Is God’s mercy so narrow and confined it only spreads out to a certain segment of the world’s population concentrated in the regions of the Middle-East and Asia?

I’m sorry AK but an-Nawawi was 100% correct and so is al-Ghazali. Taking the statements of two scholars of ahlus Sunnah out of context and implying they contradict each other is not doing you any favors. They both DO agree even if an-Nawawi didn’t mention the people of fatrah in the very same breath he was talking about apostates.

an-Nawawi’s stance is a CONSENSUS of the Ummah and not contradicted by the other knowledge that those who did not receive the message may be excused. We even have narrations on the matter.

But whoever denies that a Jew or Christian who fails to enter Islam after it reaches him is a disbeliever is himself a disbeliever-by consensus.

The First Hadith from Al-Aswad bin Sar ®299؛ Imam Ahmad reported from Al-Aswad bin Sari’ that the Messenger of Allah said,

«أَرْبَعَةٌ يَحْتَجُّونَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ: رَجُلٌ أَصَمُّ لَا يَسْمَعُ شَيْئًا، وَرَجُلٌ أَحْمَقُ، وَرَجُلٌ هَرِمٌ، وَرَجُلٌ مَاتَ فِي فَتْرَةٍ، فَأَمَّا الْأَصَمُّ فَيَقُولُ: رَبِّ قَدْ جَاءَ الْإِسْلَامُ وَمَا أَسْمَعُ شَيْئًا، وَأَمَّا الْأَحْمَقُ فَيَقُولُ: رَبِّ قَدْ جَاءَ الْإِسْلَامُ وَالصِّبْيَانُ يَحْذِفُونِي بِالْبَعْرِ، وَأَمَّا الْهَرِمُ فَيَقُولُ: رَبِّ لَقَدْ جَاءَ الْإِسْلَامُ وَمَا أَعْقِلُ شَيْئًا، وَأَمَّا الَّذِي مَاتَ فِي الْفَتْرَةِ فَيَقُولُ: رَبِّ مَا أَتَانِي لَكَ رَسُولٌ. فَيَأْخُذُ مَوَاثِيقَهُمْ لِيُطِيعَنَّهُ، فَيُرْسِلُ إِلَيْهِمْ أَنِ ادْخُلُوا النَّارَ، فَوَالَّذِي نَفْسُ مُحَمَّدٍ بِيَدِهِ، لَوْ دَخَلُوهَا لَكَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ بَرْدًا وَسَلَامًا»

(There are four who will present their case on the Day of Resurrection: a deaf man who never heard anything, an insane man, a very old and senile man, and a man who died during the Fatrah. As for the deaf man, he will say, “O Lord, Islam came but I never heard anything.” As for the insane man, he will say, “O Lord, Islam came and the young boys were throwing camel dung at me.” As for the senile man, he will say, “O Lord, Islam came and I did not understand anything.” As for the one who died during the Fatrah, he will say, “O Lord, no Messenger from You came to me.” Allah will accept their pledge of obedience to Him, then He will send word to them that they should enter the Fire. By the One in Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, if they enter it, it will be cool and safe for them.) There is a similar report with a chain from Qatadah from Al-Hasan from Abu Rafi` from Abu Hurayrah, but at the end it says:

«فَمَنْ دَخَلَهَا كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِ بَرْدًا وَسَلَامًا، وَمَنْ لَمْ يَدْخُلْهَا يُسْحَبُ إِلَيْهَا»

(Whoever enters it will find it cool and safe, and whoever does not enter it will be dragged into it.) This was also recorded by Ishaq bin Rahwayh from Mu`adh bin Hisham, and by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-I`tiqad. He said: “This is a Sahih chain.” It was reported by Ibn Jarir from the Hadith of Ma`mar from Hammam from Abu Hurayrah, who attributed it to the Prophet . Then Abu Hurayrah said: “Recite, if you wish:

﴿وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولاً﴾

(And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)).” This was also narrated by Ma`mar from `Abdullah bin Tawus from his father, from Abu Hurayrah, but it is Mauquf (it was not attributed directly to the Prophet ).

Once again, an-Nawawi RH was mentioning the disbelief of those who fail to declare non-Muslims disbelievers in hs chapter of apostasy.

This is a consensus of the Ummah. It’s not something you have any leeway in. If you want, go read he sharh if he has one on the other narration which I narrated above.

“It might also help us as a community to keep the doctrinal boundaries of Islam open as wide as possible to accommodate for competing intellectual approaches to a tradition in crisis.”

AK,the alim an-Nawawi and the rest of the Ulema(like I said-it’s consensus) did not decide to declare people who hold such a view(that non-Muslims who fail to enter Islam after it comes to them can enter Paradise) as disbelievers on a whim. This is not an area of maqasid. The Islamic tradition is not in “crisis” except for those who have deviated. Allah aza wa jal does not need to expand the definition of Islam to include more people. Rather it’s the other way around-people are subject to Allah and must submit their whims to their Lord. Islam is exclusive to a degree(we accommodate 70 something deviant sects without declaring them disbelievers as a rule) and always has been exclusive(to a degree). To enter it alone one negates every single other deen in existence-la ilaha illAllah Muhammad ur rasulullah.

In short-yes by consensus this false belief refuted so beautifully by our brother Andrew Booso is kufr and it is kufr by CONSENSUS and the statements of al Ghazali let alone the narrations of an-Nabi (S) don’t in the slightest contradict the statements of an-Nawawi rh (and the rest of the Ulema) except for one who failed to comprehend the texts in the first place.

Finally, the scholars are not declaring the status of other human beings (disbeliever or Muslim) based on their whims. Do not assume it’s for excluding other people from this deen or that it is to include other people from this deen! Rather, takfir is done because it needs to be done. Someone claiming a non-Muslim can enter Paradise after Islam reached him has invented a lie upon Allah and denied the Messenger. Such a person is a disbeliever.

And that, my fellow brother in humanity is, from Ahlul Ilm-a consensus. Absolute and unchanging. Unlike our predecessors the Jews and the Christians.

Salams

Peace be with you (salaam alaikum), Mahmud. May Allah (exalted is He swt) reward you for whatever you have said is pleasing to Him.

I think we have to realize that not everyone is a scholar, not everyone is an expert, not everyone is overwhelmingly firm. There are many people who are are not “experts,” and there are many people who are actually weak in their faith and practice. This is reality.

There are many individuals who were born to nominally Muslim parents who would therefore nominally be considered Muslims but who did not receive any realistically Islamic upbringing. There are many individuals who professed themselves Muslims but who really did not have realistic education in Islam and who may have been innocently and genuinely confused as to what they were doing. (Believe me, it happens. I speak from experience.)

Are we to consider these ill-educated and/or confused individuals to be unbelievers (kuffar) because through no fault of their own they were not well founded in Islam according to our understanding? And please acknowledge that there is more than one understanding of Islam. (Indeed, I myself recently heard one person refer to the “Queering of the Qur’an” to justify “Islamic homosexuality” – may Allah forgive us for this outrage, which I myself do not accept.)

Yes, there are troubled people in this world. I am not a scholar, but I vaguely seem to recall that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported in a Tradition (hadith) as having said that before the Hour there will Muslims but little Islam. (I am quoting from a faulty non-scholar’s memory here.) If that is so, who am I to condemn others from my faulty understanding?

Shiva-you should take the consensus of the Ummah into consideration. Here is what an-Nawawi says-

Excerpt from Imam An-Nawawi’s Rawdat At-Taalibeen, Chapter on apostasy:

وأنه لو قال كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أسود أو توفي قبل أن يلتحي أو قال ليس هو بقرشي فهو كفر لأن وصفه بغير صفته نفي له وتكذيب به وأن من ادعى أن النبوة مكتسبة أو أنه يبلغ بصفاء القلب إلى مرتبتها أو ادعى أنه يوحى إليه وإن لم يدع النبوة أو ادعى أنه يدخل الجنة ويأكل من ثمارها ويعانق الحور فهو كافر بالإجماع قطعا وأن من دافع نص الكتاب أو السنة المقطوع بها المحمول على ظاهره فهو كافر بالإجماع وأن من لم يكفر من دان بغير الإسلام كالنصارى أو شك في تكفيرهم أو صحح مذهبهم فهو كافر وإن أظهر مع ذلك الإسلام واعتقده وكذا يقطع بتكفير كل قائل قولا يتوصل به إلى تضليل الأمة أو تكفير الصحابة وكذا من فعل فعلا أجمع المسلمون أنه لا يصدر إلا من كافر وإن كان صاحبه مصرحا بالإسلام مع فعله كالسجود للصليب أو النار والمشي إلى الكنائس مع أهلها بزيهم من الزنانير وغيرها وكذا من أنكر مكة أو البيت أو المسجد الحرام أو صفة الحج وأنه ليس على هذه الهيئة المعروفة أو قال لا أدري أن هذه المسماة بمكة هي مكة أم غيرها فكل هذا أو شبهه لا شك في تكفير قائله إن كان ممن يظن به علم ذلك ومن طالت صحبته المسلمين فإن كان قريب عهد بإسلام أو بمخالطة المسلمين عرفناه ذلك ولا يعذر بعد العريف وكذا من غير شيئا من القرآن أو قال ليس بمعجز أو قال ليس في خلق السماوات والأرض دلالة على الله تعالى أو أنكر الجنة أو النار أو البعث أو الحساب أو اعترف بذلك ولكن قال المراد بالجنة والنار والبعث أو الحساب أو اعترف بذلك ولكن قال المراد بالجنة والنار والبعث والنشور والثواب والعقاب غير معانيها أو قال الأئمة أفضل من الأنبياء

“…………….And the one who does not declare kafir the ones who profess a deen (religion) other than Islam, such as the christians, or doubts in the takfeer (declaring kafir) of such people, or authenticates [or praises] their religion, he is a kafir even if he displays Islam alongside this [belief] or [claims & shows he] believes in it; and likewise takfeer certainly applies on everyone who says things that imply towards stating that the entire ummah is misguided or [a person doing] takfeer (declaring kafirs) of the Sahaba……….”

Qadi Iyad says:

الاجماع علی کفر من لم يكفراحدا من النصاری واليهود و کل من فارق دين المسليمن او وقف فی تکفير ھم او شک ، قال القاضی ابو بکر لا ن التوقيف والا جماع اتفقاعلی کفرھم فمن وقف فی ذٰلک فقد کذب النص و التوقيف اوشک فيه، والتکذيب والشک فيه لا يقع الامن کافر

الشفا ء بتعریف حقوق المصطفٰی 297/2

There is consensus on the disbelief of the one who does not state disbeliever anyone from the christians or jews and all those who are aloof from the religion of Muslims, or refrains from doing takfir of them (doing takfir is calling someone kafir) or doubts their being kafir. The Qadi Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani said [it is] because explicit primary texts (Quranic verses & ahadith) and the consensus of the ummah (i.e., the sahaba and the scholars) are unanimous on their kufr. Therefore, he who refrains from calling them kafir, is denying the explicit primary texts and consensus, or doubting them. And such denial and/or doubt can only be expressed by a kafir.
(Ash-Shifa of Qadi Iyad)

I think this wonderful article by Andrew Booso explained the consensus of the Ummah. You are free to disagree, but not all disagreement is tolerated. In this aspect, someone believing other religions are acceptable after proofs come to him is like someone following the Qadiani religion. That is the truth and there is no changing it.

Salams Shiva –

As someone whom you might describe as a convert to perennialism, I hope you don’t mind my interjection here, especially because like yourself I too struggled with a number of issues surrounding “orthodoxy.” While it has been some time since you posted your comment, I hope you will read this.

My main advice to you would be to pray for guidance on these matters. Do not underestimate the power of prayer. A prayer that wells up from a sincere, genuine, and pure heart is bound to be answered.

There is a beautiful story of Imam Junayd that illustrates the power of such prayer: A woman once came to him and complained of a son who had disappeared. Imam Junayd advised her to have patience, so she left. She came back some time later, and lamented her plight once more, beseeching his help. He gave her the same advice he had the first time. “Be patient” he said. She departed once more. After sometime had elapsed, she came back again and cried, “I can’t take it anymore. My son has disappeared. Please do help.” Imam Junayd finally said to her, “go home, you will find that the lad has returned.” When she came home, to her surprise, the boy had indeed returned, just as Imam Junayd had predicted. She came back to him in wonderment. “How did you know?” she marvelled. He then cited the Quranic verse, “Is not He the One Who responds to the oppressed one when he calls upon Him (afa man yujiba al-mudtar idha da‘ahu).” The woman, for Imam Junayd, had reached the point of oppression or idtirar, so her prayer could no longer remain unanswered.

