The Sixth Issue

Some of the notables have argued that takfīr is justified in this case, based on the doctrine of the necessary correlation between outward actions and inner beliefs as established by Ahlus-Sunnah. However, this reasoning is flawed for two reasons: 1. It relies on evidence that does not support the intended conclusion. 2. It uses the very point under dispute as its evidence. To elaborate, it should be stated that the belief of the Ahlus-Sunnah in this context holds that a person’s outward righteousness or corruption is directly proportionately to the righteousness or corruption within their heart. Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allāh have mercy on him, said: «ثم القلب هو الأصل؛ فإذا كان فيه معرفةٌ وإرادة ؛ سرى ذلك إلى البدن بالضرورة، ولا يمكن أن يتخلف عما يريده القلب، ولهذا قال النبي ﷺ في الحديث الصحيح: ((ألا وإن في الجسد مضغة إذا صلحت صلح لها سائر الجسد، وإذا فسدت فسد لها سائر الجسد، ألا القلب)). فإذا كان القلب صالحاً بما فيه من الأعمال علماً وعملاً قلبياً؛ لزم ضرورة صلاح الجسد بالقول الظاهر، والعمل بالإيمان المطلق، كما قال أئمة الحديث: قول وعمل؛ قول باطن وظاهر، وعمل باطن وظاهر؛ والظاهر تابع للباطن، متى صلح الباطن صلح الظاهر، وإذا فسد فسد» "The heart is the foundation; if it possesses knowledge and will, this will inevitably influence the body, which cannot act contrary to the heart's desires. Hence, the Prophet ﷺ said in the authentic hadith: 'Indeed, there is a piece of flesh in the body, if it is sound, the whole body is sound, and if it is corrupt, the whole body is corrupt. Verily, it is the heart.' Thus, if the heart is righteous due to its knowledge and inward deeds, it necessary that the body will be righteous in its outward speech and actions, in accordance with the [level of] Ēmān, as the leading scholars of ḥadīth have stated: Ēmān comprises both words and deeds—inner and outer words, and inner and outer actions. The outward is a reflection of the inward; if the inward is sound, the outward will be sound, and if the inward is corrupt, the outward will be corrupt." [Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā (8/187)] Applying this principle, it becomes clear that anyone who completely alters the Sharī‘ah must have a significant degree of inward corruption equivalent to the outward act of altering the entire Sharī‘ah. However, the point of contention lies in assessing whether this outward corruption, which stems from a similar inward corruption, has reached the level of major disbelief (kufr akbar) that warrants takfīr—or not? Answering this question requires examining other legal evidence that judges this outward action, as it is not directly related to the principle of correlation between outward and inward. An opponent might argue that the level of corruption in this case amounts to major disbelief. To this, one would respond by asking for evidence that this level of corruption has indeed led to major disbelief. If they rely on the doctrine of correlation, they are using the point of dispute as evidence and citing something that does not support their conclusion. Therefore, they must provide alternative evidence, which is the real issue at hand. The doctrine of correlation can be further clarified with the following example: If we consider a highway robber, we would find that his engagement in such a sin indicates a flaw in his Ēmān, and this flaw worsens as the magnitude of the sin increases. However, to determine whether this flaw expels him from the fold of Islam, we must examine the legal evidence regarding the sin of highway robbery. Upon review, we find that the evidence indicates a deficiency in Ēmān, not its total absence, so why would we declare him a disbeliever? The matter becomes even clearer with the following example: Ahlus-Sunnah unanimously agree NOT to declare takfīr on an adulterer, even if they commit adultery a thousand times!