“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, their reward will be Hell—where they will stay indefinitely.Allah will be displeased with them, condemn them, and will prepare for them a tremendous punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)
﷽
The following article is a translation of the wonderful presentation by the respected Shaykh
In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and prayers and peace be upon the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers, our master Muhammed, and upon his family and his righteous, guided companions. To proceed:
Peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you.
Introduction: The Allegations Answered Once and For All.
My brothers, in this article we continue responding to a persistent allegation—that the Ibadis declare the Companions to be disbelievers, that we excommunicate them from Islam. This accusation is repeated endlessly by those who either misunderstand our creed or deliberately misrepresent it.
As we have said before, this attack against the Ibadis is the result of these people’s ignorance regarding the principle of loyalty and disavowal (al-walāyah wa’l-barā’ah) among the Ibadis. Likewise, these people are trying to conceal what they themselves call the faults of some of the Companions—namely, the events that occurred during the civil strife (fitnah). These events are what led those scholars to declare disavowal from some of the Companions.
These people are not only ignorant of the principle of loyalty and disavowal, but they are also trying to conceal and avoid discussing these events.
When these people throw this accusation at the Ibadis, they simply say directly: “The Ibadis declare the Companions disbelievers,” without discussing the reasons. There are reasons that led those scholars to declare disavowal regarding those Companions.
What Our Opponents Say: Documenting the Accusation
Let us document exactly what our opponents claim. Listen carefully to their own words:
“Look, regardless of my disagreement with them, they declare ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān to be a disbeliever, and they declare ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, and Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī, and Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Yet despite that, they do not openly state it. Rather, you find this in their major books. You find it in their books. They also have an element of taqiyyah (dissimulation). Even so, I do not know whether this expression will be understood properly or not, but I respect in them the absence of sectarianism. This is their creed: they declare the Prophet’s Companions disbelievers. This is their creed: they declare the Prophet’s Companions disbelievers. Yes, we declare Muʿāwiyah a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare Marwān a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare ʿUthmān a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare ʿAlī and al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn disbelievers, but we still narrate from al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn. This is the Ibadi belief.”
Another says:
“Therefore we are not surprised by this stance, for the position of the early Ibadis regarding the Companions—especially the two caliphs—is contrary to the methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamāʿah. It included criticism, takfīr, and false disavowal from the best of this nation. As for the other two Rightly Guided Caliphs, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān and ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, may Allah be pleased with them, the Khawārij, including the Ibadis, remained deeply astray concerning them, attributing to them things from which Allah declared them innocent, and speaking grievously against them.”
And another:
“They called themselves the people of truth and uprightness, but they are the people of falsehood and misguidance. Hatred toward Ahl al-Sunnah. Let me add even more: they declare ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and ʿUthmān disbelievers—and also al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, of course. As for Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, he exited Islam through its widest gates.”
As you have heard, these people claim that the Ibadis declare ʿUthmān, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Then they say that the Ibadis do not openly state this and that they practice a kind of taqiyyah. They say this is our creed.
The Reality: No Taqiyyah, No Doctrine of Takfīr
The reality is that this is not our creed, nor is there any taqiyyah. Rather, it is their ignorance. They are ignorant of the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension (wuqūf) among the Ibadis.
One of these opponents commented on an interview with one of our shaykhs. The interviewer asked the shaykh about Sayyidunā Abū Bakr and Sayyidunā ʿUmar, then afterwards about Sayyidunā ʿUthmān. They claim that he stuttered. The reality is that the shaykh did not stutter. Rather, he was avoiding reopening the fitnah and the events that occurred among the Companions. He did not want to stir up these matters, so he avoided them. Yet they claim he hesitated and faltered.
The shaykh did not hesitate or stutter. He answered. The problem is not with the shaykh—the problem is with them. They are ignorant of the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension. Anyone who understands this doctrine would know that the shaykh did answer the question.
The shaykh did not want to bring out what is found in their own books regarding the events that occurred among the Companions. He was avoiding this issue.
The shaykh said—according to the meaning of his words—that there were those who had one opinion and others who had another opinion. This is the reality. The issue returns to the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension. There are people with one opinion and others with another. That is the answer. The shaykh cannot specify which of those opinions is correct because the matter returns to our doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension.
