Does a person who does not call those who conform to other nations unbelievers become an unbeliever himself?

- Could you share the text from Muhammad Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri’s book?
- I understand that it discusses about takfir of those who are originally Muslim but live as if they belong to a different religion or nation. Is what he says correct according to Islam?
- Muhammad Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri writes the following:
- We declare unbelievers those who do not declare unbelievers those who live as if they belong to a different nation than the Islamic nation. We also declare those who remain silent about them unbelievers. That is: If they hesitate to declare them unbelievers, they are declared unbelievers. If they doubt, they are also declared unbelievers. Even if they consider their madhhab to be correct, they are also declared unbelievers. If a person who does not declare unbelievers unbelievers is outwardly Muslim (like a Muslim), even if he believes in Islam, and even if he believes that all religions other than Islam are wrong, he is an unbeliever..
 - That is whoever does not declare them unbelievers is also an unbeliever because by doing so, (by not declaring unbelievers unbelievers) he is regarded to have acted contrary to Islam. This means an insult to the religion and a denial of the evidence presented on this matter. (Ikfarul Mulhidin Min Daruriyyatid Din, Page: 58, al-Majlisul Ilmi edition)

Dear Brother / Sister,

Al-Kashmiri’s style seems very harsh. In short, he states the following:

“Those who hold opinions contrary to the apparent meaning of the texts and the consensus (ijma’) of the ummah are unbelievers and must be declared unbelievers.”

According to this statement, the vast majority of Islamic scholars who interpret the texts are outside the realm of religion. God forbid! It is a fact that there is no consensus on a significant portion of the secondary aspects of Islamic decrees. The existence of different madhhabs is clear evidence of it. Indeed, according to Imam Shafi’i, true consensus has never been achieved.

When consensus (ijma’), which this person refers to as “majma’un alayh”, is removed, what remains is the “apparent meaning of the texts (nass).”

He also says:

“He who does not declare unbelievers those nations outside of the Islamic nation/religion, or hesitates in declaring them unbelievers, or doubts their unbelief, or affirms their madhhabs, is still an unbeliever, even if he claims to be a Muslim and considers all other schools of thought besides Islam to be false.” (Ikfarul-Mulhidin, 1/58)

Note: This approach is inaccurate in many respects:

1) Firstly, it appears to be a negative tone that damages the image of Islam. As a matter of fact, serving Islam means highlighting its positive aspects, not pointing out the flaws of others.

2) It is narrated from Ali (ra) that he said: “When explaining the truth and reality, use a style that will not lead the other side to deny Allah and His Messenger.”

So, a wise person does not just utter everything he knows... he weighs his words before speaking.

The book uses a style that does not adhere to the principle, “Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said.”

3) The views of the Sunni scholars, who constitute the vast majority of Islamic scholars, regarding the issue are as follows:

“Even there is only one piece of evidence indicating a person’s belief, and 99% of the evidence points to his unbelief, he should not be declared an unbeliever.”

4) This book compiles some opinions in favor of declaring someone an unbeliever, along with some statements that have been distorted, by cherry-picking from dozens of other books. For example: “Whoever utters a statement that is unanimously considered unbelief becomes an unbeliever. Whoever approves of it also becomes an unbeliever.” (ibid., 1/59)

With the statement above, the writer attempts to strengthen the thesis that “he who does not declare an unbeliever an unbeliever becomes an unbeliever himself.” However, consenting to unbelief is one thing, and not declaring an unbeliever an unbeliever is another because anyone who reads this book might get the impression that Islamic literature only deals with the topics of “unbelief-unbeliever-declaring a person an unbeliever.”

5) In this regard, it is highly beneficial to listen to the observations of Nursi, the mujaddid of the era who showed the straight path, in a letter he wrote to one of his students, in which he diagnosed the source of the disease of declaring others as unbelievers in this era and offers a good remedy:

“There is no harm according to the Shari’a if a person does not recall those deserving of execration and does not curse them. For unlike goodness and love, execration and vilification are not included among good works, and if they are harmful, that is far worse..” (Emirdağ Lahikası -I, p. 204)

“The Wahhabis, who rule the two sacred mosques of Mecca and Medina, and, — with the fascinating works of the famous, awesome geniuses Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzi having long since got into the hands of some Istanbul hojas — a group of hojas who favor the innovations and want to use them against the saints (awliya) and to screen their permissive way, may make a pretext of your ruling (ijtihad) which arose from love of the Prophet’s (UWBP) family and should not now be publicized, and deal a blow at both yourself and the Nur students.”

There is no command in the Shari’a not to vilify and accuse of unbelief (meaning, there is no ruling in Islamic law regarding not condemning a bad person or declaring an unbeliever an unbeliever– those who do not do so are held responsible), but there is a religious decree regarding condemnation and declaring someone an unbeliever.”

“If it is justifiable, there is no good or reward involved. Those who deserve it are innumerable. But there is no injunction in the Shari’a concerning not vilifying or accusing of unbelief, so it is not harmful in any way.”

“It is because of this fact that the people of reality, the Sunnis, and foremost the Four Imams and the Twelve Imams, took the sacred law based on the above truth as their guide, and did not consider it permissible among Muslims to make that time’s strife (Jamal-Siffin incidents) the subject of discussion and debate, saying that to do so was without benefit, and harmful.” (See ibid., p. 205)

Questions on Islam