Inclusion and Exclusion from the Muslim category

[cooterhein]

I'd like to get some clarification as to who is included and excluded from the Muslim category, and most especially why that is.

For starters- let me know if this is controversial for this particular group of Muslims- Shia Islam and Ahmadi Islam would typically be classified as "not actual Islam." According to the type of Muslim that I'm talking to, at least. Is that correct?

For a continuation, I've been led to understand that Muslims- here, anyway- consider Jesus to be a Muslim, same goes for a select group of the very earliest Christians, and also ancient Jews, perhaps with some exceptions and only leading up to a certain point. Where is that point exactly? I haven't found that out yet. Also Arians, according to some, and perhaps also Unitarians and a few other non-Trinitarians who broke away from Christianity, some before the rise of Islam and some after.

And finally, let's get to the heat of the meat. If you do consider Shia and Ahmadis to not be Muslim, their adherence to tawheed must not mean much in their situation, and neither does their belief in the shahada, or their devotion to the Quran and to Mohammed. All of this is overlooked in the interest of saying they are out. Yes? Whereas when you're looking at pre-Islamic Abrahamic religions, or at Arians or another type of unitarian- and to clarify, you're not saying they're similar to you and you therefore have an interest in cheering for them, you would state that they actually Are Muslims- their tawheed alone must mean a lot more for them than it does for those other guys you said are out, they never said the shahada, and they have zero devotion to Mohammed or his holy book. So why does their tawheed, all by itself, mean so much more for them than it does for these other people that you exclude?

Is there a coherent set of claims and statements that can help make sense of these related sets of evaluations? If it seems like tawheed means a great deal more to you in some situations than others, is that how you really mean to make it seem, or is it a mistake to reach that conclusion?

Please don't come up with unrelated ways to attack me or my religion, if you're going to do anything here please just work on answering the question. It is a fairly important clarifying point when it comes to assessing the way in which Muslims define and/or ring-fence Islam, so let's do that in a manner that is consistent and coherent.

 

[AabiruSabeel]

Please see this post: http://www.islamicboard.com/-ilm-knowledge/134340317-daily-fiqh-thread-post2913732.html#post2913732

It mentions 10 nullifiers of Imaan. Whoever does any of them is not considered a Muslim anymore.


As for the previous Prophets and their early followers, all the Prophets and Messengers were sent with the same message even though their rituals might have been different. Allah :swt: says,

And We sent not before you any messenger except that We revealed to him that, "There is no deity except Me, so worship Me." [21:25]

So all of them were Muslims until their followers corrupted their religion.

Another thing is, as long as Prophet Muhammad :saws: did not arrive, earlier Muslims were not required to follow him. But once he has arrived, all previous teachings are now abrogated and it is incumbent on the followers of previous Prophets to follow the Last and Final Messenger.

It says in a Hadith,
The Messenger of Allah (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said: “I swear by the One who has my soul in His Hand, if Musa (alaihis salam) were alive today, he would have no choice but to follow me.” [Ahmad]

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, The Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

There is a reason some Shia groups are not considered part of Islam (as opposed to some other Shia groups are considered even within Sunni Muslim belief as part of Islam). For example, there are some Shia groups who have become extreme in their reverence of Ali :raha: (may God be pleased with him) believing or saying things like that the Angel Gabriel :as: (peace be upon him) made a mistake in giving the prophethood to Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) when the original recipient was Ali :raha: (may God be pleased with him). These types of beliefs are considered heretical in Sunni Islam. As far as Ahmadis are concerned, they believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet of God and a reincarnation of Prophet Jesus :as: (peace be upon him) and also Mahdi :as: (peace be upon him) when both Shia and Sunni Islam are unanimously agreed that prophethood ended with the death of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Second Coming of Jesus :as: (peace be upon him) is still set to occur as a regular person and devotee of the ummah (nation) of Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) to erase pagan concepts of Christianity and unite then all believers in One God under the banner of Islam to be with Mahdi :as: (peace be upon him) with the intention to fight the Dajjal (Anti-Christ) and his evil forces in the Last Days.

