Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Whoever, out of ignorance, denies that fornication—or any other manifest prohibition upon which there is unanimous agreement—is forbidden is to be informed of this. But if he is someone who could not be ignorant of it, he has disbelieved.

His statement, “Whoever, out of ignorance, denies that fornication—or any other manifest prohibition upon which there is unanimous agreement—is forbidden is to be informed of this. But if he is someone who could not be ignorant of it, he has disbelieved”: if he denies the prohibition of fornication by saying, “Fornication is lawful”—and we seek Allah’s protection—then it must be considered whether he is ignorant. If he is ignorant, he has not disbelieved; but if he is knowledgeable, he has disbelieved. Yet by what criterion do we determine whether he is knowledgeable or ignorant? If he was raised among Muslims, this indicates that he is knowledgeable, and thus he has disbelieved. But if he has only recently embraced Islam, or was raised in a remote desert region—for the desert dwellers and Bedouins are far removed from knowledge of the ordinances that Allah revealed to His Messenger, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—then he does not disbelieve if he denies its prohibition and claims ignorance. However, if he is taught and then persists, he has disbelieved.

His statement, “or any other manifest prohibition upon which there is unanimous agreement,” includes, for example, the prohibition of usury. Thus, if someone says, “Usury is lawful,” this does not refer to denying the prohibition of a particular type concerning which the scholars differ. For example, exchanging one apple for two is usury according to al-Shafi‘i, but it is not usury according to Imam Ahmad. Thus, if the followers of Imam Ahmad say that one apple for two is lawful, they have not disbelieved. Rather, what the author means is that if someone denies the prohibition of usury altogether, he is undoubtedly a disbeliever, because the prohibition of usury is explicitly stated in the Quran: “Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury.” [al-Baqarah: 275] Denying its prohibition is therefore to reject Allah’s word as false, and thus he is a disbeliever.

The prohibition of usury in general is established by definitive consensus,

وَمَنْ جَحَدَ تَحْرِيمَ الزِّنَا، أَوْ شَيْئاً مِنَ الْمُحَرَّمَاتِ الظاهِرَةِ الْمُجْمَعِ عَلَيْهَا بِجَهْلٍ عُرِّفَ ذلِكَ، وَإِنْ كَانَ مِثْلُهُ لَا يَجْهَلُهُ كَفَرَ. قوله: «وَمَنْ جَحَدَ تَحْرِيمَ الزِّنَا، أَوْ شَيْئاً مِنَ الْمُحَرَّمَاتِ الظاهِرَةِ الْمُجْمَعِ عَلَيْهَا بِجَهْلٍ عُرِّفَ ذلِكَ، وَإِنْ كَانَ مِثْلُهُ لَا يَجْهَلُهُ كَفَرَ» إن جحد تحريم الزنا، بأن قال: الزنا حلال والعياذ بالله، فينظر إن كان جاهلاً لم يكفر، وإن كان عالماً كفر، لكن أي ميزان ندرك به أنه عالم، أو غير عالم؟ إذا كان ناشئاً بين المسلمين فإن هذا يقتضي أن يكون عالماً فيكفر، وإن كان حديث عهد بإسلام، أو ناشئاً ببادية بعيدة؛ لأن البادية والأعراب بعيدون عن معرفة حدود ما أنزل الله على رسوله ﷺ فإن هذا لا يكفر إذا أنكر تحريمه وادعى أنه جاهل، لكن إذا عُلِّم فأصر فهذا يكفر. وقوله: «أَوْ شَيئاً مِنَ المُحَرَّمَاتِ الظَّاهِرَةِ المُجْمَعِ عَلَيْهَا» مثل تحريم الربا، فقال: الربا حلال، يعني ما جحد تحريم نوع معين مما يجري فيه الخلاف بين العلماء، فمثلاً تفاحة بتفاحتين ربا عند الشافعي، وليست ربا عند الإمام أحمد، فلو قال: أصحاب الإمام أحمد: إن تفاحة بتفاحتين حلال لا يكفرون، لكن مراد المؤلف إذا أنكر تحريم الربا جملة، فهذا كافر بلا شك؛ لأن تحريم الربا نص في القرآن: ﴿وَأَحَلَّ اللَّهُ الْبَيْعَ وَحَرَّمَ الرِّبَا﴾ [البقرة: ٢٧٥] فيكون جحد تحريمه تكذيباً لله ﷿ فيكون كافراً. وتحريم الربا من حيث الجملة مجمع عليه إجماعاً قطعياً،

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies