السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

May Allāh preserve you, Sheikh. I recall asking you previously about the third nullifier: "Whoever does not declare a Mushrik a Kafir, or doubts their Kufr, or validates their beliefs, is considered a Kafir by concensus." I asked you specifically about Muhammad Al-Imam, given that he does not declare the Hoothees as disbelievers, nor does he deem their blood, honour, or wealth permissible. Doesn't this nullifier apply to him? You mentioned that it does not apply to him, as he was acting based on ta’wil, or because this principle pertains only to those whose Kufr is unequivocally established without doubt or compulsion. I hope you can remind me of your response, as I benefitted greatly from it, and Allāh is the one from whom aid is sought. The reason for my question is that I was speaking with a brother who asked me: "Why do you not declare Muhammad Al-Imam a Kafir if you believe this action (endorsing the agreement with the Hoothees) constitutes Kufr?" I replied based on what I had heard from Sheikh Abdul Hamid—that we do not declare him a disbeliever because his ta’wil serves as an excuse for him. (https://t.me/abdulhamid12/1364) The brother then said: "If you excuse him based on ta’wil in the matter of takfir, then why do you not apply ta’wil as an excuse in the matter of tabdi’?" I responded that he has other significant errors besides this issue, which led the scholars to declare him an innovator. However, my question is: if ta’wil prevents takfir, can it also prevent tabdi‘ in the same issue? May Allāh reward you greatly. Sheikh Salmān Al-Imād ḥafidhahullāh: May Allāh bless and preserve you, Abu Ishaq. Yes, I recall our discussion on this matter. I clarified to you that the principle, "Whoever does not declare kuffār as such or doubts their kufr, or considers their views valid, is considered a kafir by concensus" is not applied unconditionally. Scholars have established certain criteria and conditions for its application, including that it pertains to the original Kafir whose Kufr is clear and evident without dispute. We also discussed that the reason Muhammad Al-Imam was excused in this matter is due to ta'wil, which, by consensus, is one of the preventatives of declaring someone a kafir. This point was affirmed by Sheik Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him. We have elaborated on this topic in a section of our treatise "The Definitive Statement on the Excuse of Ignorance: The Issue of Declaring Disbelief, Its Criteria, and Preventatives." (https://t.me/salmansalehalemad/2248) Now, regarding the objection that was raised, namely that if we say someone is excused due to ta'wil, then we are compelled to also apply this as an excuse in the affair of tabdi'. The response to this comes in two parts, which we will address, Insha’Allah, in the next audio clip. The first point is that not all the criteria and preventatives for takfīr apply to tabdi‘. This is because the implications of takfir are broader and more severe, carrying numerous legal consequences, such as the annulment of marriage contracts, the prohibition of inheritance, the invalidity of Islamic burial rites, and the denial of inheritance rights for both parties, among other implications. For this reason, scholars have emphasised greater caution and strictness in issuing a ruling of takfir compared to tabdi‘. This is a principle established by the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them. Therefore, it is important to note that not all the criteria or preventatives of takfir are applicable to tabdi‘ or tafsīq. Another point, may Allāh preserve you, is that this question arises only if we restrict Muhammad imam's errors and the reasons for declaring him an innovator to the issue of the Rafidah or the treaty in question. In that case, we would need to address it directly. However, since the Muhammad Al-Imām has committed other significant errors—each sufficient on its own to justify the ruling, let alone when combined—he is rightly judged as an innovator.