What contradicts the saying of the heart: the denial of a known ruling as part of the religion by necessity
Introduction
What is known as part of the religion by necessity is what is common to all members of the Ummah, scholars and the common people, and among it is what is specific to scholars only, so that it is known to them by necessity, and it is not likewise to those who are lower them in knowledge, such as the common people. However, what is used in idiomatic use is the first type, which no one can be ignorant of, so that the scholar and the layman alike know it.
That is why it is necessary to elaborate on this issue when we want to determine the extent of the excuse for being ignorant of this known part of the religion by necessity, as it is also necessary to specify the cases in which the Sharee’a is known to the people by necessity as part of the religion of Islam, and the situations in which it is not so. This is connected with the issue of establishing the proof from its non-establishment.
Based on this, the statement that what is known from religion is necessarily something that has been established by the proof that stands against all people, so they cannot be ignorant of it and therefore contradict it; this is an inaccurate statement and needs revision and contemplation.
Just as necessarily equating the known issues of the religion by necessity with other hidden issues in proving the excuse of their ignorance, despite the emergence and spread of the former and without regard to the condition of the ignorant, and the time and place of the ignorant as well. This is also not right. [541] Al-Qawl al-Mufeed ‘ala Kitaab at-Tawheed, by Ibn Uthaymeen (1/173), Al-Jahl bi Masaa’il al-‘Itiqaad wa Hukmihi, by Abd al-Razzaq Ma’ash (p.: 491).

Diversity of what is known by necessity as part of religion
What is known from religion necessarily varies according to the variety of issues, people, times, and places. Therefore, the ruling on the one who denies it or is ignorant of it varies according to its variance and diversity.
The apparent and frequent issues are generally known to people as part of the religion by necessity, whether they are issues of obligation or issues of prohibition, they must be apparent and frequently and abundantly transmitted so that they can be considered as known issues by necessity as part of the religion.
Among what falls under this category are all the apparent and frequent obligations, and all the forbidden things that are a clear and frequent (Mutawaatir) prohibition.
And this is what ash-Shaafi’ee expressed by saying, “The knowledge of the common people,” then he defined it as, “Like the five daily prayers, and that people have to fast for Allah in the month of Ramadan, pilgrimage (hajj) to the House if they can, and Zakat (obligatory alms) in their wealth, and that He forbade them fornication, murder, theft, and alcohol, and what was in the meaning of this among what the servants were legally obligated to comprehend and do, and to give of themselves and their wealth, and to desist from what was forbidden to them of it, and this category of knowledge of Islam is available textually in the Book of Allah and is commonly available among the people of Islam, their commoners pass it on from those who passed away from their common people, they tell it from the Messenger of Allah ?, and they do not dispute its narration, nor its obligation on them.
This is the general knowledge in which it is not possible to err in news and interpretation, nor is it permissible to dispute. [542] Ar-Risaalah, (1/358).
Ibn Taymiyyah says, “One who denies the necessity of some of the duties that are apparent and frequently transmitted (Mutawaatir); like five prayers, the fasting month of Ramadan, pilgrimage to the Ancient House (the Ka’bah), or denies the prohibition of some forbidden acts that are apparent and frequently transmitted, such as indecent acts, injustice, alcohol, gambling, adultery, etc, or denies the permissibility of some permitted items that are apparent and frequently transmitted like bread, meat, and marriage – then he is an apostate and infidel, he will be asked to repent, and if he repents, then the case is closed, otherwise, he will be killed.” [543] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (11/405).
The people of knowledge have built on the fact that the necessarily known part of the religion – in general terms – is what is apparent and well-known, and the people concerning its knowledge are equal. They based on this their saying in declaring the denier of it apostate, and in the prevention of blind following in it.
Al-Khattaabee says, “The same is the case meaning in doing Takfeer and lack of excuse with regard to everyone who denies something that the Nation (Ummah) has agreed upon in matters of religion if it is widespread, such as the five daily prayers, fasting during the month of Ramadan, the sacred month of Ramadan, having a bath from major impurity, the prohibitions of fornication, drinking wine, marrying close relatives whom one is prohibited from marrying them, and so on among the injunctions.” [544] Ma’aalim as-Sunnah, (2/9).
Al-Nawawee said, “Whoever denies what is known as part of the religion of Islam by necessity, he will be judged as committing apostasy and unbelief. The same applies to the ruling on one who makes it permissible to commit adultery, alcohol, murder, or any other prohibited acts, whose prohibition is known by necessity.” [545] Sharh Muslim, (1/150).
Likewise, what is known as part of the religion by necessity is from the relative matters. As it differs from being a necessary knowledge relative to different persons; In terms of knowledge or ignorance, or being new to Islam, or the upbringing in a distant desert.
Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Being something known as part of the religion by necessity is a relative matter. A newcomer to Islam, one who was brought up in a distant desert has no knowledge of this at all, let alone knowing it by necessity.” [546] Majmoo’ Al-Fatwas, (13/118).
Likewise, what is known from the religion by necessity varies according to different times and places in terms of the emergence of the effects of the divine message or its lessons.
What is known as part of religion by necessity happens to be in times and places where the sun of Sharee’a shines, and practicing scholars are abundant who deliver the religion of Allah and establish argument on the servants of Allah; and it is not known part of the religion by necessity if the sun of Sharee’a has set, and the scholars there were bad scholars who confused the people about their religion, and wherein the people of Haqq (Truth) are few, and their voice does not reach all the people. [547] Al-‘Udhr bi al-Jahl wa ar-Radd ‘ala Bid’ah at-Takfeer, by Ahmad Farid (p.: 14), Al-Jahl bi Masaa’il al-‘Itiqaad wa Hukmihi, by Abd al-Razzaq bin Tahir Ma’ash (p.: 492).
What should be considered in this regard is the difference between the abode of Islam, which assumes the emergence of the rulings of Islam, and the abode of unbelief, which does not assume that, and the difference of places between a place where knowledge is widespread, and a desert which is far away from knowledge, and places where true knowledge is common, and others where misguidance and deviation overshadow.
Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Many people may grow up in the places and times in which many of the sciences of prophecy are extinct, so that no one remains who communicates what Allah has sent His Messenger with, in terms of the Book and wisdom, and many people do not know of what Allah sent His Messenger with, and there is no one there who can deliver that. Such a person has not disbelieved.” [548] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (11/407).
The ruling of ignorance of the known item of the religion by necessity
The difference in knowledge of matters of religion known by necessity has a strong impact on the difference of judgment on those who oppose this known item by necessity as part of religion, either due to denying it, or violating it. The following are the most important of those rulings supported by the sayings of the people of knowledge:
1-   The apparent and frequent rulings, whether they are obligatory or forbidden, if they are like this in the abode of Islam, and knowledge of them is widespread among all people, there is no difference in that between a scholar or a layman; It is similar to the well-known things of the religion by necessity, whose ignorance none of the Muslims has, and the one who denies it is an infidel without dispute among the people of knowledge, and whoever opposes it by abandoning it if it is an obligation will be punished to the extent of his opposition, and if it is forbidden, it is punished for that act.
In this sense, the sayings of the scholars will be taken into consideration regarding the declaration of the denier of the well-known items of the religion by necessity as disbeliever, such as the saying of Al-Khattaabee, Al-Nawawee, and Ibn Taymiyyah, and they were previously mentioned.
Ibn Qudaamah states, “But if the one who denies it is brought up in the cities among the people of knowledge, then he is an atheist merely by denying it, and the same applies to the ruling on all the foundations of Islam, which are Zakat, fasting and Hajj. They are the premises of Islam, and the evidence for their obligation is hardly hidden. As the Book and the Sunnah are fraught with its evidence, and consensus is based on it, no one denies it except those who oppose Islam, who refuse to adhere to the rulings, who do not accept the Book of Allah Almighty, the Sunnah of His Messenger, and the consensus of the Ummah.” [549] Al-Mughnee, (12/275).
2- That what is known to the elite scholars as part of the of religion by necessity, the ignorant of the common people will be excused in it if he disagrees with it by declaring it permissible or ungrateful; it is specific news that is not communicated to the public, as Ash-Shaafi’ee said. For this reason, the issues of this kind of knowledge are not known entirely to the common people, let alone be known to them by necessity.
The one who is ignorant of this type of knowledge, even if it is necessarily known as part of the religion in absolute terms, is excused until he knows it because it is specific to scholars; Therefore, it was not extended to those who were knowledgeable whilst doing their ignorance and opposition, when someone like him is not ignorant of them.
Al-Khattaabee said, “As for what was unanimously agreed upon by means of the knowledge of the elite, such as the prohibition of a woman’s marriage together with her paternal aunt and maternal aunt in the same marriage, and that a premeditated murderer does not inherit, and that a grandmother has one-sixth in inheritance, and the similar rulings. Whoever denies it does not become a disbeliever, rather is excused for it, due to the lack of extensive knowledge of it within the general public, and the uniqueness of it within the elite.” [550] Ma’aalim as-Sunnah, (2/9).
2-   That he who grew up in a desert far from the metropolis of knowledge and scholars or was a recent revert with Islam; he is excused for being ignorant of the known items of the religion by necessity which are known to others who are not new to Islam, and who live among the people of knowledge and da’wah because in the absence of excuse for his ignorance of this kind of knowledge is an assignment to him of what he cannot bear, in this case, and this contains hardship as it is evident. It has been known that the principle in such cases is that hardship brings ease, and it is easy in his regard in this case to excuse him due to ignorance until he learns and the definitive argument for the excuse is established on him.
The consensus on this ruling has been narrated among the scholars.
Ibn Qudaamah says, “There is no dispute among the people of knowledge regarding the infidelity of the one who abandons it, denying its obligation, if he is one of those whose likes are not ignorant. If he is one of those who does not know the obligation, like a newcomer to Islam, one upbrought outside the abode of Islam, or a desert far from cities and people of knowledge, then he will not be judged as a disbeliever. However, if he has been introduced to that, and the evidence for its obligation is established for him, so if he denies it after that, then he has committed disbelief... . Likewise, everyone who is ignorant of something that he may be unaware of will not be judged to be a disbeliever until he is introduced to that, and the suspicion is removed, and then he makes it permissible after that.” [551] Al-Mughnee, (12/275-277).
Ibn Taymiyyah states, “The imams are unanimously agreed that whoever grew up in a desert far from the people of knowledge and faith, and he is a newcomer to Islam, then he denied any of these apparent and frequent rulings he will not be judged as unbeliever until he is informed about what the Messenger brought.” [552] Majmoo’ Al-Fatwas, (11/407).
