Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

Downloaded from: justpaste.

it/5jp3m

I asked the Imām of Usūl & ‘Aqīdah, Shaykh al-‘Allāmah Hassān Husayn as-Sōmālī ( ‫ ) ﺣﻔﻈﻪ اﻟﻠﻪ‬the
following questions:

Firstly, I wish that one day I may study under the shaykh, and only Allāh knows how much I love him for the
sake of Allāh, and how much I persistently look into his books on a daily basis. As for the books the shaykh
mentioned to me, I am currently translating them into English.

As for what relates to the shaykh’s answer, I have accepted his advice, and I have even read his books upon
my shaykh and those present in our classes, and we have benefited alot, except that there are a few
questions from what I’ve read throughout all his works.

1 — I didn’t ask about when it’s permissible for a layman to make takfīr, but I rather asked when it’s
obligatory upon him to make takfīr, so that we know when he would be considered blameworthy for
abandoning takfīr, and for that reason, I gave the example of claiming the Qur’ān is created (writing the
following):

“The noble shaykh mentioned that the issue of claiming the Qur’ān is created is from kufr ta’wīl which leads
towards denying the verses of Allāh, may He be blessed and exalted. And this means that an individual may
be excused due to ta’wīl, which is the apparent explanations of the Imāms and the official position in the
madhab of Ahmad in considering the blind-followers as fussāq as al-Majd cited.

Therefore, it’s not obligatory for a layman to make takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created,
since he has ta’wīl to begin with and it’s impermissible to make takfīr upon him.

And the issue that I have is that the Imāms have agreed upon making takfīr upon whoever does NOT make
takfīr upon those who claim the Qur’ān is created — as it’s mentioned in Risālat ar-Rāziyayn since they met
the scholars of the regions — despite it being from kufr ta’wīl which doesn’t make an individual a kāfir
except after the establishment of the hujjah upon him, so how can it be said that whoever doesn’t make
takfīr upon him becomes a kāfir?

What appears to me, is that it’s obligatory to make takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created if
the hujjah is established upon him, since in such a situation he would be rejecting the text, and Imām al-
Barbahārī (Died 311H) says in Sharh as-Sunnah;

“We don’t take out anyone of ahlul-qibla from Islām until he opposes an Āyah from the book of Allāh (‫)ﻋﺰ وﺟﻞ‬
or opposes something from the reports of Rasūlullāh (‫)ﺻﻠﻰ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ‬, or prays to other than Allāh, or
sacrifices to other than Allāh, so if he does anything from that, it becomes OBLIGATORY upon you to take him
out of Islām.”

And the relevant point from the citation is that whoever meets the description of what he mentioned from
opposing the texts, “it becomes obligatory” to make takfīr upon him, and perhaps the rule of whoever
doesn’t make takfīr upon the kāfir in this situation (of claiming the Qur’ān is created) is held upon whoever
meets the description of opposing the text with the removal of ta’wīl.

While Imām an-Nawawī views claiming the Qur’ān being created is minor kufr, so is it possible to say that he
fell into kufr generally — not individually — since he didn’t view this statement as kufr based upon the
aforementioned rule (3rd nullifier).”

2 — O Shaykh, you have precisely determined the issue of making takfīr upon the apparent lāzim in “Al-
Fatāwā ash-Shar’iyyah ‘an al-As’ilat al-Djibūtiyyah” with a precious explanation, and that it’s the madhab of
the majority of muhaddithīn and fuqahā’ from the salaf, and there’s no confusion surrounding this point.

However I want more examples to clarify the false implications of kufr which are open to possibilities (such
as he may commit kufr in the future), which isn’t permissible to be made takfīr upon, as you mentioned in
the issue of receiving a citizenship which doesn’t involve abiding by any kufr (i.e. it’s only kufr if a citizenship
process requires you to abide by kufr or speak kufr).

As some people said this action (of acquiring a citizenship) leads them towards agreeing upon their
constitution and other lawāzim which is open to possibilities, and you clarified that this is Bātil, since the
majority of the muwahhidīn who acquired it explicitly profess in disbelieving in the constituion and their man-
made laws.

In addition to this, is the person who makes ta’wīl in the names and attributes of Allāh included within takfīr
upon a clear or unclear lāzim, since the A’immat ad-Da’wah an-Najdiyyah call Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalānī, “The
Hāfidh of his time”, while praising an-Nawawī, and calling some who have been affected by the ash’arī creed
with the title, “Shaykh al-Islām”, so what do we ay regardng this.
And what is the ruling on the one who makes takfīr upon the unclear matters? Such as the one who makes
takfīr upon everyone who falls into kufr ta’wīl ever since the time of the salaf until now without elaboration.

3 — I want a clarification for what Shaykh al-Islām mentioned concerning the two narrations he cited from
Imām Ahmad on the kufr of whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon the Jahmiyyah, where Ibn Taymiyyah declared
the most correct narration is not making takfīr.

Did he intend the pure original jahmiyyah, or ahlul-bida’ (among the mu’tazilah etc) who follow some of the
usūl of the original jahmiyyah. Furthermore, how can he mention a difference of opinion on the issue, while
the rule is agreed upon (i.e. 3rd nullifier) concerning the one who doesn’t make takfīr upon the jahmiyyah.

On the authority of Abī Sulaymān Dāwūd Ibn al-Husayn al-Bayhaqī, he said it has reached me that Al-
Hulwānī al-Hassan Ibn ‘Alī said, “I don’t make takfīr upon the one who abstains from having an opinion
concerning the Qur’ān (being created or uncreated)”, so they abandoned his knowledge.

Abū Sulaymān said, I asked Salamah Ibn Shabīb about the knowledge of al-Hulwānī, so he replied; “It’s
thrown in the garbage”, and Salamah (Ibn Shabīb) further stated; “Whoever doesn’t testify the kufr of the
kāfir, then he is a kāfir.”

The revelant point from this narration is the commentary by Imām ath-Thahabī and his rebuke against
Salamah Ibn Shabīb by saying, “This is ghuluw and kharijism from salamah”.

— Refer to “Tah’thīb at-Tah’thīb” (2/303).

The apparent speech of Ath-Thahabī in respect to Salamah Ibn Shabīb is based upon those who go into
exaggeration in making takfīr bil-Lāzim, and our beloved Shaykh (i.e. Hassān Husayn) clarified that there are
many scholars who intended the unclear lāzim by their statement “the lāzim of a madhab is not a madhab”
(unlike the clear lāzim), and this is the apparent view of Shaykh al-Islām (Ibn Taymiyyah).

Imām ath-Thahabī (‫ )رﺣﻤﻪ اﻟﻠﻪ‬also said (in rejecting takfīr upon unclear implications), “There’s no doubt that
some scholars of nathr (i.e. scholars of kalām — theology) exaggerated in negation, rejection, distortion and
trying to eliminate any deficiency (from Allāh) according to their claim which made them fall into bid’ah or
describing the creator with non-existant attributes.

Just like there is a group among the scholars of athar (i.e. muhaddithīn) who went into exaggeration in
affirmation, whilst accepting the weak and munkar hadīths under the pretext of adopting the sunnah and
following the prophet, so an uproar occurred, and hatred took place, with each side declaring the other
innovators, and each side declaring the other to be kuffār (i.e. one group calling others jahmiyyah mushrikīn
& other group labelling others with anthropomorphism)

And we seek refuge in Allāh from desires and arguing about the Dīn, and from making takfīr upon a
muwahhid muslim due to the lāzim (implication) of his statement, while he runs awy from such an
implication, and he eliminates attributes of dificiency from the Lord and glorifies Him.”

Even though some scholars mentioned that his speech has some harshness against ahlul-athar (i.e. some
muhaddithīn such as accusing salamah ibn shabīb with kharijism and ghuluw).

4 — There are many people who say, everyone must obey the land of their land — while it’s ruled by man-
made law — Does the Shaykh view this statement as kufr in and of itself or from the implications of kufr.

The ‘Allāmah, Shaykh Hassān Husayn as-Sōmālī ( ‫ )ﺣﻔﻈﻪ اﻟﻠﻪ‬responded to my questions by


saying:

All praise belongs to Allāh who by His favour goodness and righteous deeds are completed, and may the
peace and blessings be sent upon the honest prophet, and upon his noble blessed household and
companions, to proceed:

Your writing has reached me, and we thank you for getting in touch with us, and having husn ath-than,
hoping that you can pass on my salāms and greetings to the noble mashāyikh, whilst asking the most High
and all-powerful to preserve you and unite us together in the abode of His mercy, indeed He is the helper
and all-Capable in doing that.

I apologize for the delay in replying due to what’s well-known from being pre-occupied (with delivering
lessons) and work (writing books and worldly life).

1 – It’s obligatory upon the layman to make takfīr if he knows about the kufr and there’s no misconception
which prevents him from making takfīr.

Similarly, if the Qādhī (judge) would abstain from making a judgement with the presence of reliable just
witnesses without any misconception, and it has been said that the Qādhī (judge) becomes a kāfir in such a
situation (and in clear matters, there is no difference between a judge or layman, both have equal
knowledge and are obliged to make a judgement).

Ibn Burhān (Died 518H) mentioned in his book “Al-Awsat”:

“And the judgement of the high assumption of a mujtahid which is based upon indicative factors is
considered known and explicit to him by Ijmā’, just like if a hākim (judge) has the evidences displayed to him,
his high assumption would be that they are trustworthy (witnesses), and therefore the obligation falls upon
him to make a judgement by Ijmā’ according to that assumption, that if he says it’s permissible to not make
a judgement by it, he would become a kāfir, due to abandoning what’s explicitly clear-cut (by withholding
the apparent judgement of Allāh).”

Refer to “An-Nafā’is Fī sharh al-Mah’sūl” (1/153) by Al-Qarāfī (Died 684H).

Moreover, kufr is a hukm takleefī (the ruling for the people) in the sense of forbiddance and obligation of the
one who deserves it to be called a kāfir. And takfīr is a hukm wad’ī (the ruling established by Allāh) in the
sense of connecting the asbāb (causes of takfīr), since the legislator (Allāh) has set down causes and factors
for the rulings to be applied, and made a connection for it.

And it’s as if He said, if you see this specific cause upon this specific individual, then what you must know is
that he’s a mushrik or kāfir, this is what’s considered wad’ī (the ruling established by Allāh whenever the
cause is present).

And it’s as if He said, it’s obligatory upon you O my servants to judge the kufr of such and such, this is what’s
considered takleefī. [1]

2 – Making takfeer upon those who say the Qur’ān is created is making takfīr upon the lāzim (implications) of
a statement, since we don’t find in the Qur’ān, nor in the sunnah, nor in the Ijmā’ of the ummah anything
that points towards it being explicit kufr in and of itself.

And the one who is excused in this issue is the one who doesn’t picture the lāzim (implications) of his
statement, and he disbelieves whether he adopts it (i.e. the implication of his statement) after picturing it, or
doesn’t adopt it (i.e. rejects the implication).

And the layman who doesn’t picture the lāzim (implication) could become a fāsiq due to his ta’assub
(fanaticism) towards the people of falsehood, and not analyzing and verifying the affairs of his Dīn, whilst
hearing about the da’wah which opposes what his Imam that he blind follows calls towards.

The main point in the topic is the differentiating between explicit kufr (in and of itself), and what necessitates
kufr, and we have previously clarified what explicit kufr is, and it’s what has been confirmed via proof that
it’s considered kufr in and of itself, such as abandoning salāh, since the actual abandoning is considered kufr
according to the well-known text. Also, mocking Allāh, His Messenger and Verses.

“And if you ask them, they will surely say, "We were only conversing and playing." Say, "Is it Allāh and His
verses and His Messenger that you were mocking?” [9:65].

As for what leads to kufr, then it differs to explicit kufr in the sense that no proof has come to show that it’s
considered kufr in and of itself, however it necessitates according to the implications of the mind what is
considered kufr in and of itself, such as claiming that the Qur’ān is created, as indeed it implies that the
creator is created!

If the individual rejects this implication due to a misconception he claims to have, then it’s considered
making takfīr upon ma’āl (a statement that leads to kufr) which is differed upon.

However, if he acknowledges the implication, and he doesn’t retract his statement, rather he persists upon
his statement (of the qur’an being created), then the issue has changed from being kufr via an implication to
explicit kufr (due to clearly picturing and acknowledging the implication), and we have mentioned in “Al-
Djibūtiyyah” many examples concerning this, so return back to it.

As for the Ijmā’ which the Imāms of hadīth have mentioned, such as the two Rāzī’s, then at most it’s
considered the Ijmā’ of a group among the muslims, not an Ijma’ which could be used as proof to make takfīr
upon whoever claims the Qur’ān is created, since the people of innovation who claim this (i.e. the Qur’ān
being created) are from that same era, and their kufr cannot be affirmed due to the Ijmā’ of the people of
their era, rather it has to be via a text or Ijmā’ which has been firmly established before their era.

Ibn at-Tilmisānī al-Fihrī mentioned in “Sharh al-Ma’ālim Fī Usūl al-Fiqh” (2/105):

“The deviant mujtahid who is made takfīr upon due to his bid’ah isn’t taken into account for Ijmā’ (the
consensus of the scholars), and his kufr is not to be established via the Ijmā’ of the people during his time,
because they are not considered the complete ummah if he isn’t made takfīr upon (i.e. the deviant mujtahid),
thus he wouldn’t be made takfīr upon (for merely opposing the Ijmā’!) until they are considered the complete
ummah, otherwise it would go around in circles (he can claim Ijmā’ of his sect from the ummah and make
takfīr upon us for opposing them), however he would become a kāfir via an Ijmā’ that is established before
them, or otherwise he would only become a kāfir via a clear-cut evidence, whilst putting Ijmā’ aside.”

He also mentioned in “Sharh Ma’ālim Usūl al-Fiqh” (page 572):

“It’s not sufficient to make takfīr due to the Ijmā’ of the scholars in his time, since he (i.e. the innovator) is
from their time, and the Ijmā’ is not firmly established due to him opposing them. However yes, takfīr upon
him would be confirmed due to the Ijmā’ of the scholars before his time, or due to an explicit text.”

Abū al-‘Abbās al-Qarāfī mentioned in “Sharh at-Tanqīh” (page 311):

“The scholars disputed making takfīr upon the people of innovation, due to observing what necessitates from
their beliefs of explicit kufr. So whoever took that into consideration and made the lāzim of a madhab
(implications of a statement and belief) as a madhab (a position), then he would make takfīr upon them, and
whoever didn’t consider the lāzim of a madhab as a madhab, then he didn’t make takfīr upon them.

And due to this Rule (of the implications of a statement being considered a statement) found among Mālik,
ash-Shāfi’ī, Abū Hanīfah, al-Ash’arī and al-Bāqillānī, there are two opinions on making takfīr upon them.

And since we clarified that they’re kuffār, it’s necessary to affirm that according to a proof other than our
own Ijmā’, since our Ijmā’ (of our time) isn’t considered a proof in making takfīr upon them, unless if we were
considered the whole ummah, and we wouldn’t be considered the whole ummah unless other than us is
considered a kāfir.

Therefore, our Ijmā’ would only be considered a hujjah if they are kuffār (and not from the ummah), and they
would be considered kuffār according to our Ijmā’, which means that both sides would make takfīr upon each
other (due to both sides claiming to be the whole ummah), which would result in a circulation (of takfīr).”

Ar-Rāzī mentioned in “al-Mah’sūl” (2/942), “They differed in whether the Ijmā’ is established with the
opposition of those who are mistaken from ahlul-qiblah in the matters of Usūl, so if we didn’t makw takfīr
upon them, we took into account their statement, since they are from the believers, and among the ummah
the statement of those besides them is considered a statement of “some” believers, therefore it wouldn’t be
a hujjah.

And if we made takfīr upon them, the Ijmā’ is established without them, however it’s not permissible to hold
onto our own Ijmā’ in making takfīr upon them in these matters, since it’s only established they are excluded
from the Ijmā’ after the confirmation of them falling into kufr in these matters, so if we affirm their kufr
regarding such matters by our own Ijmā’ alone (a group of believers are making takfīr upon other believers
for opposing them), which necessitates circulation (of them making takfīr back upon us).”

And the explainer of his book al-Qarāfī mentioned in “an-Nafā’is” (6/2844):

“The summary; Is that making takfīr upon them via our own Ijmā’ is a branch issue of our Ijmā’ being
considered a hujjah, and it would only be a hujjah if those who oppose us are considered kuffār to begin with,
wherein we remain as being the whole ummah, and thus necessitates circulation.”

Refer to “At-Tah’sīl min al-Mah’sūl” (2/75) and “Al-Hāsilmkin al-Mah’sūl” (2/521).

The main point is that it’s necessary to observe and analyse this problem concerning the Ijmā’ when we say,
“That the Imāms agreed upon making takfīr upon whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon the claimer of the
Qur’ān being created”, since if there was an issue concerning the establishment of the Ijmā’ in making takfīr
upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, then imagine the case in making takfīr upon the one who
doesn’t make takfīr upon him (such an Ijmā’ would be more deserving of being Bātil).

Furthermore, making takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created depends upon picturing the lāzīm
and what the statement leads too (of clear kufr), and there’s no difference concerning that between a
layman and scholar, for indeed if both of them picture the reality of his statement and what it necessitates,
he disbelieves if he doesn’t retract it. And for that reason, the salaf differentiated between the one who
pictures the reality of the matter and other than him.

Don’t you see that the statement of the two Rāzī’s (i.e. Abū Hātim & Abū Zur’ah), may Allāh have mercy
upon them;

“Whoever claims that the Qur'ān is created is a kāfir in the sight of Allāh almighty, a disbelief which takes
one outside the fold of Islām, and whoever doubts in his Kufr from those who understand, then he's a Kāfir.
And whoever doubts concerning the speech of Allāh (‫)ﻋﺰ وﺟﻞ‬, so he hesistates out of doubt pertaining to it,
wherein he says, I don’t know if it’s created or uncreated, then he is a jahmī, and whoever halts from having
an opinion about the Qur’ān out of ignorance, then he is to be taught, he is declared an innovator, but isn’t
declared a kāfir.”
And the statement of Imām Ahmad, may Allāh have mercy upon him;

“Whoever among them comprehends speech (i.e. understands what he’s saying), then he is a jahmī.”

“But as for the one who doesn’t comprehend it, then he is to be enlightened, and if he understands and
pictures the speech, then he is like them (i.e. the jahmiyyah), and the Qur’ān is the uncreated speech of
Allāh in whatever way it’s mentioned.”

And his statement, “The one who debates and is known for speech (calling towards the Qur’ān being
created), then he is a jahmī. As for the one who isn’t known for speech (calling towards it), he is to be
avoided until he recants his statement. And concerning the one who doesn’t have knowledge about what
he’s saying, he is to be asked about it in order to learn.”

Likewise with the statement of Imām Ahmad Ibn Munī’, “Whoever claims it is created, then he is a jahmī.
Whoever hesitates concerning it, if he was among those who don’t comprehend what he’s saying, such as
the merchants, women, children, then he is to be remained silent about and taught. However if he wqs from
those who comprehend, then place him in the valley of the jahmiyyah, and whoever says my recitation with
the Qur’ān is created, then he is a jahmī.”

— Refer to “As-Sunnah” (1/165-179) by ‘Abdullāh Ibn Ahmad, “Al-Ibānah al-Kubrā” (#97 & #98) by Ibn
Battah, and “al-Hujjah Fī Bayān al-Mahajjah” (1/424).

The speech of the salaf in making takfīr in this issue revolves around picturing the reality of the statement.
So whoever doesn’t picture the lāzim (implications of it), such as those who don’t understand the meaning of
the word linguistically, then the sabab of kufr (cause of disbelief) isn’t established within him, and it’s not
possible to make takfīr upon him due to the negation of the manāt (cause of making takfīr upon him).

As for the one who pictures that claiming the Qur’ān is created necessitates claiming Allāh is created and
other things among the kufr implications, and that the attribute of “Speech of Allāh” is sub-joined with the
one described with this attribute “Allāh”, then he has come with a statement of kufr while he understands its
meaning, so he would be a kāfir.

And for that reason, the salaf said, “from among those who understand”, “from those who comprehend
speech”, and “If he comprehends and pictures the speech.”

3 — Holding the kufr in claiming the Qur’ān is created upon minor (kufr) is a Bātil statement, in which the
famous statements of the salaf reject it, and there’s no need to get into details surrounding this point.

However, there’s a group of scholars, such as as-Sijzī, Qawwām as-Sunnah, al-Bayhaqī, Ibn Qudāmah and Ibn
Taymiyyah who mentioned the difference of opinion in what it’s held upon, and that the opinion of the vast
majority is that it’s held upon major kufr.

Refer to “Risālat as-Sijzī ilā ahli zabīd” (page 153), “al-Hujjah fī bayān al-Mahajjah” (2/552), “Hikāyat al-
Munātharah fil-Qur’ān” (page 20), and “Majmū’ al-Fatāwā” (12/486).

And if this was the case, then it cannot be said that an-Nawawī and those who agreed with him (who said it’s
minor kufr) fell into kufr generally or individually, the same way it cannot be said that whoever held the kufr
of abandoning Salāh upon minor kufr has fell into kufr generally or individually.

However, if an-Nawawī said that the Qur’ān is created, then now it’s possible to say he has fallen into kufr,
due to the clear differentiation between theory based knowledge and between implementing actions put in
practice in the likes of these matters.

And just to draw the difference between theory and practise, is that whoever said abandoning salāh is not
kufr, due to holding the reported hadīths concerning it upon minor kufr, due to doubts or indicative factors
that appeared to him, then he doesn’t become a kāfir, just as the Imāms aren’t made takfīr upon for adopting
the opinion of not making takfīr upon abandoning salāh.

However this person who adopts the opinion of not making takfīr theoritically speaking and acording to
principles, if he abandons salāh via actions, then in this situation he is made takfīr upon for abandoning
salāh, since the shar’ī evidence has established that abandoning salāh is kufr, and this person abandons
salāh, therefore he is a kāfir.

And the belief of the individual who abandons salāh that no takfīr is made upon abandoning salāh doesn’t
effect our ruling, since we deal with him in accordance to our beliefs concerning him, and it is his kufr for
abandoning salāh, as the Prophet (‫ )ﺻﻠﻰ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ‬said:

“Except if you view clear kufr which you have evidence from Allāh for.”

So the prophet made the observation for the observer, and clarified that kufr is established without taking
into account the belief of the one being made takfīr upon, otherwise the observer wouldn’t require returning
back to proof, and we have observed him abandon salāh, and abandoning it is considered kufr on its own,
not by its implication.

And we do not make takfīr upon him for opposing us concerning the explanation of the evidences,
misinterpreting it, and holding it upon other than what it’s supposed to be held, since ta’wīl is only
considered kufr in matters that are known in the Dīn by necessity or clear-cut.

4- What shaykh al-Islām mentioned from Imām Ahmad concerning the two narrations pertainingnto making
takfīr upon whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon the jahmiyyah, what’s apparent is that he’s referring to the
mu’tazilah, and they are the 2nd sect of the jahmiyyah.

Al-Qādhī Abū Ya’lah also mentioned the two narrations in his book “Ar-Riwāyatayn wal-Waj’hayn” (page 108),
where he wrote:

“Issue: The madhab doesn’t disagree in making takfīr upon the mu’tazilah based upon the statements they
make, such as claiming the Qur’ān is created, negating seeing Allāh (in the Ākhirah), the creation create
their own actions (instead of Allāh), etc. Since the evidences have pointed towards that which is not the
place to show it here.

Therefore, whoever refrains from making takfīr upon them, does this refrainer become a kāfir or not? Al-
Marrūthī, Ya’qūb and Abū Tālib cited that he doesn’t become a kāfir. He mentioned in the narration of Abū
Tālib, whoever says the Qur’ān is created, then he’s a kāfir. And whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon the one
who says the Qur’ān is created, then I do not make takfīr upon him.

Likewise, al-Marrūthī cited from a group of people in Tartūs who make takfīr upon whoever doesn’t make
takfīr, so he said; I haven’t heard of this at all. And this is in a fashion of emphasising having knowledge
about anything concerning making takfīr upon them.

So it’s as if his madhab is that they are kuffār, i.e. the Jahmiyyah, but whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon
them is not a kāfir. So what’s apparent from this is that he didn’t make takfīr upon them. Also with the case
of Abū Tālib’s citation, it has been said to him, the people on the frontline make takfīr upon whoever doesn’t
make takfīr...” [End Quote].

The text over here is missing and the answer isn’t completely found in the print, the scholarly reviser said;
“Around half the page has been obliterated from this page, and I haven’t stumbled across anything from
these texts, except for what shaykh al-Islām has pointed towards pertaining to the dispute on the issue.”

What’s shown from this, and Allāh know best, is that negating kufr from whoever refrains from making takfīr
upon the claimers that the Qur’ān is created is one of the old statements of the Imām (i.e. Ahmad Ibn
Hanbal) which he retracted, and the proof for that is his statement, “I haven’t heard of this at all” (i.e. takfīr
upon whoever doesn’t make takfīr upon them).

How can’t it be, when it has become widespread that the Imāms before him made takfīr upon this refrainer?
Yes, infact Imām Ahmad himself has various stages concerning this issue, it was mentioned by al-Khallāl in
his book.

In the beginning of the marter, the Imām used to dislike speaking about the matter surrounding the Qur’ān
and concerning it being created or uncreated, and that it’s necessary to remain quiet about it, which caused
some companions of hadīth to be unaware of his position.

Imām Abū Bakr al-Khallāl narrated in his book (narration #1797) through his chain from Hanbal; I said to Abū
‘Abdillāh, very Ya’qūb Ibn Shaybah and Zakariyyah ash-Shirkī Ibn ‘Ammār only narrated from you this stance,
which is to remain silent.

So Abū ‘Abdillāh said, we used to give the order of remaining silent and abandon delving into disputes
surrounding the Qur’ān, but when we were called towards a particular matter, it was necessary to repel that
and clarify the issue with what’s required..” (until the end of his words).

Then he moved onto saying that the Qur’ān is the speech of Allāh and isn’t created, and in this period of
time, he didn’t make takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, then he mentioned that it became
clear to him making takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, and perhaps the refraining of
making takfīr upon these people was in this 3rd stage, due to the fact that Ya’qūb Ibn Bukhtān is from the
narrators of this period of time.

As al-Khallāl narrated in “as-Sunnah” (narration #1868) that Ya’qūb Ibn Bukhtān asked Abā ‘Abdillāh about
the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, so Ahmad replied: I was reluctant to say he’s a kāfir, until I
pondered and analysed, so I saw the statement of Allāh (‫)ﻋﺰ وﺟﻞ‬: “Then whoever argues with you about it
after this knowledge (i.e. Qur’ān) has come to you.”

Al-Khallāl also narrated (#1869) on the authority of Ibn ad-Dawraqī from Abī ‘Abdillāh that he said, we were
reluctant to speak about this matter, then their reality became clear to us, due to the statement of Allāh in
His book, “Then whoever argues with you about it.” [3:61].

And he narrated (#1847) on the authority of Hanbal, I heard Abā ‘Abdillāh say, Allāh (‫ )ﻋﺰ وﺟﻞ‬said in His
book, “And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear
the words of Allāh” [9:6], so Jibrīl heard it from Allāh, and the prophet (‫ )ﺻﻠﻰ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ‬heard it from Jibrīl,
and the companions of the prophet heard it from the prophet (‫)ﺻﻠﻰ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ‬, and the Qur’ān is the
speech of Allāh which is uncreated, we do not doubt nor hesitate regarding this. Moreover, the names and
attributes of Allāh in the Qur’ān is from the knowledge of Allāh, and His attributes are from Him. Therefore,
whoever claims that the Qur’ān is created, then he is a kāfir, as the Qur’ān is the uncreated speech of Allāh,
it came from Him and it will return to Him, and we were reluctant to speak about this matter, until these
people innovated what they have innovated, and mentioned what they mentioned, they called the people
towards what they called them towards, so their reality became clear to us, which is didbelief in the sight of
Allāh the supreme.”

Ibn Abī Ya’lah mentioned in “Tabaqāt al-Hanābilah” (2/553): I read in the book of Abū Bakr al-Khallāl that he
said, I was informed by ‘Alī Ibn al-Hussayn Ibn Hārūn, who said Muhammad Ibn Abī Hārūn al-Warrāq narrated
to me, who said I heard Ya’qūb Ibn Ibrāhīm ad-Dawraqī say, I asked Ahmad Ibn Hanbal about the one who
says the Qur’ān is created, so he replied;

I didn’t use to make takfīr upon them until I read verses from the Qur’ān, “If you were to follow their desires
after what has come to you of knowledge (i.e. Qur’ān).” [2:120], and His statement, “after this knowledge
(i.e. Qur’ān) has come to you.” [3:61] and His statement, “He has sent it down with His knowledge.” [4:166],
so the Qur’ān is from the knowledge of Allāh, and whoever claims the knowledge of Allāh is created (meaning
Allāh was ignorant before creating his knowledge), then he is a kāfir, and whoever says that he doesn’t know
whether the knowledge of Allāh is created or uncreated, then he is also a kāfir and much worse than the one
who says the Qur’ān is created.

And at the final stage, Abū ‘Abdillāh (i.e. Imām Ahmad) mentioned as Shāhīn as-Sumayda’ narrated from
him; “Whoever say the Qur’ān is created, then he is a kāfir, and whoever doubts in his kufr, then he is a
kāfir.”

5 – The refraining of al-Hulwānī al-Hassan Ibn ‘Alī from making takfīr upon the wāqif pertaining to the Qur’ān
(i.e. the one who says it’s the speech of Allāh, but doesn’t say it is created or uncreated) and his statement,
“I don’t make takfīr upon the one who makes waqf concerning the Qur’ān”, and the statement of Abī
Salamah Ibn Shabīb, “Whoever doesn’t testify the kufr of a kāfir is a kāfir”, along with Ath-Thahabī’s
comment upon his statement, “This is ghuluw and kharijism by Salamah” isn’t that significant, since
everyone has his own viewpoint.

Since making takfīr upon the wāqif is unlike making takfīr upon the one who claims the Qur’ān is created, and
there’s no doubt that refraining from making takfeer upon the waqif is a lighter matter according to the
scholars than not making takfīr upon the one who claims it’s created.

And this waqf could be a a waqf of ignorance (of the meaning and reality), so the individual is to be taught
and isn’t labelled an innovator, and it could be a waqf of doubt and confusion, so he is called an innovator,
but isn’t made takfīr upon according to the scholars, and it could be a waqf of caution and piety, and it could
be a waqf of deception and concealing one’s beliefs, so the individual would be tagged along with the valley
of the jahmiyyah.

And if the matter was like I described, then there’s no doubt that the unrestricted claim of Ibn Shabīb
contains exaggeration from two angles:

1- His takfīr upon al-Hulwānī due to his refraining from making takfīr upon the wāqif of the Qur’ān alone.

2- Unrestrictedly applying takfīr upon the wāqif without elaboration, which is in opposition to the Manhaj of
the Imāms of hadīth as aforementioned in the speech of Imām Ahmad, the two Rāzī’s and Ibn Munī’.

In any case, al-Hulwānī is an Imām from the Imāms of hadīth, and from the shuyūkh of bukhārī and muslim,
he would say the Qur’ān is the speech of Allāh that’s uncreared, except that he would abstain from making
takfīr upon the wāqif pertaining the Qur’ān alone.

And making waqf pertaining to the Qur’ān was the opinion of a group of Muhaddithīn, such as Ya’qūb Ibn
Shaybah as-Sadūsī, the author of “al-Musnad al-Mu’allal”, and Abī al-Hassan al-Jawharī ‘Alī Ibn al-Ja’d who
used to say;

“The Qur’ān is the speech of Allāh, and whoever said it’s created, I wouldn’t be harsh against him.”

Among them was also Ishāq Ibn Abī Isrā’īl, who Imām Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said about, “He’s an unfortunate
wāqifī, except that he is intelligent and a scholar of hadīth.”

Among them was Mus’ab Ibn ‘Abdillāh Ibn Mus’ab az-Zubayrī al-Madanī who would make waqf pertaining to
the Qur’ān, and he would belittle those who don’t make waqf.
These scholars and others weren’t made takfīr upon by the scholars of hadīth. Rather, the most that has
been narrated regarding them is tabdī’ (being declared innovators).

6 — Abiding by the modern day man-made laws in following what they make halāl and harām is from explicit
kufr according to us, not from the implications of kufr, with the condition that one has knowledge of the
reality.

And whoever orders the people to abide by it, then according to us he is commanding kufr and associating
partners with Allāh, and he is a kāfir if he knows the reality of the land (being ruled by man-made laws),
since abiding by kufr is kufr on its own, just like being pleased with kufr is kufr on its own.

7 — As for the one who completely misinterprets the names and attributes of Allāh all-together, then he is
from the ghulāt al-Bātiniyyah and Jahmiyyah, and he is a kāfir due to denying the Qur’ān, Sunnah and Ijmā’
of the salaf of the ummah.

And if his kufr was said to be from the aspect of being a Lāzim (implication of kufr), then there’s no doubt it’s
from the clear implications, infact from the darūrī (implications of kufr known by necessity in the Dīn).

And there’s no difference between the implications of kufr and adopting the implication (of agreeing to
what’s considered kufr in and of itself) when it’s related to Qat’iyyāt and Darūriyyāt (i.e. clear-cut matters &
what’s required to be known in the Dīn for the validity of Īmān).

Likewise, whoever distorts a name from the names of Allāh from its actual meaning, or an attribute from his
attributes which is confirmed via the clear-cut textual evidences and mutawātir reports, then he is a kāfir as
well, due to denying the clear-cut report of the legislator in the topic.

As for making ta’wīl upon some reports related to the Sifāt (attributes of Allāh) which hasn’t reached this
level of explicitness, then the individual who does so is a mistaken innovator whose opposing the sunnah,
and making takfīr upon him is only permitted after the establishment of the hujjah and clarifying the matter
to him, since the implication of kufr could become unclear, so it would be from the unclear implications (of
kufr) which isn’t permissible to make takfīr upon, unless the individual is aware of it or abides by the
implication (of kufr).

Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr (‫ )رﺣﻤﻪ اﻟﻠﻪ‬said, “Ahlus-Sunnah unanimously agree upon affirming all the attributes of Allāh
that are narrated in the Qur’ān and Sunnah, whilst having Īmān in it, and holding the attributes upon the
literal meaning, not a metaphorical meaning, except that they do not explain how any of His attributes
function (since we don’t know how Allāh himself functions), and they do not restrict any specific attributes of
His (such as His infinite mercy and how many things entail from this attribute). As for ahlul-bida’, along with
all the jahmiyyah and mu’tazilah, including the khawārij, then all of them reject His attributes, and they do
not hold anything from it upon the literal meaning.”

— Refer to “At-Tamhīd” (7/145).

8 — Describing the opponent of the sunnah in a specific topic with what he deserves of knowledge,
understanding and ‘Ibādah, such as the titles of al-Hāfidh, ash-Shaykh, al-Imām, al-‘Ābid, then there’s
nothing wrong with this by default if people aren’t drawn towards him due to it (i.e. without praising him to
cause fitnah for the people to learn from this innovator, etc...).

Since this is from the aspect of speaking with justice and avoiding being unfair in giving others their rightful
status, while placing the people at their respected levels of knowledge and understanding.

Infact, this is even permissible to be done for the kāfir aslī (original disbeliever), as ‘Amr Ibn al-‘Ās (‫رﺿﻲ اﻟﻠﻪ‬
‫ )ﻋﻨﻪ‬said about the christians of Rome;

“It is a fact for they have four qualities. They have the patience to undergo a trial and immediately restore
themselves to sanity after trouble and attack again after flight. They (have the quality) of being good to the
destitute and the orphans, to the weak and, fifthly, the good quality in them is that they put resistance
against the oppression of kings”.

And in another narration, “They have the power of tolerance amongst people at the time of turmoil and
restore themselves to sanity after trouble, and are good amongst people so far as the destitute and the weak
are concerned.”

— Refer to “Sahīh Muslim” (2898) and Ahmad (18022).

Moreover, the praising of the Salaf towards some innovators with what they have of goodness is well-known,
when there’s no fitnah involved (of drawing the people towards him).

Imām Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr said, “Talq Ibn Habīb is Thiqah according to them with what he narrates, except that he
is one of the heads of the murji’ah, and despite that, he was a noble ‘Ābid (worshipper), and Mālik would
praise him for his ‘Ibādah (acts of worship), while he wouldn’t be pleased with his creed.”
— Refer to “Al-Istith’kār” (1/68) and “al-Masālik Fī Sharh Muwatta’ Mālik” (1/416).

We won’t get into further details than this, and the speech of the A’immat ad-Da’wah an-Najdiyyah isn’t
outside of this Asl (principle), Inshā’Allāh.

9 — Concernng making takfīr upon everyone who falls into kufr ta’wīl or making takfīr upon unclear matters
unrestrictedly, we do not know of anyone to attribute this too, nor is it tied to the knowledge-based
methodology, nor does it correspond with the sīrah of the salaf (in how they applied takfīr), nor does it agree
with the usūl of asmā’ and ahkām (the principles of applying islamic labels and rulings upon the people).

Infact, it is closer to the manhaj of the wicked harūriyyah than the madhāhib of the scholars within the
ummah and fuqahā’ of the millah. And that is because the one making takfīr in kufr ta’wīl unrestrictedly
doesn’t view a kufr in the sight of Allāh which he has evidence for, but rather he viewed an implication (of
kufr) while it’s not kufr in and of itself.

So if he makes takfīr by this (implication), it’s like he is making takfīr upon people whilst kufr is negated from
them, and this is impermissible according to the agreement of the muslims. And by doing this, the one
making takfīr would be more deserving of being made takfīr upon than the one he is making takfīr upon, and
it contains serious danger which isn’t hidden from anyone.

As for the rest of your questions, I will send their answers in the closest most suitable time by the permission
of Allāh.

— Related by Abū Bakr at-Tarābulsī ✍

_____________

[1] To provide an additional example;

A hukm wad’ī is what Allāh has established where we have no choice, such as when the sun sets, this means
that it’s time to pray maghrib.

A hukm takleefī is when there is a command given by Allāh to the individual, such as when the sun sets, this
means it’s obligatory upon us to pray maghrib.

Now, if the sun sets, does it automatically mean everyone is praying? No, but rather it means that it’s time
for maghrib where everyone should pray, otherwise they will be falling into fisq at the very least.

Just like if someone has fell into a cause of kufr, the hukm wad’ī is that when he falls into this cause of kufr,
he automatically becomes a kāfir.

But does this mean, everyone is making takfīr upon him? No, even though the hukm takleefī is that it’s
obligatory to apply takfīr upon him, otherwise we will be sinful for abandoning the hukm of Allāh, which could
lead us to fisq and kufr.

‫ ﺳﺄﻟ ﺖ اﻟ ﺸﻴ ﺦ ا ﻷ ﺻ ﻮﻟ ﻲ ﺣ ﺴﺎ ن ﺣ ﺴﻴ ﻦ اﻟ ﺼ ﻮ ﻣﺎﻟ ﻲ‬:

‫ واﻟﻜﺘﺐ اﻟﺘﻲ ذﻛﺮﻫﺎ‬،‫ وﻛﻢ أﺗﻤﻌﻦ اﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﻳﻮﻣﻴ ّﺎ‬،‫ واﻟﻠﻪ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﻛﻢ أﺣﺒﻪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻠﻪ‬،‫ أﺗﻤﻨﻰ ﻓﻲ ﻳﻮم ﻣﻦ اﻷﻳﺎم أن أدرس ﺗﺤﺖ ﻳﺪ اﻟﺸﻴﺦ‬،‫أوﻻ‬
‫ﻢ ﺑ ﻤﺘ ﺮ ﺟ ﻤ ﻬﺎ اﻟ ﻰ اﻟ ﻠ ﻐ ﺔ ا ﻹﻧ ﺠ ﻠﻴ ﺰﻳ ﺔ‬
ٌ ‫ أﻧﺎ ﻗﺎﺋ‬،‫اﻟﺸﻴﺦ‬.

‫ وا ﺳ ﺘ ﻔ ﺪ ﻧ ﺎ ﻛ ﺜ ﻴ ﺮا ً إ ﻻ أ ﻧ ﻪ ﻳ ﺒ ﻘ ﻰ ﺑ ﻌ ﺾ ا ﻷ ﺳ ﺌ ﻠ ﺔ‬، ‫ﺖ ﻧ ﺼ ﻴ ﺤ ﺘ ﻪ و ﺣ ﺘ ﻰ إ ﻧ ﻲ ﻗ ﺮأ ت ﻛ ﺘ ﺒ ﻪ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ﺷ ﻴ ﺨ ﻲ وا ﻟ ﺤ ﺎ ﺿ ﺮ ﻳ ﻦ ﻓ ﻲ د ر و ﺳ ﻨ ﺎ‬
ُ ‫ ﻗ ﺒ ﻠ‬، ‫ﻓ ﻴ ﻤ ﺎ ﻳ ﺘ ﻌ ﻠ ﻖ ﺑ ﺎ ﻟ ﺠ ﻮا ب‬
‫ ا ﻟ ﻴ ﺴ ﻴ ﺮ ة ﻓ ﻴ ﻤ ﺎ ﻗ ﺮأ ت ﻣ ﻦ ﺟ ﻤ ﻴ ﻊ ﻣ ﺼ ﻨ ﻔ ﺎ ﺗ ﻪ‬.

،‫ ﺣﺘ ﻰ ﻧ ﻌ ﺮ ف ﻣﺘ ﻰ ﻳ ﻜ ﻮ ن ﻣ ﺬ ﻣ ﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻣ ﻦ ﺗ ﺮ ﻛ ﻪ ﻟ ﻠﺘ ﻜ ﻔﻴ ﺮ‬،‫ ﺑ ﻞ ﺳﺄﻟ ﺖ ﻣﺘ ﻰ }ﻳ ﺠ ﺐ { ﻋ ﻠﻴ ﻪ أ ن ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ‬،‫ – ﻟ ﻢ أ ﺳﺄ ل ﻋ ﻦ ﻣﺘ ﻰ ﻳ ﺠ ﻮ ز ﻟ ﻠ ﻌﺎ ﻣ ﻲ أ ن ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ‬١


‫و ﻟ ﺬ ﻟ ﻚ ﺿ ﺮ ﺑ ﺖ ﻣ ﺜ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﻮ ل ﺑ ﺨ ﻠ ﻖ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن‬

"‫ وﻫﺬا ﻳﻌﻨﻲ أن‬.‫ذﻛﺮ ﻓﻀﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺸﻴﺦ ﺑﺄن ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ اﻟﻘﻮل ﺑﺨﻠﻖ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻔﺮ اﻟﺘﺄوﻳﻞ اﻟﺬي ﻳﺆؤل ﺑﻪ اﻟﻰ رد آﻳﺎت اﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﺒﺎرك وﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ‬
‫ ﻓ ﺤ ﻴ ﻨ ﺌ ﺬ‬، ‫ا ﻹ ﻧ ﺴ ﺎ ن ﻗ ﺪ ﻳ ﻌ ﺬ ر ﺑ ﺴ ﺒ ﺐ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﺄ و ﻳ ﻞ و ﻫ ﺬا ﻫ ﻮ ﻇ ﺎ ﻫ ﺮ ﺗ ﻘ ﺮ ﻳ ﺮ ا ﻷ ﺋ ﻤ ﺔ وا ﻟ ﻤ ﻌ ﺘ ﻤ ﺪ ﻓ ﻲ ﻣ ﺬ ﻫ ﺐ أ ﺣ ﻤ ﺪ ﻓ ﻲ ﺟ ﻌ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﻘ ﻠ ﺪ ﻳ ﻦ ﻓ ﺴ ﺎ ق ﻛ ﻤ ﺎ ﺣ ﻜ ﺎ ه ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺠ ﺪ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻲ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﺨﻠﻖ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻷﻧﻪ أﺻﻼ ﻣﺘﺄول وﻻ ﻳﺠﻮز ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮه‬.

‫وا ﻹ ﺷ ﻜ ﺎ ل ا ﻟ ﺬ ي ﻋ ﻨ ﺪ ي أ ن ا ﻷ ﺋ ﻤ ﺔ أ ﺟ ﻤ ﻌ ﻮا ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ﺗ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ﻣ ﻦ ﻟ ﻢ ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺎ ﺋ ﻞ ﺑ ﺨ ﻠ ﻖ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ) ﻛ ﻤ ﺎ ﻓ ﻲ ر ﺳ ﺎ ﻟ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﺮا ز ﻳ ﻴ ﻦ ﻷ ﻧ ﻬ ﻢ أ د ر ﻛ ﻮا ﻋ ﻠ ﻤ ﺎ ء‬
‫ ﻓ ﻜ ﻴ ﻒ ﻳ ﻘ ﺎ ل ﻣ ﻦ ﻟ ﻢ ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ه ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ؟‬، ‫ ﻣ ﻊ أ ﻧ ﻪ ﻣ ﻦ ﻗ ﺒ ﻴ ﻞ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﺄ و ﻳ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﺬ ي ﻻ ﻳ ﺠ ﻌ ﻠ ﻪ ﻛ ﺎ ﻓ ﺮا إ ﻻ ﺑ ﻌ ﺪ إ ﻗ ﺎ ﻣ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﺤ ﺠ ﺔ ﻋ ﻠ ﻴ ﻪ‬، ( ‫ا ﻷ ﻣ ﺼ ﺎ ر‬

‫ وا ﻹ ﻣ ﺎ م ا ﻟ ﺒ ﺮ ﺑ ﻬ ﺎ ر ي ﻳ ﻘ ﻮ ل ﻓ ﻲ ﺷ ﺮ ح‬، ‫ ﻷ ﻧ ﻪ ﺣ ﻴ ﻨ ﺌ ﺬ ﻗ ﺪ ر د ا ﻟ ﻨ ﺺ‬، ‫ا ﻟ ﺬ ي ﻳ ﻈ ﻬ ﺮ ﻟ ﻲ أ ﻧ ﻪ ﻳ ﺠ ﺐ ﺗ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺎ ﺋ ﻞ ﺑ ﺨ ﻠ ﻖ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ا ذا ﻗ ﺎ ﻣ ﺖ ﻋ ﻠ ﻴ ﻪ ا ﻟ ﺤ ﺠ ﺔ‬
‫اﻟ ﺴﻨ ﺔ؛‬

"‫ أو‬-‫ﺻﻠﻰ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ‬- ‫ أو ﻳﺮد ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ً ﻣﻦ آﺛﺎر رﺳﻮل اﻟﻠﻪ‬،‫وﻻ ﻧ ُﺨﺮج أﺣﺪا ً ﻣﻦ أﻫﻞ اﻟﻘﺒﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻹﺳﻼم ﺣﺘﻰ ﻳﺮد آﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎب اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﺰ وﺟﻞ‬
َ ‫ ﻓﺈذا ﻓﻌﻞ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ً ﻣﻦ ذﻟﻚ ﻓﻘﺪ وﺟ‬،‫ أو ﻳﺬﺑﺢ ﻟﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﻠﻪ‬،‫"ﻳﺼﻠﻲ ﻟﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﻠﻪ‬.
‫ﺐ ﻋﻠﻴ ﻚ أ ن ﺗ ﺨ ﺮ ﺟ ﻪ ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻹ ﺳ ﻼ م‬

‫ وﻟﻌﻞ ﻗﺎﻋﺪة ﻣﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻔﺮ اﻟﻜﺎﻓﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬا اﻟﻤﺤﻞ ﻣﻨّﺰﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬.‫ }وﺟﺐ{ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮه‬،‫واﻟﺸﺎﻫﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﻘﻞ أن ﻣﻦ اﺗﺼﻒ ﺑﻤﺎ ذﻛﺮ ﻣﻦ رد اﻟﻨﺼﻮص‬
‫ ﻓ ﻬ ﻞ ﻳ ﻤ ﻜ ﻦ أ ن ﻳ ﻘ ﺎ ل أ ﻧ ﻪ و ﻗ ﻊ ﻓ ﻲ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ‬، ‫ وا ﻹ ﻣ ﺎ م ا ﻟ ﻨ ﻮ و ي ﻳ ﺮ ى ا ﻟ ﻘ ﻮ ل ﺑ ﺨ ﻠ ﻖ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ا ﻷ ﺻ ﻐ ﺮ‬، ‫ﻣ ﻦ ا ﺗ ﺼ ﻒ ﺑ ﺮ د ا ﻟ ﻨ ﺺ ﻣ ﻊ ذ ﻫ ﺎ ب ا ﻟ ﺘ ﺄ و ﻳ ﻞ‬
‫ﻧﻮع )وﻟﻴﺲ اﻟﻌﻴﻦ( ﻷﻧﻪ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺮى ﻫﺬه اﻟﻤﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﻛﻔﺮا ًﺑﻨﺎءا ً ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪة اﻟﻤﺬﻛﻮة‬."
‫‪ - ٢‬ﻳ ﺎ ﺷ ﻴ ﺦ ‪ ،‬ﻗ ﺪ ﺣ ﺮ ر ت ا ﻟ ﻘ ﻮ ل ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ﺑ ﻼ ز م ا ﻟ ﻘ ﻮ ل ا ﻟ ﺠ ﻠ ﻲ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻔ ﺘ ﺎ و ى ا ﻟ ﺸ ﺮ ﻋ ﻴ ﺔ ﻋ ﻦ ا ﻷ ﺳ ﺌ ﻠ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﺠ ﻴ ﺒ ﻮ ﺗ ﻴ ﺔ ﺗ ﺤ ﺮ ﻳ ﺮا ً ﻧ ﻔ ﻴ ﺴ ﺔ ‪ ،‬وأ ﻧ ﻪ ﻣ ﺬ ﻫ ﺐ ﺟ ﻤ ﻬ ﻮ ر‬
‫‪ .‬ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺤ ﺪ ﺛ ﻴ ﻦ وا ﻟ ﻔ ﻘ ﻬ ﺎ ء ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﺴ ﻠ ﻒ ‪ ،‬و ﻻ إ ﺷ ﻜ ﺎ ل ﻓ ﻲ ﻫ ﺬا‬

‫و ﻟ ﻜ ﻦ أ ر ﻳ ﺪ أ ﻣ ﺜ ﻠ ﺔ أ ﻛ ﺜ ﺮ ﺗ ﺒ ﻴ ﻦ ﻟ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻮا ز م ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺤ ﺘ ﻤ ﻠ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﺒ ﺎ ﻃ ﻠ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﻲ ﻻ ﻳ ﺠ ﻮ ز ا ﻟ ﺘ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ﻓ ﻴ ﻬ ﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻛ ﻤ ﺎ ذ ﻛ ﺮ ت ﻓ ﻲ ﻣ ﺴ ﺄ ﻟ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﺠ ﻨ ﺲ ﻣ ﻦ ﻏ ﻴ ﺮ إ ﻟ ﺘ ﺰا م ﻟ ﻠ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑ ﻌ ﺾ ا ﻟ ﻨ ﺎ س ﻗ ﺎ ﻟ ﻮا إ ن ﻫ ﺬا ا ﻟ ﻔ ﻌ ﻞ ﻳ ﺆ و ل ﺑ ﻬ ﻢ ا ﻟ ﻰ ﻣ ﻮا ﻓ ﻘ ﺔ د ﺳ ﺎ ﺗ ﻴ ﺮ ﻫ ﻢ ا ﻟ ﺦ ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻮا ز م ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺤ ﺘ ﻤ ﻠ ﺔ ‪ ،‬و ﺑ ﻴ ﻨ ﺖ أ ن ﻫ ﺬا ﺑ ﺎ ﻃ ﻞ ﻷ ن أ ﻛ ﺜ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﻮ ﺣ ﺪ ﻳ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﺬ ﻳ ﻦ‬
‫‪ .‬أ ﺧ ﺬ و ﻫ ﺎ ﻳ ﺼ ﺮ ﺣ ﻮ ن ﺑ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﺪ ﺳ ﺎ ﺗ ﻴ ﺮ و ﻗ ﻮا ﻧ ﻴ ﻨ ﻬ ﻢ‬

‫إ ﺿ ﺎ ﻓ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﻰ ﻫ ﺬا ‪ ،‬ﻫ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺆ و ل ﻟ ﻸ ﺳ ﻤ ﺎ ء وا ﻟ ﺼ ﻔ ﺎ ت ﻳ ﺪ ﺧ ﻞ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ﺑ ﺎ ﻟ ﻼ ز م ا ﻟ ﺠ ﻠ ﻲ أ م ا ﻟ ﺨ ﻔ ﻲ ‪ ،‬ﻷ ن ا ﻷ ﺋ ﻤ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﺪ ﻋ ﻮ ة ا ﻟ ﻨ ﺠ ﻮ ﻳ ﺔ ﻳ ﺴ ﻤ ﻮ ن إ ﺑ ﻦ ﺣ ﺠ ﺮ‬
‫ا ﻟ ﻌ ﺴ ﻘ ﻼ ﻧ ﻲ ﺣ ﺎ ﻓ ﻆ ﻋ ﺼ ﺮ ه ﻣ ﻊ ا ﻟ ﺜ ﻨ ﺎ ء ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ا ﻟ ﻨ ﻮ و ي و ﺗ ﺴ ﻤ ﻴ ﺔ ﺑ ﻌ ﺾ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺘ ﺄ ﺛ ﺮ ﻳ ﻦ ﺑ ﺎ ﻟ ﻤ ﺬ ﻫ ﺐ ا ﻷ ﺷ ﻌ ﺮ ي ﺑ ﺸ ﻴ ﺦ ا ﻹ ﺳ ﻼ م ‪ ،‬ﻓ ﻤ ﺎ ﻧ ﻘ ﻮ ل ﻓ ﻲ ﻣ ﺜ ﻞ ﻫ ﺬا ‪ ،‬و ﻣ ﺎ‬
‫‪ .‬ﺣ ﻜ ﻢ ﻣ ﻦ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ﻓ ﻲ اﻟ ﻤ ﺴﺎﺋ ﻞ اﻟ ﺨ ﻔﻴ ﺔ ؟ ﻛ ﻤ ﻦ ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ﻛ ﻞ ﻣ ﻦ و ﻗ ﻊ ﻓ ﻲ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ﺗﺄ وﻳ ﻞ ﻣﻨ ﺬ ﻋ ﻬ ﺪ اﻟ ﺴ ﻠ ﻒ اﻟ ﻰ ا ﻻ ن ﺑ ﺪ و ن ﺗ ﻔ ﺼﻴ ﻞ‬

‫‪ - ٣‬أ ر ﻳ ﺪ ﺗ ﻮ ﺿ ﻴ ﺢ ﻟ ﻤ ﺎ ذ ﻛ ﺮ ﺷ ﻴ ﺦ ا ﻹ ﺳ ﻼ م ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﺮ وا ﻳ ﺘ ﻴ ﻦ ﻋ ﻦ ا ﻹ ﻣ ﺎ م أ ﺣ ﻤ ﺪ ﻓ ﻲ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ﻣ ﻦ ﻟ ﻢ ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﺠ ﻬ ﻤ ﻴ ﺔ و ر ﺟ ﺢ ﻋ ﺪ م ا ﻟ ﺘ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ‪ ،‬ﻫ ﻞ ﻗ ﺼ ﺪ ا ﻟ ﺠ ﻬ ﻤ ﻴ ﺔ‬
‫اﻟ ﻤ ﺤ ﻀ ﺔ أ م ا ﻫ ﻞ اﻟﺒ ﺪ ع اﻟ ﻤ ﻘ ﻠ ﺪﻳ ﻦ ﻟﺒ ﻌ ﺾ أ ﺻ ﻮ ل اﻟ ﺠ ﻬ ﻤﻴ ﺔ اﻟ ﻤ ﺤ ﻀ ﺔ‪ ،‬و ﻛﻴ ﻒ ﻳ ﺤ ﻜ ﻲ اﻟ ﺨ ﻼ ف ﻓ ﻲ اﻟ ﻤ ﺴﺄﻟ ﺔ ﻣ ﻊ أ ن اﻟ ﻘﺎ ﻋ ﺪ ة ﻣ ﺠ ﻤ ﻊ ﻋ ﻠﻴ ﻬﺎ ﺣ ﻮ ل ﻣ ﻦ ﻟ ﻢ‬
‫‪ .‬ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ اﻟ ﺠ ﻬ ﻤﻴ ﺔ‬

‫و ﻋ ﻦ أ ﺑ ﻲ ﺳ ﻠ ﻴ ﻤ ﺎ ن دا و د ﺑ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﺤ ﺴ ﻴ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﺒ ﻴ ﻬ ﻘ ﻲ ﻗ ﺎ ل ‪ ،‬ﺑ ﻠ ﻐ ﻨ ﻲ أ ن ا ﻟ ﺤ ﻠ ﻮا ﻧ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﺤ ﺴ ﻦ ﺑ ﻦ ﻋ ﻠ ﻲ ﻗ ﺎ ل ‪" ،‬إ ﻧ ﻲ ﻻ أ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ﻣ ﻦ و ﻗ ﻒ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن " ﻓ ﺘ ﺮ ﻛ ﻮا‬


‫‪ .‬ﻋﻠ ﻤ ﻪ‬

‫ﺤﻠﻮاﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎل‪" :‬ﻳ ُﺮﻣﻰ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﺶ"‪ ،‬ﻗﺎل ﺳﻠﻤﺔ )ﺑﻦ ﺷﺒﻴﺐ(‪" ،‬ﻣﻨﻠﻢ ﻳﺸﻬﺪ ﺑﻜﻔﺮ اﻟﻜﺎﻓﺮ‬
‫ﻗﺎ ل أﺑ ﻮ ﺳ ﻠﻴ ﻤﺎ ن‪ ،‬ﺳﺄﻟ ﺖ ﺳ ﻠ ﻤ ﺔ ﺑ ﻦ ﺷﺒﻴ ﺐ ﻋ ﻦ ﻋ ﻠ ﻢ اﻟ ُ‬
‫"ﻓﻬﻮ ﻛﺎﻓﺮ‬

‫" ا ﻟ ﺸ ﺎ ﻫ ﺪ ﻣ ﻦ ﻫ ﺬ ه ا ﻟ ﺮ وا ﻳ ﺔ ﺗ ﻌ ﻠ ﻴ ﻖ ا ﻹ ﻣ ﺎ م ا ﻟ ﺬ ﻫ ﺒ ﻲ و ﺗ ﻌ ﻘ ﻴ ﺒ ﻪ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ﺳ ﻠ ﻤ ﺔ ﺑ ﻦ ﺷ ﺒ ﻴ ﺐ ﺣ ﻴ ﻦ ﻗ ﺎ ل ؛ " ﻫ ﺬا ﻏ ﻠ ﻮ و ﺧ ﺮ و ج ﻣ ﻦ ﺳ ﻠ ﻤ ﺔ‬

‫)راﺟﻊ ﺗﻬﺬﻳﺐ اﻟﺘﻬﺬﻳﺐ )‪2/303‬‬

‫ﻇﺎ ﻫ ﺮ ﻛ ﻼ م اﻟﺬ ﻫﺒ ﻲ ﻓ ﻲ ﺣ ﻖ ﺳﻠ ﻤ ﺔ ﺑ ﻦ ﺷﺒﻴ ﺐ ﻣﺒﻨ ﻲ ﻋﻠ ﻰ ﻣ ﻦ ﺑﺎﻟ ﻎ ﻓ ﻲ اﻟﺘ ﻜ ﻔﻴ ﺮ ﺑﺎﻟ ﻼز م )و ﻗﺪ ﺑﻴ ﻦ ﺷﻴ ﺨﻨﺎ أ ن ﻫﻨﺎ ك اﻟ ﻜﺜﻴ ﺮ ﻣ ﻦ أ ﻫ ﻞ اﻟﻌﻠ ﻢ ﻣ ﻦ‬
‫) ﻗ ﺼ ﺪ ا ﻟ ﻼ ز م ا ﻟ ﺨ ﻔ ﻲ ﻓ ﻲ ﻗ ﻮ ﻟ ﻬ ﻢ ﻻ ز م ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺬ ﻫ ﺐ ﻟ ﻴ ﺲ ﺑ ﻤ ﺬ ﻫ ﺐ و ﻫ ﺬا ﻫ ﻮ ﻇ ﺎ ﻫ ﺮ ﺗ ﻘ ﺮ ﻳ ﺮ ﺷ ﻴ ﺦ ا ﻹ ﺳ ﻼ م‬

‫‪:‬ﻗﺎل اﻹﻣﺎم اﻟﺬﻫﺒﻲ رﺣﻤﻪ اﻟﻠﻪ‬

‫ﻻ رﻳﺐ أن ﺑﻌﺾ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء اﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻮا ﻓﻲ اﻟﻨﻔﻲ‪ ،‬واﻟﺮد واﻟﺘﺤﺮﻳﻒ واﻟﺘﻨﺰﻳﻪ ﺑﺰﻋﻤﻬﻢ ﺣﺘﻰ وﻗﻌﻮا ﻓﻲ ﺑﺪﻋﺔ‪ ،‬أو ﻧﻌﺖ اﻟﺒﺎري ﺑﻨﻌﻮت اﻟﻤﻌﺪوم‪".‬‬
‫ﻛ ﻤ ﺎ أ ن ﺟ ﻤ ﺎ ﻋ ﺔ ﻣ ﻦ ﻋ ﻠ ﻤ ﺎ ء ا ﻷ ﺛ ﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺑ ﺎ ﻟ ﻐ ﻮا ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻹ ﺛ ﺒ ﺎ ت ‪ ،‬و ﻗ ﺒ ﻮ ل ا ﻟ ﻀ ﻌ ﻴ ﻒ وا ﻟ ﻤ ﻨ ﻜ ﺮ و ﻟ ﻬ ﺠ ﻮا ﺑ ﺎ ﻟ ﺴ ﻨ ﺔ وا ﻹ ﺗ ﺒ ﺎ ع ‪ .‬ﻓ ﺤ ﺼ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﺸ ﻐ ﺐ و و ﻗ ﻌ ﺖ ا ﻟ ﺒ ﻐ ﻀ ﺎ ء ‪ ،‬و ﺑ ﺪ ع‬
‫ﻫ ﺬا ﻫ ﺬا ‪ ،‬و ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ﻫ ﺬا ﻫ ﺬا و ﻧ ﻌ ﻮ ذ ﺑ ﺎ ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻬ ﻮ ى وا ﻟ ﻤ ﺮا ء ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﺪ ﻳ ﻦ ‪ ،‬وأ ن ﻧ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ﻣ ﺴ ﻠ ﻤ ﺎ ً ﻣ ﻮ ﺣ ﺪا ً ﺑ ﻼ ز م ﻗ ﻮ ﻟ ﻪ ‪ ،‬و ﻫ ﻮ ﻳ ﻔ ﺮ ﻣ ﻦ ذ ﻟ ﻚ ا ﻟ ﻼ ز م ‪ ،‬و ﻳ ﻨ ﺰ ه‬
‫" وﻳ ﻌ ﻈ ﻢ اﻟ ﺮ ب‬

‫‪ .‬ﻣ ﻊ ا ﻟ ﻌ ﻠ ﻢ أ ن ﺑ ﻌ ﺾ ا ﻟ ﻌ ﻠ ﻤ ﺎ ء ﻗ ﺎ ﻟ ﻮا ﻛ ﻼ ﻣ ﻪ ﻓ ﻴ ﻪ ﻗ ﺴ ﻮ ة ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ أ ﻫ ﻞ ا ﻷ ﺛ ﺮ‬

‫ﻫ ﻨ ﺎ ك ا ﻟ ﻜ ﺜ ﻴ ﺮ ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻨ ﺎ س ﻣ ﻦ ﻳ ﻘ ﻮ ل ‪ ،‬ﻳ ﺠ ﺐ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ا ﻟ ﺠ ﻤ ﻴ ﻊ أ ن ﻳ ﻠ ﺘ ﺰ م ﺑ ﻘ ﺎ ﻧ ﻮ ن أ را ﺿ ﻴ ﻬ ﻢ ) و ﻫ ﻲ و ﺿ ﻌ ﻴ ﺔ ( ‪ ،‬ﻫ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﺸ ﻴ ﺦ ﻳ ﺮ ى ﻫ ﺬ ه ا ﻟ ﻤ ﻘ ﺎ ﻟ ﺔ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ﻓ ﻲ ‪4 -‬‬


‫‪.‬ﻋﻴﻨﻬﺎ أم ﻣﻦ ﻟﻮازم اﻟﻜﻔﺮ‬

‫‪:‬أ ﺟﺎ ب اﻟ ﺸﻴ ﺦ أ ﻃﺎ ل اﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ﻋ ﻤ ﺮ ه ﺑ ﻤﺎ ﻳ ﻠ ﻲ‬

