By Shaykh Rasul Jafariyan

In the late 12th century AH, one of the Ottoman scholars issued a fatwa declaring smoking forbidden, going even further by saying that if someone considers it permissible, they are an unbeliever. Another scholar rose to challenge him, confronting his approach of declaring others heretics. In this treatise, he emphasized that declaring someone an unbeliever is not the method of sound-minded jurists and scholars; rather, it is the practice of simple-minded individuals who accuse others of disbelief over trivial matters. What follows below is a Persian report of this treatise, followed by the Arabic text, with the aim of making it more widely accessible.

Treatise in Refutation of Declaring a Believer an Unbeliever

Recently, an image of a treatise titled “Risālah fī ʿAdam Takfīr al-Muʾmin” (Treatise on Not Declaring a Believer an Unbeliever), from the Suleymaniye Library, has surfaced. Its examination is noteworthy, especially in an era where declaring others as unbelievers has become as easy as drinking water and has resulted in the spilling of the blood of hundreds of thousands of Muslims—men, women, children, youth, and the elderly.

Regrettably, the culture of takfīr (excommunication) is so deeply rooted and so powerfully entrenched in classical texts that, without a doubt, it is not easily countered. However, whenever a treatise from a Sunni or Shia scholar emerges to challenge takfīr, one must be grateful to God.

Perhaps the first call for takfīr after the Prophet (p) was during the wars of apostasy (Ridda Wars), and one could say this was the first legal ruling over which the Companions had some debate. The government, which held greater power, considered apostasy to be proven under any circumstances, whether the issue pertained to the fundamentals of religion, the matter of zakāt, or merely the rejection of allegiance to the central government. Later, during the rebellion against ʿUthmān, some raised the issue of his excommunication. But the real disaster occurred at the Battle of Ṣiffīn with the stance of the Khārijites, who declared all their opponents to be unbelievers, and later based this on the theoretical principle that anyone who commits a major sin is, in any case, an unbeliever.

The Khārijites themselves had internal disagreements about this, and today the Ibāḍīs reject such extremism. Nevertheless, even among other Muslims, the issue of takfīr was taken seriously. Debates arose about tawḥīd, prophethood, beliefs about the afterlife, as well as adherence to the sharīʿah and its details. The practice of declaring others unbelievers even spread among mujtahids, with some accusing others of denying certain legal rulings based on their own interpretations. The mutual excommunication between Shia and Sunni groups, at different periods, was prevalent both in intense religious debates and in critical political conditions. One side believed that those who did not accept ʿAlī (a) were in some way denying God’s command. The other side argued that those who rejected the Companions of the Prophet (p) or viewed them as being in error were unbelievers.

Among the Shia, there were extremists whose beliefs contributed to the spread of takfīr against other Shia. Similarly, among the Sunnis, there were the Nawasib and other groups that fostered the practice of takfīr on the other side.

Amid all this, there were a few, albeit a small group, who tried to limit the scope of takfīr (excommunication) based on some narrations and legal rulings. However, the reality was that the act of declaring others as unbelievers had become so easy that their efforts did not make much progress, and this remains the case today. The Ahl al-Ḥadīth, or the Ḥanbalīs in Baghdad, considered all their opponents to be in the wrong, basing their views on a ḥadīth attributed to the Prophet (p), which states that out of the seventy-three sects, only one is saved, and the rest are the people of Hellfire. Naturally, to send someone to Hell, they had to be considered kāfir, because if they were Muslim, at the very least, they could not be condemned to Hell forever.

In any case, the concepts had become so intertwined that it was difficult to separate them and to explain how it was possible for someone to be a Muslim, even if they made an incorrect ijtihād or committed major sins and persisted in them. Since they were still Muslims, they should not be considered kāfir for these reasons.

At the time this treatise was written, in the late 12th century AH, a mufti, probably in Istanbul or another city in the Ottoman lands, issued a fatwā declaring the consumption of tobacco (smoking) forbidden. Moreover, he went further, stating that anyone who considered it permissible was a kāfir.

Smoking (shurb al-dukhān) did not exist during the time of the Prophet (p), nor for centuries afterward, unlike prayer and fasting, whose rulings are well-established and clear. Yet, this jurist issued a fatwā on the matter and considered anyone who disagreed with his ruling a kāfir.