In conclusion: The ruling on the issue of what is known as part of the religion by necessity and the extent of the excuse due to its ignorance is not constant, but rather its scope entails detail, as what has passed through us; due to considering the different contexts of ruling according to the circumstances related to knowledge-based issues, or related to different people who within the spectrum between scholars and common people, and newcomers to Islam, and those who grew up in a distant desert, or in places and times in terms of the emergence and spread of knowledge, and its extinction and dwindling number of scholars appropriately. And Allah Almighty knows best.

The denial of a known ruling of religion by necessity.
Denial here is in the sense of rejection, and non-confession and lack of acknowledgment.  What is meant by a known ruling of the religion by necessity is what was frequently transmitted, and apparent from the rulings of the religion known to both the elite and the general, from what the scholars unanimously agreed upon with definiteness; for example: the obligation of one of the foundations of Islam, such as prayer, Zakat and the like, and the prohibition of forbidden things that are apparent and frequently narrated, such as usury, alcohol, and so on.
It is well known that faith is based on affirming the judgment of Allah Almighty and the judgment of His Messenger ?, and one of the most important and most emphasised of these rulings are the rulings known as part of the religion by necessity.
Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Belief in the obligation of the apparent and frequent duties, and the prohibition of apparent and frequent forbidden acts are one of the greatest principles of faith and the foundations of the religion, and the one who denies them is an unbeliever by scholarly agreement.” [553] Al-qawl al-Mufeed ‘ala Kitaab at-Tawheed, by Ibn Uthaymeen (1/173); Al-Jahl bi Masaa’il al-‘Itqaad wa Hukmihi, by Abd al-Razzaq Ma’ash (p.: 496).
Denial of a known ruling of religion by necessity has several forms and examples. Perhaps it may be an explicit and apparent denial, such as saying, for example, denying the obligation of prayer or Zakat, or saying that usury or alcohol was permitted, or saying that what was permitted by consensus was actually forbidden, such as bread and water and the like. The denial may be through a corrupt and unjustified interpretation that the Arabic language rejects, such as the interpretation of the Baatiniyyah that they are the names of men whom people were commanded to befriend, and the forbidden things are the names of men whom people were commanded to be free from. The scholars have unanimously agreed on the infidelity of the authors of that statement, as well as what the Sufi atheists allege is that whoever has reached the level of certainty, then the legal obligations are dropped from him. [554] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (12/496).
And from what is attached to this kind of denial of the ruling of infidelity is that a person acknowledges this ruling that is known by necessity as part of the religion, yet he declares his non-acceptance of this ruling, and he refuses to submit to Allah Almighty and become submissive to this command, due to stubbornness and arrogance. [555] Ash-Shifaa, by Iyad (2/288), Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, by Ibn Taymiyyah (5/82) (10/434), Tafseer Ibn Katheer, (4/554).
Is-haaq ibn Raahawayh says, “The scholars have unanimously agreed that whoever repels something that Allah has revealed... and yet he affirms what Allah has revealed, then he is an infidel.” [556] Al-Tamheed, by Ibn Abd Al-Bar (4/226).
The element of disbelief here is abandonment, refutation, and renunciation, not disaffirmation. For this reason, Allah, the Highest, in His Book, has combined the infidelity of turning away with the infidelity of denial (rejection) because it is its counterpart, as Allah Almighty states, “So (the denier of the Hereafter) neither believed, nor prayed, but rejected the truth and turned away (from it).”  Al-Qiyaamah: 31-32.
And Allah, Glory be to Him, said: “None will enter it but the wretched one, who rejected (the truth) and turned away (from it).” Al-Layl: 15-16.
There are considerations that make denial of a known ruling of religion by necessity infidelity and a nullifier among the nullifiers of faith: Of which are as follows:
1 - That this denial is a slander against Allah, Glory be to Him, and no one is more unjust, nor is he greater in crime than he who forges a lie against Allah Almighty.
Allah Almighty said, “And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah or belies His ayaat: surely the unjust will not be successful.”  Al-An’aam:21.
Ibn Katheer says, “i.e., no one is more unjust than he who falsely attributes statements to Allah, and claims that Allah sent him, while He did not, then who is more unjust than he who denies the signs of Allah, his arguments, and his proofs and evidences. “Surely the unjust will not be successful,” neither this or that, nor the one who forges lies and neither the denier.” [557] Tafseer Ibn Katheer, (3/245).
This denial is an attack on the Lordship of Allah Almighty and His names and attributes.
Affirming the rulings of Allah Almighty and acknowledging them is one of the requirements of affirming the Lordship of Allah Almighty alone. Indeed, the reality of contentment with Allah Almighty as Lord includes acknowledgment of His legislative and creational command, as He, Glory be to Him, said: “Lo! To Him alone belong the creation and the command.”  Al-A’raaf: 54
Ibn Jareer said, “Lo! To God belongs the whole of creation, and the command that is not violated, and whose command is not rejected, apart from all other things besides it, and apart from what the polytheists worshipped of the gods and idols that do not harm nor benefit, do not create nor command; blessed be Allah, Our Deity, who has the worship of everything, the Lord of the worlds.” [558] Tafseer of Ibn Jareer, (10/247).
3-   Belief includes affirmation and attestation, and this denial is disaffirmation and rejection, as it contradicts and does not combine with faith. Denying a ruling of the religion known by necessity is a disaffirmation of the ayaat of the Book of Allah Almighty, and Allah Almighty has commanded to believe His ayaat and acknowledge them, just as God Almighty has decreed unbelief on those who reject His ayaat and deny them and threatened them with punishment. 