It is hard to pinpoint exactly where and when the believers, conceptualized as Muslims as the term Muslim means "to submit to God" and essentially meaning to live the truth of the Lord's prayer contained in the phrase "Thy will be done," veered off the Straight Path. Some other members might be able to give you rough timelines, but I'd just say that whenever persons veered from true monotheism and had pagan beliefs creeping in or straightforward and subversive acceptance of fragrant disobedience of God's will and command happened, that is when the believer ceased to be Muslim within the realm of the discussion we're having here. For example, we know that Jesus's :as: (peace be upon him) disciples did not attribute to him any divinity or see him as part of the godhood.

You're asking a very complicated question here about Tawheed: The truth is that there are nontraditional Christians - they would and do deny the divinity of Jesus :as: (peace be upon him) - you are essentially in a roundabout way asking perhaps if they are Muslims if all of what I've aforementioned is true also. After the advent of Islam onto the world scene, the acceptance of Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) is a critical feature of being identified and seen as a Muslim in God's eyes. That being said, you and I both know that Islam has one of the worst public reputation currently in the globe. And so that would naturally probably deter most non-Muslims from looking into Islam from Islamic sources and also enable persons who are not inclined to search or think for themselves to conclude that all that media and anti-Islamic sources say is true and thereby they'd conclude that Islam is a false religion and Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) is not a prophet or a messenger. For these types of persons, you are perhaps also essentially wondering what their fate is according to Islam and how that fits in with what you've learned so far about Islamic worldview. Well, according to ahadith (prophetic traditions) and Islamic scholars, people who fall under the category of "excused" for whatever reason (i.e. heard a distorted version of Islam, never heard of the religion Islam, were deaf, etc.) but are monotheists would be given a test on the Day of Judgment by God and if they pass that test, they would also be going to Heaven because they did not intend (keyword here being "intend") to disobey God and deliberately reject Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him).

Having the correct belief is important; it is the stepping stone to anything. For example, in math, if you don't know basic addition like 1+0=1, what are the chances that you will understand or be able to do subtraction, division, multiplication or solve algebraic equations? For everything, there is a foundation. And Tawheed is the foundation of a monotheist. But that foundation needs to be informed with guidance from God, and that guidance has always been delivered by messengers and prophets. Whoever subtracts or adds to the Tawheed has gone astray, which is why Islam says that Christians went astray in deifying Jesus and Jews earned the wrath of God in flagrantly disobeying God's commands and will (when they changed God's word, inequitably applied God's law, killed prophets and messengers, and attempted to crucify Jesus even though God raised Jesus up to save Jesus from the evil-doers even when God had once upon a time singled them out to receive divine blessings as chosen peoples). I'd also like to add one more thing, lest what I've said so far is misinterpreted, that there are exceptions (that defy the rule) which enable merciful qualification of some as good believers and monotheists within both Jews and Christians. We would do well to remember that God is the Most Merciful and Most Just and God proposes to judge us according to our intentions, not what we outwardly manifest.

Hope that somewhat clarified the subject matter for you.

I'd like to get some clarification as to who is included and excluded from the Muslim category, and most especially why that is.

For starters- let me know if this is controversial for this particular group of Muslims- Shia Islam and Ahmadi Islam would typically be classified as "not actual Islam." According to the type of Muslim that I'm talking to, at least. Is that correct?

For a continuation, I've been led to understand that Muslims- here, anyway- consider Jesus to be a Muslim, same goes for a select group of the very earliest Christians, and also ancient Jews, perhaps with some exceptions and only leading up to a certain point. Where is that point exactly? I haven't found that out yet. Also Arians, according to some, and perhaps also Unitarians and a few other non-Trinitarians who broke away from Christianity, some before the rise of Islam and some after.

