Kufr Dūna Kufr
Ahl al-Sunnah's tafsīr for the Āyah of al-Māʾidah
(Disclaimer: I am well aware that this is not the only Āyah the Khawārij use as proof for their takfīr, and I went into the correct tafsīr of the other Āyāt as well as other arguments of the Khawārij in this article, but I believe this Āyah deserved a separate article)
Allāh said: {It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muḥammad], the Book; in it are Āyāt [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is ambiguous, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allāh. But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding}
It has become a common sight today to see ignorant non-Arab Khārijī teenagers online - who know nothing about neither ʿilm al-ḥadīth nor tafsīr, and likely never read a letter from al-Bayqūniyyah - arguing that the Āyah of al-Māʾidah {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers} should be taken upon what they believe to be the "apparent meaning", intending that anyone who legislates a law that opposes the Sharīʿah is a Kāfir who will burn in hell for eternity, and likewise they hold that anyone who refrains from takfīring such a person is either a Kāfir himself or at the very least a deviant Murjiʾī, who opposes the apparent of the Qurʾān
In this article I aim to clarify the unchanging position of Ahl al-Sunnah throughout the centuries regarding this Āyah and it's tafsīr, as well as the proofs they provided for their views - all from undisputedly authentic narrations - and respond to the idiotic doubts and misunderstandings of the modern-day Khawārij regarding it, and show how they unknowingly ended up holding some exact views of the original Khawārij
First, it is important to show what the tafsīr of the Khawārij for the Āyah is and its flaws
Many of the modern-day Khawārij, in a pathetic attempt to distance themselves from their forefathers - the original Khawārij - claim that the only issue with the original Khawārij was that they used the Āyah as proof for the "takfīr of major sinners", and some of them have enough honesty to admit they used it to takfīr the rulers as well, but they claim their mistake was in applying this ruling to those who rule by other than what Allāh revealed "in specific instances", and that the correct interpretation of the Āyah is that the takfīr only applies to those who completely abolish or alter a ruling from the Sharīʿah
And this is all blatantly false
The original Khawārij were not a monolith, quite the opposite, they split into many different groups who all considered each other deviants, and while it is true that many of them did takfīr all sinners, it is established from many others that they used this Āyah as proof to specifically takfīr over:
- Abandonment (tark) of ruling by what Allāh revealed
- Judges or rulers who rule by other than what Allāh revealed due to things like bribes
- And, to the dismay of the modern Khawārij, it is established from some of them that they specifically quoted this Āyah to takfīr the rulers who entirely abolish or alter the rulings of the Sharīʿah
Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (d. 324 AH) mentioned in Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn (p. 452):
They (the Khawārij) said: The two arbiters are disbelievers, and ʿAlī became a disbeliever when he accepted arbitration. They argued with the saying of Allāh: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers.} And His saying: {Fight the one which rebels until it returns to the command of Allāh.} They said: So Allāh has commanded and judged to fight Ahl al-Baghī (Muslim rebels), yet ʿAlī abandoned fighting them when he accepted arbitration, thus he abandoned the judgement of Allāh, becoming deserving of Kufr due to the saying of Allāh: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers.}
Al-Samʿānī (d. 489 AH) mentioned in his Tafsīr of the Āyah (vol. 2, p. 42) that:
And know that the Khawārij use this Āyah as evidence, saying: Whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed is a Kāfir, and Ahl al-Sunnah say: One is not declared a Kāfir for simply abandoning judgment (tark al-ḥukm)...
And al-Qurṭubī mentioned in his Tafsīr (vol. 7, p. 499) that:
Al-Qushayrī (d. 465 AH) said: The madhhab of the Khawārij is that whoever took a bribe and judged by other than the ruling of Allāh is a Kāfir, and this has also been attributed to al-Ḥasan and al-Suddī
And ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Muʿtazz (d. 296 AH) said in Ṭabaqāt al-Shuʿarāʾ (p. 334):
Reports about Durust al-Muʿallim.
Al-Jāḥiẓ cited his poetry as evidence...
...He held the view of the Khawārij, and believed that the land was a land of Kufr, and he said: They have abolished the rulings and altered them (ʿaṭṭalū al-aḥkām wa-ghayyarūhā). And Allāh has said: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}
And as I've mentioned previously, all of these groups of the Khawārij - old and new - claim that they are merely following the apparent of the Āyah and attack Ahl al-Sunnah arguing they follow the madhhab of the Murjiʾah in excusing clear disbelief with the limbs
So, why are they wrong? Why shouldn't the Āyah be taken upon the apparent meaning? Why do Sunnis re-interpret such a clear Āyah?
First we should establish what is even the "apparent" of this Āyah
Allāh states {And whoever...} - not "and the rulers..." - {does not judge by what Allāh has revealed...} - not "legislate other than what Allāh revealed" or "completely abolish the laws Allāh revealed" - {then those are the disbelievers}
So ironically, the most extreme among the Khawārij who takfīr all sinners have a stronger claim to taking the apparent than these modern Khawārij who think the apparent of this Āyah only applies to rulers who legislate man-made laws, since ANY sinner is, by definition, "not ruling by what Allāh has revealed", and Allāh Himself refers to their sins as judgements in al-ʿAnkabūt {Or do those who do evil deeds think they can outrun [i.e., escape] Us? Evil is what they judge (yaḥkumūn)}
And this is supported by what Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said in al-Tamhīd (vol. 10, p. 390):
And a group from the people of innovation, from the Khawārij and the Muʿtazilah, went astray in this issue. They used these narrations and those similar to them to takfīr sinners. And they used from the Book of Allāh Āyāt that are not upon their apparent meaning, such as His saying: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}...
And even if we were to follow the view of the other Khawārij, and apply this exclusively to judgement on governmental/judicial levels (which already contradicts "the apparent"), this would still not be specific enough, as it necessitates takfīring any judge or ruler who does not judge by what Allāh revealed even in one single instance
And this in turn contradicts multiple authentic ḥadīths from the Prophet, where he refrains from takfīring over exactly that
Such as what al-Bukhārī narrated in his Ṣaḥīḥ (vol. 4, p. 175):
...On the authority of ʿĀʾishah (Raḍī Allāhu ʿAnhā): “The people of Quraysh were deeply concerned about the case of the Makhzūmī woman who had committed theft. They said, ‘Who will speak to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ about her?’ Then they said, ‘No one dares to speak to him except Usāmah ibn Zayd, who is beloved to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ.’ So Usāmah spoke to him. The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: ‘Are you interceding regarding one of the ḥudūd of Allāh?’
Then he stood up and delivered a seramon and said: ‘Those before you were destroyed because when a noble person among them stole, they left him alone, but when a weak person stole, they carried out the punishment on him. By Allāh, if Fāṭimah the daughter of Muḥammad were to steal, I would cut off her hand.’”
Notice how the Prophet condemned but did not takfīr Usāmah for asking him to not apply the punishment of stealing, which is under every possible definition asking him to "not rule by what Allāh revealed"
And it also contradicts what Muslim narrated in his Ṣaḥīḥ (vol. 6, p. 19):
...On the authority of Salamah ibn Yazīd al-Juʿfī that he asked the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ: “O Prophet of Allāh, what do you say if rulers are placed over us, they ask us for their right, yet they prevent us from our right, what do you command us?”
He turned away from him, then he asked him again, and he turned away, then he asked him the second or the third time, so al-Ashʿath ibn Qays pulled him and said: “Listen and obey, for upon them is what they carry, and upon you is what you carry.”