‫‪.‬اﻟﺤﻤﺪ ﻟﻠﻪ اﻟﺬي ﺑﻨﻌﻤﺘﻪ ﺗﺘﻢ اﻟﺼﺎﻟﺤﺎت واﻟﺨﻴﺮات واﻟﺼﻼة واﻟﺴﻼم ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻨﺒﻲ اﻷﻣﻴﻦ وﻋﻠﻰ آﻟﻪ وﺻﺤﺒﻪ اﻟﻐﺮ اﻟﻤﻴﺎﻣﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻲ اﻟ ﻘ ﺪﻳ ﺮ‬ ‫أ ﻣ ﺎ ﺑ ﻌ ﺪ ‪ :‬ﻓ ﻘ ﺪ و ﺻ ﻞ ﺧ ﻄ ﻜ ﻢ ‪ ،‬و ﻧ ﺸ ﻜ ﺮ ﻛ ﻢ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﻮا ﺻ ﻞ ‪ ،‬و ﺣ ﺴ ﻦ ﻇ ﻨ ﻜ ﻢ ‪ ،‬آ ﻣ ﻼ ﻣ ﻨ ﻜ ﻢ ﺗ ﺒ ﻠ ﻴ ﻎ ﺳ ﻼ ﻣ ﻲ و ﺗ ﺤ ﻴ ﺎ ﺗ ﻲ ﻟ ﻠ ﻤ ﺸ ﺎ ﻳ ﺦ ا ﻟ ﻜ ﺮا م ‪ ،‬ﺳ ﺎ ﺋ ﻼ ا ﻟ ﻌ ﻠ ّ‬
‫‪.‬أن ﻳﺤﻔﻈﻜﻢ وﻳﺠﻤﻌﻨﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻘّﺮ رﺣﻤﺘﻪ إﻧﻪ وﻟﻲ ذﻟﻜﻢ واﻟﻘﺎدر ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫‪ .‬ا ﻋ ﺘ ﺬ ر ﻋ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﺄ ﺧ ﺮ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺠ ﺎ و ﺑ ﺔ ﻟ ﻤ ﺎ ﻗ ﺪ ﻻ ﻳ ﺨ ﻔ ﻰ ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻷ ﺷ ﻐ ﺎ ل وا ﻷ ﻋ ﻤ ﺎ ل‬
‫ﻲ أن ﻳﻜّﻔﺮ إذا ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻜﻔﺮ وﻟﻢ ﺗﻘﻢ ﻋﻨﺪه ﺷﺒﻬﺔ ﻣﺎﻧﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻛﺎﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ ﻳﻤﺘﻨﻊ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻘﻀﺎء ﺑﺎﻟﺸﻬﻮد اﻟﻌﺪول ﻣﻦ ﻏﻴﺮ ‪1-‬‬ ‫ﻳ ﺠ ﺐ ﻋﻠ ﻰ اﻟﻌﺎ ﻣ ّ‬
‫ر ﻳ ﺒ ﺔ ‪ .‬و ﻗ ﺪ ﻗ ﻴ ﻞ ‪ :‬إ ن ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺎ ﺿ ﻲ ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ﻋ ﻨ ﺪ ﺋ ﺬ ‪ .‬ﻗ ﺎ ل ا ﺑ ﻦ ﺑ ﺮ ﻫ ﺎ ن ﻓ ﻲ ﻛ ﺘ ﺎ ب ا ﻷ و ﺳ ﻂ ‪ » :‬وا ﻟ ﺤ ﻜ ﻢ ﻋ ﻨ ﺪ ﻇ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺠ ﺘ ﻬ ﺪ ا ﻟ ﻨ ﺎ ﺷ ﺊ ﻋ ﻦ ا ﻷ ﻣ ﺎ ر ة ﻣ ﻌ ﻠ ﻮ م ﻣ ﻘ ﻄ ﻮ ع‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺑﺎﻹﺟﻤﺎع‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ أن اﻟﺤﺎﻛﻢ إذا ﺷﻬﺪت ﻋﻨﺪه اﻟﺒﻴ ّﻨﺔ ﻏﻠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻇﻨﻪ ﺻﺪﻗُﻬﻢ‪ ،‬وﻗﻄﻊ ﺑﻮﺟﻮب اﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﻹﺟﻤﺎع ﻋﻨﺪ ذﻟﻚ اﻟﻈﻦ‪ ،‬ﺣﺘﻰ ﻟﻮ‬
‫‪).‬اﺳﺘﺤﻞ ﻋﺪم اﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﻛﻔﺮ؛ ﻟﺘﺮﻛﻪ ﻣﻘﻄﻮﻋﺎ ﺑﻪ«‪ .‬اﻟﻨﻔﺎﺋﺲ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺮح اﻟﻤﺤﺼﻮل ﻟﻠﻘﺮاﻓﻲ )‪1/153‬‬
‫وا ﻟ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ﺣ ﻜ ﻢ ﺗ ﻜ ﻠ ﻴ ﻔ ﻲ ﻣ ﻦ ﺣ ﻴ ﺚ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﺤ ﺮ ﻳ ﻢ و و ﺟ ﻮ ب ا ﻹ ﻛ ﻔ ﺎ ر ﻟ ﻠ ﻤ ﺴ ﺘ ﺤ ﻖ ‪ ،‬وا ﻟ ﺘ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ﺣ ﻜ ﻢ و ﺿ ﻌ ﻲ ﻣ ﻦ ﺣ ﻴ ﺚ ا ﻟ ﺮ ﺑ ﻂ ﺑ ﺎ ﻷ ﺳ ﺒ ﺎ ب ؛ ﻷ ن ا ﻟ ﺸ ﺎ ر ع ﻗ ﺪ و ﺿ ﻊ‬
‫ﻲ‪ .‬وﻳ ﺠ ﺐ‬ ‫أ ﺳ ﺒ ﺎ ﺑ ﺎ ﻟ ﺜ ﺒ ﻮ ت ا ﻷ ﺣ ﻜ ﺎ م و ﺟ ﻌ ﻠ ﻬ ﺎ ر وا ﺑ ﻂ ﻟ ﻬ ﺎ ‪ ،‬و ﻛ ﺄ ﻧ ﻪ ﻗ ﺎ ل ‪ :‬إ ذا رأ ﻳ ﺘ ﻢ ا ﻟ ﺴ ﺒ ﺐ ا ﻟ ﻔ ﻼ ﻧ ﻲ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ﺷ ﺨ ﺺ ﻓ ﺎ ﻋ ﻠ ﻤ ﻮا أ ﻧ ﻪ ﻣ ﺸ ﺮ ك أ و ﻛ ﺎ ﻓ ﺮ ‪ .‬ﻫ ﺬا و ﺿ ﻌ ّ‬
‫‪.‬ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ ﻋﺒﺎدي أن ﺗﺤﻜﻤﻮا ﺑﻜﻔﺮ ﻓﻼن‪ .‬وﻫﺬا ﺗﻜﻠﻴﻔﻲ‬
‫ل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻛﻔﺮا ﺻﺮﻳﺤﺎ‪2- .‬‬ ‫ا ﻟ ﺘ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ﺑ ﺨ ﻠ ﻖ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ﺑ ﻼ ز م ا ﻟ ﻘ ﻮ ل ؛ إ ذ ﻻ ﻧ ﺠ ﺪ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻜ ﺘ ﺎ ب و ﻻ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﺴ ﻨ ﺔ و ﻻ ﻓ ﻲ إ ﺟ ﻤ ﺎ ع ا ﻷ ﻣ ﺔ ﻣ ﺎ ﻳ ﺪ ّ‬
‫ﺴﻖ‬ ‫واﻟﻤﻌﺬور ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬه اﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﺼﻮّر ﻻزم ﻗﻮﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮاء اﻟﺘﺰم ﺑﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ اﻟﺘﺼﻮّر‪ ،‬أو ﻟﻢ ﻳﻠﺘﺰم‪ .‬واﻟﻌﺎﻣﻲ اﻟﺬي ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﺼﻮّر اﻟﻼزم ﻗﺪ ﻳﻔ ّ‬
‫ﺼﺒﻪ ﻷﻫﻞ اﻟﺒﺎﻃﻞ وﻋﺪم اﻟﻨﻈﺮ واﻟﺜﺒ ّﺖ ﻓﻲ أﻣﺮ دﻳﻨﻪ ﻣﻊ اﻟﺴﻤﺎع ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻋﻮة اﻟﻤﺨﺎﻟﻔﺔ ﻟﻤﺎ ﻳﺪﻋﻮ إﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻘﻠﺪه‬ ‫‪ .‬ﻟﺘﻌ ّ‬
‫وﻣﺮﺑﻂ ﻓﺮس اﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ‪ :‬اﻟﻔﺮق ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻜﻔﺮ اﻟﺼﺮﻳﺢ واﻟﻜﻔﺮ اﻹﻟﺰاﻣﻲ وﻗﺪ ﺳﺒﻖ ﺑﻴﺎن ﻛﻔﺮ اﻟﺘ ّﺼﺮﻳﺢ وأﻧﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺛﺒﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻛﻔﺮا ً ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻛﺘﺮك‬
‫ن ﻧﻔﺲ اﻟﺘ ّﺮك ﻛﻔﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ ّﺺ اﻟﻤﺸﻬﻮر‪ ،‬وﻛﺎﻻﺳﺘﻬﺰاء ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻪ وﺑﺮﺳﻮﻟﻪ وﺑﺂﻳﺎﺗﻪ ﻗﻞ أﺑﺎﻟﻠﻪ وآﻳﺎﺗﻪ ورﺳﻮﻟﻪ ﻛﻨﺘﻢ ﺗﺴﺘﻬﺰؤون ﻻ ﺗﻌﺘﺬروا ﻗﺪ‬ ‫اﻟ ﺼ ﻼ ة؛ ﻓﺈ ّ‬
‫‪ .‬ﻛ ﻔ ﺮﺗ ﻢ ﺑ ﻌ ﺪ إﻳ ﻤﺎﻧ ﻜ ﻢ ا ﻵﻳ ﺔ‬
‫أ ﻣ ﺎ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺂ ل ﻓ ﻤ ﺨ ﺎ ﻟ ﻒ ﻟ ﻠ ﺼ ﺮ ﻳ ﺢ ﻣ ﻦ ﺣ ﻴ ﺚ إ ﻧ ﻪ ﻟ ﻢ ﻳ ﺄ ت د ﻟ ﻴ ﻞ ﻓ ﻲ ﻛ ﻮ ﻧ ﻪ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮا ً ﺑ ﻨ ﻔ ﺴ ﻪ و ﻋ ﻴ ﻨ ﻪ ﻟ ﻜ ﻨ ﻪ ﻳ ﺴ ﺘ ﻠ ﺰ م ﻟ ﺰ و ﻣ ﺎ ذ ﻫ ﻨ ﻴ ﺎ ﻣ ﺎ ﻫ ﻮ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ﺑ ﻨ ﻔ ﺴ ﻪ ﻛ ﺎ ﻟ ﻘ ﻮ ل‬
‫! ﺑ ﺨ ﻠ ﻖ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻓ ﺈ ﻧ ﻪ ﻳ ﻠ ﺰ م ﻣ ﻨ ﻪ ﻛ ﻮ ن ا ﻟ ﺨ ﺎ ﻟ ﻖ ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ﻗ ﺎ‬
‫م ﻟﺸﺒﻬﺔ ﻳﺪ ّﻋﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻬﻮ اﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺂل اﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻓﻴﻪ‬ ‫‪.‬ﻓﺈن أﻧﻜﺮ ﺻﺎﺣﺒﻪ اﻟﻠﺰو َ‬
‫ﻣﺜ ﻼ ً‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫(‬ ‫ﺔ‬ ‫ﻴ‬ ‫ﺗ‬ ‫ﻮ‬ ‫ﺒ‬ ‫ﻴ‬ ‫ﺠ‬ ‫ﻟ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫)‬ ‫ﻲ‬ ‫ﻓ‬ ‫ﺎ‬ ‫ﻧ‬ ‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﻛ‬ ‫ذ‬ ‫ﺪ‬ ‫ﻗ‬ ‫و‬ ‫ﺢ‬ ‫ﻳ‬ ‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﺼ‬ ‫ﺘ‬ ‫ﻟ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﻔ‬ ‫ﻛ‬ ‫ﻰ‬ ‫ﻟ‬ ‫إ‬ ‫وإن اﻋﺘﺮف ﺑﺎﻟﻠﺰوم وﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﺮاﺟﻊ ﺑﻞ أﺻّﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﺘﻪ؛ ﻓﺎﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ اﻧﺘﻘﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻔﺮ اﻟﻼزم‬
‫‪.‬ﻛﺜﻴﺮة ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬا ﻓﻠﺘﺮاﺟﻊ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫أ ﻣ ﺎ ا ﻹ ﺟ ﻤ ﺎ ع ا ﻟ ﺬ ي ﻳ ﺬ ﻛ ﺮ ه أ ﺋ ﻤ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﺤ ﺪ ﻳ ﺚ ﻛ ﺎ ﻟ ﺮا ز ﻳ ﻴ ﻦ ﻓ ﻬ ﻮ ﻓ ﻲ أ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ د ر ﺟ ﺎ ﺗ ﻪ إ ﺟ ﻤ ﺎ ع ﻃ ﺎ ﺋ ﻔ ﺔ ٍ ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺴ ﻠ ﻤ ﻴ ﻦ و ﻟ ﻴ ﺲ إ ﺟ ﻤ ﺎ ﻋ ﺎ ﻳ ﻤ ﻜ ﻦ ا ﻻ ﺣ ﺘ ﺠ ﺎ ج ﺑ ﻪ ﻓ ﻲ‬
‫ﺗ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺎ ﺋ ﻞ ﺑ ﺨ ﻠ ﻖ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ؛ ﻷ ن أ ﻫ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﺒ ﺪ ع ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺎ ﺋ ﻠ ﻴ ﻦ ﺑ ﺬ ﻟ ﻚ ﻣ ﻦ أ ﻫ ﻞ ذا ك ا ﻟ ﻌ ﺼ ﺮ ‪ ،‬و ﻻ ﻳ ﺜ ﺒ ﺖ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ﻫ ﻢ ﺑ ﺈ ﺟ ﻤ ﺎ ع أ ﻫ ﻞ ﻋ ﺼ ﺮ ﻫ ﻢ ﺑ ﻞ ﺑ ﻨ ﺺ أ و ﺑ ﺈ ﺟ ﻤ ﺎ ع‬
‫‪.‬اﻧﻌﻘﺪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻋﺼﺮﻫﻢ‬
‫ﻗﺎل اﺑﻦ اﻟﺘﻠﻤﺴﺎﻧﻲ اﻟﻔﻬﺮي ﻓﻲ ﺷﺮح اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻓﻲ أﺻﻮل اﻟﻔﻘﻪ )‪» :(2/105‬اﻟﻤﺠﺘﻬﺪ اﻟﻤﺒﺘﺪع اﻟﻤﻜﻔﺮ ﺑﺒﺪﻋﺘﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ )ﻓﻲ اﻹﺟﻤﺎع(‪ ،‬وﻻ ﻳﺜﺒﺖ‬
‫ﻛﻔﺮه ﺑﺈﺟﻤﺎع أﻫﻞ ﻋﺼﺮه‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻬﻢ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮن ﻛﻞ اﻷﻣﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻔﺮ‪ ،‬وﻻ ﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮا ﻛﻞ اﻷﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ دور‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﺑﺈﺟﻤﺎع ﺗﻘﺪ ّﻣﻬﻢ‪ ،‬أو‬
‫‪».‬ﺑﻘﺎﻃﻊ ﻏﻴﺮ اﻹﺟﻤﺎع‬
‫وﻗﺎل ﻓﻲ ﺷﺮح ﻣﻌﺎﻟﻢ أﺻﻮل اﻟﺪﻳﻦ )ص‪» :(572‬وﻻ ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮه إﺟﻤﺎع أﻫﻞ ﻋﺼﺮه؛ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ ﻳﻨﻌﻘﺪ اﻹﺟﻤﺎع ﻣﻊ ﺧﻼﻓﻪ‪ .‬ﻧﻌﻢ‪،‬‬
‫‪».‬ﻳﺜﺒﺖ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮه ﺑﺈﺟﻤﺎع أﻫﻞ ﻋﺼﺮ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻋﺼﺮه‪ ،‬أو ﺑﻨﺺ ﻗﺎﻃﻊ‬
‫وﻗﺎل أﺑﻮ اﻟﻌﺒﺎس اﻟﻘﺮاﻓﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺮح اﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺢ )ص‪» :(311‬وأﻫﻞ اﻟﺒﺪع اﺧﺘﻠﻒ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎء ﻓﻲ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﻧﻈﺮا ً ﻟﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﺰم ﻣﻦ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﻔﺮ‬
‫‪.‬اﻟﺼﺮﻳﺢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ اﻋﺘﺒﺮ ذﻟﻚ وﺟﻌﻞ ﻻزم اﻟﻤﺬﻫﺐ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﺎ ﻛّﻔﺮﻫﻢ‪ ،‬وﻣﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺠﻌﻞ ﻻزم اﻟﻤﺬﻫﺐ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﺎ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜّﻔﺮﻫﻢ‬
‫و ﻫ ﺬ ه ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺎ ﻋ ﺪ ة ﻟ ﻤ ﺎ ﻟ ﻚ وا ﻟ ﺸ ﺎ ﻓ ﻌ ﻲ وأ ﺑ ﻲ ﺣ ﻨ ﻴ ﻔ ﺔ وا ﻷ ﺷ ﻌ ﺮ ي ‪ ،‬و ﻟ ﻠ ﻘ ﺎ ﺿ ﻲ )ا ﻟ ﺒ ﺎ ﻗ ﻼ ﻧ ﻲ ( ﻓ ﻲ ﺗ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ﻫ ﻢ ﻗ ﻮ ﻻ ن ‪ ،‬ﻓ ﺤ ﻴ ﺚ ﺑ ﻨ ﻴ ﻨ ﺎ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ أ ﻧ ﻬ ﻢ ﻛ ﻔ ﺎ ر ﻳ ﻨ ﺒ ﻐ ﻲ أ ن‬
‫ﻞ ا ﻷ ﻣ ﺔ ﺣﺘ ﻰ ﻳ ﻜ ﻮ ن ﻏﻴ ﺮﻧﺎ‬ ‫ﻞ ا ﻷ ﻣ ﺔ‪ ،‬و ﻻ ﻧ ﻜ ﻮ ن ﻧ ﺤ ﻦ ﻛ ّ‬ ‫ﻳ ﺜ ﺒ ﺖ ذ ﻟ ﻚ ﺑ ﺪ ﻟ ﻴ ﻞ ﻏ ﻴ ﺮ إ ﺟ ﻤ ﺎ ﻋ ﻨ ﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻓ ﺈ ن إ ﺟ ﻤ ﺎ ﻋ ﻨ ﺎ ﻻ ﻳ ﻜ ﻮ ن ﺣ ﺠ ﺔ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ﺗ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ﻫ ﻢ إ ﻻ إ ذا ﻛ ﻨ ﺎ ﻧ ﺤ ﻦ ﻛ ّ‬
‫ﻞ وا ﺣ ﺪ ﻣ ﻨ ﻬ ﻤ ﺎ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ا ﻵ ﺧ ﺮ ﻓ ﻠ ﺰ م ا ﻟ ﺪ و ر‬ ‫‪».‬ﻛﺎﻓﺮا ً‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻛﻮن إﺟﻤﺎﻋﻨﺎ ﺣﺠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻮﻧﻬﻢ ﻛﻔﺎرا‪ ،‬وﻳﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻛﻮﻧﻬﻢ ﻛﻔﺎرا ً ﻋﻠﻰ إﺟﻤﺎﻋﻨﺎ؛ ﻓﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻛ ّ‬
‫وﻗﺎل اﻟﺮازي ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺤﺼﻮل )‪» :(2/942‬اﺧﺘﻠﻔﻮا ﻓﻲ اﻧﻌﻘﺎد اﻹﺟﻤﺎع ﻣﻊ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﺔ اﻟﻤﺨﻄﺌﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ أﻫﻞ اﻟﻘﺒﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻷﺻﻮل‪ ،‬ﻓﺈن ﻟﻢ‬
‫ﺔ‪ ،‬وإذا ﻛّﻔﺮﻧﺎﻫﻢ‬ ‫ل ﺑ ﻌ ﺾ اﻟ ﻤ ﺆ ﻣﻨﻴ ﻦ؛ ﻓ ﻼ ﻳ ﻜ ﻮ ن ﺣ ﺠ ً‬ ‫ل ﻣ ﻦ ﻋ ﺪا ﻫ ﻢ ﻗ ﻮ َ‬ ‫ﻧﻜّﻔﺮﻫﻢ اﻋﺘﺒﺮﻧﺎ ﻗﻮﻟ َﻬﻢ؛ ﻷﻧﻬﻢ إذا ﻛﺎﻧﻮا ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‪ ،‬وﻣﻦ اﻷﻣﺔ ﻛﺎن ﻗﻮ ُ‬
‫اﻧ ﻌ ﻘ ﺪ ا ﻹ ﺟ ﻤﺎ ع ﺑ ﺪ وﻧ ﻬ ﻢ‪ ،‬ﻟ ﻜ ﻦ ﻻ ﻳ ﺠ ﻮ ز اﻟﺘ ﻤ ﺴ ﻚ ﺑﺈ ﺟ ﻤﺎ ﻋﻨﺎ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ﻫ ﻢ ﻓ ﻲ ﺗ ﻠ ﻚ اﻟ ﻤ ﺴﺎﺋ ﻞ؛ ﻷﻧ ﻪ إﻧ ﻤﺎ ﺛﺒ ﺖ ﺧ ﺮ و ﺟ ﻬ ﻢ ﻋ ﻦ ا ﻹ ﺟ ﻤﺎ ع ﺑ ﻌ ﺪ ﺛﺒ ﻮ ت ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ﻫ ﻢ‬
‫ﺣﺪ َﻧ َﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﺰم اﻟﺪور‬ ‫‪».‬ﻓﻲ ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﺋﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻮ أﺛﺒﺘﻨﺎ ﻛﻔﺮﻫﻢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﺈﺟﻤﺎﻋﻨﺎ وَ ْ‬
‫وﻗﺎل ﺷﺎرﺣﻪ اﻟﻘﺮاﻓﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻨﻔﺎﺋﺲ )‪» :(6/2844‬ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮه‪ :‬أن ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﺑﺈﺟﻤﺎﻋﻨﺎ ﻓﺮع ﻟﻜﻮن إﺟﻤﺎﻋﻨﺎ ﺣﺠﺔ‪ ،‬وإﻧﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮن ﺣﺠﺔ إذا ﻛﻔﺮوا‪ ،‬ﺣﺘﻰ‬
‫‪).‬ﻧﺒﻘﻰ ﻧﺤﻦ ﻛﻞ اﻷﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻠﺰم اﻟﺪور«‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬اﻟﺘﺤﺼﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻤﺤﺼﻮل )‪ ،(2/75‬واﻟﺤﺎﺻﻞ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺤﺼﻮل )‪2/521‬‬
‫واﻟﻤﻘﺼﻮد‪ :‬أﻧﻪ ﻻ ﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﻈﺮ واﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎر ﻟﻬﺬه اﻹﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻹﺟﻤﺎع ﻋﻨﺪ ﻗﻮﻟﻨﺎ‪» :‬أن اﻷﺋﻤﺔ أﺟﻤﻌﻮا ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜّﻔﺮ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﺨﻠﻖ‬
‫ﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜّﻔﺮه؟‬ ‫ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن « ﻷ ﻧ ﻪ إ ذا ﻛ ﺎ ن ﻫ ﺬا ا ﻹ ﺷ ﻜ ﺎ ل وا را دا ً ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻧ ﻌ ﻘ ﺎ د ا ﻹ ﺟ ﻤ ﺎ ع ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ﺗ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺎ ﺋ ﻞ ﺑ ﺨ ﻠ ﻖ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻓ ﻤ ﺎ ا ﻟ ﻈ ّ‬
‫ن ﻛﻼ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ إذا ﺗﺼﻮّر‬ ‫ﻢ إن ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﺨﻠﻖ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺼﻮّر اﻟﻼزم وﻣﺂل اﻟﻘﻮل‪ .‬وﻻ ﻓﺮق ﻓﻲ ذﻟﻚ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﻲ واﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ؛ ﻓﺈ ّ‬ ‫ﺛ ّ‬
‫‪ .‬ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ وﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﻠﺰﻣﻪ ﻳﻜﻔﺮ إذا ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﺮاﺟﻊ؛ وﻟﻬﺬا ﻓّﺮق اﻟﺴﻠﻒ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﺼﻮّر ﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ اﻷﻣﺮ وﺑﻴﻦ ﻏﻴﺮه‬
‫أ ﻻ ﺗ ﺮ ى إ ﻟ ﻰ ﻗ ﻮ ل ا ﻟ ﺮا ز ﻳ ﻴ ﻦ ر ﺣ ﻤ ﻬ ﻤ ﺎ ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ‪ » :‬و ﻣ ﻦ ز ﻋ ﻢ أ ن ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ق ﻓ ﻬ ﻮ ﻛ ﺎ ﻓ ﺮ ﺑ ﺎ ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ا ﻟ ﻌ ﻈ ﻴ ﻢ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮا ﻳ ﻨ ﻘ ﻞ ﻋ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﻠ ﺔ ‪ ،‬و ﻣ ﻦ ﺷ ﻚ ﻓ ﻲ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ه‬
‫ﻣ ﻤ ﻦ ﻳ ﻔ ﻬ ﻢ ﻓ ﻬ ﻮ ﻛﺎ ﻓ ﺮ‪ ،‬و ﻣ ﻦ ﺷ ﻚ ﻓ ﻲ ﻛ ﻼ م اﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ﻋ ﺰ و ﺟ ﻞ ﻓ ﻮ ﻗ ﻒ ﺷﺎ ﻛﺎ ﻓﻴ ﻪ ﻳ ﻘ ﻮ ل‪ :‬ﻻ أ د ر ي‪ ،‬ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ق أ و ﻏﻴ ﺮ ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ق؛ ﻓ ﻬ ﻮ ﺟ ﻬ ﻤ ﻲ‪ ،‬و ﻣ ﻦ و ﻗ ﻒ ﻓ ﻲ‬
‫‪».‬اﻟﻘﺮآن ﺟﺎﻫﻼ ﻋﻠ ّﻢ وﺑﺪ ّع وﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻔﺮ‬
‫ﺼ ﺮ ‪ ،‬وإ ن ﻛ ﺎ ن ﻳ ﻌ ﻘ ﻞ و ﻳ ﺒ ﺼ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﻜ ﻼ م‬ ‫و ﻗ ﻮ ل ا ﻹ ﻣ ﺎ م أ ﺣ ﻤ ﺪ ر ﺣ ﻤ ﻪ ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ‪ » :‬ﻣ ﻦ ﻛ ﺎ ن ﻣ ﻨ ﻬ ﻢ ﻳ ﺤ ﺴ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻜ ﻼ م ‪ ،‬ﻓ ﻬ ﻮ ﺟ ﻬ ﻤ ﻲ « ‪ » ،‬وأ ﻣ ﺎ ﻣ ﻦ ﻛ ﺎ ن ﻻ ﻳ ﻌ ﻘ ﻞ ؛ ﻓ ﺈ ﻧ ﻪ ﻳ ﺒ ّ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﺜﻠﻬﻢ‪ ،‬واﻟﻘﺮآن ﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﺗﺼّﺮف ﻛﻼم اﻟﻠﻪ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺨﻠﻮق«‪ ،‬وﻗﻮﻟﻪ‪» :‬ﻣﻦ ﻛﺎن ﻳﺨﺎﺻﻢ وﻳﻌﺮف ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻼم ﻓﻬﻮ ﺟﻬﻤﻲ‪ ،‬وﻣﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻌﺮف ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻼم‬
‫‪».‬ﻳﺠﺎﻧﺐ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ‪ ،‬وﻣﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻟﻪ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻳﺴﺄل وﻳﺘﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫و ﻗ ﻮ ل ا ﻹ ﻣ ﺎ م أ ﺣ ﻤ ﺪ ﺑ ﻦ ﻣ ﻨ ﻴ ﻊ ‪ » :‬ﻣ ﻦ ز ﻋ ﻢ أ ﻧ ﻪ ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ق ﻓ ﻬ ﻮ ﺟ ﻬ ﻤ ﻲ ‪ ،‬و ﻣ ﻦ و ﻗ ﻒ ﻓ ﻴ ﻪ ‪ ،‬ﻓ ﺈ ن ﻛ ﺎ ن ﻣ ﻤ ﻦ ﻻ ﻳ ﻌ ﻘ ﻞ ﻣ ﺜ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﺒ ﻘ ﺎ ﻟ ﻴ ﻦ وا ﻟ ﻨ ﺴ ﺎ ء وا ﻟ ﺼ ﺒ ﻴ ﺎ ن‬
‫ﺳ ﻜ ﺖ ﻋ ﻨ ﻪ و ﻋ ﻠ ﻢ ‪ ،‬وإ ن ﻛ ﺎ ن ﻣ ﻤ ﻦ ﻳ ﻔ ﻬ ﻢ ﻓ ﺄ ﺟ ﺮ ه ﻓ ﻲ وا د ي ا ﻟ ﺠ ﻬ ﻤ ﻴ ﺔ ‪ ،‬و ﻣ ﻦ ﻗ ﺎ ل ﻟ ﻔ ﻈ ﻲ ﺑ ﺎ ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ق ﻓ ﻬ ﻮ ﺟ ﻬ ﻤ ﻲ « ‪ .‬ا ﻟ ﺴ ﻨ ﺔ ﻟ ﻌ ﺒ ﺪ ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ﺑ ﻦ أ ﺣ ﻤ ﺪ‬
‫‪ (179 ،1/165)).‬واﻹﺑﺎﻧﺔ اﻟﻜﺒﺮى ﻻﺑﻦ ﺑﻄﺔ )‪ (98 ،97‬واﻟﺤﺠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻴﺎن اﻟﻤﺤﺠﺔ )‪1/424‬‬
‫ﺔ؛ ﻓ ﻼ‬ ‫ن ﻣﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﺼﻮّر اﻟﻼزم ﻛﻤﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻌﺮف ﻣﻌﻨﻰ اﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻟﻐ ً‬ ‫ﻛ ﻼ م اﻟ ﺴﻠ ﻒ ﻓ ﻲ اﻟﺘ ﻜ ﻔﻴ ﺮ ﺑ ﻬ ﺬ ه اﻟ ﻤ ﺴﺄﻟ ﺔ ﻳ ﺪ و ر ﻋﻠ ﻰ اﻟﺘ ﺼ ﻮ ر ﻟ ﺤ ﻘﻴ ﻘ ﺔ اﻟ ﻤ ﻘﺎﻟ ﺔ؛ ﻓﺈ ّ‬
‫‪.‬ﻳﺘﺤّﻘﻖ اﻟﺴﺒﺐ اﻟﻜﻔﺮي ﻓﻴﻪ وﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮه ﻻﻧﺘﻔﺎء اﻟﻤﻨﺎط‬
‫أﻣﺎ اﻟﺬي ﺗﺼﻮّر أن اﻟﻘﻮل ﺑﺨﻠﻖ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻳﺴﺘﻠﺰم اﻟﻘﻮل ﺑﻤﺨﻠﻮﻗﻴﺔ اﻟﻠﻪ وﻧﺤﻮه ﻣﻦ اﻟﻠﻮازم اﻟﻜﻔﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬وأن اﻟﺼﻔﺔ )ﻛﻼم اﻟﻠﻪ( ﺗﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺻﻮف‬
‫)اﻟﻠﻪ( ﻓﻬﻮ ﻛﻤﻦ أﺗﻰ ﺑﻘﻮل ﻛﻔﺮي وﻫﻮ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﻌﻨﺎه ﻓﻴﻜﻮن ﻛﺎﻓﺮا ً؛ وﻟﻬﺬا ﻗﺎل اﻟﺴﻠﻒ‪» :‬ﻣﻤﻦ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ« »ﻣﻦ ﻛﺎن ﻳ ُﺤﺴﻦ اﻟﻜﻼم« »إن ﻛﺎن ﻳﻌﻘﻞ‬
‫‪».‬وﻳﺒﺼﺮ اﻟﻜﻼم‬
‫‪.‬ﺣﻤﻞ اﻟﻜﻔﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺧﻠﻖ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﺻﻐﺮ ﺑﺎﻃﻞ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻘﻮل ﺗﺮد ّه ﻧﺼﻮص اﻟﺴﻠﻒ اﻟﻤﺸﻬﻮرة وﻻ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻹﻃﺎﻟﺔ ﻓﻴﻪ‪3-‬‬
‫ن رأ ي ا ﻷ ﻛ ﺜ ﺮ ﻳ ﻦ ﻫ ﻮ‬ ‫ﻟ ﻜ ﻦ ﻃ ﺎ ﺋ ﻔ ﺔ ﻣ ﻦ أ ﻫ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﻌ ﻠ ﻢ ﻛ ﺎ ﻟ ﺴ ﺠ ﺰ ي و ﻗ ﻮا م ا ﻟ ﺴ ﻨ ﺔ وا ﻟ ﺒ ﻴ ﻬ ﻘ ﻲ وا ﺑ ﻦ ﻗ ﺪا ﻣ ﺔ وا ﺑ ﻦ ﺗ ﻴ ﻤ ﻴ ﺔ ذ ﻛ ﺮ ت ا ﻟ ﺨ ﻼ ف ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﺤ ﻤ ﻞ ﻋ ﻠ ﻴ ﻪ ‪ ،‬وأ ّ‬
‫اﻟﺤﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻜﻔﺮ اﻷﻛﺒﺮ‪ .‬اﻧﻈﺮ‪ :‬رﺳﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﺴﺠﺰي إﻟﻰ أﻫﻞ زﺑﻴﺪ )ص‪ ،(153‬اﻟﺤﺠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻴﺎن اﻟﻤﺤﺠﺔ )‪ ،(2/552‬ﺣﻜﺎﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻇﺮة ﻓﻲ اﻟﻘﺮآن‬
‫‪)).‬ص‪ ،(20‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮع اﻟﻔﺘﺎوى )‪12/486‬‬
‫ﻦ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻳ ُﻘﺎل ﻓﻴﻤﻦ ﺣﻤﻞ اﻟﻜﻔﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺮك اﻟﺼﻼة ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﺻﻐﺮ أﻧﻪ‬ ‫وإ ذا ﻛ ﺎ ن ا ﻷ ﻣ ﺮ ﻛ ﺬ ﻟ ﻚ ﻓ ﻼ ﻳ ﻘ ﺎ ل ‪ :‬إ ن ا ﻟ ﻨ ﻮ و ي وأ ﻣ ﺜ ﺎ ﻟ ﻪ و ﻗ ﻌ ﻮا ﻓ ﻲ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ﻧ ﻮ ع أ و ﻋ ﻴ ٍ‬
‫و ﻗ ﻊ ﻓ ﻲ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ﻧ ﻮ ع أ و ﻋ ﻴ ﻦ ‪ ،‬ﻟ ﻜ ﻦ إ ن ﻗ ﺎ ل ا ﻟ ﻨ ﻮ و ي ‪ :‬ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ق ﻓ ﻬ ﻨ ﺎ ﻳ ﻤ ﻜ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﻮ ل ﺑ ﻮ ﻗ ﻮ ﻋ ﻪ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ؛ ﻟ ﻠ ﻔ ﺮ ق ا ﻟ ﻈ ﺎ ﻫ ﺮ ﺑ ﻴ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﻨ ﻈ ﻴ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﻌ ﻠ ﻤ ﻲ‬
‫‪ .‬وﺑﻴ ﻦ اﻟﺘ ﻄﺒﻴ ﻖ اﻟ ﻌ ﻤ ﻠ ﻲ ﻓ ﻲ ﻣﺜ ﻞ ﻫ ﺬ ه اﻟ ﻤ ﺴﺎﺋ ﻞ‬
‫ن ﻣ ﻦ ﻗ ﺎ ل ﺗ ﺮ ك ا ﻟ ﺼ ﻼ ة ﻟ ﻴ ﺲ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮا ً ﺣ ﻤ ﻼ ﻟ ﻸ ﺣ ﺎ د ﻳ ﺚ ا ﻟ ﻮا ر د ة ﻓ ﻴ ﻪ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ا ﻷ ﺻ ﻐ ﺮ ﻟ ﺸ ﺒ ﻬ ﺎ ت أ و د ﻻ ﺋ ﻞ ﻗ ﺎ ﻣ ﺖ‬ ‫و ﺗ ﻘ ﺮ ﻳ ﺐ ا ﻟ ﻔ ﺮ ق ﺑ ﻴ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﻨ ﻈ ﻴ ﺮ وا ﻟ ﺘ ﻄ ﺒ ﻴ ﻖ ‪ :‬أ ّ‬
‫‪.‬ﻋﻨﺪه ﻓﻼ ﻳ ُﻜّﻔﺮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻜّﻔﺮ اﻷﺋﻤﺔ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻠﻮن ﺑﻌﺪم ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﺗﺎرك اﻟﺼﻼة‬
‫ن اﻟﺪ ّﻟﻴﻞ اﻟﺸﺮﻋﻲ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺎم ﻋﻠﻰ أن ﻧﻔﺲ‬ ‫ك اﻟﺼﻼة ﻋﻤﻼ وﻓﻌﻼ ً ﻓﻬﻨﺎ ﻳﻜّﻔﺮ ﺑﺘﺮﻛﻪ اﻟﺼﻼة؛ ﻷ ّ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬا اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﻌﺪم اﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﺮا وﺗﺄﺻﻴﻼ ً‪ ،‬إن ﺗ ََﺮ َ‬
‫اﻟﺘﺮك ﻟﻠﺼﻼة ﻛﻔﺮ‪ ،‬وﻫﺬا ﺗﺎرك ﻟﻠﺼﻼة ﻓﻬﻮ ﻛﺎﻓﺮ‪ ،‬واﻋﺘﻘﺎد اﻟﺘﺎرك ﺑﻌﺪم اﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮك ﻻ ﻳﺆﺛ ّﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻜﻤﻨﺎ ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﻧﻌﺎﻣﻠﻪ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﻘﺎدﻧﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ وﻫﻮ ﻛﻔﺮه‬
‫ﺑﺘﺮك اﻟﺼﻼة ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎل ﺻﻠﻰ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ‪» :‬إﻻ أن ﺗﺮوا ﻛﻔﺮا ً ﺑﻮاﺣﺎ ً ﻋﻨﺪﻛﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺑﺮﻫﺎن« ﻓﺠﻌﻞ اﻟﺮؤﻳﺔ إﻟﻰ اﻟﺮاﺋﻲ وﺑﻴ ّﻦ ﺛﺒﻮت‬
‫اﻟﻜﻔﺮ ﺑﺪون اﻋﺘﻘﺎد اﻟﻤﻜﻔﺮ وإﻻ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺤﺘﺞ اﻟﺮاﺋﻲ إﻟﻰ اﻟﺒﺮﻫﺎن‪ ،‬وﻗﺪ رأﻳﻨﺎه ﻳﺘﺮك اﻟﺼﻼة‪ ،‬واﻟﺘﺮك ﻛﻔﺮ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻻ ﺑﻼزﻣﻪ‪ ،‬وﻻ ﻧﻜّﻔﺮه ﺑﺨﻼﻓﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻓﻲ‬
‫‪ .‬ﺗ ﻔ ﺴ ﻴ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﺪ ﻻ ﺋ ﻞ و ﺗ ﺄ و ﻳ ﻠ ﻬ ﺎ و ﺣ ﻤ ﻠ ﻬ ﺎ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ﻏ ﻴ ﺮ ﻣ ﺤ ﻤ ﻠ ﻨ ﺎ ﻷ ن ا ﻟ ﺘ ﺄ و ﻳ ﻞ إ ﻧ ﻤ ﺎ ﻳ ﻜ ﻮ ن ﻛ ﻔ ﺮا ً ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻀ ﺮ و ر ﻳ ﺎ ت أ و ا ﻟ ﻘ ﻄ ﻌ ﻴ ﺎ ت‬
‫ﻣﺎ ذﻛﺮه ﺷﻴﺦ اﻹﺳﻼم ﻋﻦ اﻹﻣﺎم أﺣﻤﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺮواﻳﺘﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜّﻔﺮ اﻟﺠﻬﻤﻴﺔ ﻓﺎﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮ أﻧ ّﻪ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ اﻟﻤﻌﺘﺰﻟﺔ وﻫﻢ اﻟﻔﺮﻗﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ‪4-‬‬
‫اﻟﺠﻬﻤﻴﺔ وﻗﺪ ذﻛﺮ اﻟﺮواﻳﺘﻴﻦ اﻟﻘﺎﺿﻲ أﺑﻮ ﻳﻌﻠﻰ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺘﺎب اﻟﺮواﻳﺘﻴﻦ واﻟﻮﺟﻬﻴﻦ )ص‪ (108‬ﻗﺎل‪» :‬ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ‪ :‬ﻻ ﻳﺨﺘﻠﻒ اﻟﻤﺬﻫﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﻌﺘﺰﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺑ ﻤ ﺴ ﺎ ﺋ ﻞ ﻳ ﻘ ﻮ ﻟ ﻮ ﻧ ﻬ ﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻣ ﻨ ﻬ ﺎ ‪ :‬ا ﻟ ﻘ ﻮ ل ﺑ ﺨ ﻠ ﻖ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ‪ ،‬و ﻧ ﻔ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﺮ ؤ ﻳ ﺔ ‪ ،‬و ﺧ ﻠ ﻖ ا ﻷ ﻓ ﻌ ﺎ ل و ﻧ ﺤ ﻮ ذ ﻟ ﻚ ؛ ﻷ ن ا ﻟ ﺪ ﻻ ﻟ ﺔ ﻗ ﺪ د ﻟ ﺖ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ذ ﻟ ﻚ ﻣ ﻤ ﺎ ﻫ ﻮ ﻣ ﻜ ﺎ ﻧ ﻪ ﻓ ﻲ ﻏ ﻴ ﺮ‬
