Talk:Takfir

2004 deletion debate

For a January 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Takfir

Comments in January 2005

For the record: "fatwa" does not mean an execution order or something, as one might imagine if one had heard of them only from the Rushdie case. It simply means a legal judgement. One can issue a fatwa on the permissibility of shaving, or the circumstances under which wudu is invalidated, or on whether someone is an apostate or not, and how they should be punished. You can easily verify this by looking at any Islamic site; IslamOnline.net, for instance, has a whole fatwa bank. - Mustafaa 09:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe your "some sources" refers to Ibn Uthaimeen; if so, he is not saying what you think he's saying. His words are:

Thus, if he is ignorant, he does not become a disbeliever, due to His saying, “And whoever contends with the Messenger after the guidance has been made clear to him, and he follows a path other than the path of the believers, We shall leave him in the path he has chosen and land him in Jahannam, an evil refuge” (4:115)

The point he's making is that ignorance excuses acts (like "contending with the Messenger") that would normally constitute reasons for takfir, not that this verse refers to takfir. "We" in the Qur'an almost always (and certainly here) refers to God, not to the community. - Mustafaa 09:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My sources disagree with you, but you are so closed minded and uncongenial a person to work with that I have decided to concede the field to you. However, in future, I will probably vote to delete such articles, simply because it is very clear that you, as with far too many people here, simply will not work to achieve consensus, and have a nasty attitude. You've won your point, but you have made an enemy. I hope you are pleased with the exchange. Stirling Newberry 22:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And for the record the context of the article was in relation to a fatwa as the result of a takafir. You are arguing "a legal judgement doesn't mean an executtion" - when the question at hand is what a fatwah after takafir. In this, as in many other things in this article, your arrogance is highly visible, and the possibilty of working with you seems to be zero. Stirling Newberry 22:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I take both these issues to talk, to discuss and debate until the facts are agreed on, and your response, instead of to discuss them or explain your position, is to declare your disgust with the whole concept? Please stop to consider the possibility that you may simply be wrong - all the more so if you're relying on a single source, as your edits suggest. - Mustafaa 21:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

merge with Kafir?

Could we still consider merging this with kafir? The concept is exactly the same, takfir means just "to declare a kafir". No need to have to separate articles. dab (ᛏ) 14:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but I would argue otherwise; in theory, the two concepts ought to be rather similar, but historically speaking, takfir plays a very different ideological role than kufr in general. Similarly, excommunication is a different article to apostate or infidel. - Mustafaa 21:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not, I completely oppose that idea. Takfir is extremely important. Kufr is just a broad term, Takfir is the act of declaring an alleged Muslim a disbeliever. --Irishpunktom\^talk 00:05, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I see, but the kafir article is very short. As far as I can see, takfir really means nothing but "to say 'you are a kafir'". Any use of kafir incompatible with this should be considered incorrect. It seems rather like having an article on apostasy, and then another one on apostate. So at least at the moment, the kafir article does not contain information that couldn't be discussed in a short section in this article, with the advantage that the relation of the terms may be discussed (which is more difficult with things scattered over several articles). But I may be ignorant of the real issues. If it is conceivable that kafir evolves into a detailed article clearly separable from this one, of course it should be kept separate, or be separated again once we have enough material. dab (ᛏ) 08:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kufr and Takfir are indeed versions of the same word, but on the other hand they both derive from the same k-f-r word root. Linguistically it's like uncover, discover and cover. On the other hand, there are differences in meaning. The word kafir makes no comment on whether the person _has been_ a Muslim. Takfir is not only a declaration of kufr, but also of apostasy (so far as I understand the term). Kufr is disbelief, whereas Takfir is ceasing to be one of the believers after having been one.

A comment on the article: The Salafipublications.com source says "A Salafi Perspective". But the other two sources are also by Salafis. In fact, Uthaimeen is one of the eight or so scholars listed at Salafipublications.com. And while the pro-Saudi Salafis may debate the issue, Maududi is most definitely a Salafi.

Striver's version

Striver keeps reverting to his version, which is misspelled and not at all an improvement on the previous version. So far as I can tell, the only information added are the links to Sharia and List of Islamic terms in Arabic. Which Striver insists on referencing with English circumlocations and redirection rather than use the Arabic word. Striver, do you have something against the use of Arabic in Islam-related articles?

If those links are desired, they can be put in the See also section, not shoehorned into the opening sentence. Zora 23:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)?

Abu Bakr doing Takfir?

