Ruling a particular person out of the fold of Islam
The methodology of Ahl as-Sunnah is balanced and moderate as it takes the middle course between those who never rule anyone among the people of the Qiblah out of the fold of Islam and those who rule Muslims out of the fold of Islam due to their sins without looking at the required conditions that must be met and ensuring the absence of the impediments so that such a ruling be made.
The methodology of Ahl as-Sunnah is to avoid ruling that a specific person is out of the fold of Islam so it should be made in general terms such as their statement, ‘One who makes permissible that which is known by necessity in relgion as prohibited, then he has disbelievd; and one who says that the Quran is created or that Allah will not be seen in the Hereafter, then he has disbelieved.’
As for the establishment of this ruling on a specific person, it requires certain condition to be met and certain hindrances be absent.
Ibn Taymiyyah says, “A statement can be an act of disbelief, hence, ruling its maker out of the fold of Islam can be issued, and the following general statement can be stated in that regard, ‘Whoever says such-and-such, then he is a disbeliever.’  However, a specific person who makes that statement cannot receive the judgement of his disbelief unless evidence, whose contravener becomes a disbeliever, is established. This applies to the textual proofs concerning warnings. Allah, the Exalted and Sublime states, ‘Indeed, those who devour the property of orphans unjustly are only consuming into their bellies fire. And they will be burned in a Blaze i.e., Hellfire.’ An-Nisaa’: 10 This and other sacred texts of warning are a matter of truth.  However, a specific person will not be testified against as the recipient of the warning. Thus, no specific person among the people of the Qiblah will be testified against in terms of entrance to Hellfire; due to possibility of not being subjected to the promised punishmet either due to the absence of a certain condition or establishment of a certain hindrance.” [111] Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 23/345.
The sacred texts concerning the issue of ruling a specefic person out of the fold of Islam are of two kinds:
1.   The texts that warn the issuance of Takfeer on a specific person without a proof.
2.   The texts that indicate the Takfeer of a specific person are the conditions that are met, and the impediments are absent.
The textual proofs that warn about the Takfeer of a specific person without a proof: 
Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) narrates that the Prophet ? states: “Whosoever calls his brother, ‘O kaafir disbeliever;’ then one of them has returned with it.” [112] Saheeh Al-Bukhaaree (6104) and the wording is for him, and Saheeh Muslim (60).
Al-Qurtubee says, “We mean thereby that the one called disbeliever, if he is a disbeliever as per the legal meaning of disbeliever, then the caller is truthful in that and that label has gone to the one called; however, if the one called with that is not such, then the disgrace and sin of that statement returns to the caller.” [113] Al-Mufhim lima Ashkala min Talkhees Kitaab Muslim, (1/253).
Ibn Taymiyyah says, “Takfeer is the right of Allah, therefore, only the one whom Allah and His Messenger have ruled to be out of the fold of Islam will be ruled as such.” [114] Ar-Radd ‘ala al-Bakree, (2/492).
He also states, “I am amongst the people who give great stress on the prohibition of ruling a specific person to be out of the fold of Islam, rendering him disobedient and sinful unless when it is known that a proof of religion is established against him which anyone who contravenes it can either be a disbeliever sometimes, a disobedient in other times, or a sinful in some other times.” [115] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawa, (3/229).
The textual proofs that allow ruling a specific person to be out of the fold of Islam if the conditions are met and the impediments are absent
Once the evidence is established and the doubt is cleared, and thereafter, we are certain about his persistence on disbelief and rejection, then we should declare him a disbeliever and demand repentance from him.  If he does not repent, then he will be put to death as a punishment as per the consensus.” [116] Al-Mughnee, Ibn Qudaamah, (12/264).
