Ruling on One Who Pronounces the Two Testimonies but Slaughters for Other than Allah

Question

What is your Eminence's view of one who says 'La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasul Allah' but then slaughters for other than Allah — is he a Muslim, knowing that he grew up in the lands of Islam?

Answer (English translation)

Whoever seeks nearness to other than Allah through slaughter is committing major shirk; his saying 'La ilaha illa Allah' will not benefit him, nor his prayer, fasting, or anything else — unless he grew up in a distant land unaware of this ruling, like those who live in remote lands where they slaughter for other than Allah, slaughter for graves and for saints, see nothing wrong in it, do not know it is shirk or unlawful, and the proof has not been established against them. Such a person is excused by his ignorance. But a person who is told 'this is disbelief' and says 'No, I will not stop slaughtering for the saint' — the proof has been established against him and he is a disbeliever. If he is advised, told this is shirk, shown the evidence, and the Sharia proof is established against him, yet he pays no heed, he becomes a polytheist, disbelieving apostate who is asked to repent — if he repents, well; otherwise he is executed.

The questioner: And is there a difference between the apparent issues and the obscure ones?

The Shaykh: The obscure ones are recognizable. For example, in this issue, if we suppose he says: 'I live among people who slaughter for the saints and I do not know this is forbidden' — that would be an obscure issue for him, because obscurity and clarity are relative: what is clear to me may be obscure to you, and what is clear to you may be obscure to me.

The questioner: And how do I establish the proof against him? What is the proof I establish?

The Shaykh: The proof against him is what is found in His saying: [Say: Indeed, my prayer, my sacrifice, my living and my dying are for Allah, Lord of the worlds. No partner has He; and with this I have been commanded, and I am the first of the Muslims] (Surah Al-An'am 6:162-163), and His saying: [Indeed, We have granted you al-Kawthar; so pray to your Lord and sacrifice] (Surah Al-Kawthar 108:1-2). This is evidence that slaughtering as an act of drawing near and venerating is an act of worship — and whoever directs an act of worship to other than Allah is a polytheist. So the proof must be established before declaring disbelief, in every issue that people may be ignorant of. We do not divide issues into apparent and obscure, because clarity and obscurity are relative — an issue may be clear to me and obscure to someone else. The proof must therefore be established, without haste in declaring disbelief, because removing a man from the religion of Islam is no small matter.

There are also impediments that prevent declaring a person a disbeliever even if he said or did something constituting disbelief — among them error: the man who said 'O Allah, You are my servant and I am Your lord' spoke words of disbelief, yet he was not declared a disbeliever because he erred out of intense joy. Likewise, if a man is coerced into disbelief and utters it while his heart is content with faith, he is not a disbeliever — per His saying: [Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief — except one who is coerced while his heart is content with faith; but whoever opens his breast to disbelief] (Surah An-Nahl 16:106). As for the scholars who say 'a word of disbelief without its speaker' — that applies when the proof has not been established against him and we do not know his state. But if we know his state, what remains? If we say 'he is not a disbeliever,' that would mean no one is a disbeliever — even the one who never prays, would we say he is not a disbeliever? Even Ibn Taymiyyah says: once the proof reaches him, the proof is established against him.