Is saying "By God, I will fight anyone who differentiates between prayer and zakat" really takfir? This sounds more like a warning rather than actually declaring those tribes as disbelievers. Can someone please explain to me how that above equals takfir? As "one of the earliest examples" this is made to sound like a precedent, in which case the clarity of the content must be established with diligence or gotten rid of altogether. And I dont know the answer so whoever wrote it, fix it. Thank you 67.169.206.46 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC) I should probably explain my confusion some more...during the course of fitna, Ali and Muawiyah probably both said they were going to "fight eachother". If Abu Bakrs statements are a clear sign of takfir, then dont all Shia and Sunni muslims have ample reason to call eachother kafirs, based on the conflicts in early Islam? My point is that unless Abu Bakr actually called them kafirs, a conflict among muslims should not count as inherent disbelief of one or more parties. If the Caliph said they were kafirs put it in the article!!! 67.169.206.46 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Those statements of the first Caliph don`t qualify for takfir, because they don`t fit in the definition of takfir. He didn`t pointed any specifical person or people as kafirs, he just stated that he will fight with those who differentiates between the prayer and the zakat. General statements, such as "those who don`t beleive in God are not Muslims", cannot be takfir, they are declaration of a fact. In fact, he even didn`t use the word kafir. It is very ridiculous claim that Abu Bakr (r.a.) practiced takfir, and if it doesn`t originates from ignorance, the only other explanation that comes to the mind is malign (bad) intent. 88.234.186.147 (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Takfiri versus Takfir

Do we really need articles on both Takfiri and Takfir? Maybe the articles should explain the difference, for people like me who are new to both words. MPS 20:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Conditions example

The example of a "murderer" used here to model a knowing abandonment of Islam seems slanted in associating the religious sin of apostasy with the severe and widely recognized crime of murder. Since the sins themselves are not proof, it seems to me the sin need not be so egregious. Wouldn't someone who having practiced Islam then states that Muhammud was not the prophet, or some similar heresy, also be a kafir?

If so, could a more neutral, less confusing example be used to explain the Sunni justification for takfir?

Also, since kafir is the non-english term (and apostate the english translation), shouldn't kafir be consistently italicized in articles in this series? Takfir switches italics on & off in this article; I'd fix this now, but I'm not sure what the conventions are. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Shia Islam and Takfir

"In Shia terminology, "takfir" is the practice of crossing the arms when standing upright during salat (or takattuf, called qabd by Sunnis)."

Actually, the meaning of "takfir" in Shia Islam is the same as that in Sunni Islam, with the additional dictionary entry of crossing the arms in salat. Just because we add a dictionary entry doesn't mean that the added entry cancels out the others. 174.124.234.21 (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Pink

Reference to Alim

In the original article there is a paragraph that reads "For this reason, orthodox Islamic law normally requires extremely stringent evidence for such accusations, in many cases, requiring an Islamic court or a religious leader, an alim, to pronounce a fatwa (legal judgement) of takfir on an individual or group." Alim is a link to the uses/meaning of this word......I think the term used around this site is the "diambiguous" references.....either way the usage of the word "alim" is not one of the uses discussed.......

A new entry on that forward page discussing the word alim in context of sharia probably needs to be undertaken 12:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.146.26 (talk)

prohibition against taking arms against other muslims

It should be mentioned in the text that Islam prohibits Muslims from taking arms against other Muslims and that historically the main purpose of officially declaring other Muslims to be apostates is to allow war to be fought against them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.29.44 (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Takfir

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Takfir's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "jstor-1570336":

• From Sharia: Peters, Rudolph; Vries, Gert J. J. De (1976). "Apostasy in Islam". Die Welt des Islams. 17 (1/4): 1–25. doi:10.2307/1570336. JSTOR 1570336.
• From Apostasy in Islam: Peters, Rudolph; Vries, Gert J. J. De (1976). "Apostasy in Islam". Die Welt des Islams. 17 (1/4): 1–25. doi:10.2307/1570336. JSTOR 1570336. By the murtadd or apostate is understood as the Moslem by birth or by conversion, who renounces his religion, irrespective of whether or not he subsequently embraces another faith

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

merger with Takfiri not necessary

I have tried to make the two articles more distinct. including groups and people called takfiri in the takfiri article. the details of what is involved in a takfir accusation in the other. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Closing', given the absence of support. Klbrain (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Useful refs

• the accidental takfirism

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Many traditional scholars have said that making takfir is for every muslim

Muhammad bin Abdu’l-Wahhab had stated: “For the sake of Allah my brothers! Hold on tightly the base of our Din, its prior, its end and its beginning! Learn its meaning, love it, love its Ahl (people), and know them to be your brothers even if they are distant. Make Takfir upon the Tāghūt and its helpers, be their enemies. Have enmity to those who love them, those who defend them, those who do not make Takfir upon them, and those who say: “I am not responsible for what they do!..” or: “Allah did not make me responsible for the things they do!..” Individuals as such will have only lied in the name of Allah and will have made slander. Because Allah (azza wa jall) has made us responsible to do things against them, has made Fardh upon us to keep distant from and make Takfir on them even if they were our brothers or children.” (Majmua at-Tawhid)

Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdu’l-Wahhab describes the foundation and principle of the Din: “The foundation and principle of the Din of Islam is in two matters: Firstly: Commanding the worshiping (directing of every type of Ibadaah) to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) alone without any partner, encouragement upon this, making friendship for its sake, and making Takfir of whosoever leaves it. Secondly: Abandoning Shirk (joining partners) in Ibadaah to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and warning from it, being severely harsh upon this, being hostile for its sake and making Takfir of whosoever does it.” (ad-Duraar as-Saniyyah, 2/203)

These are a few incidents of Umar (radiyallahu anh) and his passion to put Takfir directly and to behead for the sake of Islam. With Hatib ibn Abi Balta’ah (radiyallahu anhh) when he attempted to send the letter to the Makkans about Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam)’s preparations. With the man who came to the Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) at al-Ji’rana after Battle of Hunayn and told him: “Be just!” With Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul when he said: “If we return to Madinah, the more honored (for power) will surely expel there from the more humble.” (al-Munafiqun 63/8) Another incident occurred when a Muslim and Jewish man went to the Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) to settle a dispute; Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam)’s opinion sided with the Jew. The Muslim man wanted to get another opinion and went to Umar (radiyallahu anh). After Umar (radiyallahu anh) heard of the man not accepting Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam)’s decision, he unsheathed his sword and chopped the man’s head off.

Sheikh Qadi Iyyad said: “Hence we regard as a Kafir everyone who follows a religion other than the religion of the Muslims, or who agrees with them, or who has doubts, or who says that their way is correct, even if he appears to be a Muslim and believes in Islam and that every other way is false, he is a Kaafir.” (al-Shifa bi Ta’rif Huquq al-Mustafa, 2/1071)

Imam Muhammed Ibn Abdu’l-Wahhab gives a place for this matter in his ten nullifiers of Islam. “The third nullifier is: Whoever does not –Takfir- hold the mushriks (suufis, democrats, Christians, Jews etc) to be disbelievers, or has doubts about their disbelief or considers their ways and beliefs to be correct, has committed disbelief.” (Mu’allafaat al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdu’l-Wahhab, 212-213)

Shayh Hamad bin Atik stated: “There are many individuals who have not made Shirk but they have not stayed distant from the Mushrik either. For this reason they are not Muslim, they have not followed the Din the Rasul have informed.” (Sabil an-Najat wa’l-Fiqaq)

Shaykh Abdu’r-Rahman Alas’h-Shaykh said: “If the slave had known the meaning of ‘la ilaha illa Allah’ he would have known that, the one who has doubts or the one who hesitates regarding the Takfir of the one who associates partners to Allah, does not reject the Tāghūt.” (ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 11/523)

Shaykh Abu Butayn (rahimahullaah) answered a question in the following manner to those who asked him: “You are making Takfir of Muslims!.. The individual who say ‘you are making Takfir of Muslims’ to us does not know Islam or Tawhid. It is understood from his statement that his Islam is not valid. It is because this individual does not reject the Shirk of today’s Mushrik and he does not evaluate it as Shirk which nullifies Tawhid. An individual who is in such situation is not a Muslim.” (Majmuatu’r-Rasail, I, Part 3, 655)

Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) said: “For this reason, anyone who does not worship Allah, certainly worships other than Allah. Mankind is two types: The Muwahhid and those who are Mushrik or those who mix Tawhid with Shirk; Christians, Jews and deviated ones who attribute themselves to Islam and their likes are Mushriks who mix Tawhid and Shirk.” (Fatawa, 14/282)

He (rahimahullaah) also said: “Whoever is arrogant regarding worship to Allah is not a Muslim. And whoever worships any other object while worshiping Allah is also not a Muslim.” (Kitab an-Nubuwwah, 127)

Abdullah Bin Abdu’r-Rahmaan Abu Butayn (rahimahullaa ) said: “Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “This is a message to mankind in order that they may be warned thereby and that they may know that He is One and that the people of understanding may take heed.” (Ibrahim 14/52)