The righteous predecessors did this with the one who insulted the Messenger ? and who did not accept his ruling, [117] As-Sarim Al-Maslool, Ibn Taymiyyah, (2/521). and they did that with the leaders of the Jahamiyyah such as Ja’d ibn Dirham and Ghaylaan ad-Dimishqee [118] Sharh Usool ‘Itiqaad Ahl as-Sunnah wa al—Jamaa’ah, al-Laalkai, (2/344), (4/787), Khalq Af’aal al-‘Ibaad, al-Bukhaaree, (2/30); ar-Radd ‘ala aj-Jahamiyyah, ad-Daaramee, p.208. . Furthermor, there are other narrations reporting the killing of the sorcerers. [119] Fath al-Majeed, Abdur Rahmaan bin Hassan, (2/30).
The one who adheres to something else besides the Islamic law, irrespective whether he is a legislator or ruler, must be one of the following three cases:
1.  One who is ignorant that it is imperative for him to follow the Messenger ? and to overall adhere to Islamic Law, then he is fundamentally a disbeliever (i.e., he was never a Muslim a before). This is because part of the conditions of realising the witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah is to know its significance and consequences, which is to affirm and believe in the messengership of the Messenger ? and to adhere to Islamic Law in overall terms which demands affirmation and adherence in a detailed manner. This is a matter that no one is excused due to ignorance, misinterpretation, or compulsion. Faith is only established by it.  There is no salvation in the hereafter without affirming it, However, we do not know this from the state of a particular person by basing it on his apparent deeds only. It is not allowed to excommunicate from Islam the person from whom this has been apparent in definite terms unless we are made aware of it by the particular person himself notifying about himself concerning it or his admittance about it. 
2. One who is not ignorant about the obligation concerning the adherence to Islamic Law in establishing the foundation of religion, as it is presumed about everyone who believes in Islam and yet rejects Islamic Law by his adherence to the man-made laws besides it and similar things deliberately, then he is a disbeliever, irrespective whether he deems it permissible or not or is a rejector or not. 
3. One is fully knowledgeable about the obligation of adhering to Islamic law to realise the testification that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, however, an opposition from him is apparently affirmed by adhering to something else besides Islamic Law. However, this opposition is not due to denial and rejection. Instead, it could be due to assumption that his deeds do not contradict the reality of adherence. This person cannot be excommunicate from Islam just merely because his deeds.
This state and the previous one need clarification concerning the state of the particular person before excommunicating him from Islam. Did he do this as a denial of Islamic Law, or he has some doubts and interpretations.  If his denial of Islamic Law is deliberate, then he is a disbeliever. However, if he is among those who are excused due to ignorance or doubt, then he will not be excommunicated from Islam until the evidence against him is established and his doubt is removed.
Ibn Taymiyyah says: “There is no doubt that one who does not believe in the obligation of judging according to what Allah has revealed on His Messenger, then he is a disbeliever. One who deems it permissible to judge between the people according to what he sees as justice without following what Allah has revealed, then he is a disbeliever. This is because every nation commands to judge justly, perhaps, the justice in their religion could be according to the opinion of their elders. In fact, many who attribute themselves to Islam judge according to their habits which Allah did not reveal customary laws of the Bedouins and the commands of the leaders amongst them. They perceive that that is what is ought to be judged with and not with the Book and the Sunnah. This act is an act of disbelief.
Many people have entered the fold of Islam; however, they do not judge but with the customs that are dispensed for them, which their leaders have commanded them to adhere to. When these people learn that it is not allowed to judge according to something else apart from what Allah has revealed, they do not abide by it, rather, they deem permissible to judge against what Allah has revealed, then they are disbelievers, otherwise, they are ignorant.” [120] Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, (5/130).
Muhammad Rasheed Ridaa states concerning the ayaat of the Surah al-Maa’idah and concerning the ruling regarding the one who turns away from the law of Allah, “In the first ayah, the discourse was concerning legislation and revealing the Book that is inclusive of guidance and light; compulsion of the prophets and the wise scholars to act upon and rule according to it; the command of protecting it; the discourse ends with that everyone who frowns away from ruling by it due to avoidance in submission to it, whilst being disinterested with its guidance and light and giving preference of something else to it instead, then he is a disbeliever. This is clear.  One whose ruling does not coincide with it does not enter within this Takfeer judgement, neither that the one leaves ruling by it due to ignorance, then he repents to Allah. This is the sinner due to his failure to rule by it whom Ahl as-Sunnah have protected from Takfeer.” [121] Tafseer al-Manaar, (6/334).
