Introduction
According to the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa’ah, the hindrances of Takfeer are four: ignorance, mistake, interpretation or doubt and compulsion.
Thus, if anyone falls into disbelief practically or verbally, thereafter, the proof is established against him and it has been clarified to him that this matter is an act of disbelief that removes one from the religion, yet he persists on doing so voluntarily without being compelled, deliberately, without committing error neither misinterpreting; then he has committed disbelief, even if the driver for that is one’s desires or some worldly interest. [139] Al-Fasl Fee al-Milal wa al-Ahwaa wa an-Nihal, 140 - 144), al-Ihkam fi Usool al-Ahkaam, both by Ibn Hazm (1/49); Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, Ibn Taymiyyah (12/500); at-Tawassut wa al-Iqtisad fi anna al-Kufr yakunu bi al-Qawl aw al-Fi’l aw al-I’tiqaad, Alawee Al-Saqqaaf, p.14.

Ignorance
Introduction
The issue about excuse due ignorance is among the important creedal matters that needs to be considered and be properly examined. The purpose behind this issue is to frame an argument concerning the person who falls in disbelief or polytheism ignorantly, how should he be treated? Should he be penalised in this world? Is he ought to receive punishment in the hereafter? Or should he be excused concerning it or part of it?
Two different groups have made a mistake regarding this issue:
1.   A group that has made ignorance as an excuse in absolute terms in all the issues and circumstances without considering the regulations placed by the Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah. Some of the people of this kind went to extremes to the extent that they placed conditions that make it impossible to excommunicate from Islam a particular individual based on the proof that he utters both the testimonies of faith (Shahaadatayn). They only ruled those who are persistently rejecting Islam to be out of the fold of Islam.
2.   Another group did not make ignorance as an excuse in all circumstances and matters. They hastened to excommunicate from Islam anyone who was involved in disbelief (Kufr) and polytheism (Shirk) without considering the regulations and impediments that prevent the Takfeer of a particular individual.
Allah guided Ahl as-Sunnah toward the truth, precision, and moderation in this regard as He guided them to moderation in all the matters of creed (‘Aqeedah). A person is not excused in all kinds of ignorance. There exist kinds of ignorance where one is excused and other kinds thereof where one is not excused. That ignorance that emanates from inadequacy and carelessness while the requirement to learn is established and the knowledge is then readily available. In that case, the person cannot be excused in this regard. Whereas that ignorance that emanates from something else beside it, that is, that he has not been careless, and neither was he negligent nor was there any requirement to learn established, such that he is completely ignorant that this thing is prohibited or an act of disbelief; and that the ignorance concerning it is prevalent, while the knowledge concerning the effects of the divine message is little. In that respect, he will be excused in this world, as for in the hereafter, his matter rests with Allah, the Exalted.
Ibn Taymiyyah states, “Excommunicating from Islam a particular person among these ignorant people and their likes - in the sense that it is ruled that he is among the disbelievers - taking those steps would only be allowed after the proof of messengership is established against one of them which clarifies that they oppose the messengers, even though, this statement, without a speck of doubt, is an act of disbelief. It is the same statement concerning excommunicating from Islam all particular people, even though some of these kinds of innovations are worse compared to others. Some innovators may possess a level of belief that might be absent in others. It is inappropriate for anyone to excommunicate from Islam someone else among the Muslims, even if he has committed a mistake or an error, until the proof is fully established against him, and it has been fully clarified to him. He whose faith is established with certainty, that cannot disappear from him due to mere doubt. It only disappears after the establishment of proof and the removal of doubt.” [140] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawa, (12/500).
It is worthy to note here that some scenarios of accepting excuse due to ignorance are among the matters subject to Ijtihaad in which difference between the scholars exists. Some of which can be a mere literal difference, in which the opponent is not classed as a deviant or an innovator, let alone being excommunicated from Islam.
An opposite thinking has led someone to claim a consensus where there is no consensus so as to enforce his proof from one perspective. Also, because he believed that this is part of the creedal issues whose opponent is classed as an innovator. He intended to purify the scholars from this, just as this has also led to extremity in respect of classifying someone as an innovator and as a deviant, or even an apostate. To an extent that it has led some to excommunicate from Islam the one who accepts the excuse, let alone the one who falls into Shirk!
Ibn Uthaymeen says, “The difference of opinions concerning accepting excuse due ignorance [141] Majmoo’ Fataawaa Ibn Uthaymeen, (7/37). is just like other Ijtihaadi and Fiqh differences. Sometimes it could only be a literal difference, for applying the ruling on a particular person. Meaning that everyone agrees that this particular statement is an act of disbelief, or this deed is an act of disbelief, or this avoidance is an act of disbelief. However, will the ruling be applied to this particular person due to the requirement being fulfilled in his regard and the absence of an impediment being found, or it will not be applied due to absence of some requirements or existence of some impediments.”  
The proofs that allow excuses due to ignorance
Ibn Uthaymeen states, “As for ignorance as an excuse, this is the requirement of the generality of the sacred texts. No one can bring a proof that a person cannot be excused due to ignorance … . If there was no acceptance of excuses due to ignorance, then there was no point of sending the messengers and the people, and that people would be obliged to fulfil the requirement of natural disposition, and there would be no need to send the messengers. Accepting ignorance as an excuse is the requirement of the proofs of the Quran and the Sunnah, the Imaams among the people of knowledge have stipulated that in writing.” [142] Liqaa’ al-Baab al-Maftooh, meeting number: thirty-three.
Proofs from the Quran:
1.    Allah, the Exalted, states, “And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.”  Al-Israa: 15
2.    Allah Almighty and Majestic states, “We sent messengers as bringers of good tidings and warners so that mankind will have no argument against Allah after the messengers.” An-Nisaa’: 165
These ayaat stipulate that Allah does not punish the people but after he has clarified to them and taught them the way of their Lord and there is no taking to task until the knowledge is established.
3.    Allah, the Exalted, mentions about the statement of the Children of Israel to Moosa (May peace be upon him): “They the Children of Israel said, ‘O Moses, make for us a god just as they have gods.’ He said, ‘Indeed, you are a people behaving ignorantly.’” Al-‘Araaf:138
Al-Baghawee says, “The Children of Israel when they saw that, they said, ‘O Moses, make for is a god, meaning: an idol for us to worship just as they have gods. This was not a matter of doubt from the Children of Israel concerning the Oneness of Allah, instead, its meaning is: That grant us a thing which can magnify and through its exaltation we can get closer to Allah. And they thought that that does not affect the religiosity and that was due to their extreme ignorance. Hence, Moses replied that you are a people who are ignorant of the greatness of Allah.” [143] Tafseer Al-Baghawee, (2/227).

Proofs from the Sunnah
Aboo Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the the Prophet ? said, "A man used to commit excesses against himself by sinning, and when death came to him, he said to his sons, ‘After my death, burn me and then crush me, and scatter the dust in the air, for by Allah, if Allah has control over me, He will give me such a punishment as He has never given to anyone else.’ When he died, his sons did accordingly. Allah ordered the earth saying, ‘Collect what you hold of his particles.’ It did so, and behold! There he was (the man) standing. Allah asked (him), ‘What made you do what you did?’ He replied, ‘O my Lord! I was afraid of You.’ So, Allah forgave him. Another narrator said that the man said, ‘I did due to the fear of You, O Lord!’” [144] Al-Bukhaaree (3482) and the wording is his, and Muslim (2756).

Ibn Taymiyyah says, “This man believed or doubted that Allah cannot assemble him when he did that and that He will not resurrect him. Both perceptions are an act of disbelief, in which the person on whom the proof is established commits disbelief. However, his perception was due to his ignorance and no knowledge had reached him to turn him away from his ignorance. Nonetheless, he had belief in Allah, His commands, prohibitions, promises, and warnings. Thus, he feared from His punishment.  Hence, Allah forgave him due to his fear.” [145] Al-Istiqaama, (1/164).
The circumstances of an ignorant person who commits disbelief
A person’s excuse is not accepted in all kinds of ignorance as that has been clarified earlier. Thus, if someone is not a recent entrant to the fold of Islam and neither does he live in lands that are away from the beacons of knowledge, away from the lands wherein Muslims are densely populated and exhibit the symbols of Islam, irrespective if these lands are urban or rural, this person cannot be excused in clearly and pristine issues. Though the principle concerning urban lands is the presence of knowledge and its people and ignorance in the rural areas, however, the legal reason is the existence of knowledge and inexistence of widespread ignorance. The presence and absence of knowledge are a relative matter in terms of places and times and are based on the appearance and disappearance of knowledge. [146] Ibn Taymiyyah said, “In the places and times in which prophecy is paused, the judgment of the one from whom the traces of prophecy were hidden will not be judged until he denies what it came by mistake, just as his judgment is in the places and times in which the traces of prophecy appeared.” Bughyah al-Murtaad, p.311.
Ash-Shaafi’ee states, “Knowledge are of two kinds, the knowledge of the common people, in which a mature man who is not affected in his sanity cannot be ignorant thereof, such as the knowledge about five daily prayers, and that it is the right of Allah on the people to fast in the month of Ramadan and the Hajj of the House if they are able to do so and Zakaat in their wealth and that Allah has prohibited for them to commit adultery, theft and to drink alcohol, and all those items of knowledge in the meaning of this.” [147] Ar-Risaalah, p.357.
Al-Khattaabee states, “One who rejects the obligation of Zakaat in current times, then he is a disbeliever as per the consensus of the Muslims …. .  It is the same issue concerning the one who rejects anything upon which the Ummah has reached a consensus all among the matters of religion when their knowledge is prevalent such as the five daily prayers, fasting in Ramadan, taking a bath due to major impurity, prohibition of adultery, of drinking alcohol, of marrying those relatives whose marriage has been prohibited and so on among the rulings, unless a person is new to Islam who is not aware of its limits; thus, if he rejects a thing thereof due to ignorance, then he will not be committing disbelief.” [148] Ma’aalim as-Sunan, (2/8).
Ibn al-‘Arabee says, “If an ignorant or an erring person of this nation commits an act of Kufr and Shirk which renders its doer a polytheist or a disbeliever, then he will be excused due to ignorance and mistake, until the evidence becomes crystally clear to him whose contravener becomes a disbeliever, the clarity of the evidence clearly manifests in whose like no ambiguity remains. He denies what is necessarily known as part of the religion of Islam amongst the things upon which the scholars hold clear and definite consensus, and that every Muslim knows it without thinking and contemplating.” [149] Mahaasin At-Ta’weel, Al-Qaasimee (3/161), and he attributed it to “Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhaaree” by Ibn Al-Arabee.
