He said: “Or if he strips it of its sanctity; or if he denies Islam, the two testimonies of faith, or either of them, he has disbelieved—not one who merely relates disbelief that he heard and does not believe in it.” Thus, if he says, “So-and-so said such-and-such,” while he himself does not believe it, then this is not disbelief on his part. But if he does believe it, yet relates it as a cover—for example, it has been said that Abdullah ibn Ubayy used to repeat the slanderous allegation without attributing it to himself, though he believed it, meaning that he wished for it to be spread—then the ruling differs. If someone were to utter a statement of disbelief before young people in order to cast doubts upon them regarding the religion of Islam, and said, “So-and-so, the son of so-and-so, said it,” attributing it to someone else while he himself believes it, then inwardly he is undoubtedly a disbeliever. Outwardly, however, we do not declare him a disbeliever, because he attributed the statement to someone else. This is found—may Allah protect us—among some of the heretics who call themselves Muslims: they bring forth matters that create doubt, yet they do not say, “We say”; rather, they say, “What if it were said,” or, “So-and-so said,” or, “Such-and-such has troubled me.”

He said: “Or if he utters a word of disbelief without knowing its meaning; or if it slips from his tongue unintentionally, due to intense joy, bewilderment, or something similar.” The evidence for this is the man whose camel had gone astray. He searched for it but could not find it, so he slept beneath a tree. When he awoke, he found the halter of his camel hanging from the tree. Overwhelmed with immense joy, he seized the camel’s halter and, out of the intensity of his joy, said: “O Allah, You are my servant and I am Your lord” (1).

Thus, as Shaykh al-Islam said, if someone utters a word of disbelief without believing in its meaning, but says it because of intense joy, astonishment, or the like,