Allah Almighty states, “No one denies Our revelations but the unbelievers.” Al-‘Ankaboot: 47.
Sa’dee said, “‘No one denies Our revelations but the unbelievers who have their habit of ingratitude to the truth and stubbornness to it. This is limited to those who disbelieve in it.  That no one intends to pursue the truth, otherwise everyone who has a valid intention must believe in it because of what it contains of clear evidence, everyone has an intellect, or he gives ear while he is a witness.” [559] Tafseer Al-Sa’dee, (p.: 633).
3- This denial is an apparent denial of the authentic, explicit hadeeths from the Messenger of Allah ?, so it is an affront to the position of the messengership.
Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Dissenting the sayings of the prophets with the opinions of men and prioritising that over them is from the actions of those who disaffirm the Messengers, rather it is a combination of all unbelief.” [560] Dar’ Ta’arudh al-‘Aql wa an-Naql, (5/204).
Scholars have decided that whoever refutes an authentic hadeeth, or falsifies it, is an infidel.
Ibn al-Wazir says, “The denial of the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah ? with the knowledge that it is his hadeeth, is outright disbelief.” [561] Al-‘Awasim wa al-Qawasim, (2/374).
Ibn Uthaymeen states, “Rejecting the news of Allah and His Messenger is blasphemy that takes one away from the religion by consensus.” [562] Majmoo’ Fataawaa wa Rasaa’il Al-Uthaymeen, (10/765).
4- The scholars are unanimously agreed on the infidelity of those who deny a known ruling of the religion by necessity.
Ibn Hazm said, “There is no disagreement between two people of the entire ummah regarding the one who disbelieves in prayer, Zakat, pilgrimage, Umrah, or anything of what the Muslims unanimously agreed upon. Based upon what Allah Almighty made it clear through the tongue of His Messenger ? and stipulated it to be part of the deeds of Sharee’a. Thus, he is an infidel and destroyer of actions.” [563] Ad-Durrah fima Yajibu ‘Itiqaaduhu, (p.: 337).
Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Whenever a person makes what is forbidden by consensus permissible, or forbids what is permissible by consensus, or alters the unanimous divine law - he is an apostate and infidel by agreement of the jurists.” [564] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (3/267).
‘Alee Qari states, “There is no disagreement among Muslims that if a man manifests a denial of the apparently frequently narrated (Mutawaatir) duties, and the apparently frequently narrated (Mutawaatir) prohibitions, then he should be asked to repent, otherwise he will be killed as an infidel and an apostate.” [565] Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar, p.271.
Here are some of the sayings of the scholars on this issue:
Ahmad states, “Nothing removes one from Islam except associating partners with Allah the Great, or rejecting one of the obligations of Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, and denying it.” [566] Tabaqaat al-Hanabilah, (1/343).
An-Nawawee says, “If one denounces a unanimously known item by necessity as part of the religion of Islam, then he is a disbeliever if there is a textual concerning it, and likewise if there is no text concerning it as the more correct opinion, and if the item is not known by necessity as part of the religion of Islam such as all the Muslims do not know about it, then he has not apostatised.” [567] Rawdat at-Taalibeen, (10/65).
Ash-Shawkaanee said, “It has been established in the Islamic rules that the denier of the definitive consensus and the one who rejects it, and the one working against it rebelliously, degradingly, or belittlingly is a disbeliever in Allah, and in the purified Sharee’a which Allah Almighty chose for His servants.” [568] Ad-Dawaa al-‘Ajil fi Daf’ al-‘Aduw as-Sa’il, within ar-Rasaa’il as-Salafiyyah, p.68.
Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem Aal Ash-Sheikh said, “One of the well-established principles that is agreed upon among them i.e., among the people of knowledge is that whoever denies any of the foundations of the religion, or a branch unanimously which is agreed upon, or denies a letter of what the Messenger ? brought through definite means, then he has disbelieved with the kind of disbelief that moves him away from the religion.” [569] Risaalah Tahkeem al-Qawaneen, within Fataawaa wa Rasaa’il Muhammad bin Ibraaheem Aal Shaykh) (12/288).

That which contradicts the deed of the heart
Hypocrisy
Defining hypocrisy linguistically and terminologically :
The first issue: Defining hypocrisy linguistically
Linguistically, hypocrisy (Nifaaq) is dissenting the inner from the outer because it is taken from the hole of jerboa as it enters through a ‘door’ and exits through another ‘door,’ hence, it is said to the hypocrite: (Munafiq) because he exits from Islam without the entrance from which he entered; and that is because he entered openly and left secretly, and the origin of (Nafaq) indicates the hiding of something and its concealment. [570] Maqaayees al-Lughah, by Ibn Faaris (5/454), Al-Tafseer al-Baseet, by Al-Waahidee (6/158), Al-Mufradaat, by Al-Ragheeb (p. 819), Fath Al-Baaree, by Ibn Hajar ( 1/ 89).
The second issue: The definition of hypocrisy terminologically
Hypocrisy in terminology is saying or doing other than what is in the heart in terms of creed, and the hypocrite (Munafiq) is the one who conceals his unbelief and manifests his faith, and it is an Islamic term that the Arabs did not know in its specific meaning, although its linguistic meaning is well-known. [571] Subul al-Huda wa ar-Rashad fi Seerah Khair Al-‘Ibaad, by Al-Salihi (3/416), ‘Aaridah Al-Ahwathee, (10/71), Nawaaqid al-Iman al-‘Itiqaadiyyah, by Al-Wahaibee (p. 308
The hypocrite must be different in his private and public dealings, outward and inward states. Allah described them as liars, [572] Al-Iman al-Awsat, (p.: 292). so, He Almighty stated, “And they will have a painful torment because they used to lie.” Al-Baqarah: 10
The most specific and important thing that distinguishes the hypocrites is the difference between the outward and the inward states, and between the claim and the truth, as Allah Almighty said, “And among the people is he who says we believe in Allah and the last day, and they are not believers.” Al-Baqarah: 8
Ibn Jareer said, “All the people of interpretation unanimously agreed that this ayah was revealed about a people of hypocrisy, and that this attribute is their attribute.” [573] Tafseer of Ibn Jareer, (1/275).
Some jurists may use the term Zindiq (heretic) for a hypocrite. Ibn Taymiyyah said, “And when the non-Arabs abounded among the Muslims, they spoke of the word Zindiq (heretic), and it spread in the tongues of the jurists, and the people spoke of the heretic, is his repentance accepted? What is meant here is that the Zindiq (heretic), according to the custom of these jurists, is the hypocrite who was in the time of the Prophet ? which is to manifest Islam and conceal other than it, whether it is concealing one of the religions, such as the religion of the Jews or the Christians, or he denies the Maker, the resurrection, and the righteous deeds.” [574] Al-Iman al-Awsat, (p. 302).



Types of Hypocrisy
Introduction
Hypocrisy is like unbelief, polytheism, immorality, and oppression, and all have levels and ranks. Some of them are a way out of Islam, and some of them are not.
The expressions of the imams differed in clarifying these two types:
Some imams - such as at-Tirmithee, Ibn al-‘Arabee al-Maalikee, Ibn Katheer, and Ibn Hajar - divide hypocrisy into hypocrisy of belief, which is the exit from the religion, and into practical hypocrisy. [575] Sunan Al-Tirmithee, (4/316), ‘Aridhah Al-Ahwathee, (10/97), Tafseer Ibn Katheer, (1/176), Fath Al-Baaree, (1) /89).
While some other imams - such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, and Ibn Rajab - express this by dividing hypocrisy into major hypocrisy that leads out of religion, and into lesser hypocrisy that does not exit the religion. [576] “Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa” (28/434); “Al-Iman al-Awsat” (p. 66); “Madaarij al-Salikeen” (1/376); “Jaami’ Al-’Uloom wa al-Hakam” (p. 403).
The first issue, the greatest hypocrisy that leads to the departure from religion and leads to eternity in the lowest level of Hellfire:
It is the concealment of disbelief in the heart, and the manifestation of faith on the tongue and limbs, and this type of disbelief results in the consequences of major disbelief, in terms of the absence of faith from its possessor, and his eternity in Hell, however, the hypocrite is more severely punished than the infidel because he is in the lowest level of Hellfire if he dies on it.
Ibn Taymiyyah said, “It is hypocrisy that is greater, and its possessor is in the lowest depths of Hellfire, like the hypocrisy of Abdullah ibn Ubayy and others; by showing the disaffirmation of the Messenger, the denial of what he brought about or its hatred, or not believing that it is obligatory to follow him, or taking pleasure in the decline of his religion, or being offended by the emergence of his religion, and the like of that which an enemy of Allah and His Messenger can possess. This amount was present in the time of the Messenger of Allah ? and is still existent after him. Rather, it is more prevalent after him than during his era.” [577] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (28/434).
Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab states, “As for hypocrisy of belief, it is of six types, denying the Messenger, denying some of what the Messenger brought, or hating the Messenger, or hating the religion, or hating what the Messenger brought, or delight in the decline of the Messenger’s religion, or hatred for the victory of the Messenger’s religion; these six types are possessed by the people of the lowest level of Hellfire.” [578] Majmoo’ah at-Tawheed, (p.7).
Among the ayaat regarding their being declared as disbelievers and their fate in the Hereafter:
Allah Almighty says, “And among the people are those who say, “We believe in Allah and the last day, but they are not believers.” Al-Baqarah: 8.
As-Sam’anee said, “Most of the commentators say that it is about the hypocrites. Its meaning, and among the people are some people who say, “We believe in Allah and the Last Day,” meaning, the Resurrection. “And they are not believers,” He negated faith from them wherein they manifested Islam through the tongue, however, they did not believe inside their hearts.” [579] Tafseer Al-Sam’ani, (1/47).
And His saying, the Mighty and Sublime, “Allah has promised the male and female hypocrites and the disbelievers the fire of Hell, wherein they will abide forever.”  At-Tawbah: 68.
Ibn Jareer said, “Allah Almighty says, “Allah has promised the hypocrites, male and female, and the disbelievers” who disbelieve in Allah, “the fire of Hell,” that they will all enter. “Wherein they will abide forever,” they will remain therein forever, and they will not live nor die therein.” [580] Tafseer of Ibn Jareer, (11/550).
The hypocrite, if he does not reveal what is in his innermost self in terms of opposition of religion and shows the apparent deeds of Islam; He is in terms of the outward state a Muslim, and the apparent rulings of Islam apply to him in the world, and he will be treated in the same way as the Muslims because we were not commanded to split the hearts open and doing this is originally outside the scope and ability of the son of Adam; the outward faith on which judgments in this world are applied does not necessitate an inward faith whose possessor is a true believer.