The difference between general and specific Takfeer
Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa’ah differentiate between general and specific Takfeer. In the former instance, a generalised statement issued concerning its doer – one who exhibits disbelief – thus, it will be stated, “One who says so-and-so or does such and such a thing, then he is a disbeliever;” However, a specific person who says so or does so will not be excommunicate from Islam in absolute terms until all the conditions concerning him are met and all hindrances against him are lifted, thereafter, the evidence against him is established whereby its contravener commits disbelief. 
Al-Asbahaanee states, “The grand scholars of adeeth declared the Qadariyyah disbelievers in general terms as well as those who held the belief of the Quran being created. A group of scholars said, ‘We may use a word upon a thing due to certain similitude found therein, however, we would rule on its reality when detailing.’” [122] Al-Hujjah ‘ala Taarik al-Mahajjah, (2/552).
Ibn Taymiyyah states, “I used to clarify to them that whatever has been narrated from the predecessors and the Imams concerning Takfeer in general terms in respect of someone who says such-and-such thing, that is also absolutely true, however, it is imperative to differentiate between generalisation and particularisation.” [123] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (3/230).
He also stated, “Takfeer using a general statement does not necessarily entail ruling a particular person to be out of the fold of Islam, unless when the conditions are met, and the impediments are absent.” [124] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (12/487).
Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhaab said: “The issue of Takfeer of a particular person is a well-known issue. If a person utters a word that is deemed blasphemy, then it will be said: Whoever says this statement is a disbeliever i.e., if a specific person utters words of blasphemy, he will not be judged as a disbeliever until the argument against him is established and denying it makes the person leave the fold of Islam.” [125] Al-Durar As-Saniyyah, (10/432).
Through this clarification, the mistake of both the parties amongst the people becomes apparent; the party that exceeded the limits in Takfeer, they engaged in Takfeer unrestrictedly without paying attention to the conditions and impediments; and the other party that went to the other extreme and absolutely prevented themselves from excommunicating from Islam a particular person, thus closing the door to apostasy.  On the other hand, Allah guided Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa’ah to adopt a middle course. 
Establishment and Understanding of Evidence
Establishment of evidence
The correct position of the people of knowledge is that no one will be excommunicate from Islam among the people who are involved in Shirk (polytheism) or Kufr until the proof reaches, whose contravener commits disbelief. That reaching of the proof can be through clarification or could be circumstantial in those issues that are clearly apparent.
Amongst the evidences that Ahl as-Sunnah furnished that Takfeer and imposition of penalty in the world and punishment in the hereafter only happen after the establishment of proof are as follows:
The statement of Allah, “And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.” Al-Israa:15
Ibn Jareer says, “Allah, exalted be His mention, states, ‘We would never destroy a people until justifying to them by sending messengers and establishing proof against them through sending signs that eliminate their excuse.” [126] Tafseer Ibn Jareer, 14/526.
Allah Almighty and Majectic, states, “It almost bursts with rage. Every time a company is thrown into it, its keepers ask them, ‘Did there not come to you a warner?’ They will say, ‘Yes, a warner had come to us, but we denied and said,’ ‘Allah has not sent down anything. You are not but in great error.’” Al-Mulk:8-9
Ibn Katheer says, “Allah Almighty, mentions His justice concerning His creation, and that He does not punish anyone until the proof is fully established against him and after sending the messenger to him.” [127] Tafseer al-Qur’an al-‘Adheem (8/178).
Allah, the Exalted, states, “And never would your Lord have destroyed the cities until He had sent to their mother i.e., principal city a messenger reciting to them Our ayaat. And We would not destroy the cities except while their people were wrongdoers.” Al-Qasas:52
Ibn ‘Atiyyah says, “The meaning of the ayah is that Allah establishes the proof against His servants by sending messengers. He does not punish until the warning is issued and until the people of the city excessively indulge in wrongdoing and transgression.” [128] Tafseer Ibn Atiyyah, (4/293).
