist the
reality of the Hukaam to defend the throne of Taghut. Any student of knowledge
that has studied and understood the pure Tawheed will know that for one to belong
to the Khawaarij, he must adhere to their Usool, not merely posses an attribute or
so. In fact, if we were to argue that possessing a mere characteristic of the Khawarij
would result to belonging to them, then those who claim we are Khawaarij are
closer to it! And who are the ones that allow the killing of the Muwahideen and
Mujahideen, while they leave the Mushrikeen in completely security and
protection!? And who are the ones that are soft and have no Bara'a towards the
Kuffaar, but rather their hatred and harshness is targeted towards the Muslims who
do not agree with them and their Manhaj due to their Hizb mentality!?
..And as for us, by the grace of Allh, the Exalted, Glory be unto Him, we can prove
that they are from the Murjiah, in its image. But as for them, they are not able to
establish that we are from the Khawrij, not in an hour, not until the Hour of the Day
of Judgement. - Sheikh Abu Sufyn as-Sulam
May Allah forgive us for our mistakes, and guide us to what pleases Him. We ask
Allah to protect the Muslims from the deviancies and deceptions coming from the
Murjiah of our time, and that He makes our hearts pure and free from any forms of
partisanship.
And from Allah is all success. May the peace and blessings be upon the last and final
Prophet, his family and companions [May Allh be pleased with them].
Your brother, Abu Zubayr ash-Shawqi
7 Dhul-Qadah 1434

Recommended Readings that can be found on our website:

Refutation of Salafi Publications in matters of Iman, Takfeer, and Ruling by

other than Allah's Law Part 1 and 2
Deviations of the Madakhilah
Al-Murji'ah Sect: Its History and Beliefs
The Murji'ah and Al-Kufr
Murji'ah and their corrupt understanding of Taghut
The Neo-Murji'ah
The Difference between Murji'ah and a Man who has Irjaa in him
Can one be called Murji if he believes that Iman increases and decreases, and
that actions are a part of Iman, yet he believes actions do not nullify one's
Iman?
Is one considered a Murji if he has Irja in his Usool?
Corrupt understanding of the Murji'ah of Kufr Duna Kufr
The Evidences For The Ruling Regarding Alliance With The Infidels
The Difference between at-Tawalli and al-Muwalat
Man Made Laws Vs Shari'ah The Present Rulers When Ruling by other than
Allah's Law consists of Kufr Asghar; Clarification on the Narration of Ibn
Abbas