And (vol. 6, p. 20):
...On the authority of Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān that he said: I said: “O Messenger of Allāh, we were in evil, then Allāh brought good, and we are in it, so will there be evil after this good?” He said: “Yes.” I said: “Will there be good after that evil?” He said: “Yes.” I said: “Then will there be evil after that good?” He said: “Yes.” I said: “How?” He said: “There will be after me leaders who do not follow my guidance, nor follow my Sunnah, and men will stand among them whose hearts are the hearts of devils in human bodies.” I said: “What should I do, O Messenger of Allāh, if I reach that time?” He said: “Listen and obey the ruler, even if he strikes your back and takes your wealth; listen and obey.”
All of these ḥadīths should suffice in demolishing the Khawārij's claim that this Āyah must be taken upon what they hold to be the "apparent meaning", as taking it upon that meaning would imply that Allāh and the Prophet contradicted each other
And not only that, their view also goes against the ʾIjmāʿ of Ahl al-Sunnah that oppression in judgement is a major sin and not Kufr, as al-Samʿānī mentioned previously, and as Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said in al-Istidhkār (vol. 8, p. 567):
The Muslim scholars have unanimously agreed that injustice in judgement is among the major sins (al-Kabāʾir), because of the threat mentioned concerning it. Allāh said: {And as for the qāsiṭūn — they will be firewood for Hell}. And al-qāsit means the unjust one, whereas al-muqsiṭ is the just one. And Allāh said: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}, meaning the People of the Book. Then He said: {…then they are the defiantly disobedient} and {…then they are the wrongdoers}
So all claims of taking the "apparent" of the Āyah lead to rejecting several authentic ḥadīths from the Prophet, as well as the ʾIjmāʿ of Ahl al-Sunnah, and so, consistent with the Sunnī principle, the Āyah is taken on another meaning, as al-Shāfiʿī said in al-Risālah (p. 580):
...And the Qurʾān is on its apparent meaning until evidence comes from it, or the Sunnah, or ʾIjmāʿ that it is on a hidden (meaning) rather than apparent
So now that we know what the tafsīr of the Khawārij is and why it is invalid, it's time to cover the true Sunnī position:
Ahl al-Sunnah have provided multiple different tafsīrs for this Āyah, all of which ultimately reach the same conclusion that the mere act of ruling by other than what Allāh revealed does not necessitate Kufr that takes one out of Islām as al-Samʿānī and many others mentioned
So, the two most common interpretations of Ahl al-Sunnah for the Āyah are:
- The Āyah was revealed about a group from Ahl al-Kitāb and is specific to them, and they were declared disbelievers for denying and refusing to accept what Allāh revealed with their hearts and tongues, not just for the action of ruling itself
- The Āyah applies to all of mankind, Muslims and non-Muslims, but the Kufr mentioned is a form of Kufr that does not take one out of the fold of Islām, or what is commonly referred to as Kufr Dūna Kufr
And both of these views are based on authentic ḥadīths of the Prophet, reports from the Saḥāba, and they were held by some of the biggest scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah
As for the first view, it is backed by the Āyah's context itself, as Allāh says:
{O Messenger, let them not grieve you who hasten into disbelief – of those who say, "We believe" with their mouths, but their hearts believe not, and from among the Jews. [They are] avid listeners to falsehood, listening to another people who have not come to you. They distort words beyond their [proper] places [i.e., usages], saying, "If you are given this, take it; but if you are not given it, then beware." But he for whom Allāh intends fitnah - never will you possess [power to do] for him a thing against Allāh. Those are the ones for whom Allāh does not intend to purify their hearts. For them in this world is disgrace, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.
[They are] avid listeners to falsehood, devourers of [what is] unlawful. So if they come to you, [O Muḥammad], judge between them or turn away from them. And if you turn away from them - never will they harm you at all. And if you judge, judge between them with justice. Indeed, Allāh loves those who act justly.
But how is it that they come to you for judgement while they have the Torah, in which is the judgement of Allāh? Then they turn away, [even] after that; but those are not [in fact] believers.
Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allāh] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allāh, and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My Āyāt for a small price [i.e., worldly gain]. And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.}
So these Āyāt were revealed about those who {...their hearts believe not...} and {...distort words beyond their [proper] places...} and were warned to {...not exchange My Āyāt for a small price...}
And this is all a condemnation and warning to those who alter Allāh's religion, rulings and scripture with their tongues for a small price, by denying what He sent down or attributing falsehood to Him, and this description can be found elsewhere in the Qurʾān, such as when Allāh says: {Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, then say: ‘This is from Allāh’} and {there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues...}
And it is further backed by the famous ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib which can be found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (vol. 5, p. 122) and elsewhere:
...Al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib said: “A Jew who had been blackened and flogged was brought past the Prophet ﷺ, so he called them and said: ‘Do you find this as the punishment for one who fornicates in your Book?’ They said: ‘Yes!’ So he summoned one of their scholars and said: ‘I adjure you by Allāh who revealed the Torah upon Mūsā, do you find this as the punishment for fornication in your Book?’ He said: ‘No, and were it not that you adjured me with this, I would not have told you. We find its punishment in our Book to be stoning, but it became frequent among our nobles, so when we seized the noble we would leave him, and when we seized the lowly we would establish the punishment upon him. So we said: come, let us agree on something we can apply to both noble and lowly, and so we agreed on blackening with soot and flogging instead of stoning.’ Then the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: ‘O Allāh, I am the first to revive Your command after they caused it to die!’ So he ordered that he be stoned, and then Allāh revealed: {O Messenger, let not those who hasten into disbelief grieve you…} up to His saying: {If you are given this, take it} meaning: go to Muḥammad, if he commands you with darkening the face and flogging, then take it, but if he gives you a fatwā of stoning, then beware. So Allāh revealed {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh revealed then those are the disbelievers} {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh revealed then those are the wrongdoers (ẓālimūn)} {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh revealed then those are the defiantly disobedient (fāsiqūn)} all of these were revealed regarding the disbelievers
And the main point to be taken here is that the Āyah was clearly revealed about a specific group who were already not Muslims to begin with, and denied with their tongues the correct ruling Allāh revealed in the Torah (stoning) and instead claimed that the ruling in the Torah is blackening the face and flogging
So the attribute of those whom the Āyah was revealed about is that of people who do not rule by what Allāh revealed through denial and attribution of lies to Him, and according to the Mufassirīn who took this view, this indicates that the intended meaning of the Āyah is that anyone who doesn't rule by what Allāh revealed in the same manner (rejecting and denying what Allāh revealed with their tongues), then those are the disbelievers
Among the scholars who took this view, or understood it to be the view of other scholars are:
Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī in his Tafsīr (vol. 10, p. 345):
The statement regarding the interpretation of His, Exalted is His Mention, saying: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}:
Abū Jaʿfar said: Allāh, Exalted is His Mention, says: Whoever conceals the ruling of Allāh which He revealed in His Book, and which He made a judgment among His slaves, then hides it and rules by something else like the ruling of the Jews concerning the married adulterers by blackening the face and public humiliation, and their concealment of [the ruling of] stoning, or like their judgment in cases of murder among them - paying a full blood-money in some cases and a half in others, retaliation for nobles, and blood-money for the commoners - even though Allāh had made them equal in His judgment in the Torah - {...then those are the disbelievers} meaning: those who did not judge by what Allāh revealed in His Book, but rather altered and changed His ruling, and concealed the truth that He revealed in His Book - they are the disbelievers, meaning: they are the ones who concealed the truth which they were obliged to disclose and clarify, and they covered it up from the people and displayed something else instead, and they judged with it due to the bribes they received from them.
And the people of interpretation differed regarding the meaning of ‘disbelief’ (kufr) in this Āyah.
Some of them said the same as we have said regarding it, that it refers to the Jews who distorted the Book of Allāh and changed His ruling.
Among those who said this:
[He narrates the same ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ, alongside multiple other narrations mentioning that this Āyah was revealed about the Kuffār]
...Al-Muthannā narrated to me, he said: Isḥāq narrated to us, he said: Muḥammad ibn al-Qāsim narrated to us, he said: Abū Ḥayyān narrated to us, from Abū Ṣāliḥ, who said: The three Āyāt that are in Sūrat al-Mā’idah: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}, {… then those are the wrongdoers}, {… then those are the defiantly disobedient} the people of Islām have nothing to do with them, they are concerning the Kuffār
...
...Yūnus ibn ʿAbd al-Aʿlā narrated to me, he said: Ibn Wahb told us, he said: Ibn Zayd said regarding His saying: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}: Whoever judged with a book he wrote with his own hand, and left the Book of Allāh, and claimed that this book is from Allāh, then he has disbelieved
[He proceeds to mention several more views, then concludes:]
...The view I hold most correct is the one that says: These Āyāt were revealed regarding the disbelievers from the People of the Book (the view mentioned above), because what comes before and after these Āyāt is about them, and they are the ones intended by it. And for the Āyāt to be part of the same discourse about them is more appropriate.
So if someone says: But Allāh has generalized the statement about everyone who does not judge by what Allāh revealed, so how can you make it specific?
It is said: Allāh indeed generalized the statement about a people who denied (made juḥūd of) Allāh’s judgment that He decreed in His Book. So He informed [us] about them, that because they abandoned the judgment in the manner they did, they are disbelievers. And likewise is the case for anyone who does not judge by what Allāh revealed, out of denial of it, he is a disbeliever in Allāh, as Ibn ʿAbbās said, because by denying the judgment of Allāh after knowing that He revealed it in His Book, it is like denying the prophethood of His Prophet after knowing that he is a prophet
Al-Ṭabarī mentioned many narrations regarding this Āyah, but I decided to highlight two in particular as they make his point incredibly clear
The first from Abū Ṣāliḥ, who explicitly stated that the people of Islām have nothing to do with the Āyah or the following Āyāt, because they were revealed concerning a group of Kuffār
And the second from Ibn Zayd, who is clear that one only disbelieves once he abandons ruling by what Allāh revealed in the same manner as the people in the Āyah did, by denying the judgement of Allāh and attributing man-made rulings to him, as he restricts the takfīr to the one who "...claimed that this book is from Allāh"
And Ṭabarī makes it clear that he agrees with this view and that he believes it was revealed specifically about the Kuffār, and even responds to the objection that the wording of the Āyah is general, by bringing up the same point I mentioned earlier, that it was revealed regarding those who denied and attempted to conceal Allāh's judgement with their tongues as in the ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ
And Abū Jaʿfar al-Naḥḥās said in Maʿānī al-Qurʾān (vol. 2, p. 315):
His saying, Exalted is He: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh revealed then those are the disbelievers} Ibn ʿAbbās said: ‘It is a kufr by it, not kufr in Allāh and His Angels and His Books.’ And al-Shaʿbī said: ‘The first (āyah) is in the Muslims, the second in the Jews, the third in the Christians.’ And others said: ‘Whoever denies a ruling from the rulings of Allāh has indeed disbelieved.’ I (al-Naḥḥās) say: the fuqahāʾ have unanimously agreed that whoever says that stoning is not obligatory upon the muḥṣan who fornicates, then he is a kāfir, for he has denied a ruling from the rulings of Allāh
Al-Naḥḥās also said in al-Nāsikh wal-Mansūkh (p. 400):
[He narrates the same hadith of al-Barāʾ about the Jew who was blackened and flogged, clarifying that the āyah {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh revealed…} was revealed concerning the group who denied the existence of stoning in their book, and that the Prophet ﷺ judged between them and ordered stoning.]
[He then says]: …Whoever rules by other than what Allāh revealed, denying it as those Jews denied it (meaning he denies it is from Allāh), then he is a kāfir, ẓālim, fāsiq.
Al-Naḥḥās also said in Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān (vol. 1, p. 269):
…Among the best of what has been said is the statement of al-Shaʿbī: this is about the Jews specifically. The evidence is three things: (1) that the Jews were mentioned just before in His saying: {To those who are Jews…}, so the pronoun returns to them (2) the flow of the discourse indicates it (3) the Jews are the ones who denied stoning and qiṣāṣ. If it is said: ‘Man (من) when conditional is general unless a specification occurs,’ it is said: here ‘man’ means ‘those who’, along with the evidences we mentioned. So the meaning is: ‘And the Jews who did not judge by what Allāh revealed, those are the disbelievers.’ This is the best of what was said. And it was said: ‘Whoever does not judge by what Allāh revealed, deeming it ḥalāl, is kāfir.’ And it was said: ‘Whoever abandons judging by all of what Allāh revealed, he is kāfir.’
Al-Naḥḥās' statements throughout his various books consistently shows the same position, using the same narration from al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib as Ṭabarī did to show that the Kufr referred to in the Āyah is specific to those who act as the group in the story did, meaning they deny the existence of the ruling in the book of Allāh, or claim it is ḥalāl to rule with something else
And al-Wāḥidī said in al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ (vol. 2, p. 190):
{And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed then those are the disbelievers} [al-Mā’idah: 44]:
They differed regarding this, and regarding what comes after it, His saying: {… then those are the wrongdoers} [al-Mā’idah: 45], {… then those are the defiantly disobedient} [al-Mā’idah: 47].
A group said: The three Āyahs were revealed concerning the disbelievers and the ones who changed the judgement of Allāh from among the Jews, and the people of Islām have nothing to do with them. For indeed, if a Muslim commits a major sin, he is not called a disbeliever.
This was the saying of Qatādah, al-Ḍaḥḥāk, Abū Ṣāliḥ, and it is narrated by al-Barā’ from the Prophet
And Ibn Ruslān said in Sharḥ Sunan Abī Dāwūd (vol. 17, p. 439), commenting on the ḥadīth of al-Barā’:
(He said: all of these (the Āyāt) were revealed regarding the disbelievers) Ibn Ruslān said: the Muslims have nothing to do with it.
Al-Thaʿlabī said in his Tafsīr (vol. 11, p. 354):
Al-Ḍaḥḥāk, Abū Majliz, Abū Ṣāliḥ, and Qatādah said: These three Āyāt were revealed about the Jews, and none of them apply to the people of Islām. As for this Ummah, whoever among them does wrong, while knowing that he has done wrong, then that is not (a matter) of religion.
What proves the soundness of this interpretation is what al-Aʿmash narrated, from ʿAbdullāh ibn Murrah, from al-Barā’ ibn ʿĀzib, from the Prophet ﷺ regarding His saying: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed then they are the disbelievers}, and {the wrongdoers} and {the defiantly disobedient}: he said: All of them are about the disbelievers.
And Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ al-Ḥanafī said in Aḥkām al-Qurʾān (vol. 2, p. 548):
The saying of Allāh {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers} does not escape being intended as either Kufr of Shirk and juḥūd, or Kufr of ingratitude (Kufr al-Niʿmah, AKA minor Kufr) without juḥūd. If what is intended is juḥūd of the ruling of Allāh, or judging by other than it while declaring that it is the ruling of Allāh, then this is Kufr that expels from the religion, and its doer is an apostate if he was previously Muslim. Upon this it was interpreted by those who said, ‘It was revealed concerning the Children of Israel and it applies to us,’ meaning that whoever among us makes juḥūd of the ruling of Allāh or judges by other than the ruling of Allāh and then says that this is the ruling of Allāh, then he is a Kāfir just as the Children of Israel became Kuffār when they did that (referring to the group in the ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ). If what is intended by it is Kufr of ingratitude, then ingratitude for a blessing may occur by leaving gratitude for it without juḥūd, and its doer does not exit the religion. What is more apparent is the first meaning (that the Kufr intended is the Kufr of juḥūd), due to His using the name Kufr unrestrictedly for one who does not judge by what Allāh has sent down. The Khawārij interpreted this Āyah as takfīring the one who abandons judging by what Allāh has sent down without denying it, and by that they takfīred everyone who disobeys Allāh by a major or minor sin, and that led them to Kufr and misguidance by their declaring the prophets to be Kuffār because of minor sins.