The author of this treatise, Shaykh Muḥammad Madanī, driven by religious zeal, wrote this treatise in one night in the year 1181 AH as a critique of that fatwā. He angrily rebuked the mufti for issuing such a fatwā and used harsh language toward him. His astonishment lay in how such a clear ruling could be issued on a matter that did not exist during the time of the Prophet (p). He argued that just as the Sharīʿah remained silent on the matter, we too should remain silent. However, his main argument was about takfīr—why this person, under the name of ijtihād, so easily declared those who considered smoking permissible as unbelievers.

Madani first cited ḥadīths, then approached the issue through legal reasoning, quoting various scholars’ opinions on the matter. In the section on narrations, he referenced the ḥadīth, “Do not declare your fellow adherents to the religion as unbelievers, even if they commit major sins” (lā tukaffirū ahl millatakum wa in ʿamilū al-kabāʾir), and “Do not declare anyone from the people of the qiblah as an unbeliever due to sin, even if they commit major sins” (lā tukaffirū aḥadan min ahl al-qiblah bidh-dhanb wa in ʿamilū al-kabāʾir), and “Refrain from declaring those who say ‘lā ilāha illā Allāh’ as unbelievers due to sin, for whoever declares those who say ‘lā ilāha illā Allāh’ as unbelievers is closer to disbelief” (kuffū ʿan ahl lā ilāha illā Allāh, lā tukaffirūhum bidh-dhanb, fa-man kaffara ahl lā ilāha illā Allāh fahuwa ilā al-kufr aqrab). He also provided the sources for these narrations and cited other ḥadīths, such as the one from Bukhārī, “Whoever accuses a believer of disbelief, it is as though they have killed them” (man qadhafa muʾminan bikufr fahuwa kaqatlihi). His intention was to encourage a fair-minded approach to these ḥadīths and to acquaint the readers with the Prophet’s (p) method, which warned Muslims against engaging in takfīr.

However, if someone argues that a ḥadīth does not establish anything and that this issue must be addressed through ijtihād, the author angrily responds that with your so-called ijtihād, which is based on corrupt imaginings, you declare someone who considers smoking permissible to be a kāfir. Yet, you are unwilling to refer to the explicit ḥadīths of the Prophet (p). At the same time, in order to provide a response through the method of ijtihād as well, he presents the statements of jurists regarding takfīr, statements that also involve ijtihādi reasoning.

In presenting these views, he sometimes names the author and, more often, the book, specifically works that are well-known among Ḥanafī Sunni jurists.

He quotes from the book Ashbāh wa Naẓāʾir that takfīr is a grave matter, and one should not hastily declare someone a kāfir based on a single report. When it comes to excommunication over an issue, a ruling should only be issued if there is a consensus that belief in a certain matter leads to disbelief.

The author of al-Baḥr al-Rāʾiq has also said that the practice of takfīr is widespread among different schools of thought. However, in this regard, attention should be given solely to the statements of the mujtahids and jurists, not to the views of others. It is also stated there that if a Muslim’s statement, which outwardly appears to be disbelief, can be interpreted in a sound manner, then it should be done so. Likewise, when there is disagreement about declaring someone a kāfir due to certain statements, one should not consider them a kāfir. In his view, most of the phrases that are considered words of disbelief in the juristic books of the Ḥanafīs should not be the basis for issuing fatāwā. Ibn al-Humām has said that he has committed himself to not issuing fatwās of takfīr in such matters.

In the margins of Ashbāh, Sayyid Ḥamawī mentions: There is no doubt that if someone utters a phrase indicative of disbelief with firm belief in their heart, they are a kāfir, even if they do not believe that what they said constitutes disbelief. However, if it is known that they said it willingly, such a person is considered a kāfir according to the majority of scholars, and ignorance will not benefit them. Yet, some have said that this person is not to be excommunicated, and ignorance can be an excuse, and this view has been issued as a fatwā. This is because the duty of the muftī is to incline towards the view that does not lead to takfīr.

In this same citation from Ḥamawī, an account is mentioned where Muḥammad ibn Ḥasan al-Shaybānī did not consider a woman who said, “God will not punish the Jews and Christians because they are His servants,” to be a kāfir. Instead, he said that the matter should be explained to her.

Another point is that if someone, for the purpose of promoting a product, says that a certain forbidden matter is permissible, or out of ignorance considers something forbidden to be permissible, they will not become a kāfir, even if the matter is inherently ḥarām. However, if the forbidden matter is indirect, even if they believe in its permissibility, they still will not be considered a kāfir. A person only becomes a kāfir if two conditions are met: first, the matter in question must be inherently forbidden, and second, its prohibition must be established through clear and definitive reports. But if the ruling is based merely on akhbār al-āḥād (solitary reports), they will not be declared a kāfir. This point is mentioned in the book Tātārkhāniyyah and other Ḥanafī jurisprudential texts that the author references. A similar statement can also be found in the book Khulāṣah.

According to the author of Khulāṣah, takfīr applies only when someone declares an inherently forbidden matter, which is definitively forbidden, to be permissible. However, if either of these two conditions is absent—meaning the prohibition is based on akhbār al-āḥād, or the matter is indirectly forbidden—then the person who considers it permissible cannot be declared a kāfir.

Here, he also narrates an account where a man, nicknamed Ḥimār during the time of the Prophet (p), used to make the Prophet laugh. Once, after drinking alcohol, the Prophet (p) administered the prescribed punishment to him. Some people cursed him, but the Prophet (p) said, “Do not curse him, for I know that he loves God and His Messenger.” The author, addressing the person who easily declares others as unbelievers, says that they should adopt the manners of the Prophet (p). They should compare their words with the teachings of the scholars, and if they do not align, they should discard them in the trash.

Here, he specifically addresses the matter of smoking (shurb al-dukhān), a subject on which the person being criticized by the author declared it forbidden and considered anyone who believed in its permissibility to be a kāfir. Based on what has been stated above, the author argues that if someone declares smoking forbidden and considers those who believe it to be permissible as kāfir, they should realize that smoking is not inherently forbidden with a clear ruling, but rather it is indirectly forbidden. As mentioned earlier, takfīr does not apply in such cases. Moreover, there is no definitive evidence even for this indirect prohibition—there isn’t even a solitary report supporting it.

The person may claim that the ruler of the Muslims issued such a ruling. In the author’s view, this also does not constitute definitive evidence for the prohibition, even if it is certainly established, and one must follow it. Even if it were definitively proven to be forbidden, it is still not an inherent prohibition, as the topic of smoking was not discussed during the time of the Prophet (p) and the Companions, and nothing was said about it.

So, what should be said about smoking or the act of smoking cigarettes? In the author’s view, this issue is one of the doubtful innovations, and if someone wishes to be cautious and pious, it is better for them to avoid it. However, it is not an obligatory matter, and even if someone considers it permissible, there is some basis for its permissibility in the religious law, since the verse “He has created for you all that is in the earth” applies to it. Here, the author provides an interpretative view of the generality of this verse.

In any case, the matter of smoking is neither mentioned in the Qurʾān nor the Sunnah, and one can deduce certain rulings through ijtihād. However, it is not as the person who has declared someone a kāfir for believing in its permissibility has claimed, which is a falsehood against God and His Messenger and a deviation from the right path. This type of reasoning is not ijtihād. Claiming that tobacco (zafār, meaning tobacco and other smoking substances) is impure is yet another false accusation.

The author urges this person to behave with dignity and, just as the Sharīʿah has remained silent on the ruling regarding smoking, so should they. In a ḥadīth of the Prophet (p), it is stated that God has defined certain limits and made certain obligations mandatory, and they should not be neglected. The prohibitions set by God should not be violated, and there are matters about which God has remained silent—not out of forgetfulness—but rather as a mercy for His servants, and one should not excessively probe into them. Therefore, it is better for the person who declares smoking forbidden and those who consider it permissible as kāfir to remain silent, just as a stone remains silent.

In conclusion, it is written: This hurried text was written by Shaykh Muḥammad Madanī, out of religious zeal, on the night of Sunday after the night prayer in the middle of the month of Jumādā al-Awwal in the year 1181 AH, and it was completed at six o’clock that same night.

Text of the Treatise on Not Declaring a Believer an Unbeliever

In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, and by His aid we seek help.

Praise be to Allah, and that is sufficient. Peace be upon His chosen servants.

To proceed: In these times, there have appeared people who declare others as unbelievers without proper insight, which is prohibited by the statement of the Prophet (p), the supporter of the Helpers (Anṣār).

The Ḥadīths:

“Do not declare the people of your religion to be unbelievers, even if they commit major sins. Pray behind every imam, and pray over every deceased, and fight alongside every commander.” This was narrated by Ibn ʿAmshaliq in his collection, and Ibn al-Najjār from Wāthilah.

“Do not declare anyone from the people of the qiblah as an unbeliever due to sin, even if they commit major sins. Pray with every imam and fight alongside every commander.” This was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in al-Awsaṭ, as mentioned in Jamʿ al-Jawāmiʿ by Imām al-Suyūṭī.

“Refrain from declaring those who say ‘lā ilāha illā Allāh’ as unbelievers due to sin, for whoever declares the people of ‘lā ilāha illā Allāh’ as unbelievers is closer to disbelief.” This was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in al-Kabīr from Ibn ʿUmar, as mentioned in al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr and al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr.

In a long ḥadīth narrated by Aḥmad, al-Bukhārī, Muslim, and the four authors of the Sunan from Thābit ibn al-Ḍaḥḥāk: “Whoever accuses a believer of disbelief, it is as if he has killed him.” End of narration.

In a narration by al-Bukhārī in the Kitāb al-Īmān: “Cursing a believer is like killing him, and whoever accuses a believer of disbelief, it is as if he has killed him.” End of narration.

O you who are fair-minded, look with the eye of justice upon these noble ḥadīths and see how they prevent a Muslim from declaring his brother a disbeliever.

If you say: “These ḥadīths, like us, are not acted upon. Rather, bring evidence from the books of jurisprudence.”

I say: “You have become a mujtahid in declaring smoking forbidden and in declaring anyone who believes it to be permissible as a kāfir, using corrupt and false imaginations and invalid and baseless analogies. So why do you not adhere to the clear statement of the Prophet (p), which requires no deep contemplation or ijtihād? Ijtihād is only needed in obscure matters, whose meanings are not apparent to the common people due to their complexity.”

Nevertheless, listen and fill your ears with the sayings of the jurists.

Disbelief is a grave matter, so do not declare a believer to be a disbeliever whenever you find a narration that indicates they should not be considered as such. This is mentioned in al-Ashbāh wa al-Naẓāʾir from al-Ṣughra. This also indicates the requirement that what causes disbelief must be a matter upon which there is consensus.

In Sharḥ al-Kanz, in the section on rebellious groups (al-bughāt), it is mentioned: “Takfīr (excommunication) frequently appears in the speech of people belonging to the school of thought (madhhab), but it is not the speech of the jurists who are mujtahids, but rather of others, and there is no consideration given to the words of non-jurists.” This was reported from Ibn al-Humām.

Also, in the section on apostates, after a detailed discussion, it is said: “What is settled is that no fatwa should be issued declaring a Muslim a kāfir as long as their speech can be interpreted in a favorable way, or if there is any disagreement, even if it is based on a weak narration. Thus, most of the words of takfīr mentioned in the fatwa books should not be acted upon.” The expert jurist Ibn al-Humām said: “I have bound myself to never issue a fatwa of takfīr in any of these cases.” End of his statement.

Similarly, in the margins of al-Ashbāh by Sayyid Ḥamawī, it is stated: “Know that if someone utters a word of disbelief with conviction, there is no doubt that they are a kāfir. If they do not believe it to be a word of disbelief but willingly utter it, they will be considered a kāfir according to the majority of scholars, and ignorance will not be an excuse for them. However, some scholars have said that the person is not a kāfir, and ignorance is an excuse. This view has been issued as a fatwa because a mufti is required to lean towards the view that does not result in takfīr. If ignorance were not an excuse, then it would lead to the ruling that the ignorant are kāfirs because they do not know the words of disbelief. If they had known, they would not have said them.” End of quote. Some scholars have said: “This is a fine and subtle point.”

In Khaẓānat al-Akmal, it is narrated that during the time of Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī, a woman was told: “Allah will punish the Jews and Christians on the Day of Judgment.” She responded: “Allah would not do that to them, for they are His servants.” Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan was asked about her statement, and he said: “She is not a kāfir, for she is ignorant. Teach her until she understands.” This concludes the statement from the margins of al-Ashbāh by Sayyid Ḥamawī.

If someone says about something ḥarām, “This is ḥalāl” to promote a product, or due to ignorance, they do not become a kāfir as long as the prohibition is inherent. However, if the prohibition is due to other factors, even if they believe in its permissibility, they still will not become a kāfir. A person only becomes a kāfir if the prohibition is definitive and certain. However, if the ruling is based on akhbār al-āḥād, they do not become a kāfir. This is mentioned in al-Bazzāziyya, al-Khulāṣah, and al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah. Similarly, al-Tatārkhāniyyah contains further elaboration, which should be consulted.

Mawlānā al-Fāḍil al-Tafsīrī said in Sharḥ Dhakhr al-Mut’ahhilīn fī al-Ḥudūd: “The one who considers permissible the act of having intercourse with a menstruating woman does not become a kāfir.” In al-Khulāṣah, it is mentioned: “Whoever considers something that is inherently forbidden to be permissible, or does so inwardly, becomes a kāfir if the matter is inherently forbidden and its prohibition is definitively proven. However, if the prohibition is due to other factors, or if the inherent prohibition is based on akhbār al-āḥād, they do not become a kāfir if they consider it to be permissible.” End of al-Tafsīrī’s statement.

The scholar Ibrāhīm al-Laqānī al-Mālikī said in Jawharat al-Tawḥīd:

“And whoever denies something known by necessity in our religion is to be executed for disbelief, not as a punishment.

Likewise, whoever denies what is established by consensus or considers adultery to be permissible, should be made to listen.”

[And regarding ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, it is narrated that during the time of the Prophet (p), there was a man named ʿAbdullāh, nicknamed Ḥimār, who used to make the Prophet laugh. The Prophet had administered the punishment for drinking alcohol to him. One day, the man was brought again, and someone from the crowd said, “O Allah, curse him! How many times is he brought?” The Prophet (p) replied: “Do not curse him, for by Allah, I know that he loves Allah and His Messenger.” This is mentioned in the Kitāb al-Ḥudūd of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.]

Look, O you who hasten to declare others as unbelievers! The Prophet (p) did not approve of cursing the one who drank alcohol, which is far less severe than declaring someone an unbeliever. Adopt the manners of the Messenger of Allah.

Come, O you whom Allah has reformed, and examine these quotes from the noble scholars. Weigh your claim against them: if it aligns with them, then so be it, and if not, throw it in the trash! By Allah, it does not align, by Allah, it does not align, by Allah, it does not align. Away with your claim, far away!

[In the footnote: When Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (p) brought a man who had drunk alcohol, the Messenger of Allah (p) said, “Strike him!” Some of us struck him with their hands, some with their sandals, and some with their clothes. When they were done, some people said, “May Allah disgrace you!” The Messenger of Allah (p) said, “Do not say this; do not assist Satan against your brother.” This is mentioned in al-Bukhārī. In another narration, it is said, “Do not be Satan’s helper against your brother.” End of narration. Look, O you who overstep the bounds of the Sharīʿah, at how the Messenger of Allah (p) did not approve of harm against the one who drank alcohol, despite it being definitively forbidden and known to be so in religion by necessity. This is far less severe than takfīr, and you, O excessive one, how can you declare him an unbeliever? Adorn yourself with the morals of the Messenger of Allah, and do not overstep the bounds of moderation, lest you fall into recklessness, which is highly reprehensible.]

Come, let us walk together with fairness in the field of discussion to reveal the truth. I will say first:

How can someone who considers smoking permissible be declared an unbeliever?

[In the footnote: There is no need to use the term “smoking” (miṣṣ al-dukhān), as miṣṣ (sucking) is a type of drinking, as stated in al-Qāmūs and other sources.]

