Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (6/195)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

to go beyond what the texts have stated. Had the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, not said that his father is in Hell, the implication of the legal principle would have been that he would not be punished and that his case would be left to Allah, like the rest of the people of the interval. The preponderant view is that the people of the interval will be tested on the Day of Resurrection in whatever manner Allah wills. As for these people, they believe themselves to be upon Islam, and no one has come to teach them. Indeed, they may even have misguided scholars among them who tell them that what they are upon is the truth.

Therefore, the one who denies that zakat is obligatory must be aware of the ruling. If he denies it while knowing the ruling, he becomes a disbeliever. If he is ignorant, but we teach him and explain the textual proofs to him, and he persists in his position, then he becomes a disbeliever, because he is aware of the ruling.

From this, it becomes clear that acknowledging the ruling is not a condition. Once the ruling has reached a person in a clear and manifest manner, the proof has been established against him, whether he acknowledges it or denies it. Even if he denies it, that does not benefit him or remove the ruling from him. Otherwise, Pharaoh—who denied the message of Moses, peace be upon him, despite acknowledging it inwardly—would have been a believing man who was in the right. But he was not. The condition is that the proof reach a person in a manner that makes the matter clear to him. Once it has reached him, his acknowledgment of it is not a condition; he is judged to be a disbeliever even if he does not acknowledge it.

If we inform him and he persists in claiming that it is not obligatory, yet pays it as voluntary charity, he becomes a disbeliever. Accordingly, the author’s statement, “Whoever withholds it while denying that it is obligatory,” is not a qualifying restriction in the ruling, because the determining factor is denial. Thus, if he denies its obligation while knowing the ruling, he becomes a disbeliever, whether he pays it or does not pay it.

أن نتجاوز ما جاءت به النصوص، ولولا أن الرسول ﷺ قال: إن أباه في النار، لكان مقتضى القاعدة الشرعية أنه لا يعذب، وأن يكون أمره إلى الله، كسائر أصحاب الفترة، فإن القول الراجح أن أصحاب الفترة يمتحنون يوم القيامة بما شاء الله، أما هؤلاء فإنهم يعتقدون أنهم على الإسلام ولم يأتهم من يعلمهم، بل قد يكون عندهم من علماء الضلالة من يقول: إنَّ ما هم عليه هو الحق. إذاً لا بد أن يكون الجاحد لوجوب الزكاة عارفاً بالحكم، فإن جحدها وهو عارف بالحكم صار كافراً، وإن كان جاهلاً وعلمناه وبينا له النصوص وأصر على ما هو عليه، فحينئذٍ يكون كافراً؛ لأنه عالم بالحكم. وعلى هذا يتبين لنا أنه لا يشترط الإقرار بالحكم، فإذا بلغه الحكم على وجه واضح بين، فقد قامت عليه الحجة سواء أقر أم أنكر، حتى ولو أنكر فإن ذلك لا ينفعه، ولا يرفع عنه الحكم؛ وإلا لكان فرعون ـ الذي أنكر رسالة موسى ﵊ مع إقراره بها في باطن نفسه ـ مؤمناً محقاً، ولكنه ليس كذلك، فالشرط هو بلوغ الحجة على وجه يتبين به الأمر، فإذا بلغ الإنسان ذلك، فإن إقراره بها ليس بشرط، فيحكم بكفره ولو لم يقر بها. وإذا أخبرناه فأصر على أنها ليست واجبة، ولكنه يخرجها على أنها تطوع، فإنه يكفر وعلى هذا فإن قول المؤلف: «ومن منعها جحداً لوجوبها» ليس قيداً في الحكم؛ لأن المدار على الجحود، فإذا جحد الوجوب وهو عارف بالحكم، كفر سواء أخرجها أم لم يخرجها.