Al-Qaṣṣāb said in Nukat al-Qurʾān al-Dāllah ʿalā al-Bayān fī Anwāʿ al-ʿUlūm wa-al-Aḥkām (vol. 1, p. 308):
His saying: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed then they are the disbelievers (44)} was sent down from Allāh concerning the Jews who sought judgment from the Prophet ﷺ regarding the punishment of the adulterer, as the story begins with mention of them and ends with them. Its beginning is: {O Messenger, let them not grieve you, those who hasten into disbelief}, and in its context what confirms it: {But if they come to you, judge between them or turn away from them; and if you turn away from them}, and His saying: {But how is it that they come to you for judgment} meaning regarding the punishment of the two adulterers {while they have the Torah, in which is the judgment of Allāh}, meaning His judgment of stoning them.
And their altering the ruling of stoning, to blackening the faces, lashing, and parading, and their ascribing this to Allāh was disbelief, since they nullified a ruling of His which He did not abrogate, and they ascribed to Him the alteration of what He did not send down. Then Allāh, Majestic and Sublime, carried the story to completion, and said: {And We wrote for them in it: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and wounds equal in retaliation; but if anyone remits the retaliation, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed then they are the wrongdoers (45)}.
So the ones described as disbelievers, wrongdoers, and defiantly disobedient were the people of the Torah from among the Jews, and the people of the Gospel from among the Christians. But the people of the Furqān (the Muslims), by the grace of Allāh, are safe from it.
…
…from al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib, from the Prophet ﷺ regarding His saying, the Exalted: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed then they are the disbelievers (44)}, {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed then they are the wrongdoers (45)}, and {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed then they are the defiantly disobedient (47)} he said: “They are concerning the disbelievers alone.”
So it is said to those who use them as proof from among the Shurāt (a name for the Khawārij) and others, in declaring the people of the Qiblah disbelievers due to sins: what is your evidence in equating everyone? The people of the Furqān know that the rulings of Allāh revealed in His Book are truth, and that judging by them is obligatory upon them, and that by neglecting them they are sinful, and by wasting them they are punishable. Yet they remain Muslims. And those about whom the Āyāt were revealed are Jews and Christians, and none among the adherents of any creed doubts their disbelief. Is it permissible for someone to suppose that before they judged the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, and abandoned the judgment of the Torah, they were disbelievers, and that denying his Prophethood and rejecting his Message did not harm them? And so they deserved disbelief for abandoning the judgment of the Torah in both times, as you (meaning the Khawārij) claim that the monotheist among the Muslims disbelieves by abandoning the judgment of Allāh for its opposite?
If they say: “This is possible to suppose, and their disbelief became clear, and we are spared from them,” then if they (the Khawārij) say: “Rather, they were disbelievers before the judgment by rejecting Prophethood, and so their alteration of the ruling was an addition to their disbelief,” it is said to them: What then is the reason for your declaring disbelievers those who, before the Prophethood of Muḥammad ﷺ, were disbelievers, and then by it became Muslims, by their abandoning the application of Allāh’s judgment? Is it to be an addition to a disbelief which was not in him? Or an addition to an Islām not of its kind? Or that a lifetime of goodness is nullified by an instant of sin, destroying what you have established in the chapter of justice? Or that one soul can be both disbeliever by its sin and believer by its goodness, deserving by its share of faith eternity in Paradise, and by its share of disbelief eternity in Hell? This, by Allāh, is the ugliest statement and the most detestable fabrication.
If the Shurāt say: “It is not fair that you argue against us that the Āyah was revealed regarding stoning, which the reports conveyed to you, while we do not believe in them.”
It is said to them: Place it upon whichever ruling you will. Is it not still revealed concerning other than the people of the Furqān? If they say: “Is it not possible that it was revealed about them, and thus whoever acts by their actions joins them?”
It is said: Yes, if they equaled them in totality, they would be like them in deeds, and thus called disbelievers. But if they acted by some of their actions, without equaling them in all of their attributes, then they are sinners by that act.
So we say: Whoever judges contrary to the judgment of Allāh, claiming it to be from Allāh, or denying what He revealed of His rulings, then he is a disbeliever. For whoever denies the Qurʾān, while Allāh has testified to its revelation, or attributes to Him what He did not reveal, has lied against Him. And whoever lies against Him, there is no doubt in his disbelief, due to His saying, Blessed and Exalted: {And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie against Allāh and denies the truth when it has come to him? Is there not in Hell a dwelling for the disbelievers (32)} so He named them disbelievers.
Thus, whoever abandons what Allāh has revealed of His rulings in this manner has equaled those about whom the Āyāt were revealed from among the Jews and Christians, and has deserved the name of disbelief, wrongdoing, and defiantly disobedience.
But whoever was driven by greed for wealth, or pursuit of vengeance, or desire of the self, to abandon the judgment of Allāh, while knowing his transgression, recognizing his evil, fearing the vileness of his deed, affirming his Lord in what He revealed of rulings, testifying to them with the truth which is obligatory upon him to act by, and not equaling them in that, then he remains upon his Islām, sinful to his Lord. His actions necessitate punishment unless pardon covers him.
I say: This quote from al-Qaṣṣāb absolutely demolishes the creed of the Khawārij, old and new
He clearly states several times, with no room for any reinterpretation that this Āyah exclusively applies to the disbelievers who denied the existence of the correct rulings in their books, and not the Muslims who rule by something other than what Allāh revealed while knowing that they are sinful, once again using the narration from al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib
And not only that, he also completely destroys the doubt of the modern-day Khawārij that whenever the scholars of Islām claimed that this Āyah is about minor kufr they were only referring to those judging "in specific instances" and not those who completely alter the ruling, as he claims that the people of the book DID completely alter the ruling of stoning into blackening the face (again, based on the narration of al-Barāʾ), and yet he STILL claims their Kufr was not from this action itself, but rather from lying upon Allāh by saying that their new invented ruling was found in their books
And not only that, he unknowingly humiliates the modern-day Khawārij even further simply by displaying the argument that the Khawārij of his time which he was refuting made, which was that the mere act of altering one ruling for another is major Kufr in it of itself, and this is exactly what the Khawārij today say
And by ignoring the context of the Āyah, and applying this Āyah which was revealed about non-Muslims against Muslims, the modern Khawārij fall into another one of the attributes of the original Khawārij, as al-Bukhārī transmitted from Ibn ʿUmar, that he said about the Khawārij: "They went to Āyāt that were revealed about the disbelievers and applied them upon the believers."
And as al-Shāṭibī said in al-Iʿtiṣām (vol. 2, p. 691):
Do you not see how the Khawārij left the religion just as an arrow leaves the hunted prey? For the Messenger of Allāh described them as: ‘They recite the Qur’ān but it does not go past their throats’ meaning, and Allāh knows best, that they do not understand it such that it reaches their hearts, because understanding is connected to the heart. So if it does not reach the heart, no understanding occurs at all, rather it only remains at the level of sounds and audible letters, and this is a level shared between the one who understands and the one who does not understand. And likewise what has preceded from his saying: ‘Indeed Allāh does not seize knowledge by taking it away…’ to the end of the ḥadīth.
And Ibn ʿAbbās explained this according to the very meaning we are discussing. Abū ʿUbayd narrated in Faḍā’il al-Qur’ān and Saʿīd ibn Manṣūr in his Tafsīr from Ibrāhīm al-Tamīmī who said: ʿUmar was once alone and began speaking to himself: ‘How will this Ummah differ while its Prophet is one?’ So he sent for Ibn ʿAbbās and said: ‘How will this Ummah differ while its Prophet is one and its qiblah is one’ Saʿīd added: ‘and its Book is one?’ Ibn ʿAbbās replied: ‘O Amīr al-Mu’minīn, the Qur’ān was revealed upon us, so we recited it and we knew regarding what it was revealed. But there will come after us people who will recite the Qur’ān and will not know regarding what it was revealed, so they will have their own opinions about it. And if they have opinions about it, they will differ’ Saʿīd said: ‘Then every group will have an opinion, so they will differ, and when they differ, they will fight.’ ʿUmar rebuked him and scolded him, so Ibn ʿAbbās left. ʿUmar then reflected upon what he said and recognized its truth, so he sent for him and said: ‘Repeat to me what you said.’ He repeated it, and ʿUmar recognized it and was pleased with it.What Ibn ʿAbbās said is the truth, for when a man knows regarding what an Āyah or sūrah was revealed, he knows its context, its interpretation, and what was intended by it, then he does not exceed its meaning. But if he is ignorant of what it was revealed about, its interpretation becomes open to many possibilities. So each person goes towards an interpretation different from the next, and they do not possess the firmness in knowledge that would guide them to correctness or prevent them from plunging into problematic matters, thus they have no choice but to proceed with mere conjecture or interpretation based on guesswork that does not avail anything of the truth, for it has no evidence from the Sharīʿah. So they go astray and lead others astray.
And further clarifying this is what Ibn Wahb narrated from Bukayr, who asked Nāfiʿ: ‘What was Ibn ʿUmar’s view about the Ḥarūriyyah (Khawārij)?’ He said: ‘He considered them the worst of Allāh’s creation, indeed they went to Āyāt which were revealed regarding the disbelievers and applied them to the believers.’ Saʿīd ibn Jubayr explained this, saying: ‘Among what the Khawārij follow of the ambiguous Āyāt is the saying of Allāh: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then they are the disbelievers}, and they couple it with: {Then those who disbelieve equate (others) with their Lord}. Then when they see the ruler judging with other than the truth, they say: He has disbelieved and whoever disbelieves has equated others with his Lord, and whoever equates others with his Lord has committed shirk so these rulers are Mushrikīn, and they go out and kill as you have seen, because they interpret this Āyah in such a way.’
(Shāṭibī said) This is the meaning of ‘opinion’ which Ibn ʿAbbās warned about, the opinion that arises from ignorance of the meaning for which the Qur’ān was revealed
And we have many other examples of this form of context-based interpretation of the Qurʾān, such as the tafsīrs for the Āyah {And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allāh has not been mentioned, for indeed, it is grave disobedience. And indeed do the devils inspire their allies [among men] to dispute with you. And if you were to obey them, indeed, you would be polytheists (Mushrikūn).}
A Khārijī could apply his typical principles and claim that this Āyah is proof for the takfīr of anyone who obeys a Kāfir in committing a sin, such as eating what the name of Allāh has not been named over during slaughter as the Āyah mentions
But this would be ridiculous, as it necessitates takfīring anyone who merely obeys his parents or friends in a sin such as drinking alcohol with them, or shaving the beard for them, or it could even be used as proof for the takfīr of anyone who obeys any man-made law in his country, such as traffic laws
So, just as they did with the Āyah of al-Māʾidah, Ahl al-Sunnah based their tafsīr on the Āyah's context and reason for revelation, and concluded that it refers specifically to those who obey others in belief that something that Allāh made ḥarām is ḥalāl, or that something Allāh made ḥalāl is ḥarām, because this is why the Āyah was revealed in the firstplace, as Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in his Tafsīr (vol. 4, p. 1380):
Abū Zurʿah narrated to us, from Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd Allāh, who said: Ibn Lahi'ah narrated to me, from ʿAṭā’, from Saʿīd ibn Jubayr regarding the Āyah: {And if you obey them…} he said: "It means obeying them in making it ḥalāl to eat the dead animals, then indeed you are polytheists like them."
ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn narrated to us, from ʿUthmān ibn Abī Shaybah, from Mālik ibn Ismāʿīl, from ʿĪsā ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, who said: "I asked al-Shaʿbī about this Āyah {And if you obey them, indeed you would be polytheists}.
I said to him: The Khawārij claim that it refers to the rulers (ʾUmarāʾ).
He said: They lied! This Āyah was revealed about the polytheists, who used to argue with the Companions of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. They would say: “Do you not eat what Allāh has killed (i.e., the dead animals), but you eat what you yourselves kill?”
So Allāh revealed: {Do not eat of what is not slaughtered in Allāh’s Name. For that would certainly be ˹an act of˺ disobedience.} Up to His saying: {…indeed you would be polytheists.}
Meaning: If you eat the dead animals and obey them, you are then polytheists."
Similarly, Ibn Abī Zamanīn says in his Tafsīr (vol. 2, p. 95):
{Do not eat of what is not slaughtered in Allāh’s Name. For that would certainly be ˹an act of˺ disobedience.} It is Shirk. He says that consuming dead animals while believing it is ḥalāl constitutes shirk.
{Surely the devils whisper to their ˹human˺ associates} among the Mushrikīn {to argue with you} the interpretation of Mujāhid: he said the Mushrikīn used to argue with the Muslims regarding [the matter of] slaughtered animals. They would say: ‘You eat what you yourselves slaughter (and kill), but you do not eat what Allāh has killed? And yet you claim to be following the command of Allāh?!’ So Allāh revealed: {And if you obey them}, meaning: and you deem dead animals to be ḥalāl, {indeed you would be polytheists}.
And Abū Ḥayyān said in al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ fī al-Tafsīr (vol. 4, p. 633):
{And if you obey them, indeed you would be polytheists} meaning: if you obey the allies of the devils, then indeed you are polytheists, because obedience to them is obedience to the devils, and that is shirk. However, one does not become a true polytheist unless he obeys him in belief (iʿtiqād), but if he obeys him in action while his belief remains sound, then he is a fāsiq
And another example of this is the Āyāt {So woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allāh," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. And they say, "Never will the Fire touch us, except for [a few] numbered days." Say, "Have you taken a covenant with Allāh? For Allāh will never break His covenant. Or do you say about Allāh that which you do not know?" Yes, [on the contrary], whoever earns evil and his sin has encompassed him - those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.}
Both these Āyāt and the Āyāt of al-Māʾidah were revealed about a group from the people of the book who attributed lies and falsehood to Allāh, but in both cases the wording itself - if taken generally - imply the takfīr of all sinners
If the modern Khawārij want to argue that the context or reason for revelation of an Āyah is not relevant to the rulings derived from it - as they do with the Āyah of al-Māʾidah - they must accept the tafsīr of the original Khawārij for these Āyāt as well, and rule that anyone who sins will burn in hell for all eternity
And if they say "no, these Āyāt were clearly revealed about the people of the book, they do not apply to the sinners among the Muslims", then they have agreed with the principles of Ahl al-Sunnah in tafsīr, the same principles they lable as "Irjāʾ" when applied to the Āyah of al-Māʾidah!
Now, for the second view
According to another group from Ahl al-Sunnah, the Āyah is not specific to the Kuffār and does apply to the Muslims as well, but the Kufr mentioned within it is a form of Kufr which does not take one out of the fold of Islām (Kufr Dūna Kufr)
The evidence for this view is that the Prophet himself alongside some of the Saḥāba referred to certain sins as Kufr, or described their doers as Kuffār, while clearly still considering them to be upon Islām, as can be found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (vol. 1, p. 58):
...From ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd that he said: The Messenger of Allāh said: “Insulting a Muslim is fuṣūq, and fighting him is kufr.”
...From ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar, from the Prophet that he said during the Farewell Ḥajj: “Woe to you, do not return after me as kuffār, striking the necks of one another.”...From Abū Hurayrah that he said: The Messenger of Allāh said: “Two things among the people are kufr in it (bihi kufr): attacking lineage, and wailing over the dead.”
And it was reported in al-Jāmiʿ that:
20953. ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated to us, he said: Maʿmar narrated to us, from Ibn Ṭāwūs, from his father, who said: Ibn ʿAbbās was asked about a man who enters his wife from her behind, and he said: “This one is asking me about the kufr (al-Kufr)!”
...Abū ʿAbd Allāh (Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal) narrated from Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah, from Hishām ibn Ḥujayr, from Ṭāwūs, from Ibn ʿAbbās that he said (about the Kufr mentioned in the Āyah) this is not the kufr that they intend. Sufyān said: Meaning: it is not kufr that removes (a person) from the religion
...From Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah that he said: We would not take from Hishām ibn Ḥujayr anything (in ḥadīth) that we did not find with someone other than him
Among it is a type of weakness that is removed by that, such as when its weakness arises from the weak memory of the narrator, while he is from the people of truthfulness and religion. So if we see that what he has narrated has come from another route, we know that it is something he has preserved, and his precision in it was not compromised. Likewise, if its weakness is from the aspect of being mursal, it is removed by something similar, as in the mursal which is narrated by an Imām who is a ḥāfiẓ, for in it is slight weakness that is removed by its narration from another route.
And among it is a type of weakness that is not removed by something like that, due to the strength of the weakness and the insufficiency of this supporting narration to mend and counter it, such as the weakness that arises from the narrator being accused of lying, or from the ḥadīth being shādh (neither of these apply to Hishām or what he narrated).
These are general principles, the details of which are recognized through practical application and investigation. So understand this, for indeed it is from the precious rarities. And Allāh knows best.
And what Ibn Ḥajar said in Nuzhat al-Naẓar fī Tawḍīḥ Nukhbat al-Fikar (p. 132):
And if a matn is found narrated from another Companion that resembles it in wording and meaning, or in meaning only, then it is a shāhid (supporting narration)
And indeed, we see that there are several other strong narrations with different routes that carry the same meaning as Hishām's
Such as what was narrated in al-Sunnah by Abū Bakr ibn al-Khallāl (vol. 4, p. 158) and elsewhere:
Abū ʿAbd Allāh narrated, he said: Wakīʿ narrated to us, from Sufyān, from Maʿmar, from Ibn Ṭāwūs, from his father, from Ibn ʿAbbās regarding the Āyah {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers} he said: It is Kufr in it (bihi Kufr), and not like one who commits Kufr in Allāh, His angels, His books, and His messengers.
Abū ʿAbd Allāh narrated, he said: ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated to us, he said: Maʿmar narrated to us, from Ibn Ṭāwūs, from his father he said: Ibn ʿAbbās was asked regarding the Āyah {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers} It is Kufr in it (bihi Kufr). Ibn Ṭāwūs said: And it is not like one who disbelieves in Allāh, His angels, His books, and His messengers.
I say: the first Isnād, even on it's own, is completely authentic, as every single narrator there - Wakīʿ ibn al-Jarrāḥ, Sufyān al-Thawrī, Maʿmar ibn Rāshid, Ibn Ṭāwūs and his father, Ṭāwūs - is famously thiqah (trustworthy) and is relied upon in both Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Muslim as well as many other ḥadīth collections
As for the second Isnād, which leads to a narration with a nearly identical wording, then the only flaw with it would be ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī, who was considered thiqah by most scholars, but others noted that we should not rely on sole reports from him (which is not the case here, as this is a corroborated report), as Ibn Abī Ḥātim narrated from his father, Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī in al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl (vol. 6, p. 39), that he said about him:
His ḥadīth is to be written down, but it is not used as evidence (again, meaning it is used to strengthen other corrobarating reports, but is not Ṣaḥīḥ if isolated)
And I have seen many Khawārij admit that this narration with this wording is indeed authentic, but they then proceed to argue that his statement "it is Kufr in it (bihi Kufr), and not like one who commits Kufr in Allāh, His angels, His books, and His messengers" does not mean he viewed it as minor Kufr or Kufr Dūna Kufr, rather he still viewed ruling by other than what Allāh revealed to be Kufr Akbar that takes one out of Islām, but he did not view it as comparable to the Kufr of the one who says "I disbelieve in Allāh, His angels, His books, and His messengers"
And this is an absolutely hilarious re-interpretation of a very clear statement
Firstly, why would he even feel the need to point this out for that Āyah specifically? What historical context prompted the need to say such a thing?
Secondly, not a single scholar understood his statement to mean such a retarded nonsensical thing, in fact they all understood it just as Ahl al-Sunnah today do, and explained that he is referring to a form of Kufr that does not take one out of the fold of Islām
Such as Muḥammad ibn Naṣr al-Marwazī, in Taʿẓīm Qadr al-Ṣalāh (vol. 2, pp. 520–522), who said right before narrating these two exact reports, with the exact same wording:
They said: We have as a role model in this those who transmitted from the Companions of the Messenger of Allāh, and the Tabiʿīn, in that they made branches of Kufr apart from its root, that does not remove the person from the religion of Islām, just as they established that neglect of certain acts does not remove one from faith, it is subsidiary to the root and does not take a person out of Islām. An example of this is Ibn ʿAbbās's interpretation of the Āyah: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}...
And as al-Ṭabarī said in his Tafsīr (vol. 10, pp. 355–356), once again right before narrating these exact two reports with the same wording
Others said: Rather, it means ‘kufr dūna kufr,’ ‘ẓulm dūna ẓulm ,’ and ‘fisq dūna fisq.’
Among those who said that:...
And Ibn Baṭṭah mentioned these two exact reports as well in al-Ibānah al-Kubrā (vol. 2, pp. 734, 736), under a chapter he titled
Mention of the sins that lead their doer to [a form of] kufr which does not take him out of the religion
And Ibn al-Mundhir said in al-Awsaṭ (vol. 12, p. 147):
Indeed, Ibn al-Mubārak interpreted the Prophet's statement ‘he has fallen into Kufr’ as a form of emphasis, not actual Kufr. As narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās regarding the Āyah {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}: it is Kufr in it (bihi Kufr), and not like one who commits Kufr in Allāh, His angels, His books, and His messengers. Similarly, ʿAṭāʾ said: kufr dūna kufr, ẓulm dūna ẓulm, and fisq dūna fisq
And there are many, many more examples of scholars mentioning these exact reports in this context, and clearly understanding them to be about minor Kufr/Kufr Dūna Kufr
In fact, when looking these quotes up, almost every single instance I've found of a scholar quoting these two narrations was in the context of explaining the concept of Kufr Dūna Kufr
And even though this should suffice, there is yet another route from Ibn ʿAbbās conveying the same meaning in an even clearer manner, and it is what was reported from Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in his Tafsīr (vol. 4, p. 1142):
My father (Abū Ḥātim) narrated to us, Abū Ṣāliḥ narrated to me, Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ narrated from ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah, from Ibn ʿAbbās regarding the Āyah: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed...} He said: Whoever denies the ruling by what Allāh has revealed has disbelieved.
And whoever affirms it but does not rule by it, then he is a ẓālim fāsiq.
He says: Whoever denies anything from the ḥudūd of Allāh, then he has disbelieved.
As Ḥikmat ibn Bashīr said in al-Tafsīr al-Ṣaḥīḥ (p. 46-49):
The path of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās:
It is a famous scroll (ṣaḥīfah) that the scholars circulated, and the two who narrated from it the most were aṭ-Ṭabarī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim in their two tafsīrs, to the extent that they nearly recorded this entire scroll comprehensively.
And Ibn Abī Ḥātim most often narrates this scroll on the auhority of his father, Abū Ṣāliḥ narrated to us, Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ narrated to us, on the authority of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās.
And Abū Ṣāliḥ: He is ʿAbdullāh ibn Ṣāliḥ ibn Muḥammad ibn Muslim al-Juhanī, their mawlā, the Egyptian, the scribe of al-Layth. He is ṣadūq (truthful), but he makes many mistakes (kathīr al-ghalaṭ), precise (thabit) in his book, and he has been spoken against, And adh-Dhahabī said: “Al-Imām al-Muḥaddith” and he presented the statements of the critics and defended him against most of what was said against him. There is no need to list all the statements about him because al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar mentioned the decisive statement in Hady al-Sārī where he said: “The apparent of the statements of these Imāms is that his ḥadīth was initially sound, and then confusion (takhlīṭ) occurred in it later. The necessary conclusion from this is that what comes from his narration transmitted by Ahl al-Ḥidhq, such as Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn, Abū Zurʿah, and Abū Ḥātim, is from his authentic ḥadīth. As for what comes from the narration of other shaykhs from him, then one should withhold judgment regarding it.” He then listed the Aḥadīth which al-Bukhārī narrated from him in his Ṣaḥīḥ. And the narrator from him here is Abū Ḥātim, in the Tafsīr of Ibn Abī Ḥātim, and he is from Ahl al-Ḥidhq. Therefore, his narration from him is from his authentic ḥadīth, as al-Ḥāfiẓ established.
Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ: Ṣadūq (truthful), [but] he is prone to errors.
(...)
ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah: Mawlā of Banū al-ʿAbbās. He reported as a mursal on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās and did not see him. He is ṣadūq (truthful) but he might err. Criticism has been directed at his narration on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās on the grounds that he did not hear directly from him. Abū Jaʿfar al-Naḥḥās responded to this, saying: “The one who criticises its chain of transmission says: “Ibn Abī Ṭalḥah did not hear from Ibn ʿAbbās; rather, he took the tafsīr from Mujāhid and ʿIkrimah.” This statement does not necessitate a valid criticism, because he took it from two reliable, trustworthy transmitters, and he is himself trustworthy and truthful (thiqah ṣadūq).”
And I (Ibn Bashīr) view that the intermediary is Mujāhid, for I have compared many of Mujāhid's texts in tafsīr with the reports of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah from Ibn ʿAbbās, and I found them to be consistent and not contradictory. And this is confirmed by the fact that I have found a narration in the Tafsīr of al-Nasāʾī and al-Amwāl of Ibn Zanjawayh from the path of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah, on the authority of Mujāhid, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās.
And al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar mentioned in his book al-ʿIjāb fī Bayān al-Asbāb the trustworthy transmitters on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās and said: “And ʿAlī is truthful. He did not meet Ibn ʿAbbās, but he transmitted from the trustworthy among his (Ibn ʿAbbās) companions, for this reason al-Bukhārī, Abū Ḥātim, and others relied upon this scroll (nuskhah).”
And al-Suyūṭī transmitted from Ibn Ḥajar that he said: “Once the intermediary is known, and he is trustworthy, then there is no harm in that.”
(...)
And al-Ājurrī reported from the path of Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Fuḍayl al-Rāsī, he said: ʿAbdullāh ibn Ṣāliḥ, the scribe of al-Layth ibn Saʿd, narrated to us, he said: Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ narrated to us, on the authority of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās (may Allāh be pleased with them), regarding the statement of Allāh the Almighty: {an Arabic Qurʾān, without any crookedness} [Qurʾān 41:44] – He said: “Not created (Ghayr Makhlūq).” And this ḥadīth reached Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, so he wrote to Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Fuḍayl, requesting that it be written to him with his permission to narrate it. So he wrote it to him with his permission, and Aḥmad was delighted with this ḥadīth.
We conclude from this that Imām Aḥmad relied upon this chain.
And Yūsuf ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī al-Ḥanbalī said: “Numerous tafāsīr have been transmitted from Ibn ʿAbbās concerning the Qurʾān, through various chains. Among the finest of them is the Tafsīr narrated by Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ, on the authority of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās.“ Then he mentioned the disconnection and identified the intermediaries as Mujāhid and ʿIkrimah.
And al-Suyūṭī said: “And what has been reported on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās in tafsīr is uncountable and it contajns various narrations and chains. The finest among them is the path of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah al-Hāshimī on the authority of him.”
Therefore, the chain is Ḥasan.
As for Abū Ṣāliḥ, ʿAbdullāh ibn Ṣāliḥ, he is truthful but makes many mistakes, his numerous errors do not harm because what he is narrating is from a written copy, his weakness was in his memory, not in his written book, and it has been previously established that he is precise in [narrating from] his book. The same applies to the minor errors of Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ, because what he narrates is from the written copy of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah.
Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, when discussing this copy, said: “This copy was in the possession of Abū Ṣāliḥ, the scribe of al-Layth, who narrated it on the authority of Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ, on the authority of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās. Al-Bukhārī received it from Abū Ṣāliḥ and relied upon it extensively in his Ṣaḥīḥ, as I have explained in various places. It was also in the possession of al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Ibn al-Mundhir with intermediaries between them and Abū Ṣāliḥ.”
And many giants of Ahl al-Sunnah agreed with Ibn ʿAbbās's tafsīr
Such as Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām in his book al-Īmān (p. 86):
As for the narrations transmitted obligating kufr and shirk because of sins, then their meaning according to us is that they do not establish kufr or shirk upon those who commit them in a way that removes Īmān from its possessor. Rather, their meanings are: that these are from the manners and practices of the kuffār and the mushrikūn. And we have found for these two types of sins, from the evidences in the Book and the Sunnah, something similar to what we found regarding the first two types.
Among the proofs for shirk in the revelation is the saying of Allāh regarding Ādam and Ḥawwā’ when Iblīs spoke to them:
{He is the One Who created you from a single soul and made from it its mate so that he might find rest in her. Then when he covered her, she carried a light burden and continued with it} until {they made partners for Him in that which He had given them}And its interpretation is only that the shayṭān said to them: “Name your child ʿAbd al-Ḥārith.” So is it conceivable for anyone who knows Allāh and His religion to imagine that they committed shirk with Allāh despite their prophethood and their status with Allāh? Yet He described their action as shirk, though it is not shirk with Allāh.
And as for what is in the Sunnah: the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: ‘The thing I fear most for my ummah is minor shirk.’
So he clarified for you by saying that here exists a shirk other than that by which its doer becomes a mushrik with Allāh. And from it is the saying of ʿAbd Allāh: ‘Ribā has sixty-odd doors, and shirk is likewise.’
Thus he informed you that among sins there are many types that are called by this name, while they are different from the ishrāk whereby one takes another deity besides Allāh, far exalted is Allāh above that, a great exaltation. So these kinds, according to us, have no meaning except that they are the manners of the mushrikīn, their descriptions, practices, expressions, rulings, and such matters of theirs.As for the criterion that is testified to in the revelation it is the saying of Allāh:
{And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}
And Ibn ʿAbbās said: ‘It is not a kufr that expels one from the religion.’
And ʿAṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ said: ‘Kufr Dūna Kufr.’So it has become clear to us that it was not expelling from the religion of Islām, that the religion remains as it is, even if sins mix with it. Thus its meaning is only the manners of the kuffār and their ways (Sunnahs), exactly as I have informed you regarding shirk
For among the ways (Sunnahs) of the Kuffār is judging by other than what Allāh has revealed. Have you not heard His statement: {Is it the judgment of Jāhilīyyah that they seek?}?
Its meaning according to the people of tafsīr is that whoever judges by other than what Allāh has revealed, while remaining upon Islām, then he, by that judgment, is like the people of Jāhilīyyah, for that is how the people of Jāhilīyyah also used to judge.