The establishment of proof differs in relation to places and times
Ibn Taymiyyah says, “As for places and times in which there is a spell of prophethood, it can be said that the ruling of the one whom the hallmarks of prophethood are obscure to the extent that he rejects as a mistake that which is brought cannot be the same as the ruling of the one who is in places and times where the hallmarks of prophethood are clear.” [129] Bughyah al-Murtaadd fi ar-Radd ‘ala al-Mutafalsifah, al-Qaraamitah wa al-Baatiniyyah, in order to respond to the Philosophers, the Qarmatians, and the Baatiniyyah, p.311
Ibn al-Qayyim mentions, “The establishment of proof varies according to the variation of times, places and people. The proof of Allah may establish against the disbelievers at one time beside other times and on land and corners beside the other places, just as it establishes on a person besides other persons; either because of the latter’s mental incapacity and intellectual immaturity such as a minor and an insane person, or either because of incomprehension such as the one who does not understand the address, and neither is a translator present who can translate for him. This is like a deaf person who cannot hear anything and cannot understand a thing.” [130]Tareeq al-Hijratayn wa Baab as-Sa’aadatayn, The Path of the Two Emigrations and the Gate of the Two Happinesses, p.414.
Amongst the statements of the scholars concerning avoiding the takfeer of an ignorant person before the establishment of proof against him are as follows:
1.   Ash-Shaafi’ee states, “Allah has names and attributes. It is improper for anyone upon whom the proof is established to refute them. If he opposes after the establishment of proof against him, then he is disbeliever. As for the state before the establishment of proof against him, in that he is excused due to ignorance.” [131] Mukhtasar al-‘Uluww, p.177.
2.   Ibn Taymiyyah says, “As for Shirk, if the proof concerning it is established against a person and he does not desist from it, then it is imperative to kill him, just as the killing of his likes among the polytheists. And he will not be buried in the cemetery of the Muslims, neither will a funeral prayer be performed for him. As for the one who is ignorant whom no knowledge has reached, neither has he understood the reality of Shirk because of which the Prophet ? fought against the polytheists, he will not be excommunicated from Islam, especially when this kind of Shirk has increased in those who attribute themselves to Islam.” [132] Jaami’ al-Masaa’il, (3/151)
Sulaymaan ibn Sahman says, “Sheikh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, may Allah have mercy on him, was among the greatest people to abstain and refrain from issuing apostasy, to an extent that he did not resolve to issue the ruling of Takfeer against an ignorant person who calls out someone else among the people of the graves or others apart from Allah, if he did not have the chance to communicate with the one who can admonish him and conveys to him the proof whose contravener becomes a disbeliever.” [133] Ad-Diyaa’ ash-Shaariq, The Shining Light, p. 372.
Understanding the evidence
It is vital that the reaching of the proof is significantly accepted [134] Abdul Lateef bin Hassan expressed this with his statement: “After the evidence has been established and its significant deliverance has been attained, ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, (1/467). in terms that the addressee understands it and comprehends it [135] Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, (1/467); Misbaah Adh-dhalaam, The Lamp of Darkness, by Abdul Lateef bin Hassan, p. 499; Tafseer Al-Uthaymeen - Al-Zukhruf, p.390. .
Allah, the Exalted, states, “But if they turn away, O Mu?ammad - then only upon you is responsibility for clear notification.” An-Nahl:82
Ibn Jareer says, “The meaning is that your responsibility is only to convey to them what you have been sent with.  Allah means by His statement ‘clear’ that the message clarifies for those who listen to him until they understand him.” [136] Jaami’ al-Bayaan, (14/324).
Ibn Hazm states, “The nature of the establishment of proof against a person is that it first reaches him, thus nothing remains with him that can resist it.” [137] Al-Ihkaam, Ibn Hazm, (1/74)
Ibn Uthaymeen says, “It is important for the proof to reach and for understating its meaning in a manner wherein truth becomes manifest.” [138] Liqaa’ al-Baab al-Maftooh, Meeting No.: 98.