Hypocrisy, if it is mentioned in the Quran, then what is meant by it is the major hypocrisy that contradicts faith, as opposed to unbelief. It sometimes comes with the meaning of minor disbelief, as well as injustice, immorality, and polytheism.
Al-Sa’dee said, “Know that hypocrisy is manifesting good and concealing evil, and this definition includes creedal hypocrisy, and practical hypocrisy, as the one mentioned by the Prophet ? in his saying, “The signs of the hypocrite are three: if he speaks, he lies, if he makes a promise he breaks it, and if he is entrusted, he betrays”, and in another narration: “and if he argues, he goes over the top.” As for hypocrisy in belief, which takes one outside the circle of Islam, it is what Allah described the hypocrites with, in this surah and others. Hypocrisy was not present before the migration of the Prophet ? from Makkah to al-Madeenah, and after he emigrated, and when the battle of Badr happened and Allah granted believers victory and granted them honour, humiliation fell upon those who were in al-Madeenah who did not accept Islam, thus, some demonstrated Islam out fear and for deception, and to let their blood be spared, and their money be protected, so they were showing in front of the Muslims that they are among them, and in reality, they were not from them. It was from Allah’s kindness to the believers that He made their conditions clear and described them with characteristics that they are distinguished by so that the believers may not be deceived by them, and that they also abstain from much of their immorality.” [581] Tafseer Al-Sa’dee, (p. 42).
The second issue: the lesser hypocrisy that does not take one out of Islam
It is the practical hypocrisy, and the difference between private and public in the duties, by doing something from the actions of the hypocrites, while the origin of faith remains in the heart, and its possessor does not leave the religion, and the absoluteness of faith is not negated from him, neither the significance of Islam. He is subject to torment in the hereafter like all other sins but will not be subject to eternal stay in Hellfire, its doer will be among those who will receive the intercession of the intercessors by permission of Allah.
This type of hypocrisy is an introduction and a way to greater hypocrisy for whoever treads that path and becomes his habit.
Examples of that are: lying in conversation, breaking promises, breach of trust, excessiveness in quarrels, treachery in covenants, and such as showing off that which is not at the root of the act, showing affection for others, and performing a service for someone while concealing the opposite in oneself.
On the authority of Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn Al-‘Aas, may Allah be pleased with them both, that the Prophet, may Allah’s salutations and peace be upon him and his family, said, “Four characteristics, whosoever has them, then he is a pure hypocrite, and whoever has one characteristic of them has a trait of hypocrisy until he gives it up. If he makes a promise, he is treacherous, and if he quarrels, he exceeds it.” [582] Narrated by Al-Bukhaaree (34), and the wording is his, and Muslim (58).
On the authority of Aboo Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) he said: The Prophet, ? said, “The signs of a hypocrite are three: if he speaks, he lies, if he makes a promise he breaks it, and if he is trusted he betrays.” [583] Narrated by Al-Bukhaaree (33) and Muslim (59).
Al-Nawawee says, “Its meaning is that these qualities are the characteristics of hypocrisy, and their possessor resembles the hypocrites in these qualities, and adopts their character.    Hypocrisy shows the opposite what one conceals, this meaning exists in the possessor of these qualities. His hypocrisy will be in relation to the one whom he conayahd with, promised, who entrusted him, whom he quarrelled and pledged among the people, not that he is a hypocrite in Islam, so he makes it appear as something else, while he is concealing disbelief. And the Prophet ? did not mean by his saying of this that he is a hypocrite, holding the hypocrisy of the disbelievers, who will perpetuate themselves in the lowest depths of Hellfire.” [584] Sharh Saheeh Muslim, (2/46).
Supporting the polytheists against the Muslims
What is meant by supporting the disbelievers against the Muslims is that a people who associate themselves with Islam are, helpers, supporters, and backers of the disbelievers against other Muslims.  This is an act of disbelief that contradicts faith. [585] Tafseer of Ibn Jareer, (5/315), Al-Durar Al-Saniyyah) (11/302), Fataawaa Ibn Baaz, (1/269).
Tawalli (befriending) is in the meaning of Muwalaat, taking someone as ally. Tawalli and Muwalaat originate from the same root. That is ‘Waliya’ which means ‘he got closer.’ And ‘Wali’ (close friend) is actually a ‘helper’ and is the opposite of enemy in meaning. [586] Maqaayees al-Lughah, by Ibn Faaris (6/141), Al-Qamus al-Muhit, by Al-Firouzabadi (p.: 1344), Al-Misbah Al-Munir, by Al-Fayumi (2/672).
Ibn Jareer in several places in his interpretation, explains the meaning of taking the disbelievers as allies (Awliya), meaning: to make them supporters [587] Tafseer of Ibn Jareer, (5/315) (7/ 229, 601) (8/507, 593) (22/557). , which is the meaning of taking them supporting allies.
When befriending (tawalli) carries the meaning of taking allies (Muwaalaat), just as allying to the disbelievers is of different types, some of which exclude one from the creed, such as absolute loyal alliance with them, and some of them are less than that. Befriending disbelievers is like taking them as allies, there is a complete and absolute friendship that contradicts belief in totality, and there are ranks that are lesser than that. [588] Majmoo’ah ar-Rasaa’il wa al-Masaa’il an-Najdiyyah, (3/7, 57).
Al-Sa’dee said, “Total affiliation necessitates the transition to their religion, and little tutelage calls for much, then gradually it increases until the servant becomes one of them.” [589] Tafseer Al-Sa’dee, (p.: 235).
Allah has made it clear that associating with the disbelievers leads to the wrath of Allah Almighty, and eternity in His torment, and that if their associator was a believer, he would not have done that, because cooperating with the disbelievers against the Muslims is a betrayal of Allah Almighty, and of His Messenger ?, and the believers.
Allah Almighty states, “You see many of them take the disbelievers (the pagans) for friends. Indeed, evil is what they have sent ahead for themselves, for Allah is angry with them, and they are to remain in torment for ever. If they believed in Allah, in the prophet, and in what had been sent down to him, they would have not taken them (the pagans) for friends, but many of them are sinners.”  Al-Maa’idah 80-81
Ibn Taymiyyah said, “Stating a conditional clause requires that if any condition is found, then the contingent will be found due to the particle (if), which requires with the condition of absence of contingence; He says, “If they believed in Allah, in the prophet, and in what had been sent down to him, they would have not taken them (the pagans) for friends,” which indicates that the mentioned faith negates befriending them and opposes it … .  Further, this indicates that those who took them as friends did not act upon the obligatory faith which is faith in Allah and the Prophet and what was revealed to him.” [590] Majmoo’ Al-Fataawaa, (7/17).
Allah, Glory be to Him, states, “The believers must not take the disbelievers as friends instead of the believers. And whoever does that has no relation with Allah whatsoever.” Aal ‘Imraan: 28
Ibn Jareer said, “This means: ‘O believers, do not take the disbelievers as backers and supporters, affiliating with them concerning their religion, and backing them over the Muslims rather than befriending the believers, and showing them their faults, for anyone who does that, then Allah has no relation with him, meaning, Allah has absolved Himself in friendship from him, Allah has absolved Himself from him due to his apostasy from his religion, and his entering into unbelief.” [591] Tafseer of Ibn Jareer, (5/315).
Suleiman ibn Abdullah Aal ash-Sheikh says, “The statement of the Almighty, “Did you not see the hypocrites saying to their brothers from those of the people of the Book who are unbelievers, “If you are expelled, we will certainly go out with you, and we will never obey anyone about you. And if you are fought against, we will definitely help you.” Allah bears witness that they are pure liars.” Al-Hashr: 11 ... If the secret promise of the polytheists is done in secret - to enter with them and help them and go out with them if they were evicted – is considered hypocrisy and blasphemy even if it was a lie, then how about those who revealed that to them as honest, and came to them, and entered their obedience, and called to it, and helped them, and submitted to them, and become part of their group, and supported them with wealth and opinion?! Besides this, the hypocrites only did so for fear of misfortunes befalling them, as He, the Almighty, says: “Now, you see those who have disease in their hearts race towards them saying, “We apprehend that some misfortune may overtake us.” Al-Maa’idah: 52. Thus, this is the state of many of the apostates in this fitnah (trial); the excuse of many of them is the excuse that Allah mentioned, about those who have a disease in their hearts, and he did not accept the excuse from them.” [592] Ad-Dalail fi Hukm Muwalat Ahl al-Ishrak, (p.: 52).
Some may confuse the issue of taking the disbelievers as friends and assisting them with the issue of seeking their help in fighting the other disbelievers. The first issue entails a departure from the religion, a war against Allah Almighty and His Messenger ?, and a departure from the path of the believers.
Abdul Latif ibn Abdur Rahmaan Aal as-Sheikh said, “The greatest sin, the most misguided of it, and the greatest in contradiction to the foundation of Islam is supporting the enemies of Allah and aiding them and striving for what manifests their religion and what they are upholding such as incapacitation of divine attributes, polytheism, and major destructive sins.” [593] Majmoo’ah ar-Rasaa’il wa al-Masaa’il an-Najdiyyah (3/57).
As for the issue of seeking their help in fighting other disbelievers, it is a controversial issue among the people of knowledge. There are those who forbade it, and there are those who permitted it with conditions, such as needing them, ensuring safety from their betrayal, and that they are those with excessive influence and might ...etc. [594] Majmoo’ah ar-Rasaa’il wa al-Masaa’il an-Najdiyyah, (3/66, 67); al-Istighathah bi Ghayr al-Muslimin, Abdullah at-Tariqi, p.262-271.   As for seeking help from the disbelievers against the transgressors of Muslims, this is prohibited by the masses of Islamic scholars. [595] Al-Istighathah bi Ghayr al-Muslimin, Abdullah at-Tariqi, p.272-272.
Ibn Hazm said, “We know that whoever leaves the abode of Islam for the abode of war (Dar al-Harb) has run away from Allah Almighty, and from the leader of the Muslims and their group,…" The Almighty states, “And The believers, male and female, are friends to each other.” At-Tawbah: 71. It is correct to conclude through this that he joined the abode of unbelief and war voluntarily, fighting those who are close to him from the Muslims, then by this act he is an apostate. He has all the injunctions of the apostate upon him, such as the obligation to kill him when it is possible to overpower him, and the permissibility of taking his money, and the annulment of his marriage, and other things, because the Messenger of God ? did not absolve himself from being a Muslim. As for the one who fled to the land of war due to oppression he feared, and did not fight the Muslims, nor helped them (disbelievers) against them (Muslims) and did not find amongst the Muslims someone to protect him, then for this person, there is nothing against him because he is compelled and forced by compulsion... . As for the one among the people living at the border among the Muslims who was incited by fervour, and he sought the help of the warring (harbi) polytheists and granted them free hand to kill the Muslims who opposed him, or to take away their wealth, or imprison them, if his hand is dominant, and the disbelievers are his followers, then he is utterly destroyed in extreme immorality, however, he will not become thereby an unbeliever. This is because he did not produce something that required disbelief on him, neither through the proofs of the Quran nor consensus. If the rulings of the disbelievers are applicable to him, then he is a disbeliever according to what we mentioned. If the opposing rulings are equal, then in this case judgment of one of them does not apply to the other, hence, we cannot perceive him an infidel due to that. Allah knows best.” [596] Al-Muhalla, (11/199-201).