Ibn Taymiyyah states, “Many people may be upbrought in places and times in which plenty of facts from the sciences of prophesies become extinct to the extent that there is no one who can convey the Book and the Wisdom which Allah sent His Messenger with. A person does not know most of what Allah sent His Messenger with and there is no one there to convey that to him. Such a person has not committed disbelief. Thus, the Imams have agreed upon the one who happens to be brought up in a rural area away from the people of knowledge and faith, and he is new to Islam; thereafter, he happens to reject a thing among these apparent successively and widely transmitted injunctions, then he will not be excommunicated from Islam until he knows what the Messenger brought.” [150] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (11/407).
The kind of disbelief committed by an ignorant person
When the major disbelief or polytheism which an ignorant person commits happens to be amongst the obscure issues which his like would be completely unaware of, he will not be excommunicated from Islam until evidence is established. However, if it is among the apparent issues in the city that he lives in and that is not obscure for a person like him, then he will not be excused. The objective of being manifest is not mere having the proof apparent and clear, rather, it entails that the knowledge is manifest and is widespread amidst the people and its exuberance amongst them such as the manifestation concerning the obligation of prayers, prohibition of fornication, and all that is necessarily known as being part of the religion.
Ibn Taymiyyah states, “…. Therefore, the rejector of the apparent consensus-reached injunctions will be committing disbelief even if he is a commoner, albeit, apart from the obscure injunctions.” [151] Al-Mustadrak ‘ala Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (2/254).
Abaa Bateen says, “Look at his separation, meaning Ibn Taymiyyah’s, between the obscure articles and the apparent issues. He stated concerning obscure issues which are an act of disbelief, ‘That it can be said that such a person concerning them is astray and a doer of mistakes, a proof has not been established whose doer is classed as committing disbelief.’ He did not mention the same thing concerning apparent issues. His statement is clear in terms of differentiating between the manifest and obscure matters. He will commit disbelief due to issues that are ruled to be absolutely clear and due to what emanates from a Muslim thereof due to ignorance such as making permissible a prohibited thing, an act of a polytheistic statement after becoming aware of them. He will not be committing disbelief due to the obscure issues such as being ignorant concerning some of the divine attributes. In absolute terms, an ignorant about them will not be excommunicated from Islam, even if he is a preacher such as his statement to the Jahamiyyah, ‘According to me, you are not committing any act of Kufr because you are ignorant.’ His statement, ‘according to me,’ clarifies that not excommunicating them from Islam is not a matter that has reached consensus, but it is a mere his personal choice.” [152] Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, (10/373).
Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab says, “If a particular person says that which requires disbelief, he will not be excommunicated from Islam for his apostasy until evidence is erected against him whose contravener is deemed to commit disbelief. This is concerning the obscure issues whose proof might be hidden from some people, … As for the one among them who falls into the crystal-clear issues or the issues that are necessarily known to be part of the religion, in his regard, there will be no legal withholding concerning the apostasy of its utterer.” [153] Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, (10/433).
Ibn Uthaymeen says, “It is obligatory for the evidence to become established before Takfeer.  This is concerning all the matters in which people might be unaware of. We cannot divide the issues into apparent and hidden issues [154] That is when people are taught, and evidence is established against them. because being apparent and being hidden are a relative matter. An issue can be apparent to me, yet it can be hidden to others besides me. Hence, it is important to establish the evidence and avoid hastening towards Takfeer because defrocking a person from the religion of Islam is not an easy task. There are impediments that prevent from excommunicating from Islam a person, even if what he uttered or did amounts to disbelief.” [155] Liqaa’ al-Baab al-Maftooh, meeting number: forty-eight.
Error and Mistake
Defining a mistake linguistically and terminologically
Defining a mistake linguistically
Mistake: To divert from the direction of correction. It is stated, ‘He made a mistake, and he is making a mistake,’ when he treads a path of mistake intentionally or unintentionally. The origin of the Arabic word from mistake points towards transgressing a thing and flight from it. [156] Maqaayees al-Lughah, Ibn Faaris, (2/198), an-Nihaayah, Ibn Al-Atheer (2/44); Al-Mufradaat, Ar-Raagheb, p.: 287.
Defining a mistake terminologically
Ibn Jareer states, “There are two kinds of mistakes. One of them is the one that a servant has been prohibited from committing. He does so purposefully and intentionally. This is a mistake from him, and he is accountable for that. Concerning this, it can be said, ‘So and so has committed a mistake and committed an error concerning the act that he did, and he sinned, meaning, that he did an act in which he sinned and committed a sin. The other kind of these is that which is committed due to ignorance about it and his assumption that he can do such a thing like the one that eats at night in Ramadan and he thinks that the dawn has not broken, or he delays a prayer on a cloudy day and he waits for the entrance of the time by delaying it, while the time exits, whereas, he perceives that its time has not entered because this is from the mistake that has been laid down from a servant and whose sin Allah has deposited from his servant therein.” [157] Tafseer of Ibn Jareer, (5/157).
Al-Jurjaanee says, “This kind of mistake is that in which there is no deliberate intention from the person … just as he throws an arrow thinking that there is a prey or an enemy, suddenly, it is a Muslim. [158] At-Ta’reefaat, p.99.
There are other definitions that are close to what has been mentioned. Their gist terminologically is ‘everything that emanates from the legally competent person, whether that is a statement and act, devoid of his intention and not accompanying a deliberate pursuit from him. [159] ‘Awaarid al-Ahliyyah ‘ind al-Usooliyyin, Hussain Al-Jubooree, p.: 396; At-Tawqeef ‘ala Muhimmaat at-Ta’areef, Al-Munaawee, p.156; Nawaaqid a-Iman al-‘Itiqaadiyyah wa Dawabit at-Takfeer ‘ind as-Salaf, Al-Wuhaybee (1/302).
The difference between a mistake and an act of ignorance
Ignorance is used in several meanings, of which are as follows:
·    The self being devoid of knowledge, [160] Al-Mufradaat, Al-Ragheeb (p. 209), “Lisan Al-Arab”, Ibn Manzur (1/713). and that is the famous meaning. 
·    Perceiving a thing contrary to what is stands for. [161] Al-Mufradaat, Al-Ragheeb (p. 209); at-Ta’reefaat, aj-Jurjaanee, p.80.
·    Doing a thing contrary to what is ought to be done, irrespective of whether he believes in it correctively or corruptively. [162] Al-Mufradaat, Al-Ragheeb (p. 209).
It has been previously discussed about the proofs of the people of knowledge concerning accepting excuses due to ignorance. Their objective concerning this kind of ignorance is that in which its committer is excused. That is, that he utters something or believes in something which is far removed from the truth, while he is not knowledgeable about it and neither has he the intention to oppose, despite of his effort to dispel ignorance from himself. This kind of ignorance, in this sense, corresponds to the meaning of mistake as both the ignorant person and the person making the mistake do not intend to oppose. Hence, textual proofs both in the Book and the Sunnah have been mentioned in excusing them and removing sin from them by putting them under the ruling of the one against whom no evidence is established. And Allah knows best. [163] At-Ta’reefaat, Al-Jurjaanee, p. 80, 99, 100, Nawaaqid al-Iman al-‘Itiqaadiyyah wa Dawabit at-Takfeer a by Al-Wahaibee (1/302).  
Proofs concerning accepting excuses due to mistakes
Ahl as-Sunnah have used many proofs for that, of which are the following:
1.   The statement of Allah, the Glorious, “And there is no blame upon you for that in which you have erred but only for what your hearts intended. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” Al-Ahzaab:5
Ibn Jareer states, “The scholars have held consensus concerning its generality in the omission of the sin.” [164] Fath Al-Baaree, (11/551).
2.   The statement of Allah, the Almighty [165] Saheeh Muslim (126) from the hadeeth of Ibn Abbaas, may Allah be pleased with them. and Majestic, “Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred. Our Lord and lay not upon us a burden like that which You laid upon those before us.” Al-Baqarah:286
It is affirmed that Allah accepted this prayer and He stated, “I have done that for you.”
3.   Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) narrates that the Prophet ? stated, “Verily, Allah has omitted from my Ummah mistakes and forgetfulness and what they are forced to do against their will.” [166] Ibn Maajah (2045), the wording is his, Ibn Hibbaan (7219), and Al-Hakim (2801). Al-Haakim authenticated it and said: On the condition of the two Shaykhs. Ibn Hazm in “Al-Muhalla” (10/205), Al-Albaanee in “Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah” (2045), Al-Nawawee in “Al-Majmoo’” (2/267), and Ibn Hajar in “Muwafaqah Al-Khabar Al-Khabar”, (1/510), and al-Aqili said in al-Du’afaa’ al-Kabeer (4/145): It is narrated by someone other than this isnaad with a good chain of narrators. Ibn Katheer said in “Irshaad al-Faqeeh” (1/90): His men are according to the conditions of the two Saheehs, and it has a backer from the Qur’an, and from other ways. He mentioned his proof of the condition of the two Shaykhs Ibn Al-Mulqin in “Sharh Al-Bukhaaree” (25/276), and Al-Shawkani said in “Fath Al-Qadeer” (1/461): It does not fall short of the rank of Hassan li ghayrihi. Ahmed Shaakir said in “Umdat al-Tafseer” (1/348): The chain of transmission of Ibn Maajah is interrupted, but the chain of transmission of Ibn Hibbaan and al-Tabarani are two correctly connected narrations.
Ibn Rajab comments on this hadeeth, stating, “The most apparent meaning - and Allah knows best – is that the one forgetting and the one making a mistake both are excused in the sense that the sin is removed from them. That is because the sin based upon the objectives and intentions. The forgetting and mistake-making persons do not have the intention to do wrong. Hence, there is no sin upon them.” [167] Jaami’ al-‘Uloom wa al-Hikam, (2/367-369).
4.   It is narrated on the authority of Anas ibn Maalik (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah ? stated, “Verily, Allah is extremely pleased with the repentance of His servant when he seeks His repentance than a person who is mounted on his ride in a barren desert, it disappears from him whilst carrying his provision of food and drink. He becomes despondently, comes to a tree, and lies down under its shade and is completely hopeless about his camel; While he is in that state, when all of a sudden, he finds that the camel is standing before him. He takes hold of its reins and then out of boundless joy blurts out: 'O Allah, You are My servant, and I am Your Lord'. He commits this mistake out of extreme joy.” [168] Al-Bukhaaree (6309) abbreviated, and Muslim (2747), and the wording is his.
Al-Qaadee ‘Ayyaad states, “The Messenger’s statement: ‘He says out of extreme joy, ‘Oh Allah, You are My servant, and I am Your Lord,’’ concerning this is that whatever a person says in such circumstances out of bewilderment and bafflement is not subject to seizure due to it, if Allah wills.” [169] Ikmaal al-Mu’allim bi Fawaa’id Muslim, (8/245).
Ibn al-Qayyim said, “A person from whose tongue the utterance of disbelief emanates as a slip unintentionally, due to extreme excitement or bewilderment and anything besides them as it is narrated in the hadeeth concerning the divine pleasure with the repentance of the servant.” [170] I‘laam al-Muwaqq’een ‘an Rabb al-‘Aalameen, (4/428).
The textual proofs from the Quran and Sunnah are plentiful in accepting the excuse of an error-maker and in clarifying that his ruling is the same as the ruling of an ignorant person and interpreting person. He does not become an apostate until the evidence is established against him. If he goes beyond the bounds, then he will be sinful for his excessiveness and if he does not exceed his bounds, then there is no seizure for that, irrespective whether that is concerning the creedal issues or injunctions, in secondary and primary issues. 
Ibn Taymiyyah says, “The Imams of Fatwa such as Aboo Hanifah, ash-Shaafi’ee, ath-Thawri, Dawud ibn ‘Alee and others do not hold an error-making Mujtahid as sinful, neither in the primary issues nor in the secondary issues, as Ibn Hazm and others narrated concerning them …. They said, ‘This is the prominent statement narrated from the companions and their followers in goodness and the great scholars of religion; that they do not issue Takfeer, deem disobedient or sinful those Mujtahids who commit mistakes, irrelevant whether they are in a practical issue or knowledge-based issues.” [171] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (19/207).
Ta’weel (Interpretation)
Defining Ta’weel linguistically and terminologically
Defining Ta’weel linguistically
At-Ta’weel: signifies interpreting what a thing consequentially returns to. Ta’weel of a speech implies its outcome and what it eventually arrives at. The original meaning of “Awl” points towards the return to the original source because Ta’weel entails informing about the meaning wherein the word returns to. [172] Maqaayees al-Lughah, Ibn Faaris (1/ 162); At-Tafseer Al-Baseet, Al-Waahidee, (5/54); Al-Mufradaat, Al-Ragheeb, (p. 99), Mukhtaar Al-Sihaah, by Al-Raazee (p. 25).  
Defining Ta’weel terminologically
Ta’weel according to the terminology of the scholars has three meanings:
The first meaning: Tawee’l means the reality towards where the speech is geared, even if it coincides with its apparent meaning.
This is the meaning that is taken by the word of Ta’weel in the Book and the Sunnah. Allah, the Exalted, states, “Do they await except its result? The Day its result comes, those who had ignored it before will say, "The messengers of our Lord had come with the truth.” Al-‘Araaf:53
Ibn Jareer says, “In His statement, ‘except its Ta’weel (result)?’ He means, ‘except where their matter will consequentially return to in terms of the arrival at the punishment of Allah and their entrance into their fire and their likes which Allah has promised them.” [173] Tafseer of Ibn Jareer, (10/240).
 ‘Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) stated, “The Messenger of Allah would often say in his Ruku’ and Sujud (prostration), ‘Glorified be You, O Allah, O My Lord, with praising You, O Allah, forgive me,’ thereby practically interpreting (doing Ta’weel of) the command of the Quran.” [174] Al-Bukhaaree (817) and Muslim (484).
An-Nawawee states, “The meaning of ‘Yatawwalu al-Quran,’ interpreting the Quran, is that he would act upon what he has been commanded to do in the statement of Allah Almighty and Majestic, “Then exalt Him with praise of your Lord and ask forgiveness of Him. Indeed, He is ever Accepting of Repentance.”” [175] Sharh an-Nawawee ‘ala Muslim, (4/201). An-Nasr:3
The second meaning: That Ta’weel means exegesis (Tafsir)
Ta’weel in this sense is the terminology of many exegetes (Mufassiroon).  Ibn Jareer at-Tabari called his Tafsir by Jaami’ al-Bayan ‘an Ta’weel Aayi al-Quran. He says during the Tafsir of the whole or part of the ayah: ‘The statement concerning the Ta’weel of the statement of Allah, the Exalted, is so and so,’” [176] Tafseer of Ibn Jareer, (1/ 109, 110, 121).
The third meaning of Ta’weel: The word Ta’weel signifies to divert the word from its apparent meaning to what opposes that.
This Ta’weel is the opposite of what the word entails and expresses. Calling this kind of interpretation as Ta’weel was not prevalent in the convention of the predecessors. This was given the name of Ta’weel by a group of the successors who engrossed themselves in Jurisprudence (Fiqh), its principles and in the Kalam theology.
This is the kind of Ta’weel meant by most of the latter-day scholars who talk concerning the issues of the divine attributes, predestination, and so on. This is the greatest principle of going astray and diversion, given that it became a vehicle for the extremists among the Jahamiyyah, Baatiniyyah and Sufis in doing ‘Ta’weel’ of religiously legal obligations towards what is outside their purpose, or towards dropping them out or doing ‘Ta’weel’ of the divine names and attributes. The great scholars have agreed upon rebuking this kind of corruptive Ta’weel (interpretation). [177] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, by Ibn Taymiyyah (4/68-70) (3/54-68) (5/28-36) (13/277-313); and see: Al-Sawa’iq Al-Mursalah by Ibn Al-Qayyim (1/175-233); Sharh Al-Tahawiyah, by Ibn Abee Al-Izz (1/208-225).
This kind of unpraiseworthy Ta’weel is of different ranks:
There are the Qaraamitah (Qarmatians) and the Baatiniyyah who do the Ta’weel of the narrations and commands. On the other hand, there exist the Saaibah and the philosophers who do the Ta’weel of transmissions concerning Allah and the Last Day including the most conditions of the Prophets.
On the other spectrum, you have the Jahamiyyah and the Mutazilites (al-Mu’tazilah) who employ Ta’weel in the ayaat concerning the divine attributes and a few things regarding what has been narrated about the hereafter and the predestination. Some of the latter-day Ash’aris agreed with them concerning most of the texts about the divine attributes and others about what has been mentioned about the Last Day. Sometimes, some on whom the Sunnah way happens to overpower end up doing Ta’weel of some sacred texts in which their Ta’weel leads to misplacing the words from their correct places. [178] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, by Ibn Taymiyyah (13/287); Nawaaqid al-Iman al-‘Itiqaadiyyah wa Dawaabit at-Takfeer ‘Inda as-Salaf, al-Wuhaybee, (2/20).
Accepting Ta’weel as a valid excuse
The meaning of Ta’weel here is a mix-up and falling into disbelief non-deliberately and the reason behind it is inadequacy in understanding the legal proofs, without deliberately intending to oppose.  In fact, one may wrongly perceive that one is on the truth. [179] Dawaabit at-Takfeer, Al-Qarnee, (p.241).
Al-‘Aynee states, “There is no opposition between the scholars concerning the fact that every employer of Ta’weel is excused due to his Ta’weel and is not criticised concerning it, if his interpretation justified in the Arabic language or has a significance in the religious science.” [180] ‘Umdat Al-Qaaree, (24/90).
Among the strongest proofs concerning accepting the excuse of Ta’weel is the story of Haatib ibn Abee Balta’ah (may Allah be pleased with him):
‘‘Alee (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates, “Allah’s Messenger ? sent me as well as az-Zubayr and al-Miqdaad ibn al-Aswad and commanded us, “Go to the garden of Khaakh, where you will find a woman riding a camel with whom there is a letter and take it from her.” We set out with our horses galloping, until we reached that garden, and there we found the woman. We said: “Give us the letter.” She said: “I do not have any letter.” We said: “Either you give us the letter, or we will remove your clothes. So, she brought it out from her braided hair, and we took it and brought it to the Messenger of Allah ? and in it (was written): “From Haatib ibn Abee Balta’ah to some of the polytheists of Makkah, telling them about some of the plans of the Messenger of Allah ?” The Messenger of Allah ? said: “O Haatib, what is this?” He said: “Do not be hasty in judging me, O Messenger of Allah ?. I am a man who was attached to Quraish, but I was one of them, while the Muhajireen who are with you have relatives who will protect their families and wealth in Makkah, and I wanted, as I have no blood ties among them, to do them a favour so that they would protect my family. I did not do it out of apostasy or because I apostatized from my religion, or because I approved of Kufr after becoming Muslim. The Messenger of Allah ? said: “He has told you the truth.” ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “O Messenger of Allah ?, let me strike the neck of this hypocrite.” He replied: “He was present at Badr, and you do not know, perhaps Allah looked upon the people of Badr and said: “Do what you wish, for I have forgiven you.””” [181] Al-Bukhaaree (3007) and the wording is for him, and Muslim (2494).
Al-Khattaabee states, “In this hadeeth, the jurisprudential understating is that the ruling of the one doing Ta’weel in deeming a prohibited thing on him to be permissible is contrary to the ruling of the one deeming it permissible deliberately because of his making it permissible without employing Ta’weel.  Concerning the former, if he does a thing that is part of prohibited things and he claims a matter that is part of Ta’weel possibly allows, then his claim will prevail, even if the prevalent assumption is otherwise. Do not you see that when a matter has that possibility, and it is probable that it is as per what Haatib stated and is possible as ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said; the Messenger of Allah ? gave his issue the benefit of the doubt and accepted what he claimed in his statement.” [182] Ma’aalim as-Sunan, (2/274).
Ibn al-Mulaqqin says, “’Umar used the word hypocrisy against Haatib because he allied with the disbelievers of the disbelievers of Quraish and kept secret ties with them. Haatib did this by employing Ta’weel without harming the Messenger of Allah ?.” [183] At-Tawdeeh li Sharh aj-Jaami’ as-Saheeh, (18/165).
Shams ad-Deen al-Birmawi says, “One who employs Ta’weel concerning labelling someone as an apostate is excused and is not sinful. For this reason, the Messenger ? excused ‘Umar in his attribution of hypocrisy to Haatib due to his Ta’weel, thinking that what the latter wrote to the polytheists renders him a hypocrite.” [184] Al-Laami’ Al-Sabeeh bi Sharh Al-Jaami’ Al-Saheeh, (15/140).
The prevalent Ta’weel and using it to excuse someone has consideration in the issue of labelling someone as an apostate, in fact, in all warnings in general terms
Ibn Hazm says, “If a matter reaches someone from the Messenger of Allah ? through an authenticated chain, while he is a Muslim, however, he ends up doing Ta’weel of it to something else besides it; or by refuting it using a different textual evidence, as long as no evidence is established against him concerning his mistake in giving up what he gave up and in adopting what he adopted, then he is rewarded and excused, for his aiming the truth, and his ignorance about it.  If the evidence is established against him, yet he becomes stubborn, then as what we have mentioned previously concerning labelling someone as a Kaafir or Fasiq, thus there is no Ta’weel after the establishment of evidence.” [185] Ad-Durrah, p. 552; and see: Al-Fasl by Ibn Hazm (3/296) (3/139-141).
Ibn Taymiyyah states, “Concerning the statements due to which their utterer apostatises, it is possible therein that textual proofs have not reached a person that obligate the knowing of the truth. It is also probable that he has the evidence, however, they are authentically established before him or he has failed to comprehend them, or maybe he has some doubts whose excuse is accepted by Allah. Thus, if anyone among the believers is a Mujtahid (diligent and sedulous) in seeking the truth, yet he makes a mistake, then Allah will forgive whatever mistake he makes, whether that is related to creedal or practical issues. This is the position of the companions of the Prophet ? and of the majority of the great scholars of Islam.” [186] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawa, (23/ 346).
As-Sa’dee states, “Those who practice Ta’weel amongst the people of the Qibla who have gone astray and have erred in understanding what the Book and the Sunnah have mentioned, despite their belief in the Messenger and their faith that whatever he has stated is true and whatever he has said is ultimately true and they adhered to that faith, however, they erred in someone of the narrated or practical issues; these are the ones concerning whom the Book and the Sunnah point out that they have not forsaken the religion and that they do not deserve the rulings of the disbelievers. The companions and the followers and the scholars of the predecessors after them have held a consensus in this regard.” [187] Al-Irshaad ilaa Ma’rifah al-Ahkaam, p. 177.
In general terms, not everyone who claims to employ Ta’weel is excused, in fact, it is a precondition in this kind of Ta’weel that it is not employed in the fundamentals of religion which is the worship of Allah, Alone, Who has no partners and acceptance of its legal system. This is because it is impossible to realise this fundamental (the Two Testimonies of Faith) alongside having doubt in it. It is for this reason, the scholars have held a consensus on the disbelief of al-Baatiniyyah and did not excuse them through Ta’weel because the reality of their methodology rests on disbelieving in Allah, the Exalted, avoidance of worshiping him Alone and dropping off the laws of Islam. [188] Daawabit at-Takfeer, by Al-Qarnee (p.: 247). See: Fatwa Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah fee Sha’an Al-Baatiniyyah, (35/161).
Habeeb ibn ar-Rabee’ says, “Claiming Ta’weel in an explicit wording will not be accepted.” [189] Ash-Shifaa bee Ta’reef Huqooq Al-Mustafa by Al-Qaadee ‘Iyaad (2/217).
Ibn al-Wazir, “There is no opposition concerning the apostasy of the one who rejects the necessarily known facts in all matters and conceals them in the name of Ta’weel in matters wherein Ta’weel is impossible like the heretics who employ Ta’weel in all of the beautiful divine names, in fact, in all aspects of the Quran, religious laws and in the matters concerning the hereafter such as the resurrections, the day of judgement, the paradise and the hell.” [190] Ithaar al-Haqq ‘ala al-Khalq, (p.: 377); Al-‘Awaasim (4/177).
As-Sa’dee said, “The decisive statement concerning the likes of these innovators who oppose the explicit and authentic texts is that they are of a few kinds:
·    One amongst them knows that his innovation is in clear opposition of the Book and the Sunnah, nonetheless, he follows it, and throws the Book and the Sunnah behind his back and defies Allah and His Messenger after the truth becoming manifest to him. There is no doubt concerning labelling him as an apostate. 
·    One amongst them who is pleased with his innovation and turns away from seeking the legal proofs and seeking the knowledge that is obligatory on him to obtain which separates between the truth and falsehood; he assists the innovation and rejects with his ignorance and going astray what the Book and the Sunnah have brought and with his belief that he is on the truth. This person is a wrongdoer and disobedient as per his forsaking of what Allah obliged him to do and his boldness in doing what Allah has prohibited to do.  Amongst them are those who are below that.
·    Among them are those who are eager to follow the truth and try their best in doing that. They did not have the opportunity to get exposure to those who can clarify that.  They remain doing what they were up to, thinking that is the correct statement without boldly opposing the truth through their statements and deeds. Perhaps, these could be forgiven for their error. Allah knows best.” [191] Al-Irshaad fee Ma’rifah al-Ahkaam, (p.: 178); and to know the words of the scholars in detail regarding the ruling on the interpreters, see: Al-Shifaa, by Iyad (2/276).
He also stated, “The objective entails this observation at this juncture because some details have been found in which the people of knowledge labelled those possessing them as disbelievers, whereas there are some of the same genus which did not prompt them to label them as disbelievers thereby. The difference between these two matters is that those details due to which they labelled others with disbelief because of the absence of the justifiable Ta’weel and the absence of the doubt that remains for some excuses.  As for the matters in which they detailed the statement, that was because of the existence of many Ta’weels that have occurred in their regard.” [192] Al-Irshaad fee Ma’rifah al-Ahkaam, (p. 179).
The ruling concerning the employer of Ta’weel:
The ruling concerning the one who employs Ta’weel, in general terms, is as the ruling of an ignorant person.  In fact, in some instances, he can be more deserving to be excused than the ignorant person. This is because the ignorant person fundamentally is only unaware of the truth, whereas one doing Ta’weel, despite his ignorance about the truth, he still claims that he is on the truth. For the one whose ignorance is due to the absence of knowledge, perhaps, it might suffice conveying the evidence in order to establish it against him. The one whose ignorance accompanies the claim that he is on the truth despite his opposition, it may not suffice conveying the evidence in order to establish it against him. Rather, it will be important to remove his doubts. One whose ignorance stands alongside doubts and Ta’weel, even if the evidence reaches him while the doubts still control him, he may be excused thereby when he does not adhere to the requirement of the evidence.
Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Marwazee narrates from Tariq ibn Shihab, who states, “I was with ‘‘Alee when he finished fighting the people of Naharwaan (the Kharijites).  He was asked, ‘Are they polytheists?’ He replied, ‘Rather, they took to flight from polytheism.’ He was asked, ‘Are they hypocrites then?’  He replied, ‘The hypocrites do not remember Allah but little.’  He was again asked, ‘What are they then?’ He replied, ‘They are a people who rebelled against us, so we took arms against them.’” [193] Ta’theem Qadr as-Salaat, (2/543).
Accepting excuse due to doubts; even if it entails that the evidence has reached the person when he is employing its Ta’weel, while we are aware that he is not falsifying it nor is he directly deeming its opposition as permissible; that is the way of the predecessors of the Ummah and their great scholars. Sometimes, the scholars may universally use to label one who makes such and such a statement a disbeliever just as Ahmad ibn Hanbal declared in universal terms who believed in the creation of the Quran as a disbeliever, however, they did not adhere to this judgment when ruling about every particular person. That is because the maximal statement concerning the general ruling about such a statement from a legal perspective is different from the ruling on a particular person in terms of applying that judgement. Henceforth, Ahmad did not specifically label everyone who invited to the statement about the creation of the Quran, despite stating, “To mention that the Quran is created is an act of disbelief.”
Ibn Taymiyyah states, “There are conditions and impediments for labelling someone as disbeliever which may render themselves obsolete in respect of a particular individual.  Labelling an unspecified person as a disbeliever does not necessitate declaring someone particular as a disbeliever, unless, of course, when the conditions are present, and the impediments absent. This approach clarifies that Imam Ahmad and most of the great scholars who used generalities did not specifically label the majority of those who uttered this heretic statement. The proof for this principle is the Book, the Sunnah, the consensus and the legal analogy.” [194] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (12/487-489).  
He also stated, “Imam Ahmad, in fact, showed mercy on them and sought Allah’s forgiveness for them because he knew that it was not clear on these people that they were falsifying the Messenger ? thereby and rejecting what he brought, rather, they employed Ta’weel, they erred in this regard, and they blindly followed those who told them about this.” [195] Al-Masaa’il Al-Maardiniyyah, (p.: 158).
Similarly, Ibn Taymiyyah did not label those who debated against him among the Jahmiyyah during his era despite his clarification that their statement amounts to an act of disbelief.  
He stated, “The foundation of their ignorance is based upon some rational doubts churned in their heads due to their little knowledge about the authentic transmissions and clear rationality that conforms with them.” [196] Ar-Radd ‘ala Al-Bakree, (2/494).
He also said, “The one employing Ta’weel, whose objective is to follow the Messenger ?, cannot be labelled as a disbeliever neither a disobedient, when he is sedulous (employs Ijtihad), yet he errs. This is well-known a position among the people in relation to the practical issues. However, in issues pertaining to the creed, a sizeable number of people labelled those committing mistakes in them. This position taken by these people is unknown concerning anyone among the companions and their followers in goodness, neither from anyone among the great scholars of the Muslims.  In fact, this position is among the statements of the innovators who innovate a thing and then label those who oppose them as disbelievers such as Kharijites, Mutazilites, and the Jahmiyyah.” [197] Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, (5/239).
This position that is long-established is the way of Ahl as-Sunnah who are the most knowledgeable people concerning the truth and the kindest to the creation.  
The absence of determination regarding not labelling one who employs Ta’weel due to a doubt as a disbeliever, even if his Ta’weel is an act of heresy; is based on a principle. That is when the employment of Ta’weel is confirmed from him, then the description of Islam with certitude is also established. Hence, to declare him as a disbeliever in the presence of his Ta’weel is something that lacks evidence from the Book and the Sunnah. Our juristic decisions are based on the apparent. The apparent state of someone in such circumstances lacks decisiveness in terms of heresy. [198] Jaami’ al-Masaa’il, Ibn Taymiyyah (3/151); Ithaar al-Haqq, by Ibn al-Wazeer (p. 393); Dawaabit at-Takfeer ‘inda Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa’ah” by al-Qarnee (p.: 331).
The position concerning the people of Ta’weel
Al-Khattaabee comments regarding the hadeeth that reads, ‘Beware! The people of the Book before you split up into seventy-two sects, and this Ummah will split up into seventy-three: seventy-two of them will go to Hell and one of them will go to Paradise, and it the latter is the majority group,’ [199] Aboo Dawood (4597) and the wording is his, and Ahmad (16937) from the hadeeth of Muawiyah bin Abee Sufyaan, may Allah be pleased with them. “In this narration, there is a proof that these sects are not outside the realm of the religion, since the Prophet ? included them within his Ummah. It can also be extrapolated from this that ‘the one doing Ta’weel does not exit from the religion, even if he commits an error in his Ta’weel.” [200] Ma’aalim as-Sunan, (4/295).
‘Abd al-Haqq ad-Dehlawi says, “The correct approach is that we must not hastened in labelling the followers of desires who employ Ta’weel as disbelievers because they do not intend choosing disbelief thereby at all, neither are they pleased with it, while they have adhered to the Book and the Sunnah and exerted their efforts to precisely reach the truth, however, they erred in it. Labelling someone as a disbeliever only happens after manifest clarity.” [201] Lama’aat at-Tanqeeh fi Sharh Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh, (1/395).
As-Sa’dee states, “As for Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa’ah, they tread with them and with all the innovators the straight path based upon legal principles and acceptable rules, and they treat them fairly and do not label anyone of them as a disbeliever apart from the one whom Allah and His Messenger have labelled as a disbeliever. Furthermore, they believe that declaring someone as a disbeliever and believer is among the greatest rights of Allah and His Messenger ?.  
Thus, anyone among the innovators who denies what the Messenger brought or rejects part of it without employing Ta’weel, then he is a disbeliever. That is because he falsified Allah and His Messenger, boastfully attempted to overcome the truth, and rebelled against it.   Hence, anyone among the innovators, be he a Jahmee, a Qadaree, a Kharijee, a Raafidee, and anyone like them, learns that his innovation opposes what the Book and the Sunnah have brought, thereafter he persists on it and aids it; then he is a disbeliever in Allah, the Great, quarrelsome against Allah and His Messenger after the guidance becoming plainly manifest to him.
And whoever is among the people of innovations, whilst believing in Allah and His Messenger, outwardly and inwardly, glorifying Allah and looking up to His Messenger, adhering to what the Messenger ? came with; however, he violated the truth and erred in some of the articles, and erred in the interpretation, without committing apostasy and rejecting the guidance that became manifest to him, but he was an immoral innovator, or a misguided innovator, or he was pardoned for the concealment of the article, and the strength of his diligence in seeking the truth, which he unfortunately did not gain.
For this reason, the Kharijites, the Mu'tazila, the Qadariyyah, and the likes from the people of innovations were of various categories:
Among them are some who are undoubtedly disbelievers, such as the extremists of the Jahmiyyah [202] With distinction between general and specified Takfeer. who denied the divine Names and Attributes, and they knew that their innovation contradicts what the Messenger came with. These people are the deniers of the Messenger ? and they know this well.
And among them are those who are innovators, misguided, immoral, such as the Khawarij and the Mu’tazilites, who employ Ta’weel and who do not have a denial of the Messenger ?, but they have gone astray because of their innovation, and they think that what they are upon is the truth; that is why the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, agreed in ruling on the innovation of the Kharijites and their blasphemy, as the authentic hadeeths mentioned about them. And they also agreed that they have not left Islam [203] At-Tabaree and Al-Khattaabee mentioned the consensus that the Kharijites do not apostatise, and it was transmitted from other Imaams to the contrary. See: Fath Al-Baaree, by Ibn Hajar (12/299-301), Ithaar al-Haqq, by Ibn Al-Wazeer (p.: 388). And see: Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa, by Ibn Taymiyyah (3/282). although they considered the blood of Muslims lawful, and they denied intercession for the people of major sins, and many of the religious principles, but their Ta’weel prevented them from labelling them as disbelievers. Among the people of innovation are those who are less than these, such as many of the Qadariyyah, the Kullaabiyyah, and the Ash’arites. [204] Tawdeeh al-Kaafiyah ash-Shafiyah, (p.: 244 - 246).
In summary, the position of the predecessors concerning those employing Ta’weel is that they do not judge all the Ta’weel-making sects affiliated to this Ummah by using a general provision of apostasy or otherwise, and if they ruled on some about disbelief such as their ruling on the ultra-Jahamiyyah, they still differentiated between the general rule, and the judgment on a particular person. The particular persons are also of different ranks in terms of the evidence being established on them or not being established, in terms of their ijtihad and Ta’weel, or their arrogance and denial, among them are the hypocrites and the heretics, and among them are the misguided innovators, and among them are the immoral, and among them are the diligent whose sin is forgiven. And Allah knows best. [205] At-Turuq al-Hukmyiyah fi as-Siyaasah ash-Shar’iyyah, Ibn Al-Qayyim (1/464), Nawaaqid al-Imaan al-‘Itiqaadiyyah wa Dawaabit at-Takfeer ‘inda as-Salaf, by Al-Wahaibee (2/31).
Labelling someone as an apostate based on the outcome or the requirement of the methodology
Labelling someone as an apostate based on the outcome entails expressing a statement which is not blasphemous per se, however, it necessitates apostasy while its utterer does not believe in that blasphemy that the statement necessitated. [206] Bidaayat al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd (4/242).
Ibn Hazm said: “As for the people who label others as disbelievers based on the interpretations of their sayings, then that is a mistake because that amounts to a lie against the opponent, and it is like putting words into his mouth which he did not say… .  No one becomes a disbeliever except by his own statement, and the expressed text of his belief.  No one benefits from expressing his belief in words with which he beautifies his distortion.   Nonetheless, the thing to be judged will only be the requisite of his statement.” [207] Al-Fasl, (3/139).
Ash-SHaatibee said: “What we used to hear from the scholarly sheikhs is that the methodology of the verifiers from the people of the principles is that disbelief based on the outcome is not disbelief caused on the spot, how not when a disbeliever denies that outcome most severely and blames his with it?!” [208] Al-I'tisam, (3/135).
The closest in meaning to labelling someone as an apostate based on the outcome is to label him with it based on the requisite of the statement.
Ibn al-Wazir made them both one thing and said: “As for the third aspect: labelling someone as an apostate based on the outcome of the methodology, and it is called Takfeer by requirement.  Many have adopted this; however, the verifiers have denied it.” [209]Al-‘Awasim wa al-Qawasim, (4/367).
The meaning of requirement is that which prevents its separation from a thing, and this requirement may be clear, and it is sufficient to imagine it by imagining its binding in the intellect, asserting the requisite between them; and also, it may be not clear, and it is the one need that the mind needs to assert the requirement between them moderately. [210] At-ta’rifaat, Al-Jurjaanee (p. 190).
Ibn Taymiyyah said: “The correct view is that the requisite of a person’s methodology is not really a followed methodology if he does not adhere to it, for if he has denied it and negated it, thereafter, attributing it to him would be placing a lie on him.” [211] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (20/217).
The requisites of statements of Mathhabs and scholars have three cases:
The first case: that the requisite is mentioned to the utterer, and he adheres to it, as it is considered to be his saying.
The second case: that the requisite is mentioned to him and denies the correlation between it and his statement.  Then, this is not his statement, rather, it is an attribution to him.
The third case: that the requisite is kept silent, so that neither adherence nor prohibition is mentioned; thus, the ruling in this case is that it should not to be attributed to the one who said it because it is possible that if it is mentioned to him, he will adhere to it or deny the correlation, and it is possible that if it is mentioned to him and it becomes clear to him, its requirement and invalidity, then he will retract his statement.
Thus, it is known that the Takfeer is absolutely not based on the requisites of the Mathhabs, especially if the one who is accused of it negates that requisite and denies it, or he is ignorant of it, or is unmindful of it. And Allah knows best. [212] Al-Qawa’id al-Muthla fi Sifaat Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala wa Asmaa’ihi al-Huusna, Ibn Uthaymeen (p.: 12).



Coercion
Defining coercion linguistically and terminologically
Defining coercion linguistically
Compulsion or coercion: Forcing a person to do what he dislikes, and the root of (dislike): indicates the opposite of contentment and love. Al-Karh: To be obligated to do something and do it hatefully. [213] Al-Sihah, by Al-Jawharee (6/2247), Maqaayees al-Lughah, by Ibn Faaris (5/172), Al-Mufradaat, by Al-Ragheeb (p.: 708).
Defining coercion terminologically
Alaa Ad-Deen Al-Bukhaaree said: “Forcing others to do something that they would rather refrain from doing, with intimidation that the forcer is able to inflict, and the forced becomes afraid becomes dissatisfied straight away.” [214] Kashf al-Asrar ‘an Usool Fakhr al-Islam, (4/383).
Ibn Hajar said: “It is to compel others to do what they do not want to do.” [215] Fath Al-Baaree, (12/311).

Types of coercion
The majority of jurisconsults and jurists divided coercion into two types:
1.   Fatal compulsion:
It is the one which it falls on the self of the compelled person, and there remains for the person no ability or choice.
As if the person is threatened to be killed or one of his organs to be cut off, or to beaten severely, leading to his death or the destruction of all his wealth; thus, when he thinks overly that what was used to threaten him with will happen to him, then it is permissible for him to be put on through intimidation considering it as a case of legal necessity. [216] Al-Badaa’i’) by Al-Kasaanee (7/175), Hashiyat Ibn ‘Aabideen, (6/128), and see: “Al-Farq bayna al-Ikraah wa ad-Daroorah”, “At-Tashree’ al-Jinaa’ee” (1/576).
2.   Nonfatal compulsion:
It is a threat or a warning without entailing harm to the soul or the organ, such as intimidation by beating, chaining, imprisonment, or damaging some wealth. This type of coercion spoils contentment, but it does not spoil choice; for not being fully compelled to do what one is coerced to perform; for his ability to be patient with what he was threatened. [217] “Kashf al-Asraar” by al-Zawdee (4/383), “Tabyeen al-Haqaa’iq” by al-Zayla’ee (5/181), and “Hashiyat Ibn ‘Aabdeen” (6/128).
This type may include threatening to imprison the compelled person’s father, son, wife, sister, mother, and brother. Furthermore, there is a dispute among the scholars as to whether to consider this section as a category of coercion. [218] Some of the Hanafis considered this section as a third type, while the rest of the jurists included it in the two previous types. See: Kashf Al-Asrar, by Al-Baazdawi (4/383).
Legal analogy necessitates that it should not be considered as coercion because the harm in it does not meet the compelled, and the basic principle in considering a compelled thing (the means of coercion) is that the one compelled with intimidation is thereby inflicted by fear, hardship, and distress. However, on the contrary, the application of legal discretion (Istihsaan) entails that this is also part of coercion because the compelled person is afflicted by grief, concern, sadness, and embarrassment if something disliked befalls one of his close relatives; hence, he rushes to do what he was commanded to do as if the harm had occurred to him or more severely. [219] Al-Mabsoot, by Sarkhasi (24/143).
Ibn Qudaamah said: “And if he was threatened with the torture of his son, concerning this, it was said that ‘it is not under duress,’ because the harm will happen to someone else; however, it is better that it be considered as a form of coercion, because in his view that is greater than taking his money, and the threat to do the latter is coercion, also this is the case here.” [220] Al-Mughnee, (10/353).
For a different perspective, it (this type of coercion) can be further divided into:
1.   Seeking refuge:
Where there is no satisfaction and choice, and the will and intent are also absent, by falling under severe torture or the like.
2.   Threat:
Where there is no satisfaction, and choice is not completely absent.
This is similar to the case in which a person chooses the lesser of two harms.
3.   Weakness:
Weakness does not come with torture or threats, but the weak person is under a situation imposed on him by someone else, as was the case of the residents of Makkah after the Muslims migrated from it, so this weak person is forgiven for his inability.
Ibn Taymiyyah said: “I contemplated the Mathhab and found coercion differs according to the differences of those compelled, so the coercion considered in the word of Kufr is not the same as the compulsion considered in a gift and the like. Ahmad has explicitly mentioned in different places that coercion to commit disbelief does not happen unless through torture of beating up or imprisonment.  A mere statement cannot be considered as coercion.” [221]Al-Fataawaa al-Kubraa, (5/490).
The third sub-section: the conditions of coercion
Ibn Hajar said: “The conditions of compulsion are four:
1.   That the one who does compulsion is able to cause what threatens his opponent with, and the one who is commanded is unable to defend, even by fleeing.
2.   That his belief overtakes that if he abstains from what is commanded to do, then the compeller will make that threat happen to him.
3.   That what he threatened with is an immediate thing. If he said: ‘If you do not do such-and-such, then I will strike you tomorrow. In that case, it is not considered compulsion, however, it is excluded if he mentions a very soon time, or it is customary that that threat is not omitted.
4.   That the compeller does not show to the compelled what indicates his choice.
There is no difference between verbal and practical coercion according to the majority of scholars, and an exception is made from the act that is forbidden to perpetuity, such as killing oneself unjustly.” [222] Fath Al-Baaree, (12/311).

Section: Coercion into disbelief
Allah Almighty said: “Whoever disbelieves in i.e., denies Allah after his belief except for one who is forced to renounce his religion while his heart is secure in faith. But those who willingly open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment,” An-Nahl: 106
Aboo Bakr Al-Jassaas states: “This is a principle in the permissibility of revealing the word of disbelief in the event of compulsion.” [223] Ahkaam al-Qur’an, (3/192).
The meaning of the ayah is that whoever disbelieves in Allah after he was a guided believer, then such people have earned the wrath of God, except one who is compelled to commit disbelief, and the case is that his heart strongly believes in the reality of faith, and his correct belief; however, one whose chest is to accept disbelief and he believed in that, and preferred that to the faith, and his inner self became content with it and reassured him; then there is great wrath upon such people from Allah, and they will have a great torment in the Hereafter. [224] At-Tafseer al-Muharrar, Surat An-Nahl, (p.: 644).
Al-Baghawee said: “The scholars are unanimously agreed that whoever is forced to speak the word of unbelief, then it is permissible for him to say it with his own tongue; and if he says with his tongue without believing it, then it is not unbelief; however, if he refuses to say it until he is killed, it is better.” [225] Tafseer Al-Baghawee, (3/99).
Tranquillity of the heart with faith, and hatred and disbelief, are a condition which is agreed upon. [226] Some of the jurists stipulated that in pronouncing the word kufr that the compulsion should be complete (where one seeks complete refuge), and others stipulated hunts and dissimulation with blasphemy in the event of compulsion, and they did not support their statements with significant evidence. See some of these sayings in: Badaa’i’ Al-Sanaa’i, by Al-Kaasaanee (7/177), Haashiyat Ibn ‘Aabideen, (6/134), “Ahkaam Al-Qur’an” by Ibn Al-Arabee (3/1178), “Ahkaam Al-Jassas” , (3/192, 194), al-Ikraah wa atharuhu fi at-Tasarrufaat, by Issaa Shakrah (p.: 115 - 118), al-Ikraah wa atharuhuh fi al-Ahkaam, by Abdel Fattaah Al-Shaykh (p. 63-66).
Ibn al-Arabee said, “As for disbelief in Allah, which is permissible for him (the compelled person) to commit without disagreement, on the condition that he utters it, while his heart is delighted with faith. However, if his heart deliberately assists his tongue to commit disbelieve, then in that case, he will be a sinful disbeliever because compulsion does not grant authority internally, its authority is only on the apparent.” [227] Ahkaam al-Qur’an, (3/160).
Even if it is permissible to say or do unbelief because of coercion, yet patience is better and greater in reward.
Ibn Battal said, “Scholars are unanimously agreed that whoever is forced to disbelief and chooses to be killed instead, then he has a greater reward with Allah than the one who chooses the concession.” [228] Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhaaree, (8/295).
Ibn Katheer said, “It is better and more appropriate for a Muslim to remain steadfast on his religion, even if it leads to his killing.” [229] Tafseer Ibn Katheer, (4/606).
And Khabab ibn Aratt (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Prophet ? said, “Before you, a person would be taken and a hole would be dug for him in the ground and he would be placed in it, a chainsaw would be brought, and would be placed on his head until he was split into two halves, and he would be combed with the iron teeth of the comb and his flesh would torn away from his bones with an iron comb; but, in spite of this, he would not wean away from his Faith.” [230] Al-Bukhaaree (6943) at length.
Al-Qurtubee said, “So this was described by the Prophet ? concerning the previous nations in terms of praise for them, and patience in the face of what is disliked concerning the being of Allah, and that they did not disbelieve outwardly whilst concealing the faith inwardly; to ward off the affliction from themselves. This is a proof for the one who prefers being beaten, killed, and humiliated to adopting the legal concession.” [231] Tafseer Al-Qurtubee, (10/188).
Patience is emphasised in the case of the one whom the common people take as their leader and follow in his dealings and words. If he utters a disbelieving statement like this by adopting the legal concession with the possibility that many people do not know the reality of the matter, that is what he has revealed is contrary to what he has internally hidden. This act will lead to their fitnah (corruption). In fact, the matter contributes to prohibition in his case because the corruption that it can cause. [232] ‘Awaarid al-Ahliyyah ‘inda al-Usooliyyin, Hussain Al-Jubooree (p.: 495).
And when it was said to Ahmad ibn Hanbal in the ordeal concerning the creation of the Quran, ‘Your companions have answered, and you have been forgiven for what is between you and Allah Almighty and Majestic; the people have answered and you have remained without answering - meaning: you remained imprisoned and in hardship,’ On this, Ahmad answered, ‘Uncle, when a knowledgeable person answers due to precautionary dissimulation (Taqiyyah) and an ignorant person due to ignorance, then when will the truth become clear?!’ [233] Al-Mihnah ‘ala al-Imaam Ahmad, Abdul Ghanee Al-Maqdisee (p.: 50).
Is there a limit for compulsion wherein all people are equal?
There is no set limit for compulsion to be imposed on all people, and it varies according to three things:
1.   The state of compulsion, for people differ in their abilities, status, and their endurance of coercion.
It may be coercion in relation one person and not coercion in relation to another because of their difference in bearing coercion.
Just as the compulsion of the scholar is not the same as the compulsion of others, for some people may be misled by the precautionary dissimulation (Taqiyyah) of a scholar and his adoption of legal concession.
2.   The condition of the person from whom coercion emanates; it is also different.
There is difference between the one who is known that he is fully determined to conduct his threat and between the threatening person who will only probably execute the treat.
There is also a difference between those who have the authority to fulfil what he is threatening with and those who are below that standard.

3.   The thing that was subjected to coercion.
The disparity concerning the matter upon which coercion falls is vast. What is deemed to be coercion in a matter may not be considered as such in a different matter. Coercion to commit disbelief is not the same as coercion to commit disobedience. Likewise, coercion into just making a statement is not like coercion into making a statement and doing an action; or coercion into doing something only and so on. [234] Rawdat at-Taalibeen, (8/59).
Al-Nawawee said: “It will be looked at what he asked of him, and what he threatened with, for a thing may be a compulsion in something demanded and may not be so in another demanded thing and may be a compulsion concerning a person and may not be so concerning someone else.”
Ibn Taymiyyah said, “I contemplated the methodology and found that coercion differs according to the difference in the thing used to compel with. The coercion considered in the statement of disbelief is not the same as the compulsion considered in the gift and the like. Ahmed has stipulated in many places that the coercion to commit disbelief will only be considered in cases of torture by beating or imprisonment. A mere statement will not qualify for coercion. He has stipulated that if a woman gives her husband her dowry or her home, she has the right to take it back, on the basis that she does not give it to him unless she is afraid that he will divorce her, or he will mistreat her. He considered the fear of divorce or mistreatment as coercion. This sort of thing would not be considered as coercion to commit disbelief. If the captive fears that the disbelievers will not marry him or that they will come between him and his wife, it is not permissible for him to speak thereby the word of unbelief.” [235] Al-Fataawaa al-Kubraa, (5/490).
The matter may become great, and the excuses recede with Taqiyya (precautionary dissimulation) so that it is not excused by it, as in the case of a compelled person to disbelief on a continuous basis, not in an accidental case.
And if contentment with apparent disbelief is the basis for the declaring one as a disbeliever on the ground, and it is not possible to judge and know it except in terms of the apparent significance of it, and compulsion is an impediment to declaring a particular person as a disbeliever, and the coercion is not defined by a set definition wherein all individuals are equal. Thus, a consideration of coercion remains as much as possible to be an excuse when repelling the judgment of describing the particular person as a disbeliever. To an extent that in any case that the particular person cannot be considered as coerced, even if he claims so, then he will be a disbeliever.
It is known that the mere possibility of non-coercion is a relative matter that differs from one particular person to another, and to verify it, it is necessary to clarify the condition of each particular person in detail, before the judgment is imposed on him, that what he claims to be coercion is possible or impossible. Here, a disagreement may occur in the ruling of a particular person, as to whether is he excused or not? The difference is that the coercion that was excused is possible or not. [236] Dawaabit at-Takfeer ‘inda Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa’ah, Al-Qarnee (p.: 378).

Blind following (Taqleed)
Defining blind following in linguistically and terminologically
Defining blind following linguistically
Defining blind following terminologically
Taqleed is to accept the words of others without asking for a proof. [237] Its meaning was mentioned by Ibn Hazm in Al-Ihkaam, (6/59), and its text was mentioned by Al-Aamidee, Ibn Taymiyyah and Al-Zarkashee. See: Al-Ihkaam, (4/221), Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (20/15) Al-Bahr, (8/316). And see: Al-Bahr Al-Muheet, by Al-Zarkashee (8/316), “Irshaad Al-Fuhool” by Al-Shawkaanee (2/239), “The Jaami’ Bayaan al-‘Ilm wa Fadlihi” by Ibn Abd Al-Barr (2/233), and Al-Shawkaanee’s preference and the preference of others. See: Irshaad al-Fuhool, (2/239).  The argument [al-Hujjah] here signifies the clear and expressive evidence from the Book, valid Sunnah, or consensus.
Hence, following the Prophet and following the people of consensus, and following a Companion are not included in this definition, as we say that their saying is evidence, therefore, following any of that is not called Taqleed because that is following an evidence. [238] Al-Usool min Ilm Al-Usool, by Ibn Uthaymeen (p.: 87).  
Types of Taqleed
1.   Permissible Taqleed:
It is in the right of the common man who does not know the methods of legal rulings, is unable to know them, and is not able to understand their evidence, but he has the right to seek legal evidence from a mufti because the Muslim has the right to verify the matters of his religion.
2.   The reprehensible Taqleed:
It is to blindly follow one particular man by leaving other scholars in all his words or actions, and he does not see the truth except in him.
The majority of the imams of Ahl as-Sunnah wal Jamaa`ah have gone to the permissibility of Taqleed in the beliefs and rulings for the layman who is unable to understand the evidence, theorization, and the inference.
It is forbidden to do Taqleed for the scholar, or the one who is able to theorize and infer; If he makes ijtihaad and finds that truth in a matter, whether it is in the creeds or the rulings; due to the presence of proofs that dispraise Taqleed and those who do Taqleed.
The scholars agreed that Taqleed is one of the obstacles to Takfeer because the Muqallid (one doing Taqleed) is ignorant and does not understand evidence or argument, nor has any insight nor jurisprudence. He is, therefore, excused until the argument is established against him and he understands it. [239] Mawsu’ah al-Fiqh al-Islamee, by Al-Tuwayjree (5/179), At-Tawassut wa Al-Iqtisad, by Al-Saqqaaf (1/14).
Ibn Abd al-Barr said, “This is all for the non-public people, whereas the common people must follow their scholars at the time of the calamity that befalls them because it does not show the location of the evidence, and it is not possible for them to reach the knowledge of that because of the lack of knowledge of it; because knowledge has ranks and it is not possible to attain its highest ranks without obtaining its lowest ranks first. And this is the obstacle between the common people and the request for proof, and Allah knows best, and the scholars did not disagree that the common people should blindly follow their scholars.” [240] Jaami’ Bayaan al-‘Ilm wa fadlihi, Ibn Abd al-Barr (2/230).
Ibn Taymiyyah said, “What the masses of the ummah are upon is that ijtihad is permissible overall, and Taqleed is permissible overall. They do not obligate everyone to perform Ijtihad, whilst prohibiting Taqleed and they do not obligate Taqleed on everyone whilst prohibiting Ijtihad, and that Ijtihad is permissible for the one who can do so, while Taqleed is permissible for the one who is incapable of doing Ijtihad. As for the one who is capable of Ijtihad, is it permissible for him to do Taqleed?
There is a difference of opinion in this, and the correct view is that it is permissible where he is unable to perform ijtihad. [241]Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (20/203).
The ruling of Taqleed in the matters of creed, and is it considered a valid excuse?
The permissibility of Taqleed in creedal matters was transmitted from the four imams, and it was well-known from the Hanbalis, the Zahiriyya and others [242] Al-Bahr Al-Muheet, by Al-Zarkashee (8/324), “Irshaad Al-Fuhool” by Al-Shawkaanee (2/241), “Al-Ihkaam” by Al-Aamidee (4/223). , and Ibn Taymiyyah attributed this opinion to the majority of the scholars.
Ibn Taymiyyah said, “As for fundamental issues, many of the Kalam theologians and jurists among our companions and others make obligatory on everyone to study issues and deduce them… . As for the majority of the ummah, they have an opposite opinion. The things that are obligatory to know, that obligation is on the one who is able to seek the knowledge, while a sizeable number of people are unbale to attain knowledge to that precision, so how can one be legally obliged to know such matters?!” [243] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (20/202).
Among the most important of their evidence, “That the principles and the secondary issues can been equal in being legally imposed, when it is permissible to do Taqleed in secondary issues, then, likewise, it should be permissible in the fundamental issues.” [244]Al-Ihkaam, by Al-Aamidee (4/225). As for the statement that what is required in the beliefs is certainty, and in the branches is preponderant perception, this is from the well-known innovations of the theologians, and because of it they said: Hadeeth of al-Aahaad will not be uses as a proof in the matters of ‘Aqeedah, and the faith of a blind follower is not correct and so on among the innovations.
There is no evidence for the difference between them, and they responded to those who stipulated or compelled to theorize on all as this requires misleading or declaring the common Muslims as disbelievers, and that entails legally imposing that which impossible to perform.
Al-Muthaffar As-Sam’anee said: “The obligation to know the principles of what the Kalam theologians state is very far from what is correct. When have we made that obligatory and when has anyone from the common been found to know that and that from it should his creed emanate?! The reality is that most common people, if these proofs were presented to them, they would be unable to understand from the onset, let alone becoming owners of evidence, and stand on the beliefs with the evidential means, but the objective of a very common man is to have what he wants to believe and meet his Lord with those beliefs acquired from the scholars, and follow them and do their Taqleed in this regard, ... .  That we should not deny the intellectual evidence to the extent that a Muslim obtains the comfort of certainty, and thereby increasing in confidence in what he believes as well as increasing in peace of mind, but we only deny the obligation to arrive at the beliefs in the fundamental issues in the way they believed, and they extolled all the Muslims to walk its path, and they claimed that whoever did not do that, then he did not obey Allah Almighty. Thereafter, that led them to declare all the common people as apostates!” [245] Qawaati’ al-Adillah fi al-Usool, (2/346), Al-Bahr Al-Muheet, by Al-Zarkashee (8/326), Irshaad Al-Fuhool, by Al-Shawkaanee (2/241).  
What appears from the words of the imams is that the excuse due to Taqleed is the same as the excuse due to interpretation (Ta’weel) and ignorance, given that the Muqallid is ignorant and does not understand the evidence or the argument. When one falling into disbelief due to using Taw’eel despite his knowledge and the capacity to be diligent can be excused, then a fortiori should the one among the ignorant common people doing Taqleed of a scholar be excused. 
Ibn Taymiyyah, after speaking about the disbelief and misguidance of the people of incarnation and divine union, said: “Everyone who told the secrets of this doctrine, and agreed with them on it, then he plainly committed disbelief and atheism. Many ignorant people who have a positive thought about the statements of these people, however, they do not comprehend the doctrine, and they believe that this is from the same genus of the statements of the Sheikhs who recognise the truth and speak correctly which many people hardly understand, in these people, you find Islam and faith, and following of the Book and the Sunnah according to their blindly followed faith, and you find in them acknowledgment of these people and positive thinking attitude towards them, and submission to them based on their ignorance and misguidance. It is inconceivable that anyone can praise these people apart from a heretic disbeliever or a misguided ignorant person.” [246] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (2/367).
Ibn al-Qayyim said: “It is necessary in this regard to elaborate on it in order to remove the confusion, which is the difference between a Muqallid who was able to gain knowledge and recognition of the truth, so he turned away from it, and a muqallid who was not able to do that due to some reason. Both kinds do exist. Hence, a person who has ability and turns away is an inadequately practicing person who forgoes what is imperative on him, thus, he has no excuse before Allah.” [247]Tareeq al-Hijratayn wa Baab as-Sa’aadatayn, (p.: 412).

Inability
Allah Almighty states, “Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity.”  Al-Baqarah: 276 [248] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (20/203).
Ibn Jareer said, “By that, He means, the Exalted is His Glory: ‘Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity’ Al-Baqarah: 286, so he the servant worships only with what he can do, thus He does not make it difficult for the soul, nor does He make hard for it.” [249] Tafseer of Ibn Jareer, (5/153).
The imaams of Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa’ah have agreed that the inability to perform what Allah Almighty has legislated, or to perform some of it; it is considered one of the impediments to Takfeer if the cause of it is lack of will, lack of choice, of contentment and intent to do so, and its possessor fears Allah as much as he can. He is excused and not taken to task for what he left. Such as those who were reached by the call of Islam while they were in the abode of unbelief and embraced Islam but were not able to migrate to the abode of Islam, nor did they adhere to all of its laws because they are forbidden from showing the religion of Islam, or they do not have anyone to teach them all the laws of the religion. These are excused because there is no obligation with inability, and if they die as they are, they will be among the people of Paradise, Allah willing. [250] A”laam al-Muwaqq’een ‘an Rabb al-‘Aalameen by Ibn Al-Qayyim (3/227); Risaalah Lateefah Jaami’ah fi Usool al-Fiqh al-Muhimmah by Al-Saa”dee (p. 102).
Ibn Taymiyyah said, “The principles of Sharee’a distinguish in all its resources between the capable and the incapable, the negligent and the transgressor, and he who is neither excessive nor transgressor, and the distinction between them is a great and reliable principle, and this principle is moderate upon which the moderate Ummah is. Through it, the fairness of Islam is revealed.” [251] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (21/141).


Taqiyyah (precautionary dissimulation)
The definition of Taqiyyah
Taqiyyah is from taking precaution, which entails concealment of Islam for an excuse that permits that, whether that is by concealing the religion and not revealing it, or by revealing what contradicts the faith such as disbelief or disobedience. [252] An-Nihaayah fi Ghareeb al-Hadeeth wa al-Athar, by Ibn Al-Atheer (1/193), At-Ta’rifaat al-Fiqhiyyah by Al-Barkati (p.: 60), Dawaabit at-Takfeer ‘inda Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, by Al-Qarnee (p.: 372).
An-Nasafee said, “It is a means that a person uses to protect himself from destruction, i.e., to envelop his self by uttering the word of disbelief on his tongue.” [253] Talabat at-Talabah fi al-Istilahaat al-Fiqhiyyah, (p. 162).
Ibn Hajar said, “The meaning of Taqiyyah is caution against revealing what is in one’s inner self in terms of belief and other things to others.” [254] Fath Al-Baaree, (12/314).
The excuse for Taqiyyah
Introduction
The basic principle in a Muslim is that his outward and inward are the same. For this reason, feigning disbelief or disobedience without an excuse is hypocrisy and deceit, and it is not valid in any case other than Taqiyyah except in one case, which is that this would be a ploy for the benefit of Muslims in war in particular, and not in other things, as it is authentically narrated the Messenger of Allah ? who stated, “war is deception.” [255] Al-Bukhaaree (3030) and Muslim (1739). From the hadeeth of Jaabir bin Abdullah, may Allah be pleased with them.
An example of this is what happened to Muhammad ibn Maslamah and those with him, may Allah be pleased with them, when the Messenger ? said to them: “Who is ready for Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf, for he has harmed Allah and His Messenger?” Muhammad ibn Maslamah got up and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Should I kill him?’ The Messenger replied, “Yes.” He requested, ‘Permit me to say something.’ He replied, ‘Say.’ So, Muhammad ibn Maslamah came to him Ka’b and said, ‘This man has asked us for charity, and he has afflicted us with hardship, and I have come to you to borrow from you.’ He remarked, ‘Also, by God, you will be put in more trouble by him!’ He said: We have followed him, and we do not like to doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take.” hadeeth. [256] Al-Bukhaaree (4037) at a length and it is his wording; and Muslim (1801), from the hadeeth of Jaabir bin Abdullah, may Allah be pleased with them.
This is Muhammad ibn Maslamah (may Allah be pleased with him) who is asking permission from the Messenger ? to say something. The Prophet ? granted him the permission for that. Muhammad ibn Maslamah outwardly displays that he is a hypocrite and that he did not accept Islam out of his will, until he tempted Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, and that was when he went out to him at night, and Muhammad ibn Maslamah and his companions killed him.
And from the foregoing it is known that if the Taqiyyah is not for an excuse that is permissible for a person, and it is not in war, then it is nothing but hypocrisy. If it is a pretence for the disbelievers, then it is greater disbelief and hypocrisy, and if it is with disobedience, then that is not hypocrisy that takes one out of the religion.
Allah, the Exalted, stated, “Let not believers take disbelievers as allies i.e., supporters or protectors rather than believers. And whoever of you does that has nothing i.e., no association with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the final destination.”  Aal ‘Imraan:28
Ibn Jareer said, “‘Except when taking precaution against them in prudence,’ meaning unless you are under their authority, so you fear them for yourselves, so you show them the alliance with your tongues, and harbour enmity towards them inwardly, and you do not join them in the disbelief they are upon, and do not help them against a Muslim by deed.” [257] Al-Jaami’ li Ahkaam al-Qur’an, (4/57).
Al-Qurtubee said, “If a believer is standing among the disbelievers, he has the right to flatter them with the tongue if he is afraid for himself and his heart is reassured by faith, and Taqiyyah is not permissible except with the fear of being killing or maimed and being harmed severely.” [258] A”laam al-Muwaqq’een ‘an Rabb al-‘Aalameen by Ibn Al-Qayyim (3/227); Risaalah Lateefah Jaami’ah fi Usool al-Fiqh al-Muhimmah by Al-Saa”dee (p. 102).

Taqiyyah with concealing the religion
The basic principle in a Muslim is to perform his religion and manifest it and not conceal it, and this is an obligation upon him, but he may not be able to do that in some places, otherwise, he will be harmed and tempted from his religion, then he must emigrate to a country where he can manifest his religion.
Ash-Shaafi’ee said, “The Sunnah of the Messenger of ? indicates that the obligation to emigrate is imposed on those who can bear it. It is only upon him who has been tempted to abandon his religion in the country in which he embraced Islam.” [259] Al-Umm, (5/366).
If a Muslim fears ordeal (Fitnah) and is not able to emigrate, it is permissible for him to conceal his religion and not reveal it lest he be tempted to abandon it, but with sticking to it in secret, and not associating with the disbelievers on their unbelief, and even on their acts of disobedience. It is permitted this from the beginning, even if there is no coercion in this regard.
At that time, it is sufficient for him to denounce it in the heart that is the hatred of Kufr and its people, and not being satisfied with them and their disbelief because he cannot denounce by hand or tongue, and this is the meaning of the words of the Messenger ?, “Whoever among you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand, and if he is not able, then with his tongue, and if he is not able to do so, then let him change it with his heart and that is the weakest part of faith.” [260] Narrated by Muslim (49) from the hadeeth of Aboo Sa’eed Al-Khudree (may Allah be pleased with him).
Ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eid said, “It means, ‘let him deny it with his heart, and that is not by removing and changing it, however, this is the only thing with his means … In this hadeeth there is evidence that whoever fears being killed or beaten, then bringing change drops from him, and this is the doctrine of the verifiers, predecessors, and successors.” [261] Sharh Al-Arba’een An-Nawaweeyah, (p.: 114).
And as for the one who is able to deny the evil outwardly and does not do so, then he is sinning for neglecting the obligatory, however, he does not become a disbeliever by simply not denying it with his ability, until it is verified from him that what necessitates disbelief such as a statement or an act.

Taqiyyah by manifesting disbelief
It is not permissible in any case to display disbelief or disobedience, from the onset without compulsion, on the pretext of Taqiyyah.
For this reason, when Haatib ibn Abee Balta’ah (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote to the disbelievers of Quraysh with the news of the journey of the Messenger ? and the Muslims with him, to conquer Makkah, the Messenger ? did not excuse him to the extent that ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said, ‘He has turned into a hypocrite!’ However, the Messenger, ? sought clarity for his condition. This is because it is possible that his action was actually an act of disbelief and apostasy from Islam, or that it was a sin that does not expel him from the religion. When it became clear to the Messenger ? that he had only written to Quraysh as a pretence, flattery, and Taqiyyah towards them in order to preserve his wealth and his family in Makkah, and not as an outward pretence with the polytheists nor as a sympathetic alliance with them in their religion; The Messenger ? did not label him as a disbeliever, and that disobedience from him was forgiven by his great good on the day of Badr. If this was in disobedience and Haatib (may Allah be pleased with him) was not excused, rather he was a sinner for that, then how about unbelief?!
Pretending to be a disbeliever or to display a disobedience without an excuse that permits that, necessitates reprimand according to the apparent disbelief or disobedience realised.
This requirement in Taqiyyah is the reality of the difference between the approach of Ahl as-Sunnah and the approach of the Shiites in Taqiyyah. According to the Shiites, Taqiyyah is the principle, and they allow it without compelling coercion, but rather for the mere possibility of harm, even if it is not actually achieved, and this is in fact hypocrisy, and it is not from Taqiyyah in anything.
Ibn Taymiyyah said, “So if the believer is between the disbelievers and the wicked, he should not strive against them with his hand in the presence of his weakness, but if it is possible for him, then he can do so with his tongue, otherwise with his heart, although he does not say with his tongue what is in his heart. Either he should reveal his religion or conceal it. Despite all this, he does not agree with them on all of their religion, rather his goal is to be like the believer of the family of Pharaoh and the wife of Pharaoh; and he was not in agreement with them on all of their religion, nor did he lie and nor did he say with his tongue what was not in his heart, rather he concealed his faith. Concealing religion is one thing, and revealing false religion is another, for this is only permitted by Allah for the one who is compelled, such that it is permitted for him to utter the word of disbelief, and Allah Almighty, has differentiated between the hypocrite and the compelled person.” [262] Minhaaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, (6/424).
He also said: “He, the Sublime, has permitted when one is under duress to utter disbelief with his tongue if his heart is at peace with faith, unlike those whose chest has expanded to express disbelief. And He has permitted for the believers to take precaution against the disbelievers, whilst prohibiting from creating a sincere alliance with them. It is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that Taqiyyah is done by tongue.” [263] Al-Istiqaamah, (2/319).
From here we know that the reason for the excuse to conceal the religion is the inability to reveal it even if it does not involve coercion. And as for the manifestation of unbelief and sin, it is necessary to exist compulsion for the permissibility of Taqiyyah.
For this reason, when there were people in Makkah who had pronounced the two testimonies, but they supported the polytheists without coercion, Allah Almighty did not excuse them but rather judged by their hypocrisy and unbelief, and he made this clear to the Muslims. Thus, He, the Exalted, stated: “What is the matter with you that you are two groups concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has made them fall back into error and disbelief for what they earned. Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has sent astray? And he whom Allah sends astray - never will you find for him a way of guidance. They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away i.e., refuse, then seize them and kill them for their betrayal wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper” An-Nisaa’:88-89
Based on this principle, the ayah on Taqiyyah can be well understood, that is, the statement of Allah, the Exalted, “Let not believers take disbelievers as allies i.e., supporters or protectors rather than believers. And whoever of you does that has nothing i.e., no association with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence.1 And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the final destination.”   Aal ‘Imraan: 28
Ibn Jareer said, “This means, ‘O believers, do not take the disbelievers as backers and supporters, taking them as allies on supporting their religion, and pretending to them that you are against the Muslims rather than the believers, and showing them their Muslims’ faults. And whoever of you does that, then he has nothing i.e., no association with Allah, meaning, Allah has absolved him by his apostasy from his religion and by his entry into disbelief, unless you fear them, unless you are under their authority, so you fear them for yourselves, then show them the alliance with your tongues, and harbour enmity for them inwardly, and do not support them in the disbelief that they are upon, and do not help them against any Muslim by deed.” [264] Tafseer of Ibn Jareer, (5/315).
So, the meaning of the ayah is: ‘Supporting the polytheists and completely allying themselves with them is absolute disbelief, whether that is in word or deed, unless that is done as a form of Taqiyyah, and Taqiyyah in that regard is not by mere fear and anticipation of harm, but by the obtainment of compulsion.
Here, there is a difference between Taqiyyah with concealing one’s religion, in which mere fear of harm is sufficient in excuses, and between manifesting disbelief, in which compulsion must be realized, not mere fear and expectation.
For this reason, Allah has forbidden from taking the people of the Book as allies, and clarified that the alliance with them, even if done with fear amounts to disbelief. Allah, the Exalted, stated, “: O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are in fact allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is one of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people. So, you see those in whose hearts is a disease i.e., hypocrisy hastening into association with them, saying, "We are afraid a misfortune may strike us." But perhaps Allah will bring conquest or a decision from Him, and they will become, over what they have been concealing within themselves, regretful.”  Al-Maa’idah : 51-52
Allah did not make mere fear that the rulership and dominance of the unbelievers would be an excuse for the alliance to them, but rather He made those who allied to them and used fear of them as an excuse a disbeliever like them, then made it clear that only he in whose heart is hypocrisy does that.
And like those in our time are those who govern with the man-made laws, and reject the ruling by Sharee’a, and they give excuse that is for fear of the unbelievers if they adhere to Sharee’a, and they say: ‘We fear that a misfortune will afflict us, and They procrastinate in the matter of governance of Sharee’a, and they differentiate between judging according to Sharee’a and between the inability to apply some of its rulings.
The truth is that this is not included in the rule of compulsion, neither in the rules of necessity. There is no objection to announcing the arbitration of Sharee’a, except for fear and alliance to the unbelievers. But the impediment only realises when applying some of what is related to the implementation of ruling by Sharee’a in detail after its initial approval, in terms that it is the basis of the legislation, and this is what falls under the rule of legal capacity to one’s best ability. Whoever is unable to apply some of the provisions of Sharee’a after accepting them, and rejecting other laws of the Jaahiliyyah, then he is excused, and it is necessary to differentiate between these two cases. [265] Tafseer Ibn Katheer, (3/448), Dawaabit at-Takfeer ‘inda Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, by Al-Qarnee (p.: 267).