And finally, let's get to the heat of the meat. If you do consider Shia and Ahmadis to not be Muslim, their adherence to tawheed must not mean much in their situation, and neither does their belief in the shahada, or their devotion to the Quran and to Mohammed. All of this is overlooked in the interest of saying they are out. Yes? Whereas when you're looking at pre-Islamic Abrahamic religions, or at Arians or another type of unitarian- and to clarify, you're not saying they're similar to you and you therefore have an interest in cheering for them, you would state that the actually Are Muslims- their tawheed alone must mean a lot more for them than it does for those other guys you said are out, they never said the shahada, and they have zero devotion to Mohammed or his holy book. So why does their tawheed, all by itself, mean so much more for them than it does for these other people that you exclude?

Is there a coherent set of claims and statements that can help make sense of these related sets of evaluations? If it seems like tawheed means a great deal more to you in some situations than others, is that how you really mean to make it seem, or is it a mistake to reach that conclusion?

Please don't come up with unrelated ways to attack me or my religion, if you're going to do anything here please just work on answering the question. It is a fairly important clarifying point when it comes to assessing the way in which Muslims define and/or ring-fence Islam, so let's do that in a manner that is consistent and coherent.

 

[cooterhein]

Please see this post: http://www.islamicboard.com/-ilm-knowledge/134340317-daily-fiqh-thread-post2913732.html#post2913732

It mentions 10 nullifiers of Imaan. Whoever does any of them is not considered a Muslim anymore.


As for the previous Prophets and their early followers, all the Prophets and Messengers were sent with the same message even though their rituals might have been different. Allah :swt: says,

And We sent not before you any messenger except that We revealed to him that, "There is no deity except Me, so worship Me." [21:25]

So all of them were Muslims until their followers corrupted their religion.

Another thing is, as long as Prophet Muhammad :saws: did not arrive, earlier Muslims were not required to follow him. But once he has arrived, all previous teachings are now abrogated and it is incumbent on the followers of previous Prophets to follow the Last and Final Messenger.

It says in a Hadith,
The Messenger of Allah (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said: “I swear by the One who has my soul in His Hand, if Musa (alaihis salam) were alive today, he would have no choice but to follow me.” [Ahmad]

Thank you very much for this, it's a good thing I have the Internet at my disposal because there's about a dozen words in there that I'm not familiar with.

Without having looked up very much yet, my initial thoughts are that numbers 3, 9, and 10 are the biggest threats to Muslims in a pluralist type of society (doubting the Kufr of the Kuffar, believing it's okay for some to not follow Sharia, and essentially being a Muslim in name only without believing or practicing much of anything- hello Zayn Malik formerly of One Direction). And for what it's worth, it seems to me that the point stating the all people- I assume not just Muslims?- must follow Sharia is a tricky one, just because it's a belief in how things should actually be, even though they can't actually be that way.

I also have a question about number 8, assisting non-Muslim fighting forces while fighting against other Muslims. This actually seems a bit like the current game plan for the US military, especially when it comes to the Kurdish Peshmerga forces in northern Iraq. Those are Sunni Muslims, although they aren't the most conservative type, and they are basically fighting Muslims according to the broadest definition possible, although their main enemy is currently a terrorist group that's hated by everybody. And they're basically on the same side as Iran right now, but that's a temporary and tenuous pseudo-alliance. The thing is though, US cooperation with the Peshmerga is probably going to be more long term than that, and it very well may extend to a point where the US is helping them against any of several possible forces that are absolutely not terrorists. Could that potentially lead to a clear-cut nullity of their acknowledged affiliation? Or have they already done something else that would render the Kurdish status non-Islamic in that region?

There is one more quick question that I have- there have been some fairly prominent Unitarians in US history who never got anywhere close to Muslims, or to any knowledge of what would cause their faith to be null in the eyes of Islam. This includes four US Presidents. Would any of them be considered Muslims? Would that be a case-by-case evaluation depending on what other nullification possibilities are in play? And- this one is important to me- would it matter to you if they said they were Christians, albeit ones who reject the Trinity?