They want the shaykh simply to say: “Disbeliever” or “not a disbeliever.” But the matter is not that simple. This black-and-white approach belongs to them. The shaykh is not obligated to adopt their methodology, nor are the Ibadis obligated to adopt their methodology in these issues. We Ibadis have our own methodology and doctrine: the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension.
Now, these people claim that we declare ʿUthmān, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Then they say we do not openly state it and that we practice taqiyyah. Then they say this is the creed of the Ibadis.
The reality is that there is neither taqiyyah nor a doctrine of declaring the Companions disbelievers. Declaring the Companions disbelievers is not a doctrine among the Ibadis. We do not have a chapter in our creed titled: “The Ibadi doctrine of declaring the Companions disbelievers.” This is their ignorance.
If we focus on their words and these responses and clips they produced, we find them constantly repeating the term takfīr, the term kufr. They say: “They declared disbelief,” “acts of disbelief,” “so-and-so is a disbeliever.”
One of them even distorted the shaykh’s words in that interview, lied, and played with expressions. Anyone who watches the interview and his commentary will find that he distorted the shaykh’s words and attributed to him statements he never made. The shaykh never uttered the term takfīr. Yet this man attributes to the Ibadis things they never said.
Did the Ibadis Invent the Term Kufr?
Now, does this term—takfīr—have any basis? Did the Ibadis invent it out of thin air, as they claim, or does it have a basis in religion?
Let us establish this. Let us speak and cite from the books of these people themselves. We will not use Ibadi sources. Rather, we will prove everything we say from the sources of these people.
The Prophetic Evidence
In Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, the most authentic book after the Qur’an according to Ahl al-Sunnah, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
“Do not revert after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7077)
And in another narration:
“Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:65)
The Messenger is addressing whom here? He is addressing the Companions.
The Prophet ﷺ also said:
“Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:48)
This is another ḥadīth proving the usage of the term kufr for actions committed by Muslims against other Muslims.
What Sunni Scholars Say About this Kufr
Now let us see what these people’s own scholars say regarding these ḥadīths and the term kufr.
Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn
Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn, one of the most revered contemporary Sunni scholars, says in his commentary on Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn, volume 4, page 70:
“Then the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’ … This indicates that believers fighting one another is kufr.”
Notice: He says “believers fighting one another is kufr.” He does not say the fighters have left Islam. He affirms they are believers, yet their fighting is kufr.
However, you know what has happened to soften this in some English translations? They translate it as: “This indicates that believers fighting one constitutes some disbelief.”
Source: (https://shamela.ws/book/9260/1936) verify and translate into English.
Muhammed Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī
In Al-Thamar al-Mustatāb fī Fiqh al-Sunnah wa al-Kitāb, page 53, al-Albānī says:
“Know that many ḥadīths have come attributing kufr to those who commit major sins … among them: ‘Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr’… and ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’ All these ḥadīths are authentic. So if we know that kufr has levels (darajāt), and that some forms do not eternally condemn a person to Hell, then there is no need for reinterpretation.”
Al-Albānī explicitly affirms three critical points:
- Kufr has levels (darajāt).
- Some forms of kufr do not eternally condemn a person to Hell.
- Therefore, there is no need to reinterpret these ḥadīths away—they mean what they say, but kufr does not always mean apostasy.
Source: (https://shamela.ws/book/306/54) verify and translate into English.
Ibn Taymiyyah
In Kitāb al-Īmān, page 279, Ibn Taymiyyah says:
“Based on this principle, a person may possess a branch of disbelief while also possessing faith. Thus the Prophet ﷺ named many sins as kufr, though the person committing them may still have more than an atom’s weight of faith and therefore not remain eternally in Hell. Such as his statement: ‘Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr,’ and ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’ This is widespread from the Prophet ﷺ in authentic narrations.”
Then he says:
“He called those who strike one another’s necks unjustly ‘disbelievers.’”
And he says this is “kufr less than kufr,” as some Companions said.
This is extraordinary. Ibn Taymiyyah—the scholar revered by many of our opponents—explicitly affirms:
- A person can have “a branch of disbelief” while still possessing faith.
- The Prophet called certain sins kufr.
- This kufr does not necessarily mean eternal damnation.
- Some Companions themselves called this “kufr less than kufr.”
This is precisely the Ibadi position.
Source: (https://shamela.ws/book/7564/272) verify and translate into English.
Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh
In Sharḥ al-ʿAqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah, volume 2, pages 851–852, Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh says:
“If hatred is for worldly reasons only, then this is lesser disbelief and does not reach major disbelief. Hence the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’”
Then on page 852 he says:
“The fact that some Companions fought others involves entering into traits of disbelief … therefore he said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers.’”
He then says this disbelief may be lesser or greater depending on the nature of the hatred.
Sources: (
Ibn Taymiyyah on the Authenticity of These Ḥadīths
In Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, volume 4, pages 499–500, Ibn Taymiyyah is responding to the Rāfiḍah (Shīʿa). In this section he imagines an argument from the Nawāṣib against the Rāfiḍah. He says:
“If the Nawāṣib said to you Rāfiḍah: ‘ʿAlī permitted the blood of Muslims and fought them without the command of Allah and His Messenger, merely for leadership,’ and then cited the Prophet’s words ‘Fighting him is kufr’ and ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another,’ then ʿAlī would thereby be a disbeliever…”
Then Ibn Taymiyyah says:
“Your argument, O Rāfiḍah, would not be stronger than theirs, because the ḥadīths they used are authentic.”
Ibn Taymiyyah affirms that these ḥadīths containing the term kufr are authentic. He does not deny their application to Muslims who fight Muslims.
Sources: (https://shamela.ws/book/927/2203) & (https://shamela.ws/book/927/2204) verify and translate into English.
Al-Dhahabī
In his book on trustworthy narrators, al-Dhahabī says on page 23:
“If we opened this door for ourselves, many Companions, Followers, and imams would enter into it. Some Companions declared others disbelievers based on interpretation.”
Al-Dhahabī affirms takfīr occurring among the Companions themselves—based on interpretive ijtihād, not because the target of takfīr had actually left Islam.
Source: (https://shamela.ws/book/5817/1#p1)
Imam al-Nawawī
Imam al-Nawawī said in his commentary on Sahih Muslim: “To insult a Muslim without right is forbidden by the consensus of the Ummah, and the one who does it is a fāsiq (morally corrupt), as the Prophet (peace be upon him) informed. As for fighting him without right, it does not constitute kufr that expels one from the religion according to Ahl al-Haqq, unless one deems it lawful. Now that this is established, there are several interpretations of the hadith: First — it applies to the one who deems such acts lawful. Second — it is meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah. Third — it leads to disbelief due to its evil consequences. Fourth — it resembles the actions of disbelievers.”
First — it applies to the one who deems such acts lawful.
Their interpretation is if you kill a fellow a Muslim but you don’t believe that it is lawful to do so then it is not kufr.
We wonder if the companions who killed each other thought that what they were doing was lawful or unlawful?
If it was unlawful then they participated in the unlawful in masse.
Second — it is meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah. Hence, kufr ni’ama. Welcome to the Ibadi view.
Third — it leads to disbelief due to its evil consequences. Fourth — it resembles the actions of disbelievers.
Source: (https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/content/53/242) verify and translate into English.
Summary of Sunni Scholarly Consensus on the above matter.
| Scholar | Affirmation |
|---|---|
| Ibn Taymiyyah | Kufr has levels; “kufr less than kufr” exists; a person can have a branch of kufr while still having faith. |
| Al-Dhahabī | Some Companions declared other Companions disbelievers based on interpretation (ta’wīl). |
| Al-ʿUthaymīn | Believers fighting one another is kufr—but they remain believers. |
| Al-Albānī | Kufr has levels (darajāt); some forms do not eternally condemn to Hell. |
| Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh | Lesser disbelief exists and does not reach major disbelief. |
| al-Nawawī | Meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah |
The Sunni Understanding of Qur’anic Reconciliation vindicates the Ibadis
Now we return to the Qur’anic verse that seals this matter.
The Sunnis translate the verse as:
“And if two groups of the believers fight each other…” (Qur’an 49:9)
Allah did not say: “If two groups, one of which has left Islam…” He said: “of the believers.”
Therefore:
| Statement | Implication |
|---|---|
| Allah calls fighting groups believers | They have not left the millah of Islam. |
| The Prophet calls fighting a Muslim kufr | The act is kufr in the lesser sense. |
| Conclusion | Kufr in the ḥadīth and in Ibadi usage does not mean expulsion from Islam. |
This term—kufr—was not invented by the Ibadis out of thin air or from their own pockets. These scholars did not invent it. Rather, this term is established and has a basis in the explicit words of the Prophet ﷺ and the explicit text of the Qur’an.
The Prophet said: “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr.” And he also said: “Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.”
The question is: did the Companions strike one another’s necks? No rational person can deny that this happened during the fitnah.
The Ibadi Doctrinal Framework: Walāyah, Barā’ah, and Wuqūf
Now that we have established the legitimacy of the term kufr in its lesser sense, let us explain the actual Ibadi doctrine—the framework our opponents either do not understand or deliberately misrepresent.
The issues related to the stance on historical events (the Great Fitnah) are among the most intricate topics in Ibadi theology, and they have witnessed significant methodological development while preserving their theoretical foundations.
First: The Three Doctrinal Concepts
These concepts represent a “system of analogy” that defines a Muslim’s relationship with others based on behavior and actions:
Walāyah (Loyalty): This is love for the sake of Allah, and it is obligatory for every Muslim whose outward conduct is in accordance with Allah’s commands. It is of two types: general walāyah (for all believers) and specific walāyah (for those known for their righteousness).
Barā’ah (Disavowal): This is hatred for the sake of Allah, and it is obligatory for anyone who openly commits a major sin, persists in a wrong, or introduces something into the religion that contradicts its fundamental principles (from the perspective of the school of thought). It is not a “curse” or “insult,” but rather a severing of religious allegiance from the action or innovation.
Wuqūf (Suspension): This refers to refraining from judging someone’s loyalty or innocence due to unclear evidence, conflicting reports, or because the person was unaware of the events and not legally obligated to pass judgment on them.
A Detailed Overview of Positions Throughout the Ages
Stage 1: Historical Intensity (1st–4th centuries AH)
Prevailing Position: Innocence of the events and those responsible for them. Early Ibadis did not hold the Companions (as a whole) responsible for the fitnah in a way that condemned them.
Estimated Percentage: 95% innocence. The overwhelming majority of early Ibadi scholars maintained that the Companions (as a whole) were not to be held blameworthy for the civil strife.
Even if we granted a theoretical 5% Allowance for disavowal
The remaining 5% allows for the possibility that some Companions, as human beings, may have committed acts prior to the fitnah that deserved punishment under the Qur’an and Sunnah. This is not a blanket condemnation of any Companion, nor is it specific to the events of the fitnah. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that Companions—like all humans—were not infallible (ma’sūm) and could commit individual sins for which the Qur’an and Sunnah prescribe accountability. This is not unique to Ibadis; Sunni scholars also acknowledge that Companions were not infallible and could commit sins, though they are generally considered righteous overall.
Examples: What is mentioned in the letters of Imam Jābir ibn Zayd (although his letters are characterized by piety) and what biographers have reported about the position of the people of Nahrawān towards ʿUthmān (due to the issue of protected areas and positions) and towards ʿAlī (due to the arbitration).
Logic: The position was directly political and doctrinal. Early Ibadis considered certain actions during the fitnah to be innovations, but they did not translate that into condemning the Companions as individuals. Rather, their barā’ah (disavowal) was directed at the actions and innovations, not at the persons as disbelievers or as having left the millah of Islam.
Stage 2: Establishing and Remaining Silent (5th–13th centuries AH)
Prevailing Stance: Expressions of “remaining silent” began to appear explicitly.
Estimated Ratio: 50% disavowal (in educational texts) and 50% wuqūf (in practical application).
A well-known saying: Imam Abū Saʿīd al-Kadāmī (one of the leading scholars of the 4th century AH) said: “We do not disavow ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib or ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān unless we have definitive proof that necessitates it, and silence is safer.”
Logic: The principle of “scholarly integrity” began to emerge, whereby statements of disavowal were transmitted as part of the heritage, but remaining silent was practiced out of respect for the status of these Companions.
Contemporary Phase (14th century AH – Present Day)
Prevailing Stance: Remaining silent and accepting (the principle of good faith).
Estimated Percentage: 90% wuqūf and acceptance, 10% disavowal (historical transmission only).
Statements of Scholars:
Shaykh Nūr al-Dīn al-Sālimī: Despite his adherence to the fundamentals, he opened the door to wuqūf for those who were unaware of the fitnah, saying: “You may abstain from judgment regarding the people of the qiblah, for Allah will not question you about what they did.”
His Eminence Shaykh Aḥmad bin Ḥamad al-Khalīlī (Grand Mufti of Oman): He always emphasizes the unity of the Ummah and purity of heart. In his lessons and writings, he prays for mercy upon all the Companions and affirms that historical differences should not divide Muslims today.
The Principle of Purity of Heart: This is the principle adopted by the Ibadi school today, meaning that the contemporary Muslim is not obligated to investigate the bloodshed of the Companions, and it is safer for him to meet Allah with a pure heart towards everyone.
Why Do Classical Texts Continue to Contain Statements of Disavowal?
The continued presence of these statements in books does not necessarily mean they are being implemented today. Rather, it stems from methodological reasons:
- Scholarly Integrity: Ibadi scholars consider the books of the early scholars an inheritance that should not be censored or deleted. Instead, it should be transmitted as is, with explanations within its historical context.
- Preserving Historical Memory: Transmitting these statements aims to explain why the Ibadis differed from others initially (the political and legal reasons for the revival), not to incite hatred.
- Distinguishing Between “Statement” and “Religious Practice”: The statement of disavowal exists “intellectually” in the books as an interpretation by earlier scholars, but wuqūf and acceptance are what are practiced “religiously” and as acts of worship today.
Should One Take a Doctrinal Stance Regarding the People of Nahrawān?
This is a fundamental question within the school of thought, and the answer can be summarized as follows:
The Ibadi position on their predecessors: The Ibadis believe that the people of Nahrawān were “people of righteousness” and that their disavowal of ʿUthmān and ʿAlī was based on a legitimate interpretation of Islamic law, which they considered justified in their time, to protect the core of the faith (as they perceived it).
Are you obligated to disavow them as they did? No. The principle among the Ibadis is: “There is no blame on one who remains neutral.” A contemporary Muslim who refrains from judging ʿUthmān and ʿAlī, while simultaneously respecting the people of Nahrawān as scholars and predecessors, is not considered an “innovator” or “outside the school.”
Conclusion of the Doctrinal Section
There is no religious obligation within the Ibadi school that compels you to disavow any of the Companions today. The required doctrinal stance is loyalty to the believers and hatred of oppressors in general. However, regarding specific historical events, the best and safest course is to remain neutral. (Wuqūf)
Accordingly, the Ibadi approach today is one of unity, not division, whereby the Companions (including ʿUthmān and ʿAlī) are treated with respect as a general virtue, while the interpretations of the early scholars who took strong stances are also respected, and this is considered part of the history of scholarly interpretation that does not preclude present-day harmony.
Kufr in the Ibadi School Does Not Expel from the Millah
Let us state this as clearly as possible:
Kufr in the Ibadi school is not something that takes one out of the millah of Islam.
This is the fundamental distinction that our opponents either cannot grasp or deliberately conceal.
When early Ibadi scholars used the term kufr regarding certain actions during the fitnah, they did not mean:
- That the person had left the millah of Islam.
- That their shahādah was invalidated.
- That they were forever condemned to Hell.
Rather, they meant precisely what Ibn Taymiyyah meant when he wrote “a person may possess a branch of disbelief while also possessing faith” and “kufr less than kufr.” They meant what al-Albānī meant when he wrote “kufr has levels, and some forms do not eternally condemn a person to Hell.”
They meant that the action—fighting a fellow Muslim unjustly, or introducing innovation into the religion—is an act of kufr in the lesser sense: a grave violation that necessitates barā’ah (disavowal) but not the complete negation of faith.
