BENEFIT 262: A person may be criticised or considered misguided NOT for holding a scholarly view, but by exhibiting extremism towards opposing views.

Sheikh Rashād Adh-Dhali'ee: A brother asks, "If someone does not excuse grave-worshippers before the evidence is established upon them, are they considered 'takfeeri'?" No, this is not the case, as some great scholars hold this view through careful study, believing it to be the position that draws them closer to Allāh. Thus, the assertion that whoever holds the view that an ignorant grave-worshipper or someone engaging in shirk is not excused is a takfiri is incorrect. Ahlus-Sunnah do not hold such a view, nor do they believe this. Rather, scholars have differed on this matter: some say that an ignorant person committing shirk is not excused and is rightfully considered a "mushrik," while others argue that such a person is indeed excused due to their ignorance. Therefore, labeling anyone who holds this view as a takfiri is erroneous. The questioner continues: "If you call Mustafa Al-Habashi a takfiri, then one must say the same about Sheikh Al-Fawzan, Sheikh Ibn Baz, and Ar-Rajhi, as their views align." This is incorrect; he neither adopted their view nor their approach. Sheikh Ibn Baz, may Allāh have mercy on him, often did not excuse based on ignorance, though he did hold, in some cases, that an ignorant person could be excused. Generally, however, he did not excuse shirk based on ignorance. His companion in calling others to Islam, Imam Al-Albani—one of the most prominent and outspoken figures who advocated that the ignorant are excused—regularly affirmed this stance. Similarly, Sheikh Ibn Baz served as the head of the Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Ifta, where his deputy in this critical position, Sheikh Abdur-Razzaq Afeefi, may Allāh have mercy on him, disagreed with him in this matter, holding that the ignorant person is indeed excused. So does Mustafa Al-Habashi agree with these scholars, or does he condemn those who differ with him as being murji'ah and innovators?! One would be hard-pressed to find a single instance where Sheikh Ibn Baz, may Allāh have mercy on him, accused scholars who disagreed with him on this issue of irjaa' and innovation. Rather, he praised them throughout his life, even until his death, while Sheikh Abdur-Razzaq Afeefi remained his deputy on this critical committee. We have never objected to those who hold that an ignorant person committing shirk is not excused and thus considered a mushrik. We have instead acknowledged that this is a view held by respected scholars. What we object to is the extremism of figures like Al-Hazimi, Al-Jarboo', and their blind follower Mustafa Al-Habashi, who exaggerate and accuse others of irjaa' and innovation. Their approach is entirely different from that of Sheikh Ibn Baz, Sheikh Ar-Rajhi, and Sheikh Al-Fawzan. Sheikh Ar-Rajhi himself, may Allāh have mercy on him, has issued well-known rulings that denounce accusing those who excuse the ignorant of irjaa', and he opposes those who refuse to pray behind such people, stating, "This is not how rulings are issued," or something to that effect. To claim, therefore, that these extremists share the same path as these scholars is inaccurate. They have, in fact, deviated from the scholars' way. Had they followed the path of Ibn Baz, Al-Fawzan, and Ar-Rajhi, who all held this opinion, no one would have objected to them. However, they have instead adopted the methods of extremists like Al-Hazimi, who propagated such ideas among many young people, and others like AbdurRahman Al-Hijji, whose tapes spread this ideology among Ahlus-Sunnah and subsequently led them to these extremist views. Figures like Al-Jarboo' have gone so far as to accuse Salafis of being "fools" and followers of "Dawud ibn Al-Jirjees," a known promoter of shirk. Likewise, Al-Hazimi labels many Salafis as heretics (zanadiqah), claiming that Jahm ibn Safwan is better than them. The likes of such statements are numerous.