 

[cooterhein]

:bism: (In the Name of God, The Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

There is a reason some Shia groups are not considered part of Islam (as opposed to some other Shia groups are considered even within Sunni Muslim belief as part of Islam). For example, there are some Shia groups who have become extreme in their reverence of Ali :raha: (may God be pleased with him) believing or saying things like that the Angel Gabriel :as: (peace be upon him) made a mistake in giving the prophethood to Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) when the original recipient was Ali :raha: (may God be pleased with him). These types of beliefs are considered heretical in Sunni Islam. As far as Ahmadis are concerned, they believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet of God and a reincarnation of Prophet Jesus :as: (peace be upon him) and also Mahdi :as: (peace be upon him) when both Shia and Sunni Islam are unanimously agreed that prophethood ended with the death of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Second Coming of Jesus :as: (peace be upon him) is still set to occur as a regular person and devotee of the ummah (nation) of Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) to erase pagan concepts of Christianity and unite then all believers in One God under the banner of Islam to be with Mahdi :as: (peace be upon him) with the intention to fight the Dajjal (Anti-Christ) and his evil forces in the Last Days.

It is hard to pinpoint exactly where and when the believers, conceptualized as Muslims as the term Muslim means "to submit to God" and essentially meaning to live the truth of the Lord's prayer contained in the phrase "Thy will be done," veered off the Straight Path. Some other members might be able to give you rough timelines, but I'd just say that whenever persons veered from true monotheism and had pagan beliefs creeping in or straightforward and subversive acceptance of fragrant disobedience of God's will and command happened, that is when the believer ceased to be Muslim within the realm of the discussion we're having here. For example, we know that Jesus's :as: (peace be upon him) disciples did not attribute to him any divinity or see him as part of the godhood.

You're asking a very complicated question here about Tawheed: The truth is that there are nontraditional Christians - they would and do deny the divinity of Jesus :as: (peace be upon him) - you are essentially in a roundabout way asking perhaps if they are Muslims if all of what I've aforementioned is true also. After the advent of Islam onto the world scene, the acceptance of Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) is a critical feature of being identified and seen as a Muslim in God's eyes. That being said, you and I both know that Islam has one of the worst public reputation currently in the globe. And so that would naturally probably deter most non-Muslims from looking into Islam from Islamic sources and also enable persons who are not inclined to search or think for themselves to conclude that all that media and anti-Islamic sources say is true and thereby they'd conclude that Islam is a false religion and Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) is not a prophet or a messenger. For these types of persons, you are perhaps also essentially wondering what their fate is according to Islam and how that fits in with what you've learned so far about Islamic worldview. Well, according to ahadith (prophetic traditions) and Islamic scholars, people who fall under the category of "excused" for whatever reason (i.e. heard a distorted version of Islam, never heard of the religion Islam, were deaf, etc.) but are monotheists would be given a test on the Day of Judgment by God and if they pass that test, they would also be going to Heaven because they did not intend (keyword here being "intend") to disobey God and deliberately reject Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him).

Having the correct belief is important; it is the stepping stone to anything. For example, in math, if you don't know basic addition like 1+0=1, what are the chances that you will understand or be able to do subtraction, division, multiplication or solve algebraic equations? For everything, there is a foundation. And Tawheed is the foundation of a monotheist. But that foundation needs to be informed with guidance from God, and that guidance has always been delivered by messengers and prophets. Whoever subtracts or adds to the Tawheed has gone astray, which is why Islam says that Christians went astray in deifying Jesus and Jews earned the wrath of God in flagrantly disobeying God's commands and will (when they changed God's word, inequitably applied God's law, killed prophets and messengers, and attempted to crucify Jesus even though God raised Jesus up to save Jesus from the evil-doers even when God had once upon a time singled them out to receive divine blessings as chosen peoples). I'd also like to add one more thing, lest what I've said so far is misinterpreted, that there are exceptions (that defy the rule) which enable merciful qualification of some as good believers and monotheists within both Jews and Christians. We would do well to remember that God is the Most Merciful and Most Just and God proposes to judge us according to our intentions, not what we outwardly manifest.