Not only can prayer miraculously turn around one’s circumstances, it can also lead to clarity and certainty on matters of doctrine, provided the dua is genuine, sustained for as long as necessary, and the petitioner remains particularly attentive to refraining from sinful behaviour. Prayer is so strong that our Beloved Prophet went so far as to say that “nothing but prayer can avert the divine decree.”

So that would be my own humble advice. Pray, pray and pray.

For further reading, I would suggest you read Reza Shah-Kazemi’s THE OTHER IN THE LIGHT OF THE ONE, which you can find on amazon.com. It is thoughtful work, but you will have to be patient with it as it is not an entirely easy read. It will, however, be worth your time and effort as it addresses many of the (legitimate) issues raised in the article by Mr. Booso.

As for the question of the orthodoxy of these authors, such as Rumi and Ibn Arabi, I will try to post a short comment below, in response to Mahmud, if God gives me tawfiq.

Salams

I can’t count the number of Ulema(from Ibn Hajar al Asqalani’s teacher to others) who declared IA a disbeliever.

Others if I’m not mistaken, tried to find some excuse for his heresy.

But do know, it is a consensus of the Ulema that whoever fails to accept that Islam is the only acceptable religion, than he is himself a disbeliever. This is from Imam an-Nawawi who is among the very greatest scholars this Ummah has ever seen!

So is the orthodoxy of IA in question-absolutely. if you take the fact that such eminent figures declared him to be a disbeliever, yes, he is far, far from being taken as someone in the mainstream.

Here are some Ulema who declared this man to be a disbeliever-do not take it as an exhaustive list!

http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/sufi_takfir_ibnarabi.htm

I think the words of these heavyweight Ulema deserve more than a little consideration!!!

With that said, it seems to me that Mr. Booso does not sufficiently acknowledge the difference between Islamic theology and Sufi (specifically Akbarian) metaphysics. As a Tijaniyya shaikh informed me, the perennial philosophy is based on a certain interpretation of Ibn Arabi’s writings, the result one might say of a “doctrinal ijithad.” It is this particular interpretation that must be challenged for one to make an effective case against the perennialists. In this respect, it does not help to quote Ghazali (as the author has done), nor any of the other writers he cites, since it did not lie within their provenance to expound the worldview of the Sufis and Muslim contemplatives in all its fullness. For this, one must turn directly to Ibn Arabi (=IA), almost universally acknowledged to be the greatest exponent of Islam’s “science of unveiling” or al-‘ilm al-mukhashafa. Unlike Ghazali, IA did not restrain himself from articulating doctrinal positions which the author of the Ihya might have been much more reticent to express, at least publically. Had it been otherwise, IA would not have been the frequent object of religious censure.

A close and honest reading of IA writings, I think, makes it clear that perennialism, far from being a baseless aberration and entirely foreign to Islam, has its origins in the spiritual giant’s worldview (and by extension, the great mystical interpretations of his peers). IA’s approach to the Qur’an and scripture can also provide one with the necessary tools to make sense of the apparent anti-perennialist thrust of many of the hadiths and verses of the Qur’an. (I stress “apparent” since Scripture, for IA, is polyvocal with multiple layers of meaning, some of which may even conflict).

Even if one disagrees with perennialist interpretations of IA (not an entirely unreasonable position, even for perennialists), the perennial philosophy is so deeply tied in to certain conceptual trajectories in IA’s writings, that to deny the link between the two cannot be anything but intellectually dishonest. Keep in mind that IA, according to his own confession, was neither Asharite nor Mutazilite; and while his views resembled Hanbalism in certain respects (vis-à-vis divine immanence), they represented an independent development in the Islamic world, one which traced its roots to the universe of the Sufis, and most importantly, his own mediations over the Qur’an.

At the heart of IA’s worldview lay the belief that God’s reality is all-pervasive – as the Qur’an states, “And He surrounds all things” – and that, as a consequence, there is no doctrine or belief which is entirely “untrue,” since all beliefs are based on a unique and legitimate encounter with God’s self-revelations, His tajalliyat. It was for this reason that IA could affirm in no uncertain terms that God is present everywhere, whether it be a mosque or a church, a temple or a synagogue.

To take the perennialists to task for their unorthodox beliefs – and to the extent we define “orthodoxy” as mainstream exoteric Islam, they are unorthodox – is by extension to call into question the orthodoxy of Islam’s al-shaikh al-akbar.