If you say: “It is forbidden, and anyone who considers something forbidden to be permissible is an unbeliever without exception,” then you have uttered a stench that has polluted the world. Even if we say it is forbidden, assuming and granting this for the sake of argument, it is, at most, indirectly forbidden. And in the case of something indirectly forbidden, one does not become an unbeliever at all, whether the prohibition is established through definitive evidence or through solitary reports. Moreover, its prohibition has not been definitively established, neither through certain nor speculative evidence, and there is no way for you to claim that it is inherently forbidden with definitive proof of its prohibition.

If you say: “Its prohibition is established by the command of the ruler, if his prohibition is proven,”

We say: It only indicates a non-definitive prohibition, because Allah’s statement, “and those in authority among you” (ulī al-amr) is not definitive in its indication, even though it is definitive in its transmission. Likewise, the Prophet’s (p) statement, “Listen and obey,” and similar reports from akhbār al-āḥād, do not definitively prove its inherent prohibition. And even if we concede that the verse is definitively indicative, it still only indicates an indirect prohibition, not an inherent one. You have already learned the ruling on this from what has been mentioned earlier, so I will not repeat it.

The correct response regarding this complex issue (i.e., smoking) is:

It is an innovation (bidʿah) from the category of doubtful matters, and avoiding doubtful matters is a form of piety and caution, not a mandatory obligation. Whoever considers it permissible has a basis from the principles of the school of thought, as the preferred view is that the default ruling on things is permissibility, based on the verse: “It is He who created for you all that is in the earth” [2:29]. In al-Madārik, it is stated: “That is, for your benefit and use in your worldly and religious affairs.” As for the former, it is obvious, and as for the latter, it is wondrous and serves as a sign of the wise, knowing Creator. It reminds one of the Hereafter, for its pleasures remind one of the rewards, and its hardships remind one of the punishments. Al-Karkhī, Abū Bakr al-Rāzī, and the Muʿtazilites [Footnote: Their agreement with us does not harm us] have used this verse, “He created for you,” as evidence that things which can be beneficial were created with an original ruling of permissibility. End of statement.

This newly invented misleading matter (i.e., smoking) has not been established in the Qur’an or the Sunnah, nor has anyone with the authority for ijtihād spoken on it. As for your speaking about it without a proper Sharīʿah-based framework, it is a slander against Allah and His Messenger and a deviation from the right path. Your claim to ijtihād is invalid and will not be accepted. Moreover, your declaration that tobacco is impure is a false accusation against your own imām, the leader of the imāms. And drawing comparisons with the later stages of the Muhammadan way is an erroneous analogy.

Be dignified and do not confuse the issue of this complex matter. Remain silent about it just as the Sharīʿah remained silent, following the statement: “The lawful is what Allah has permitted in His Book, and the unlawful is what Allah has forbidden in His Book. What He has remained silent about is pardoned.” This was narrated by al-Tirmidhī, Ibn Mājah, and al-Ḥākim from Salmān. Also, it was narrated by Ibn Jarīr, Ibn al-Mundhir, and al-Ḥākim (who authenticated it) from Abū Thaʿlabah al-Khushanī, who said that the Messenger of Allah (p) said: “Indeed, Allah has set limits, so do not transgress them. He has made obligatory duties for you, so do not neglect them. He has forbidden certain things, so do not violate them. And He has left certain things out of mercy for you, not out of forgetfulness, so accept them and do not investigate further.” This is mentioned in al-Durr al-Manthūr by Imām al-Suyūṭī under the verse: “Do not ask about things…” [5:101]. Look at this verse and its meaning.

And the Prophet (p) said: “He has forbidden certain things, so do not violate them, and He has left certain things, not out of forgetfulness, but out of mercy for you. So accept them and do not investigate further.” We remain at the point where the Prophet (p) stopped, and we remain silent about what our Lord remained silent about, knowing He did not forget but rather left it as a mercy for His servants.

Follow the command of the Prophet (p), obey his prohibitions, and remain silent. Be silent, be silent, as silent as a stone.

This brief treatise was written by Shaykh Muḥammad Madanī, out of zeal for the religion of Allah. He began writing on the night of Sunday after the night prayer in the middle of the month of Jumādā al-Awwal in the year 1181 AH [1767 CE] and completed it that same night at six o’clock. May Allah send blessings upon our master, his family, and his companions, all of them.