his claim is not accepted, because this is necessarily known as part of the religion of Islam: both the learned and the ordinary Muslim know it. However, if he has only recently entered Islam, or was raised in a remote desert region far from villages and cities, then his claim of ignorance is accepted and he is not declared a disbeliever. Rather, we teach him; then, if he persists after clarification, we rule that he has disbelieved.

This issue—namely, whether ignorance is an excuse—is a momentous and complex matter, and among the issues most requiring careful investigation and accurate conceptualization.

Some people make an unrestricted statement, saying: “Ignorance is not an excuse in the fundamental matters of religion, such as tawhid (affirming Allah’s absolute oneness).” Thus, if we were to find a Muslim in some remote village or desert settlement worshipping a grave or a saint, while saying that he is a Muslim, that he found his forefathers upon this practice, and that he did not know it was shirk (associating partners with Allah), they say that he is not excused.

The correct view is that he is not declared a disbeliever, for the first thing with which the messengers came was tawhid; yet Allah, Exalted is He, says:

“We never punish until We have sent a messenger.” [al-Isra’ 17:15]

Thus, a person must be blameworthy; otherwise, he does not deserve punishment.

Moreover, Shaykh al-Islam rejected the division of religion into fundamentals and subsidiary matters. This division only emerged after the favored generations, toward the end of the third century. Shaykh al-Islam said: “How can we say that prayer is among the subsidiary matters?”—for those who divide religion into fundamentals and subsidiary matters classify prayer as a subsidiary matter—when it is the second pillar of Islam? The same applies to zakat, fasting, and pilgrimage: how can it be said that they are subsidiary matters?

Yet a person may not be excused for ignorance when he is able