Even in how we understand the word كفر or kufr in Arabic. This ensures us that we have a creed that is based upon the Qur’an, the primary source of Islam, the revelation Allah sent to his Blessed Prophet (saw). Allah (swt) never defined كفر as exit from the religion of Islam. This is concept is theologically superimposed upon the word. The proof of this is evident. In light of the clear text from the Prophetic Sunnah, Sunni scholars have provided an array of understandings and levels concering the word.
Why the Accusation of Taqiyyah for the Ibadi Is False
Our opponents also claim that we, the Ibadis practice taqiyyah—that we conceal our “true” belief that the Companions are disbelievers.
This is false for several reasons:
- There is no concealment. We are explaining our doctrine openly in this very article, citing our sources and demonstrating our distinctions.
- Wuqūf is not taqiyyah. Taqiyyah is concealing one’s true belief out of fear of harm. Wuqūf is a principled theological position: suspending judgment when evidence is unclear or when the matter does not affect one’s own religious obligation.
- The accusation is ironic. Our opponents accuse us of taqiyyah while ignoring that we openly state: “We do not declare the Companions disbelievers in the sense of expulsion from Islam.” What are we supposedly concealing?
- The burden of proof is on them. They claim we secretly believe something. But they provide no evidence—only misinterpretation of early texts that they refuse to read in light of their own understanding of Qur’an (49:9) and the distinction between lesser and major kufr.
The Rhetorical Question Our Opponents Cannot Answer
Let us conclude with a question for those who accuse the Ibadis of excommunicating the Companions:
According to their own undersatnding of Qur’an 49:9, when two groups of believers fight each other, are they still believers or not?
They cannot say “no” without contradicting the Qur’an.
And according to your own ḥadīth in Bukhārī and Muslim, fighting a Muslim is kufr. So how do you reconcile the Qur’an calling fighting believers ‘believers’ and the ḥadīth calling fighting ‘kufr’?
The only possible reconciliation is that kufr here does not mean apostasy. It means a lesser kufr, a grave sin, an act of major transgression—but not expulsion from the millah of Islam.
That is exactly what we Ibadis have been saying all along.
This is not meant as a ‘gotcha’ for the Sunnis, but a call for sincere reflection, bridge-building, and moving forward as an Ummah
Final Summary
| Accusation | Reality |
|---|---|
| “Ibadis declare Companions to be disbelievers (apostates).” | Ibadis use kufr in the lesser sense (kufr ni’ma), as affirmed by Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Albānī, al-ʿUthaymīn, and others. |
| “Ibadis declare companions to be mushrik (polytheist).” | Ibadis have not declared a single companion to be a mushrik. |
| “Ibadis practice taqiyyah to hide their true beliefs.” | There is no concealment. Wuqūf (suspension) is a principled theological position, not taqiyyah. |
| “Ibadis invented the term kufr for Muslims.” | The term comes from how Allah defined it in the Qur’an. |
| “Ibadis are Khawārij who excommunicate Muslims.” | Ibadis distinguish themselves from extremist Khawārij precisely by affirming that kufr does not always entail expulsion from the millah. |
| “Contemporary Ibadis still declare the Companions disbelievers.” | The contemporary Ibadi position is overwhelmingly wuqūf and acceptance, with scholars praying for mercy upon all Companions. |
Conclusion and Call for Fairness
We Ibadis do not ask anyone to agree with our historical interpretations. We do not ask anyone to adopt our doctrine of barā’ah. What we ask for is fairness—that we be judged by what we actually believe, not by the distorted caricature our opponents present.
We ask that our accusers to read their own understasnding of Qur’an (49:9) and the authentic ḥadīth. We ask that they read their own scholars—Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Dhahabī, al-ʿUthaymīn, al-Albānī—who affirm the very distinctions we make..
We ask that they stop accusing us of taqiyyah when we are explaining our doctrine openly.
If they insist that our definition of kufr means apostasy, they bear the burden of proof is upon the accuser—not us.
“And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with an even balance. That is the best [way] and best in result.” (Qur’an 17:35)
You may also wish to read the following:
May Allah Guide the Ummah.
May Allah Forgive the Ummah.
Prima Quran 