‫ﻫﺬا اﻟﻤﻮﺿﻊ‪ .‬ﻓﺈن ﺗﻮﻗﻒ أﺣﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﻓﻬﻞ ﻳﻜّﻔﺮ ﻫﺬا اﻟﻮاﻗﻒ أم ﻻ؟ ﻧﻘﻞ اﻟﻤﺮوذي وﻳﻌﻘﻮب ﺑﻦ ﺑﺨﺘﺎن وأﺑﻮ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ‪ :‬ﻻ ﻳﻜﻔﺮ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎل ﻓﻲ‬
‫ر وا ﻳ ﺔ أ ﺑ ﻲ ﻃ ﺎ ﻟ ﺐ ‪ :‬ﻣ ﻦ ﻗ ﺎ ل ‪ :‬ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ق ﻓ ﻬ ﻮ ﻛ ﺎ ﻓ ﺮ ‪ ،‬و ﻣ ﻦ ﻻ ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ﻣ ﻦ ﻗ ﺎ ل ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ق ﻓ ﻼ ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ه ‪ .‬و ﻛ ﺬ ﻟ ﻚ ﻧ ﻘ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺮ و ذ ي ﻓ ﻲ ﻗ ﻮ م‬
‫ﺑﻄﺮﺳﻮس ﻳﻜّﻔﺮون ﻣﻦ ﻻ ﻳﻜّﻔﺮ ﻓﻘﺎل‪ :‬ﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬا ﺷﻴﺌﺎ‪ .‬ﻫﺬا ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ اﻟﺘﻮﻛﻴﺪ ﺑﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺷﻲء ﻓﻲ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮﻫﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺄن ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻪ أﻧﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ و ن ﻳ ﻌ ﻨ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﺠ ﻬ ﻤ ﻴ ﺔ و ﻻ ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ﻣ ﻦ ﻻ ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ﻫ ﻢ ‪ .‬ﻓ ﻈ ﺎ ﻫ ﺮ ﻫ ﺬا أ ﻧ ﻪ ﻟ ﻢ ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ﻫ ﻢ ﻓ ﻜ ﺬ ﻟ ﻚ ﻧ ﻘ ﻞ أ ﺑ ﻮ ﻃ ﺎ ﻟ ﺐ ‪ .‬و ﻗ ﻴ ﻞ ﻟ ﻪ ‪ :‬أ ﻫ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﺜ ﻐ ﺮ ﻳ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ و ن ﻣ ﻦ ﻻ‬
‫‪...».‬ﻳﻜﻔﺮ‬
‫ﻫ ﻨ ﺎ ا ﻧ ﻘ ﻄ ﻊ ا ﻟ ﻨ ﺺ و ﻟ ﻢ ﻳ ﻜ ﺘ ﻤ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﺠ ﻮا ب ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﻄ ﺒ ﻮ ع ‪ .‬ﻗ ﺎ ل ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺤ ﻘ ﻖ ‪ ) :‬ﻃ ﻤ ﺲ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﺼ ﻔ ﺤ ﺔ ﻗ ﺮا ﺑ ﺔ ﻧ ﺼ ﻒ ا ﻟ ﺼ ﻔ ﺤ ﺔ و ﻟ ﻢ أ ﻗ ﻒ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ﺷ ﻲ ء ﻣ ﻦ ﻫ ﺬ ه‬
‫‪......).‬اﻟﻨﺼﻮص إﻻ أن ﺷﻴﺦ اﻹﺳﻼم أﺷﺎر إﻟﻰ اﻟﺨﻼف ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺴﺄﻟﺔ‬
‫وﻳﻈﻬﺮ – واﻟﻠﻪ أﻋﻠﻢ – أن ﻧﻔﻲ اﻟﻜﻔﺮ ﻋﻤﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜّﻔﺮ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﺨﻠﻖ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻣﻦ أﻗﻮال اﻹﻣﺎم اﻟﻘﺪﻳﻤﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ رﺟﻊ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ‪» :‬ﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ‬
‫ﻓ ﻲ ﻫ ﺬا ﺷ ﻴ ﺌ ﺎ « ! ﻛ ﻴ ﻒ و ﻗ ﺪ ا ﺷ ﺘ ﻬ ﺮ ﻋ ﻦ ا ﻷ ﺋ ﻤ ﺔ ﻗ ﺒ ﻠ ﻪ ﺗ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ﻫ ﺬا ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺘ ﻮ ﻗ ﻒ ؟‬
‫‪.‬ﻧﻌﻢ‪ ،‬ﻟﻺﻣﺎم أﺣﻤﺪ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬه اﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻣﺮاﺣﻞ ذﻛﺮﻫﺎ اﻟﺨﻼل ﻓﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‬
‫‪.‬ﻛﺎن ﻓﻲ أواﺋﻞ اﻷﻣﺮ ﻳﻜﺮه اﻟﻜﻼم ﻓﻲ اﻟﻘﺮآن واﻟﻘﻮل أﻧﻪ ﻣﺨﻠﻮق وﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺨﻠﻮق وﻳﺤﺐ اﻟﺴﻜﻮت ﺣﺘﻰ اﻟﺘﺒﺲ رأﻳﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﺾ أﺻﺤﺎب اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ‬
‫أﺳﻨﺪ اﻹﻣﺎم أﺑﻮ ﺑﻜﺮ اﻟﺨﻼل ﻓﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ )‪ ( 1797‬ﻋﻦ ﺣﻨﺒﻞ ﻗﻠﺖ ﻷﺑﻲ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻠﻪ‪ :‬إن ﻳﻌﻘﻮب ﺑﻦ ﺷﻴﺒﺔ‪ ،‬وزﻛﺮﻳﺎ اﻟﺸﺮﻛﻲ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺎر‪ :‬أﻧﻬﻤﺎ إﻧﻤﺎ أﺧﺬا‬
‫ﻋﻨﻚ ﻫﺬا اﻷﻣﺮ اﻟﻮﻗﻒ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺎل أﺑﻮ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻠﻪ‪ :‬ﻛﻨﺎ ﻧﺄﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻜﻮت وﻧﺘﺮك اﻟﺨﻮض ﻓﻲ اﻟﻜﻼم ﻓﻲ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻓﻠﻤﺎ د ُﻋﻴﻨﺎ إﻟﻰ أﻣﺮٍ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎن ﺑﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ أن‬
‫‪ .‬ﻧ ﺪ ﻓ ﻊ ذﻟ ﻚ وﻧﺒﻴ ﻦ ﻣ ﻦ أ ﻣ ﺮ ه ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺒ ﻐ ﻲ‪ (...‬إﻟ ﻰ آ ﺧ ﺮ اﻟ ﻜ ﻼ م‬
‫ﺛﻢ اﻧﺘﻘﻞ إﻟﻰ أن اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻛﻼم اﻟﻠﻪ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺨﻠﻮق‪ ،‬وﻓﻲ ﻫﺬه اﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻛﺎن ﻻ ﻳﻜّﻔﺮ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﺨﻠﻖ اﻟﻘﺮآن‪ .‬ﺛﻢ ذﻛﺮ أﻧﻪ ﺗﺒﻴ ّﻦ ﻟﻪ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﺨﻠﻖ‬
‫‪.‬اﻟﻘﺮآن‪ ،‬وﻟﻌﻞ اﻟﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻫﺆﻻء ﻛﺎن ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬه اﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ أن ﻳﻌﻘﻮب ﺑﻦ ﺑﺨﺘﺎن ﻣﻦ رواة ﻫﺬه اﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻓﺈن اﻟﺨﻼل روى ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﻨﺔ )‪ :(1868‬أن ﻳﻌﻘﻮب ﺑﻦ ﺑﺨﺘﺎن ﺳﺄل أﺑﺎ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻤﻦ ﻗﺎل‪:‬‬
‫ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ق ؟ ﻓ ﻘ ﺎ ل ‪ :‬ﻗ ﺪ ﻛ ﻨ ﺖ أ ﻫ ﺎ ب أ ن أ ﻗ ﻮ ل ‪ :‬ﻛ ﺎ ﻓ ﺮ ‪ ،‬ﺣ ﺘ ﻰ ﺗ ﺪ ﺑ ﺮ ت أ و ﻧ ﻈ ﺮ ت ؛ ﻓ ﺮأ ﻳ ﺖ ﻗ ﻮ ل ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ﻋ ﺰ و ﺟ ﻞ ‪ :‬ﻓ ﻤ ﻦ ﺣ ﺎ ﺟ ﻚ ﻓ ﻴ ﻪ ﻣ ﻦ ﺑ ﻌ ﺪ ﻣ ﺎ ﺟ ﺎ ء ك‬
‫‪ .‬ﻣ ﻦ اﻟﻌﻠ ﻢ‬
‫وأﺳﻨﺪ اﻟﺨﻼل )‪ (1869‬ﻋﻦ اﺑﻦ اﻟﺪورﻗﻲ ﻋﻦ أﺑﻲ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻗﺎل‪ :‬ﻗﺪ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻧﻬﺎب اﻟﻜﻼم ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬا‪ ،‬ﺛﻢ ﺑﺎن ﻟﻨﺎ أﻣﺮﻫﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻘﻮل اﻟﻠﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‪ :‬ﻓﻤﻦ‬
‫‪ .‬ﺣﺎ ﺟ ﻚ ﻓﻴ ﻪ‬
‫وأﺳﻨﺪ ﻓﻲ )‪ (1847‬ﻋﻦ ﺣﻨﺒﻞ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ أﺑﺎ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻳﻘﻮل‪ :‬ﻗﺎل اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﺰ وﺟﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‪ :‬وإن أﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺸﺮﻛﻴﻦ اﺳﺘﺠﺎرك ﻓﺄﺟﺮه ﺣﺘﻰ‬
‫ﻳ ﺴ ﻤ ﻊ ﻛ ﻼ م اﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ‪ ،‬ﻓ ﺠﺒ ﺮﻳ ﻞ ﺳ ﻤ ﻌ ﻪ ﻣ ﻦ اﻟ ﻠ ﻪ‪ ،‬و ﺳ ﻤ ﻌ ﻪ اﻟﻨﺒ ﻲ ﺻ ﻠ ﻰ اﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ﻋ ﻠﻴ ﻪ و ﺳ ﻠ ﻢ ﻣ ﻦ ﺟﺒ ﺮﻳ ﻞ ﻋ ﻠﻴ ﻬ ﻢ اﻟ ﺴ ﻼ م‪ ،‬و ﺳ ﻤ ﻌ ﻪ أ ﺻ ﺤﺎ ب اﻟﻨﺒ ﻲ ﻣ ﻦ اﻟﻨﺒ ﻲ‬
‫ﺻ ﻠ ﻰ ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ﻋ ﻠ ﻴ ﻪ و ﺳ ﻠ ﻢ ‪ ،‬وا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻛ ﻼ م ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ﻏ ﻴ ﺮ ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ق ‪ ،‬و ﻻ ﻧ ﺸ ﻚ و ﻻ ﻧ ﺮ ﺗ ﺎ ب ﻓ ﻴ ﻪ ‪ ،‬وأ ﺳ ﻤ ﺎ ء ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ‪ ،‬و ﺻ ﻔ ﺎ ﺗ ﻪ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻣ ﻦ ﻋ ﻠ ﻢ ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ‪،‬‬
‫و ﺻ ﻔ ﺎ ﺗ ﻪ ﻣ ﻨ ﻪ ‪ ،‬ﻓ ﻤ ﻦ ز ﻋ ﻢ ا ن ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ق ﻓ ﻬ ﻮ ﻛ ﺎ ﻓ ﺮ ‪ ،‬وا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻛ ﻼ م ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ﻏ ﻴ ﺮ ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ق ‪ ،‬ﻣ ﻨ ﻪ ﺑ ﺪأ وإ ﻟ ﻴ ﻪ ﻳ ﻌ ﻮ د ‪ ،‬ﻓ ﻘ ﺪ ﻛ ﻨ ﺎ ﻧ ﻬ ﺎ ب ا ﻟ ﻜ ﻼ م ﻓ ﻲ ﻫ ﺬا ‪ ،‬ﺣ ﺘ ﻰ‬
‫‪.‬أﺣﺪث ﻫﺆﻻء ﻣﺎ أﺣﺪﺛﻮا‪ ،‬وﻗﺎﻟﻮا ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻮا‪ ،‬دﻋﻮا اﻟﻨﺎس إﻟﻰ ﻣﺎ دﻋﻮﻫﻢ إﻟﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺒﺎن ﻟﻨﺎ أﻣﺮﻫﻢ‪ ،‬وﻫﻮ اﻟﻜﻔﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻪ اﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ‬
‫وﻗﺎل اﺑﻦ أﺑﻲ ﻳﻌﻠﻰ ﻓﻲ ﻃﺒﻘﺎت اﻟﺤﻨﺎﺑﻠﺔ )‪ :(2/553‬ﻗﺮأت ﻓﻲ ﻛﺘﺎب أﺑﻲ ﺑﻜﺮ اﻟﺨﻼل‪ ،‬ﻗﺎل‪ :‬أﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ اﻟﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻫﺎرون‪ ،‬ﻗﺎل‪ :‬ﺣﺪﺛﻨﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ أﺑﻲ ﻫﺎرون اﻟﻮّراق‪ ،‬ﻗﺎل‪ :‬ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻳﻌﻘﻮب ﺑﻦ إﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ اﻟﺪورﻗﻲ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎل‪ :‬ﺳﺄﻟﺖ أﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻨﺒﻞ ﻋﻤﻦ ﻳﻘﻮل‪ :‬اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻣﺨﻠﻮق؟ ﻓﻘﺎل‪:‬‬
‫ﻛﻨﺖ ﻻ أﻛّﻔﺮﻫﻢ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻗﺮأت آﻳﺎت ﻣﻦ اﻟﻘﺮآن‪ :‬وﻟﺌﻦ اﺗﺒﻌﺖ أﻫﻮاءﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺟﺎءك ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻠﻢ وﻗﻮﻟﻪ‪ :‬ﺑﻌﺪ اﻟﺬي ﺟﺎءك ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫ﻢ اﻟﻠ ﻪ ﻣ ﺨﻠ ﻮ ق أو ﻟﻴ ﺲ‬ ‫و ﻗ ﻮ ﻟ ﻪ ‪ :‬أ ﻧ ﺰ ﻟ ﻪ ﺑ ﻌ ﻠ ﻤ ﻪ ؛ ﻓ ﺎ ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻣ ﻦ ﻋ ﻠ ﻢ ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ‪ ،‬و ﻣ ﻦ ز ﻋ ﻢ أ ن ﻋ ﻠ ﻢ ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ق ﻓ ﻬ ﻮ ﻛ ﺎ ﻓ ﺮ ‪ ،‬و ﻣ ﻦ ز ﻋ ﻢ أ ﻧ ﻪ ﻻ ﻳ ﺪ ر ي ﻋ ﻠ ُ‬
‫‪.‬ﺑﻤﺨﻠﻮق؟ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻛﺎﻓﺮ‪ ،‬أﺷّﺮ ﻣﻤﻦ ﻳﻘﻮل‪ :‬اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻣﺨﻠﻮق‬
‫وأ ﺧ ﻴ ﺮا ً ﻗ ﺎ ل أ ﺑ ﻮ ﻋ ﺒ ﺪ ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ﻛ ﻤ ﺎ ر وا ه ﻋ ﻨ ﻪ ﺷ ﺎ ﻫ ﻴ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﺴ ﻤ ﻴ ﺪ ع ‪ :‬ﻣ ﻦ ﻗ ﺎ ل ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ق ﻓ ﻬ ﻮ ﻛ ﺎ ﻓ ﺮ ‪ ،‬و ﻣ ﻦ ﺷ ﻚ ﻓ ﻲ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ه ﻓ ﻬ ﻮ ﻛ ﺎ ﻓ ﺮ ‪ .‬ﻃ ﺒ ﻘ ﺎ ت ا ﻟ ﺤ ﻨ ﺎ ﺑ ﻠ ﺔ‬
‫‪1/461)).‬‬
‫ﺗﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﺤﻠﻮاﻧﻲ اﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ اﻟﻮاﻗﻒ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻘﺮآن وﻗﻮﻟﻪ‪» :‬إﻧ ّﻲ ﻻ أﻛﻔﺮ ﻣﻦ وﻗﻒ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻘﺮآن« وﻗﻮل أﺑﻲ ﺳﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺷﺒﻴﺐ‪5- :‬‬
‫ﻞ وﺟﻬﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﻟ ّﻴﻬﺎ‪،‬‬ ‫» ﻣ ﻦ ﻟ ﻢ ﻳ ﺸ ﻬ ﺪ ﺑ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﻜ ﺎ ﻓ ﺮ ﻓ ﻬ ﻮ ﻛ ﺎ ﻓ ﺮ « و ﺗ ﻌ ﻠ ﻴ ﻖ ا ﻟ ﺬ ﻫ ﺒ ﻲ ﻋ ﻠ ﻴ ﻪ ﺑ ـ » ﻫ ﺬا ﻏ ﻠ ﻮ ّ و ﺧ ﺮ و ج ﻣ ﻦ ﺳ ﻠ ﻤ ﺔ « ﻟ ﻴ ﺲ ﻓ ﻴ ﻪ ﻛ ﺒ ﻴ ﺮ ﺷ ﻲ ء ‪ ،‬و ﻟ ﻜ ّ‬
‫ن ﻋ ﺪ م ﺗ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﻮا ﻗ ﻒ أ ﻫ ﻮ ن ﻋ ﻨ ﺪ أ ﻫ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﻌ ﻠ ﻢ ﻣ ﻦ ﻋ ﺪ م ﺗ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺎ ﺋ ﻞ ﺑ ﺨ ﻠ ﻘ ﻪ‬ ‫ن ﺗ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﻮا ﻗ ﻒ ﻏ ﻴ ﺮ ﺗ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺎ ﺋ ﻞ ﺑ ﺨ ﻠ ﻖ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ‪ ،‬و ﻻ ر ﻳ ﺐ أ ّ‬ ‫‪.‬ﻷ ّ‬
‫ﻚ وﺣﻴﺮة ﻓﻴﺒﺪ ّع وﻻ ﻳﻜّﻔﺮ ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﺠﻤﻬﻮر‪ ،‬وﻳﻜﻮن وﻗﻒ ﺣﻴﻄﺔ وورع‪،‬‬ ‫ﻞ ﻓﻴﻌﻠ ّﻢ ﺻﺎﺣﺒﻪ وﻻ ﻳﺒﺪع ّ‪ ،‬وﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮن وﻗﻒ ﺷ ٍ‬ ‫وا ﻟ ﻮ ﻗ ﻒ ﻗ ﺪ ﻳ ﻜ ﻮ ن و ﻗ ﻒ ﺟ ﻬ ٍ‬
‫‪.‬وﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮن وﻗﻒ ﺗﻘﻴ ّﺔ وﺗﺴﺘ ّﺮ ﻓﻴﺠﺮى ﺻﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﻓﻲ وادي اﻟﺠﻬﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ :‬وإ ذا ﻛ ﺎ ن ا ﻷ ﻣ ﺮ ﻛ ﻤ ﺎ و ﺻ ﻔ ﺖ ﻓ ﻼ ﻳ ﺨ ﻔ ﻰ ﻣ ﺎ ﻓ ﻲ إ ﻃ ﻼ ق ا ﺑ ﻦ ﺷ ﺒ ﻴ ﺐ ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺒ ﺎ ﻟ ﻐ ﺔ ﻣ ﻦ و ﺟ ﻬ ﻴ ﻦ‬
‫اﻷول‪ :‬ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮه ﻟﻠﺤﻠﻮاﻧﻲ ﺑﺘﻮﻗّﻔﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ اﻟﻮاﻗﻒ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‪ :‬إﻃﻼق اﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮاﻗﻒ ﻣﻦ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺗﻔﺼﻴﻞ ﺧﻼﻓﺎ ﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ أﺋﻤﺔ‬
‫‪.‬اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﺒﻖ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻼم اﻹﻣﺎم أﺣﻤﺪ واﻟﺮازﻳﻴﻦ واﺑﻦ ﻣﻨﻴﻊ‬
‫و ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ أ ي ‪ ،‬ﻓ ﺎ ﻟ ﺤ ﻠ ﻮا ﻧ ﻲ إ ﻣ ﺎ م ﻣ ﻦ أ ﺋ ﻤ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﺤ ﺪ ﻳ ﺚ و ﻣ ﻦ ﺷ ﻴ ﻮ خ ا ﻟ ﺒ ﺨ ﺎ ر ي و ﻣ ﺴ ﻠ ﻢ ﻛ ﺎ ن ﻳ ﻘ ﻮ ل ‪ :‬ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻛ ﻼ م ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ﻏ ﻴ ﺮ ﻣ ﺨ ﻠ ﻮ ق ‪ ،‬إ ﻻ أ ﻧ ﻪ ﻛ ﺎ ن ﻳ ﻤ ﺘ ﻨ ﻊ ﻋ ﻦ‬
‫‪ .‬ﺗ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﻮا ﻗ ﻒ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن ﻓ ﻘ ﻂ‬
‫وﻛﺎن اﻟﻮﻗﻒ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺤﺪﺛﻴﻦ ﻛﻴﻌﻘﻮب ﺑﻦ ﺷﻴﺒﺔ اﻟﺴﺪوﺳﻲ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ اﻟﻤﺴﻨﺪ اﻟﻤﻌﻠ ّﻞ‪ ،‬وأﺑﻲ اﻟﺤﺴﻦ اﻟﺠﻮﻫﺮي ﻋﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺑﻦ اﻟﺠﻌﺪ ﻛﺎن ﻳﻘﻮل‪ :‬اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻛﻼم اﻟﻠﻪ‪ ،‬وﻣﻦ ﻗﺎل‪ :‬ﻣﺨﻠﻮق‪ ،‬ﻟﻢ أﻋﻨ ّﻔﻪ‪ ،‬وﻣﻨﻬﻢ‪ :‬إﺳﺤﺎق ﺑﻦ أﺑﻲ إﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻞ ﻗﺎل أﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻨﺒﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ :‬واﻗﻔﻲ‬
‫ﻣ ﺸ ﺆ و م إ ﻻ أ ﻧ ﻪ ﻛ ﻴ ﺲ ﺻ ﺎ ﺣ ﺐ ﺣ ﺪ ﻳ ﺚ ‪ .‬و ﻣ ﻨ ﻬ ﻢ ‪ :‬ﻣ ﺼ ﻌ ﺐ ﺑ ﻦ ﻋ ﺒ ﺪ ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ﺑ ﻦ ﻣ ﺼ ﻌ ﺐ ا ﻟ ﺰ ﺑ ﻴ ﺮ ي ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺪ ﻧ ﻲ ‪ :‬ﻛ ﺎ ن ﻳ ﻘ ﻒ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن و ﻳ ﻌ ﻴ ﺐ ﻣ ﻦ ﻻ ﻳ ﻘ ﻒ ‪.‬‬
‫‪.‬ﻫﺆﻻء وﻏﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜّﻔﺮﻫﻢ أﻫﻞ اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﺑﻞ أﻗﺼﻰ ﻣﺎورد ﻓﻲ ﺣﻘﻬﻢ اﻟﺘﺒﺪﻳﻊ‬
‫اﻟﺘﺰام اﻟﻘﻮاﻧﻴﻦ اﻟﻮﺿﻌﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﺻﺮة ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ واﻟﺘﺤﺮﻳﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﻔﺮ اﻟﺼﺮﻳﺢ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﻻ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻜﻔﺮ اﻹﻟﺰاﻣﻲ ﺑﺸﺮط اﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻮاﻗﻊ‪ ،‬وﻣﻦ ﻳﺄﻣﺮ‪6-‬‬
‫‪.‬اﻟﻨﺎس ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺰاﻣﻬﺎ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ آﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻔﺮ واﻹﺷﺮاك وﻫﻮ ﻛﺎﻓﺮ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺎل؛ ﻷن اﻻﻟﺘﺰام ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻔﺮ ﻛﻔﺮ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻛﺎﻟﺮﺿﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻔﺮ ﻛﻔﺮ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫أﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺆول أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻠﻪ وﺻﻔﺎﺗﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻏﻼة اﻟﺒﺎﻃﻨﻴﺔ واﻟﺠﻬﻤﻴﺔ وﻫﻮ ﻛﺎﻓﺮ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻣﻜﺬب ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮآن واﻟﺴﻨﺔ وإﺟﻤﺎع ﺳﻠﻒ اﻷﻣﺔ‪7- ،‬‬
‫و ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ ه إ ن ﻗ ﻴ ﻞ إ ﻧ ﻪ ﻣ ﻦ ﺑ ﺎ ب ا ﻟ ﻼ ز م ﻓ ﻼ ر ﻳ ﺐ أ ﻧ ﻪ ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻼ ز م ا ﻟ ﺠ ﻠ ﻲ ﺑ ﻞ ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻀ ﺮ ر و ر ي ‪ ،‬و ﻻ ﻓ ﺮ ق ﺑ ﻴ ﻦ ﺑ ﻴ ﻦ ﻟ ﺰ و م ا ﻟ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ و ﺑ ﻴ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﺰا ﻣ ﻪ ﻓ ﻲ‬
‫‪ .‬ا ﻟ ﻘ ﻄ ﻌ ﻴ ﺎ ت وا ﻟ ﻀ ﺮ و ر ﻳ ﺎ ت‬
‫وﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺣّﺮف اﺳﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ أﺳﻤﺎء اﻟﻠﻪ أو ﺻﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻔﺎﺗﻪ اﻟﺜﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺼﻮص اﻟﻘﻄﻌﻴﺔ واﻷﺧﺒﺎر اﻟﻤﺘﻮاﺗﺮة ﻓﻬﻮ ﻛﺎﻓﺮ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻟﺘﻜﺬﻳﺒﻪ ﺧﺒﺮ اﻟﺸﺎرع‬
‫‪ .‬اﻟ ﻘﺎ ﻃ ﻊ ﻓ ﻲ اﻟﺒﺎ ب‬
‫وأ ﻣ ﺎ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﺄ و ﻳ ﻞ ﻷ ﺧ ﺒ ﺎ ر ا ﻟ ﺼ ﻔ ﺎ ت ا ﻟ ﺘ ﻲ ﻟ ﻢ ﺗ ﺒ ﻠ ﻎ إ ﻟ ﻰ ﻫ ﺬ ه ا ﻟ ﺪ ر ﺟ ﺔ ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﻄ ﻌ ﻴ ﺔ ﻓ ﺼ ﺎ ﺣ ﺒ ﻪ ﻣ ﺨ ﺎ ﻟ ﻒ ﻟ ﻠ ﺴ ﻨ ﺔ ﻣ ﺨ ﻄ ﺊ ﻣ ﺒ ﺘ ﺪ ع ‪ ،‬و ﺗ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ه إ ﻧ ﻤ ﺎ ﻳ ﻜ ﻮ ن ﺑ ﻌ ﺪ إ ﻗ ﺎ ﻣ ﺔ‬
‫‪ .‬ا ﻟ ﺤ ﺠ ﺔ وا ﻟ ﺒ ﻴ ﺎ ن ؛ ﻷ ن ﻟ ﺰ و م ا ﻟ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ﻗ ﺪ ﻳ ﺨ ﻔ ﻰ ﻓ ﻴ ﻜ ﻮ ن ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻼ ز م ا ﻟ ﺨ ﻔ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﺬ ي ﻻ ﻳ ﺠ ﻮ ز ا ﻟ ﺘ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ﺑ ﻪ إ ﻻ ﺑ ﻤ ﻌ ﺮ ﻓ ﺘ ﻪ أ و ا ﻟ ﺘ ﺰا ﻣ ﻪ‬
‫ﻗ ﺎ ل ا ﺑ ﻦ ﻋ ﺒ ﺪ ا ﻟ ﺒ ﺮ ر ﺣ ﻤ ﻪ ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ‪» :‬أ ﻫ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﺴ ﻨ ﺔ ﻣ ﺠ ﻤ ﻌ ﻮ ن ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ا ﻹ ﻗ ﺮا ر ﺑ ﺎ ﻟ ﺼ ﻔ ﺎ ت ا ﻟ ﻮا ر د ة ﻛ ﻠ ﻬ ﺎ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻘ ﺮآ ن وا ﻟ ﺴ ﻨ ﺔ وا ﻹ ﻳ ﻤ ﺎ ن ﺑ ﻬ ﺎ ‪ ،‬و ﺣ ﻤ ﻠ ﻬ ﺎ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ‬
‫ا ﻟ ﺤ ﻘ ﻴ ﻘ ﺔ ﻻ ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺠ ﺎ ز ‪ ،‬إ ﻻ أ ﻧ ﻬ ﻢ ﻻ ﻳ ﻜ ﻴ ﻔ ﻮ ن ﺷ ﻴ ﺌ ﺎ ﻣ ﻦ ذ ﻟ ﻚ ‪ ،‬و ﻻ ﻳ ﺤ ﺪ و ن ﻓ ﻴ ﻪ ﺻ ﻔ ﺔ ﻣ ﺤ ﺼ ﻮ ر ة ‪ ،‬وأ ﻣ ﺎ أ ﻫ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﺒ ﺪ ع وا ﻟ ﺠ ﻬ ﻤ ﻴ ﺔ وا ﻟ ﻤ ﻌ ﺘ ﺰ ﻟ ﺔ ﻛ ﻠ ﻬ ﺎ وا ﻟ ﺨ ﻮا ر ج‬
‫‪).‬ﻓﻜﻠﻬﻢ ﻳﻨﻜﺮﻫﺎ‪ ،‬وﻻ ﻳﺤﻤﻞ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ«‪ .‬اﻟﺘﻤﻬﻴﺪ )‪145 /7‬‬
‫وﺻﻒ اﻟﻤﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﻟﻠﺴﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺑﺎب ﺑﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ أﻫﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻠﻢ واﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ واﻟﻌﺒﺎدة ﻛﺎﻟﺤﺎﻓﻆ واﻟﺸﻴﺦ واﻹﻣﺎم واﻟﻌﺎﺑﺪ ﻻ ﺑﺄس ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ اﻷﺻﻞ ‪8-‬‬
‫ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻻ ﻓ ﺘ ﺘ ﺎ ن ﺑ ﻪ ؛ ﻷ ن ذ ﻟ ﻚ ﻣ ﻦ ﺑ ﺎ ب ا ﻟ ﻘ ﻮ ل ﺑ ﺎ ﻟ ﻌ ﺪ ل و ﻋ ﺪ م ا ﻟ ﺒ ﺨ ﺲ وإ ﻧ ﺰا ل ا ﻟ ﻨ ﺎ س ﻣ ﺮا ﺗ ﺒ ﻬ ﻢ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻌ ﻠ ﻢ وا ﻟ ﻤ ﻌ ﺮ ﻓ ﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺑ ﻞ ﻳ ﺠ ﻮ ز ذ ﻟ ﻚ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻜ ﺎ ﻓ ﺮ‬ ‫ُ‬
‫إ ذا أ ِ‬
‫ا ﻷ ﺻ ﻠ ﻲ ﻛ ﻤ ﺎ ﻗ ﺎ ل ﻋ ﻤ ﺮ و ﺑ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻌ ﺎ ص ر ﺿ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻪ ﻋ ﻨ ﻪ ﻓ ﻲ ﻧ ﺼ ﺎ ر ى ا ﻟ ﺮ و م ‪» :‬إ ن ﻓ ﻴ ﻬ ﻢ ﻟ ﺨ ﺼ ﺎ ﻻ أ ر ﺑ ﻌ ﺎ ‪ :‬إ ﻧ ﻬ ﻢ ﻷ ﺣ ﻠ ﻢ ا ﻟ ﻨ ﺎ س ﻋ ﻨ ﺪ ﻓ ﺘ ﻨ ﺔ ‪ ،‬وأ ﺳ ﺮ ﻋ ﻬ ﻢ إ ﻓ ﺎ ﻗ ﺔ‬
‫ﺑ ﻌ ﺪ ﻣ ﺼ ﻴ ﺒ ﺔ ‪ ،‬وأ و ﺷ ﻜ ﻬ ﻢ ﻛ ﺮ ة ﺑ ﻌ ﺪ ﻓ ﺮ ة ‪ ،‬و ﺧ ﻴ ﺮ ﻫ ﻢ ﻟ ﻤ ﺴ ﻜ ﻴ ﻦ و ﻳ ﺘ ﻴ ﻢ و ﺿ ﻌ ﻴ ﻒ ‪ ،‬و ﺧ ﺎ ﻣ ﺴ ﺔ ﺣ ﺴ ﻨ ﺔ ﺟ ﻤ ﻴ ﻠ ﺔ ‪ :‬وأ ﻣ ﻨ ﻌ ﻬ ﻢ ﻣ ﻦ ﻇ ﻠ ﻢ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﻠ ﻮ ك « و ﻓ ﻲ ر وا ﻳ ﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫‪»).‬إﻧﻬﻢ ﻷﺣﻠﻢ اﻟﻨﺎس ﻋﻨﺪ ﻓﺘﻨﺔ‪ ،‬وأﺟﺒﺮ اﻟﻨﺎس ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺼﻴﺒﺔ‪ ،‬وﺧﻴﺮ اﻟﻨﺎس ﻟﻤﺴﺎﻛﻴﻨﻬﻢ وﺿﻌﻔﺎﺋﻬﻢ«‪ .‬ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﻣﺴﻠﻢ )‪ (2898‬وأﺣﻤﺪ )‪18022‬‬
‫‪ .‬وﺛﻨﺎ ء اﻟ ﺴ ﻠ ﻒ ﻟﺒ ﻌ ﺾ أ ﻫ ﻞ اﻟﺒ ﺪ ع ﺑ ﻤﺎ ﻓﻴ ﻬ ﻢ ﻣ ﻦ اﻟ ﺨﻴ ﺮ ﻣ ﺸ ﻬ ﻮ ر ﻋﻨ ﺪ أ ﻣ ﻦ اﻟ ﻔﺘﻨ ﺔ‬
‫ﻗ ﺎ ل ا ﻹ ﻣ ﺎ م ا ﺑ ﻦ ﻋ ﺒ ﺪ ا ﻟ ﺒ ﺮ ‪ » :‬و ﻃ ﻠ ﻖ ﺑ ﻦ ﺣ ﺒ ﻴ ﺐ ﺛ ﻘ ﺔ ﻋ ﻨ ﺪ ﻫ ﻢ ﻓ ﻴ ﻤ ﺎ ﻧ ﻘ ﻞ ‪ ،‬إ ﻻ أ ﻧ ﻪ رأ س ﻣ ﻦ ر ؤ و س ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺮ ﺟ ﺌ ﺔ و ﻛ ﺎ ن ﻣ ﻊ ذ ﻟ ﻚ ﻋ ﺎ ﺑ ﺪا ﻓ ﺎ ﺿ ﻼ و ﻛ ﺎ ن ﻣ ﺎ ﻟ ﻚ‬
‫‪).‬ﻳﺜﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻟﻌﺒﺎدﺗﻪ وﻻ ﻳﺮﺿﻰ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻪ«‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬اﻻﺳﺘﺬﻛﺎر )‪ (1/68‬واﻟﻤﺴﺎﻟﻚ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺮح ﻣﻮﻃﺄ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ )‪1/416‬‬
‫‪.‬وﻻ ﻧﻄﻴﻞ اﻟﻜﻼم ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬا‪ ،‬وﻛﻼم أﺋﻤﺔ اﻟﺪﻋﻮة اﻟﻨﺠﺪﻳﺔ ﻻ ﻳﺨﺮج ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬا اﻷﺻﻞ إن ﺷﺎء اﻟﻠﻪ‬
‫ﻞ أو اﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺴﺎﺋﻞ اﻟﺨﻔﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﻃﻼق ﻻ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﻟﻪ ﻧﺴﺒﺎ ً وﻻ ﺻﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ‪ ،‬وﻻ ﺑﺴﻴﺮة اﻟﺴﻠﻒ ‪9-‬‬ ‫ﻞ ﻣ ﻦ و ﻗ ﻊ ﻓ ﻲ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ اﻟﺘﺄ وﻳ ٍ‬ ‫اﻟﺘ ﻜ ﻔﻴ ﺮ ﻟ ﻜ ّ‬
‫ا ﻟ ﺼ ﺎ ﻟ ﺢ ‪ ،‬و ﻻ ﺑ ﺄ ﺻ ﻮ ل ﺑ ﺎ ب ا ﻷ ﺳ ﻤ ﺎ ء وا ﻷ ﺣ ﻜ ﺎ م ‪ ،‬ﺑ ﻞ ﻫ ﻮ أ ﻗ ﺮ ب إ ﻟ ﻰ ﻣ ﻨ ﻬ ﺞ ا ﻟ ﺤ ﺮ و ر ﻳ ﺔ ا ﻷ ﺷ ﺮا ر ﻣ ﻦ ﻣ ﺬا ﻫ ﺐ ﻋ ﻠ ﻤ ﺎ ء ا ﻷ ﻣ ﺔ و ﻓ ﻘ ﻬ ﺎ ء ا ﻟ ﻤ ﻠ ﺔ ؛ و ذ ﻟ ﻚ أ ن‬
‫اﻟﻤﻜﻔﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻔﺮ اﻟﺘﺄوﻳﻞ ﺑﺎﻹﻃﻼق ﻟﻢ ﻳَﺮ ﻛﻔﺮا ً ﻋﻨﺪه ﻣﻦ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺑﺮﻫﺎن‪ ،‬وإﻧﻤﺎ رأى ﻻزﻣﺎ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻛﻔﺮٍ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈذا ﻛّﻔﺮ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻜﺄﻧﻤﺎ ﻳﻜّﻔﺮ‬
‫ا ﻟ ﻨ ﺎ س ﻣ ﻊ ا ﻧ ﺘ ﻔ ﺎ ء ا ﻟ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ﻋ ﻨ ﻬ ﻢ ‪ .‬و ﻫ ﺬا ﻻ ﻳ ﺠ ﻮ ز ﺑ ﺎ ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺴ ﻠ ﻤ ﻴ ﻦ ؛ و ﺑ ﻬ ﺬا ﻳ ﻜ ﻮ ن ا ﻟ ﻤ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ أ و ﻟ ﻰ ﺑ ﺎ ﻟ ﺘ ﻜ ﻔ ﻴ ﺮ ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﻜ ﻔ ﺮ ‪ .‬و ﻓ ﻴ ﻪ ﻣ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﺨ ﻄ ﻮ ر ة ﻣ ﺎ ﻻ ﻳ ﺨ ﻔ ﻰ‬
‫‪ .‬ﻋﻠ ﻰ أ ﺣﺪ ٍ‬
‫‪.‬وﺑﺎﻗﻲ اﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ أرﺳﻞ ﺟﻮاﺑﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ أﻗﺮب ﻓﺮﺻﺔ ﺳﺎﻧﺤﺔ ﺑﺈذن اﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ‬