Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (6/196)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

It was said to Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him: “So-and-so says concerning Allah’s words: ‘Whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein forever; Allah will be angry with him, condemn him, and prepare for him a tremendous punishment’: ‘This applies to one who considers the killing of a believer lawful.’” Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, smiled and said: “If he considers the killing of a believer lawful, then he is a disbeliever, whether he kills him or not!” The verse would then serve no purpose, because it has attached the ruling to a characteristic other than the one mentioned by this speaker—namely, denial.

To those who say that the texts indicating the disbelief of one who abandons the prayer apply to one who abandons it while denying that it is obligatory, we say: The one who denies that prayer is obligatory is a disbeliever even if he prays. So why do you take account of a characteristic that the proof does not mention, while disregarding the characteristic to which the ruling has been attached? This is a violation of the text in two respects:

First: disregarding the characteristic which the Sacred Law has deemed to entail the ruling.

Second: introducing a characteristic that is not found in the text.

This error frequently arises among scholars because they form a conviction before examining the evidence, and then try to twist the texts to conform to what they believe. Or the one citing the evidence may find it too grave that a person who abandons the prayer should be declared a disbeliever when he testifies that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and believes in the Last Day; so he attempts to distort the texts because he finds it too grave to declare him a disbeliever.

“And it is taken from him, and he is executed ...”

His statement, “And it is taken from him, and he is executed,” means that if one withholds zakat while denying that it is obligatory, it is taken from him and given to those entitled to it, and he is executed because of his apostasy.

Here a question arises: How can it be taken from him when we have judged him to be a disbeliever,

وقد قيل للإمام أحمد ﵀: إن فلاناً يقول في قوله تعالى: ﴿وَمَنْ يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِناً مُتَعَمِّدًا فَجَزَاؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ خَالِدًا فِيهَا وَغَضِبَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلَعَنَهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُ عَذَابًا عَظِيمًا *﴾: «إن ذلك فيمن استحل قتل المؤمن»، فتبسم الإمام أحمد ﵀ وقال: «إذا استحل قتل المؤمن فهو كافر، سواء قتله، أم لم يقتله»!! فتبقى الآية لا فائدة منها؛ لأن الآية علقت الحكم على وصف دون هذا الوصف الذي ذكره هذا القائل وهو الجحود. والذين قالوا: إن النصوص الدالة على كفر تارك الصلاة محمولة على من تركها جحداً لوجوبها، نقول لهم: إن الذي جحد وجوب الصلاة كافر ولو صلى، فلم تعتبرون وصفاً لم يشر إليه الدليل، وتتركون وصفاً علق عليه الحكم؟ فهذه جناية على النص من وجهين هما: الأول: إلغاء ما اعتبره الشرع وصفاً موجباً للحكم. الثاني: استحداث وصف لم يكن في النص. وهذا البلاء يأتي كثيراً من العلماء؛ لأنهم اعتقدوا قبل أن يستدلوا فحاولوا ليَّ أعناق النصوص إلى ما يعتقدون، أو يكون المستدل قد استعظم الأمر كيف يكفر تارك الصلاة، وهو يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله، وأن محمداً رسول الله، ويؤمن باليوم الآخر، فيحاول أن يُحَرِّفَ النصوصَ من أجل استعظامه أن يكفر. وَأُخِذَتْ منه وقُتِلَ ......... قوله: «وأخذت منه وقتل» أي: من منع الزكاة جحداً لوجوبها فإنها تؤخذ منه، وتعطى لأهلها، ويقتل؛ لردته. وهنا يرد سؤال وهو كيف تؤخذ منه، وقد حكمنا بكفره،