Likewise is his statement: ‘Three are from the traits of Jāhilīyyah: attacking lineage, wailing, and [believing in] omens from the stars.’
And similarly the ḥadīth narrated from Jarīr and Abū al-Bukhturī al-Ṭā’ī: ‘Three are from the customs of Jāhilīyyah: wailing, preparing food (upon death), and that a woman spends the night among people not from her household.’
And also the ḥadīth: ‘The signs of a Munāfiq [are three]: when he speaks he lies, when he promises he breaks it, and when entrusted he betrays.’
And ʿAbdullāh’s saying: ‘Singing causes Nifāq to grow in the heart.’”None of these reports regarding sins mean that the doer is a Jāhil or a Kāfir or a Munāfiq while still believing in Allāh and in what He has revealed, and performing the obligations. Rather, the meaning is that these are known to be from the actions of the Kuffār, and they are forbidden and warned against in the Qur'ān and the Sunnah so that Muslims can avoid them and not resemble them in any of their traits or laws.
And it was the view of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal as well, as one of his companions, Ibn Hānī, said in his Masāʾil (no. 2042):
I asked him (Imām Aḥmad) about the ḥadīth of Ṭāwūs regarding the statement: “kufr that does not remove from the religion”.
He said: It is regarding this Āyah: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}
And Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed this view for both Aḥmad and Ibn ʿAbbās and his companions, as he said in al-Īmān (p. 244):
And since it is from the statements of the Salaf that a person can have both Īmān and nifāq within him, then likewise, according to their words, he may also have Īmān and kufr, though not the kufr that expels from the religion. As Ibn ʿAbbās and his companions said regarding the Āyah: {And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}: They disbelieved with a kufr that does not expel from the religion. And Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and other Imāms of the Sunnah followed them in this.
And Ibn Abī al-ʿIzz transmitted the ʾIjmāʿ of the Sunnīs and Ḥanafīs regarding this issue in Sharḥ al-ʿAqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah (p. 323):
After their agreement that whoever Allāh and His Messenger have named a kāfir, we also name a kāfir, then it should be impossible that Allāh would call the ruler by other than what Allāh has revealed a kāfir, and that His Messenger should call the one mentioned before a kāfir, and that we not apply upon them the name of kufr.
But whoever says that Īmān consists of statement and action, increasing and decreasing (the Sunnīs), says: this is kufr in action (ʿamal), not in belief (iʿtiqād), and kufr, according to him, has levels, kufr dūna kufr, just as Īmān, according to him, has levels.And whoever says that Īmān is merely affirmation (taṣdīq), and that action does not enter into the definition of Īmān, and that kufr is only denial (juḥūd), and that neither Īmān nor kufr increase or decrease (the Ḥanafīs), says: this is figurative (majāzī) kufr, not real (ḥaqīqī) kufr, since true kufr is that which expels from the religion.
And Ibn ʿAṭiyyah said in his Tafsīr (vol. 2, p. 196):
A great group from the people of knowledge said that the Āyah applies to everyone who does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, but concerning the rulers of this ummah it is the kufr of disobedience, which does not expel them from Īmān
And Ibn Ruslān said in Sharḥ Sunan Abī Dāwūd (vol. 17, p. 438), commenting on the ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ:
{And whoever does not judge…} the context of the Āyah is that it is an address to the Jews, and was revealed concerning them, and there is nothing from it regarding Islām. Ibn Masʿūd and others held that it is general for the Jews and others, but kufr dūna kufr, ẓulm dūna ẓulm, and fisq dūna fisq. So the ẓulm of a Muslim is not like the ẓulm of a kāfir, and likewise his kufr and his fisq.
And Abū Ḥayyān said in al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ fī al-Tafsīr (vol. 4, p. 269):
{And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed, then those are the disbelievers}: the apparent meaning is general, including this ummah and others before them, even though the apparent context is that it addresses the Jews. Ibn Masʿūd, Ibrāhīm, ʿAṭāʾ, and a group held that it is general, but kufr dūna kufr, ẓulm dūna ẓulm, and fisq dūna fisq, meaning: the kufr of a Muslim is not like the kufr of a kāfir, and likewise his ẓulm and fisq, it does not expel him from the religion. Ibn ʿAbbās and Ṭāwūs said this
But, what about the second objection of the Khawārij - that all of these statements from all of these scholars were simply negating the takfīr of the one who judges by other than what Allāh revealed once or twice, and not the one who abolishes or replaces the rulings entirely?
This claim, once again, has absolutely no basis
I have gone over every single classical tafsīr I could find for this Āyah, and out of dozens of scholars, not a single soul mentioned any sort of distinction between ruling in specific instances and establishing a general ruling, al-Ṭabarī alone mentioned 5 different interpretations for the Āyah and a total of 40 narrations commenting on it, and none of them even hinted at such a distinction, in fact one of them - what he narrated from Ibn Zayd - makes the exact opposite claim, that even the one who writes his own book and rules with it instead of the book of Allāh is to be takfīred only once he acts as the people the Āyah was revealed about acted and claims that this book he wrote is from Allāh
Al-Qaṣṣāb too makes a similar argument, that even completely altering a ruling for another - as with the case of the alteration of stoning into blackening the face - is only Kufr when accompanied with lying upon Allāh, as was mentioned in the ḥadīth of al-Barāʾ
In fact, all of these statements from all of these scholars are clearly general, and there is absolutely nothing indicating that they somehow all happened to refer to one very specific form of ruling by other than what Allāh revealed, while completely ignoring another extremely prevelant form, that was already widespread in the time of the Prophet himself among Quraysh and the people of the book, as well as during the time of the Umayyads and ʿAbbāsids and many of those who followed them
And not only could I not find this view in any classical tafsīr of this Āyah, I couldn't find this view attributed to anyone from Ahl al-Sunnah anywhere, not in any tafsīr for any other Āyah, not in any book of Īmān, not in any refutation of any subsect of the Murjiʾah or Khawārij, or anywhere else. How has such an important distinction been completely left out from every discussion for hundreds of years?!
And as I have already shown, this view that completely abolishing a ruling or altering it is Kufr did indeed exist even back then, but it was only ever attributed to the Khawārij, as Ibn al-Muʿtazz who died over a thousand years ago noted
And most importantly, there is absolutely no proof from the Qurʾān or Sunnah for such a distinction
Now, I am aware that the Khawārij still cling onto other Āyāt and statements of various scholars in an attempt to prove their completely made-up distinction here between legislation and judging in a single instance, and as I have already mentioned, I addressed it all in the other article
So I say to the dogs of hellfire, the sons of Ibn Muljam - if you remain upon your filthy, made-up Ḥarūrī religion after the proof has been shown to you, then you have without a doubt disbelieved after your Islām, and will be eternally united with your forefathers in hell once you suffer the same humiliating death as them. {So enter the gates of Hell to abide eternally therein, and how wretched is the residence of the arrogant}
And I say to the any Sunnī who might read this: have no doubt in your heart about what should be done to these creatures, the same creatures who have declared my and your blood to be ḥalāl, the same creatures who persistently lie about Allāh and legislate in His religion what He did not send down, the same creatures who happily slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims and would happily slaughter millions more if given the chance, the same creatures who - somehow - think that by doing all of this they are getting closer to Allāh Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā.
And by Allāh Islām is free from them, and they are free from it, as the Prophet ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam said about them:
They will recite the Qurʾān, but it will not pass beyond their throats. They will leave the religion as an arrow leaves its target, and they will not return to it as the arrow does not return to its bow. They are the worst of the creation. Blessed are those who fight them and are killed by them. They call to the Book of Allāh, but they have nothing to do with it. Whoever fights them is better to Allāh than them