Assisting the disbelievers against the Muslims is one of the nullifiers of faith. For several reasons, of which are as follows:
1- God Almighty says, “Whoever takes them as intimate friends is one of them. Surely, Allah does not take the unjust people to the right path.” Al-Maa’idah: 51.
Ibn Jareer said, “He who takes them as intimate friends and helps them over the believers is one of the people of their religion and their creed, for no one who befriends someone intimately but he is happy with him and his religion and what he upholds. If he is pleased with him and his religion, then he becomes hostile to what contradicts him and makes him angry, and his ruling becomes his partner’s ruling.” [597] Tafseer of Ibn Jareer, (8/508).
Ibn Hazm said, “It is correct that the saying of Allah Almighty, ‘Whoever takes them as intimate friends is one of them,’ Al-Maa’idah: 51, is apparent only such that he is an infidel from the group of disbelievers, and this is true in which no two Muslims differ.” [598] Al-Muhalla, (11/138).
And injustice, if it is used absolutely, it is intended thereby to mean major polytheism [599] Fatwas of the Permanent Committee - 1, (2/119). , thus, this indicates that the support of the disbelievers against the Muslims is a departure from the religion.
2- The support of the disbelievers against the Muslims includes hatred for the religion of Allah Almighty, and war against the righteous servants of Allah, and help for the disbelievers. There is no doubt that faith cannot be combined with this kind of alliance.
God Almighty states: You see many of them take the disbelievers (the pagans) for friends. Indeed, evil is what they have sent ahead for themselves, for Allah is angry with them, and they are to remain in torment for ever. If they believed in Allah, in the prophet, and in what had been sent down to him, they would have not taken them (the pagans) for friends, but many of them are sinners.”  Al-Maa’idah: 80-81.
Suleiman ibn Abdullah Aal Ash-Sheikh said, “The Almighty mentioned that alliance with the disbelievers is contrary to belief in Allah and the Prophet and what was revealed to him. Then He said that the reason for that was that many of them were sinners (disobedient), and he did not differentiate between those who feared the misfortune befalling on them and those who did not, and this is the state of many of these apostates before their apostasy; many of them are sinners, so this drew them to allying with the disbelievers and apostasy from Islam. We seek refuge in Allah from that.” [600] Ad-Dalail fi Hukm Muwalat Ahl al-Ishrak, p.39.
Assisting the disbelievers against the Muslims is one of the characteristics of the hypocrites, and a branch of hypocrisy, as stated in the Noble Quran:
God Almighty said, “Give the hypocrites the ‘good news’ that for them there is a painful punishment, those who take the disbelievers for friends rather than the believers. Are they seeking honour in their company? But, indeed, all honour belongs to Allah.”  An-Nisaa’: 138-139.
Ibn Katheer said, “It means: the hypocrites are of this quality, they believed and then disbelieved, so their hearts were sealed. Then He described them as taking the unbelievers as friends rather than the believers, meaning that they are with them in reality, befriending them and secretly loving them. And they say to them when they are alone with them: We are with you, we are only mocking, meaning: we are mocking the believers in our showing them agreement.” [601] Tafseer Ibn Katheer, (2/435).
God Almighty said: “Have you not seen those who have friendship with a people with whom Allah is angry. They are neither of you nor of them. They swear false oaths while they know. Allah has prepared a severe punishment for them. Indeed, evil is what they have been doing.” Al-Mujaadalah: 14-15.
Al-Baghawee said, “It was revealed about the hypocrites: they befriended the Jews and advised them and conveyed the secrets of the believers to them.” [602] Tafseer Al-Baghawee, (5/49).
Suleiman ibn Abdullah Aal Ash-Sheikh said, “Know - may Allah have mercy on you - that if a person appears to the polytheists to agree to their religion, out of fear of them and politeness towards them, and flattering them to ward off their evil, then he is an infidel like them, even if he hates their religion and dislikes them and loves Islam and Muslims, this is if nothing else happened from him, so how if he was in a fortified abode, summoned them and entered into their obedience, and showed approval of their false religion, and helped them with aid and money, and he allied with them and severed allegiance between him and the Muslims, and he became among the soldiers of polytheism, domes and their people after being among the soldiers of sincerity and monotheism and its people; this does not make a Muslim doubt that he is a disbeliever among the people in the strongest enmity of Allah and His Messenger ?.” [603] Ad-Dalail fi Hukm Muwalat Ahl al-Ishrak (p.: 29).
Ibn Baaz said: “The scholars of Islam have unanimously agreed that whoever assists the disbelievers against the Muslims and helps them against them with any kind of assistance, then he is an infidel like them.” [604] Fataawaa Ibn Baaz, (1/269).