Guidelines regarding the kind of misinterpretation that does not constitute kufr on the part of the one who follows that misinterpretation, and some other comments on this issue
Question

                On your website you have discussed very well in detail, in several fatwas, the issue of excusing the one who follows mistaken notions on the basis of ignorance and how to establish proof with regard to this matter (so that he has no excuse to keep following that mistaken notion). But I did not find any clear guidelines on this site with regard to how we should approach the issue of one who bases his view on a misinterpretation. I have read about this matter but I found some contradictions when applying what I have read by some scholars who discuss the right approach. For example, some scholars say that if their misinterpretation of a text is a valid interpretation from a linguistic point of view, then we may excuse them on that basis, but if it is not valid from a linguistic point of view, then we cannot excuse them and we should regard them as kaafirs. But when it comes to the application of this guideline to the Ash‘aris, who interpret the idea of istiwa’ (Allah’s rising above the Throne) as meaning that He “gained control”, you find that when refuting them, they say: this is something for which there is no linguistic basis, yet despite that they do not regard as kuffaar those who deny the idea of Allah being Most High, even though Shaykh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyah) narrated from Abu Haneefah the view that the one who denies the idea of Allah being Most High is a kaafir. We would like some clarification with regard to the scholars judging many sects, such as the Jahamis and Qadaris, as kaafirs. Is it proven from any of the scholars that he regarded the Ash‘aris as kaafirs?
Praise be to Allah.
		This issue is very important, and we will discuss it in 
		the following points: 

	-1-

	There is no difference between excusing a person for forming 
	a mistaken idea on the basis of a misinterpretation and excusing him for his 
	ignorance of the religion; in fact the one who bases his mistaken idea on 
	misinterpretation is more deserving of being excused than one who is 
	ignorant, because he is not ignorant of what he has to believe; rather he 
	believes that it (whatever he believes) is true, and he quotes evidence for 
	it and defends it. It makes no difference whether the matter in question, 
	for which the one who bases his idea on a misinterpretation, is a practical 
	matter or a theoretical matter. 

	Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) 
	said: The one who bases his idea on a misinterpretation, if his intention is 
	to follow the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), he is 
	not to be regarded as a kaafir or as an evildoer, if he tried to work it out 
	but got it wrong. This is something that is well established among people 
	with regard to practical matters. With regard to matters of belief, many 
	people regard as a kaafir the one who has mistaken notions concerning them, 
	but this view is not known from any of the Sahaabah or those who followed 
	them in truth, or from any of the leading scholars of the Muslims. Rather 
	this was originally one of the views of the innovators.

	End quote from Minhaaj as-Sunnah (5/239) 

	-2-

	This does not mean that they do not deserve the hadd 
	punishment, as Qudaamah ibn Maz‘oon was given the hadd punishment with 
	regard to his view which was based on his misinterpretation concerning the 
	drinking of alcohol – and it does not mean that they do not deserve 
	punishment and blame, or even that their ideas do not deserve to be 
	described as misguidance or disbelief, as we shall see in detail below. In 
	fact the matter may reach the level of fighting them, because the aim behind 
	that is to put people off this innovation and to protect the religion of 
	Islam. 

	Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) 
	said: What I have mentioned – about a Muslim who forsakes some obligatory 
	duty or does some prohibited action on the basis of misinterpretation and 
	wrong conclusions, or as a result of following the view of others – is clear 
	in my mind. Such a person is in a better position, with regard to his view, 
	than the disbeliever who bases his disbelief on misinterpretation and wrong 
	notions. But that does not rule out fighting the one who transgresses 
	(against the Muslims) and holds views based on misinterpretation, or 
	flogging the one who drinks alcohol and believes it to be permissible on the 
	basis of misinterpretation, and the like, for misinterpretation does not 
	waive punishment in this world in all cases, for the aim of the punishment 
	is to ward off the harm that may be caused by the action of the 
	transgressor. 

	End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (22/14) 

	And he (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

	With regard to the one who openly displays that which may be 
	harmful (of actions or beliefs), his harm must be warded off even if that is 
	by means of punishing him, and whether he is a Muslim who is an evildoer or 
	sinner, or a man of good character who tried to work it out but got it 
	wrong, and indeed even if he is a righteous man or a scholar, whether he is 
	one over whom we have power or otherwise (we should still try to ward off 
	his harm)… Similarly, whoever promotes bid‘ah that may harm people with 
	regard to their religious wellbeing should be punished even though he may be 
	excused for having tried to work it out (but got it wrong) or for having 
	followed the view of someone else. 

	End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (10/375) 

	-3-

	Not every alternative interpretation is justifiable or 
	excusable according to sharee‘ah. No alternative interpretation is 
	acceptable with regard to the twin testimony of faith, the Oneness of Allah, 
	may He be exalted, the affirmation of the message of the Prophet (blessings 
	and peace of Allah be upon him), the resurrection, or Paradise and Hell. 
	Calling this  an alternative interpretation in the first place is not 
	acceptable; rather this is a baatini and heretical approach that leads to 
	invalidation of religion. 

	Abu Haamid al-Ghazaali (may Allah have mercy on him) said: It 
	is essential to point out another principle, which is that if a person holds 
	a view that is contrary to a mutawaatir text and claims that it is just an 
	alternative interpretation, but his view that is based on misinterpretation 
	is far removed from the linguistic meaning, and is not close at all, rather 
	it is very far-fetched, this is tantamount to kufr and the one who holds 
	that view is a liar, even if he claims to base his view on his own 
	interpretation. An example of that is what I have read in the words of some 
	of the Baatinis, that Allah, may He be exalted, is One in the sense that He 
	grants and creates oneness, and He is All-Knowing in the sense that He 
	grants knowledge to others and creates it, and He exists in the sense that 
	He brings others into existence. But as for Him being One in Himself, or 
	existing or being All-Knowing in the sense that this is His own attribute, 
	that is not correct according to their view. This is blatant kufr, because 
	interpreting oneness as creating oneness cannot be an alternative 
	interpretation at all, and it has no basis in the Arabic language, and it is 
	not possible to interpret it in this way at all. These are all examples of 
	words of disbelief described as alternative interpretations.

	End quote from Faysal at-Tafriqah (p. 66, 67). 

	Ibn al-Wazeer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Similarly, 
	there is no difference of opinion regarding the kufr of one who rejects that 
	which is well-known and well-established to all, and tries to conceal it 
	with the excuse of giving his own interpretation with regard to something 
	that cannot be interpreted in any way other than its apparent meaning, such 
	as the heretics in their misinterpretation of all the divine names, and even 
	of the entire Qur’an and all the rulings of Islam, and matters of the 
	hereafter such as the resurrection and Paradise and Hell.

	End quote from Eethaar al-Haqq ‘ala al-Khalq (p. 377) 

	-4-

	The kind of interpretation that may be valid is that which 
	does not lead to undermining the religion of Islam, is acceptable on a 
	linguistic basis according to the rules of the Arabic language, and the one 
	who holds this view sincerely intends to seek the truth in accordance with 
	the principles of knowledge. Such people have a valid excuse if their 
	interpretation turns out to be wrong. This is the very excuse which the 
	scholars mentioned with regard to the reasons why scholars may have 
	different views on practical matters. 

	Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) said: This is 
	how we should examine people’s statements in cases where the one who holds 
	such a view becomes a kaafir. The texts that could help a person to reach 
	the right conclusion may not have reached a scholar; or he may have been 
	aware of them but they were not proven to him to be sound or he was not able 
	to understand them; or he may have developed some misunderstanding because 
	of which Allah may excuse him. Whoever among the believers strives his 
	utmost to seek the truth, but then reaches a wrong conclusion, Allah will 
	forgive his mistake, no matter what it is, whether it has to do with 
	theoretical or practical issues. This is the view of the Companions of the 
	Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and the majority of the 
	leading scholars of Islam.

	End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (23/346). 

	Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The 
	scholars said: Anyone who reaches a wrong conclusion but may be excused for 
	his misinterpretation is not a sinner, provided that his interpretation may 
	be valid from a linguistic point of view and that he has some measure of 
	knowledge.

	End quote from Fath al-Baari (12/304) 

	-5-

	There is a saheeh hadith which indicates that if a person has 
	a wrong view on ‘aqeedah (beliefs) that is based on misinterpretation, if 
	this misinterpretation will not lead to making religion appear meaningless, 
	then he is not a kaafir. That is the hadith in which the Prophet (blessings 
	and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The Jews split into seventy-one 
	sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians 
	split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one 
	in Paradise.  My ummah will split into seventy-three sects, one of which 
	will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.” It was said: O Messenger of 
	Allah, who are they? He said: “The jamaa‘ah (the main body of the Muslims).” 
	Narrated by Ibn Maajah (3992); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani. 

	Abu Sulaymaan al-Khattaabi (may Allah have mercy on him) 
	said:  The words “My ummah will split into seventy-three sects” indicates 
	that all these sects are not outside the boundaries of Islam, because the 
	Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) described them all as 
	being part of his ummah. This indicates that the one who holds a view that 
	is based on some interpretation does not go beyond the bounds of Islam, even 
	if he is mistaken in his interpretation.

	End quote from Ma‘aalim as-Sunan by al-Khattaabi 
	(4/295). See also: as-Sunan al-Kubra by al-Bayhaqi (10/208) 

	Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The same 
	applies to all seventy-two sects: whoever among them is a hypocrite is 
	inwardly a disbeliever, and whoever is not a hypocrite – rather he believes 
	in Allah and His Messenger inwardly – is not inwardly a disbeliever, even if 
	he is wrong in some views that are based on misinterpretation, no matter how 
	serious his mistake. 

	Whoever says that each of the seventy-two sects are kuffaar 
	whose kufr puts them beyond the pale of Islam has gone against the Qur’an 
	and Sunnah, and the consensus of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with 
	them), and indeed the consensus of the four imams and others. There is no 
	one among them who ever regarded each of the seventy-two sects as kuffaar; 
	rather those sects may regard one another as kuffaar because of their views 
	and beliefs.

	End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (7/218, 219) 

	-6-

	Those among the scholars who ruled that some of those who 
	follow innovation – that does not constitute disbelief – are kuffaar were 
	referring to kufr of a lesser degree than that which puts one beyond the 
	pale of Islam. 

	Imam al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: What we 
	have narrated from ash-Shaafa‘i and other imams about regarding these 
	innovators as kuffaar only refers to lesser forms of kufr.

	End quote from Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra (10/207). 

	Imam al-Baghawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: ash-Shaafa‘i 
	regarded it as permissible to accept the testimony of innovators and to pray 
	behind them, with no restrictions, even though he regarded that as makrooh. 
	This view of his indicates that if he describes some of them as kaafirs on 
	any occasion, what he meant was lesser kufr, as in the verse in which Allah, 
	may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “And whosoever 
	does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafiroon (i.e. 
	disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah’s Laws)” [al-Maa’idah 
	5:44]. 

	End quote from Sharh as-Sunnah (1/228) 

	Imam ash-Shaafa‘i may have used the word kufr as a means of 
	warning against that belief. 

	Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) 
	said:

	It may be narrated from one of them that he regarded as a 
	kaafir one who held some view, but what he meant was that this view 
	constituted kufr, so as to warn against it; it does not necessarily mean 
	that if a view constitutes kufr, everyone who holds that view as the result 
	of ignorance or misinterpretation of a text is to be regarded as a kaafir. 
	Affirming kufr in the case of a specific individual is like a confirmation 
	that he is deserving of punishment in the Hereafter – and there are specific 
	conditions and impediments with regard to doing that.

	End quote from Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah 
	(5/240) 

	-7-

	With regard to the difference of opinion among the leading 
	scholars concerning the people of bid‘ah who believe in an idea that that 
	constitutes kufr, and whether they are kaafirs or not, that is based on the 
	difference between regarding the view as constituting kufr and regarding a 
	specific individual as a kaafir. They may rule that a particular belief 
	constitutes kufr in itself, but they do not apply the ruling of kufr to any 
	specific individual who believes in that view, unless the conditions are met 
	and the impediments are absent. 

	Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) 
	said: 

	But what we are trying to say here is that the leading 
	scholars’ views on takfeer (judging someone to be a kaafir) are based on 
	their differentiation between the idea and the individual who holds this 
	view. Hence some of them narrated that there was some dispute concerning 
	this matter, but these people did not properly understand what they said. 
	Some narrated two reports from Ahmad concerning the issue of regarding the 
	people of bid‘ah as kuffaar in all cases, to the point that it seems that 
	there was a conflict between these reports as to whether the Murji’ah and 
	the Shi‘ah who give precedence to ‘Ali are to be regarded as kuffaar. 
	Perhaps this group (who narrated the two reports) thought that that they 
	should be regarded as kuffaar who will abide forever in Hell, but this is 
	not the view of Ahmad or any of the other leading scholars of Islam. Rather 
	his view is definitely that he did not regard as kuffaar the Murji’ah who 
	say that faith is words to be uttered and is not connected to deeds, and he 
	did not regard as kuffaar those who gave precedence to ‘Ali over ‘Uthmaan. 
	Rather his statements clearly indicate that we should refrain from regarding 
	the Khaarijis, Qadaris and others as kuffaar; and he only regarded as 
	kuffaar the Jahamis who denied the names and attributes of Allah, because 
	their views are clearly and obviously contrary to that which was brought by 
	the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and because the 
	reality of their view is that it leads to denying the Creator. He had dealt 
	with them and he knew about their reality and that their views boiled down 
	to denial of the Creator. Moreover, regarding the Jahamis as kuffaar was 
	something that was well established and was narrated from the early 
	generations and the leading scholars, but he did not regard specific 
	individuals among them as kaafirs, because the one who promotes a view is 
	worse than one who merely holds that view, and the innovator who persecutes 
	the one who disagrees with him is worse than one who merely calls to it, and 
	the one who describes anyone who disagrees with him as a kaafir is worse 
	than the one who merely persecutes him. Furthermore, those who were in 
	authority (at the time of Ahmad) held Jahami views, that the Qur’an was 
	created, and that Allah would not be seen in the Hereafter, and so on, and 
	they called people to that, and tried them and punished them if they did not 
	agree with them, and they regarded as kaafirs all those who did not agree 
	with them, to the extent that if they arrested someone they would not let 
	him go until he accepted the Jahami view that the Qur’an was created, and so 
	on. They would not appoint anyone to a position of authority or give any 
	stipend from the bayt al-maal to anyone, unless he held those views. Yet 
	despite that, Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) would pray for mercy 
	for them, and pray for forgiveness for them, because he knew that it was not 
	clear to them that they were disbelieving in the Messenger (blessings and 
	peace of Allah be upon him) and rejecting what he had brought; rather they 
	based their views on the interpretation of some text, but they got it wrong 
	and followed those who taught them that. 

	Similarly, when Hafs al-Fard said that the Qur’an was 
	created,  ash-Shaafa‘i said to him: You have disbelieved in Allah the 
	Almighty, and he explained to him that this view constituted kufr. But he 
	did not rule that Hafs had apostatised just because he held that view, 
	because proof had not yet been established to him such that he might be 
	regarded as a kaafir if he rejected it. If ash-Shaafa‘i had believed that he 
	was an apostate, he would have tried to get him executed. And he clearly 
	stated in his books that testimony may be accepted from those who follow 
	bid‘ah, and prayers may be offered behind them.

	End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (23/348, 349) 

	-8-

	With regard to the views of Ash‘aris in particular, there can 
	be no doubt that they have some wrong notions in their beliefs that are 
	contrary to the beliefs of the early generations, and they have prominent 
	figures among the scholars to whom they refer and whom they follow, but they 
	are not all of the same level with regard to beliefs; rather there are 
	different schools of thought among them. The nearest of them to the three 
	best generations are the closest of them to the truth. By applying the 
	argument mentioned above (about differentiating between ideas and 
	individuals) to the Ash‘aris, we may realise that any of the scholars who 
	regarded some of what they say as kufr was only referring to elements of 
	kufr in their ideas, and it does not mean that he ruled that they themselves 
	as individuals became kaafirs because of that, or that he meant anyone who 
	holds this view is a kaafir. What he was referring to was a kind of lesser 
	kufr. This group is not one of the sects that are beyond the bounds of 
	Islam, and its individuals are not kaafirs. Rather they are to be excused, 
	because they base their ideas on some misinterpretation with regard to what 
	they discussed of issues and beliefs. 

	Shaykh al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said: I do 
	not know of anyone who regards the Ash‘aris as kaafirs.

	End quote from Thamaraat at-Tadween (no. 9) by Dr 
	Ahmad ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan al-Qaadi 

	-9-

	We may sum up the shar‘i ruling on the innovating groups by 
	quoting what Shaykh ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan as-Sa‘di (may Allah have mercy on him) 
	said in a clear and scholarly comment: 

	Whoever denies that which the Messenger (blessings and peace 
	of Allah be upon him) brought, or denies some of it, without basing that on 
	some misinterpretation of a text by the people of bid‘ah, is a kaafir, 
	because he has disbelieved Allah and His Messenger, and is too arrogant and 
	stubborn to accept the truth. 

	(a)
	With regard to the innovator among the Jahamis, Qadaris, 
	Khaarijis, Raafidis and their ilk, if he knows that his innovation is 
	contrary to the Qur’an and Sunnah, yet he persists in it and supports it, 
	then he is a disbeliever in Allah the Almighty, and is opposing Allah and 
	His Messenger after true guidance has become clear to him.

	(b)
	If a person among the innovators believes in Allah and 
	His Messenger both outwardly and inwardly, and he venerates Allah and His 
	Messenger, and adheres to that which was brought by the Messenger, 
	(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), but he develops a notion or 
	practice that is contrary to the truth, and gets it wrong in some of his 
	conclusions, and is wrong in some of his interpretations, without 
	disbelieving or rejecting the guidance that is clear to him, then he is not 
	a kaafir, but he is an evildoer and an innovator, or he is a misguided 
	innovator, or he may be pardoned because the issue was too subtle for him 
	and he put effort into finding out what was correct, but he did not succeed.

	Hence the Khaarijis, Mu‘tazilah, Qadaris and other followers 
	of bid‘ah are regarded as being of different categories: 

	(a)
	Some of them are undoubtedly kaafirs, such as the extreme 
	Jahamis who denied the divine names and attributes, although they realised 
	that their innovation was contrary to that which had been brought by the 
	Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Such people knowingly 
	disbelieved the Messenger.

	(b)
	Some of them are misguided innovators and evildoers, such 
	as the Khaarijis who based their wrong views on misinterpretation, and the 
	Mu‘tazilah who do not disbelieve in the Messenger, but they were misguided 
	because of their innovation, and thought that what they were following was 
	the truth. Hence the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) were 
	unanimously agreed that the Khaarijis were innovators and rebels, as was 
	narrated in the saheeh hadiths that speak of them. But they were also 
	unanimously agreed that they were not beyond the bounds of Islam, even 
	though they regarded it as permissible to shed the blood of the Muslims, and 
	they denied that intercession may be granted for those who commit major 
	sins, and they denied many other fundamentals of the religion. But because 
	they based their views on their misinterpretation of some text, they cannot 
	be regarded as kaafirs.

	(c)
	Some of the innovators held ideas that were less serious 
	than this, such as many of the Qadaris, and the Kilaabis and Ash‘aris. These 
	people are innovators who are misguided with regard to some fundamental 
	issues, in which they developed views that were contrary to the Qur’an and 
	Sunnah. This is something that is well known and well established. Their 
	innovation is of different levels, according to how far away from or close 
	to the truth they are, and according to their transgressions against the 
	followers of truth by labelling them as kuffaar, evildoers or innovators, 
	and according to their ability to reach the right conclusion and their 
	efforts to do so or otherwise. A detailed discussion of this matter would 
	take too long.

	End quote from Tawdeeh al-Kaafiyah ash-Shaafiyah 
	(156-158) 

	We hope that what we have mentioned above has clarified the 
	matter for you. We ask Allah to help us and you to attain beneficial 
	knowledge and do righteous deeds. 

	And Allah knows best.