Hope that somewhat clarified the subject matter for you.

Thank you very much for these clarifications, there was quite a bit that I wasn't specifically familiar with before. I do have one thing to follow up on, though. Coming from a Christian background, the word "heretic" is used in a way that doesn't completely exclude Christians from Christianity, it's more of a term for Christians with beliefs that are seriously problematic- sort of like a sick or wounded form of Christianity. It's damaged, but it's still Christianity. Apostate is the term we would use for people who are no longer Christian. Is that how you're using these terms? I'm especially interested in how you're using the word "heretic" or any derivative of that- if a Muslim (or an Islamic group) falls into heresy, are we still looking at some form of Islam, albeit a wounded and problematic one? Or is it completely and categorically non-Islamic? And if the latter answer is correct, what is it that makes heresy any different from apostasy?

 

[AabiruSabeel]

We as individuals are not authorized to declare any other individual as non-Muslim based on his apparent belief and actions. Those ten nullifiers of Imaan are for everyone to evaluate themselves, not others.
I remember reading a story of a well known Imaam among Tabi'een (the second generation of Muslims after the Prophet :saws, he was asked about a man who had apparently done a lot of things that would take outside the folds of Islam, but the imaam kept making excuse for each and every action of his, by interpreting his actions as something else which is not very apparent. He did not find it appropriate to declare him as a Kafir.

 

[cooterhein]

We as individuals are not authorized to declare any other individual as non-Muslim based on his apparent belief and actions. Those ten nullifiers of Imaan are for everyone to evaluate themselves, not others.

Are there some Muslims who choose to apply this same logic to ancient Jews and the earliest Christians- who called themselves Jews and Christians, respectively- instead of declaring them to be Muslims based on their apparent belief and actions?

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I apologize for the misunderstanding, and you are right to ask for clarification here as I was not clear: Some specific types of Shia groups (and please note that there are some exceptions from within Shiasm that are considered Muslim in Sunni Islam) and all Ahmadis are considered non-Muslim. So, the individuals within these groups would never be considered Muslim until they converted and righted their specific heresies. They are not apostates because they are not considered Muslim; therefore, any time they want to convert to orthodox version of Islam (Sunni), they'd simply also have to take the shahada (testimony of faith) and build a foundation of Islam from there onward.

Thank you very much for these clarifications, there was quite a bit that I wasn't specifically familiar with before. I do have one thing to follow up on, though. Coming from a Christian background, the word "heretic" is used in a way that doesn't completely exclude Christians from Christianity, it's more of a term for Christians with beliefs that are seriously problematic- sort of like a sick or wounded form of Christianity. It's damaged, but it's still Christianity. Apostate is the term we would use for people who are no longer Christian. Is that how you're using these terms? I'm especially interested in how you're using the word "heretic" or any derivative of that- if a Muslim (or an Islamic group) falls into heresy, are we still looking at some form of Islam, albeit a wounded and problematic one? Or is it completely and categorically non-Islamic? And if the latter answer is correct, what is it that makes heresy any different from apostasy?

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Could that potentially lead to a clear-cut nullity of their acknowledged affiliation? Or have they already done something else that would render the Kurdish status non-Islamic in that region?

This is an in-depth Islamic fiqh (legal) question, and I am not equipped to answer and I doubt other regular members here are either. Islamic scholars can make this determination, but I doubt that laypersons on IB will be able to do so. It is a complicated question for the reason that if they are defending themselves, maybe it would not nullify. It may though depending on their intention and why they are fighting.

There is one more quick question that I have- there have been some fairly prominent Unitarians in US history who never got anywhere close to Muslims, or to any knowledge of what would cause their faith to be null in the eyes of Islam. This includes four US Presidents. Would any of them be considered Muslims? Would that be a case-by-case evaluation depending on what other nullification possibilities are in play? And- this one is important to me- would it matter to you if they said they were Christians, albeit ones who reject the Trinity?

Lol, okay, this question made me smile as to whether four Presidents would be considered Muslim. Okay. I'm still smiling, though I'm trying to control my smile. To be honest, this is a question for God. And you and I have to believe that God is All-Just and All-Merciful and (God's mercy overpowers his anger), and God would never wrong any human being no matter what. So, any time the question falls into the realm of unseen, we can only speculate this way or that without any certainty. That said, there is a hadith (prophetic tradition) that says, "Having an excellent opinion of God is part of excellent worship." What does that mean to you?

To me, it means that I love Allah, and I know that Allah loves human beings and therefore would never send arbitrarily any person to the Fire. I'd read once that Prophet Noah (peace be upon him) was asked by God to build clay vases, and he built them with lots of hard work, beautiful ones. And then God asked Prophet Noah (peace be upon him) to destroy them. Prophet Noah (peace be upon him) found it very painful to do so because all the vases that he'd built were a culmination of his hard work and dedication of weeks. So, God in that way revealed to Prophet Noah (peace be upon him) that that was how God felt when God destroyed the unbelievers in answering Prophet Noah's (peace be upon him) prayer. God loves us, but the question always is do we love God's will? I know I haven't quite answered your question, but I am sure you are intelligent enough to understand what I have meant.

 

[ShahJahan]

God proposes to judge us according to our intentions, not what we outwardly manifest.

Isn't outward manifest important too? Isn't tawheed belief, intentions and actions of the limbs?!

Without having looked up very much yet, my initial thoughts are that numbers 3, 9, and 10 are the biggest threats to Muslims in a pluralist type of society (doubting the Kufr of the Kuffar, believing it's okay for some to not follow Sharia, and essentially being a Muslim in name only without believing or practicing much of anything- hello Zayn Malik formerly of One Direction). And for what it's worth, it seems to me that the point stating the all people- I assume not just Muslims?- must follow Sharia is a tricky one, just because it's a belief in how things should actually be, even though they can't actually be that way.

However practically it is a very different picture! Indeed 3,9,10 are threats, but MOST generally 'nullify' their imaans by the other 'nullifiers'! People accept Allah, associate no partners, accept Prophet Muhammad :saws1: but they
2. Placing intermediaries between oneself and Allaah Ta`aalaa, calling upon them and having Tawakkul upon them instead of Him. (in 100s of millions!)
4. Believing that any guidance is better or more complete than the guidance of Rasoollullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم. (not only do they find other guidance more complete, but they are vocal in separating the state's law from that of religious law! They want to have riba (specially men), reject the 3 divorces law (specially women), Polygamy (specially women) etc. and they too are in 100s of millions!)
7. Performing Sihr (Jaadu/Black magic). (I don't think it is just for the magician, but the same ruling {nullification of iman} also applied to the one who commissions a magician to perform magic, here too we are talking about 10s of millions, if not 100s of millions.)

 

[greenhill]

I am reading this and it worries me the extent which we go and dig to get clarity. It is burdening.. (not that it is bad) but a misused word here and there can lead to misinterpretations..

We have to believe in Allah first and that Muhammad is the final messenger. From here, we can relearn the roles of the previous prophets and what became of people in between the arrivals of the prophets and how difficult their tak was to get people to believe in the messages again.

So, essentially I cannot say I believe in Allah and follow the teachings of the Old Testament ...

The variations in the practice of islam is the inherent threat posed by Satan since time immemorial to mislead the messages sent via the past prophets. Those who decide to deviate will be lead to away. Allah Has All Powers to Decide. We have non and can only pray for the right guidance.


eace: