if it is said if someone believed in the immorality of abu bakr and umar and a group of the companions but did not believe in their disbelief would you rule that he is a disbeliever? we say we do not rule that he is a disbeliever rather we rule that he is immoral misguided and opposed to the consensus of the ummah. how can we rule that he is a disbeliever when we know that allah the most high has not imposed on anyone who accuses a married person of adultery anything more than eighty lashes? we know that this ruling includes all of creation and applies to them in a single manner and that if someone had accused abu bakr and umar of adultery he would not have… he increased it in establishing the limit of allah stipulated in his book and they did not claim for themselves the distinction of a particularity in deviating from the requirements of the generality. so if it is said if someone explicitly stated the disbelief of abu bakr and umar may allah be pleased with them he should be placed in the same position as if he declared another person from the individuals of the muslims or the judges and imams after them to be disbelievers we say this is what we say so their disbelief does not differ from the disbelief of others from the individuals of the nation and the judges rather the individuals of the muslims known for islam except in two matters one of which is in opposing consensus and its violation the one who declares others to be infidels may not be violating a consensus that is considered valid. the second is that there are many reports about them such as the promise of paradise praise of them the ruling on the correctness of their religion the firmness of their faith and their precedence over all creation. so the one who says that if the reports reach him and he believes in their disbelief then he is a disbeliever not because he declares them to be infidels but because he denies the messenger of allah may allah bless him and grant him peace. so whoever denies him with a word of his statements then he is a disbeliever by consensus no matter how much he disregards the denial. in this news and about the breach
فأن قيل فلو اعتقد معتقد فسق أبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما وطائفة من الصحابة فلم يعتقد كفرهم فهل تحكمون بكفره قلنا لا نحكم بكفره وإنما نحكم بفسقه وضلاله ومخالفته لإجماع الأمة وكيف نحكم بكفره ونحن نعلم أن الله تعالى لم يوجب على من قذف محصنا بالزنا إلا ثمانين جلدة ونعلم أن هذا الحكم يشتمل كافة الخلق ويعمهم على وتيرة واحدة وأنه لو قذف قاذف أبا بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما بالزنا لما زاده على إقامة حد الله المنصوص عليه في كتابه ولم يدعوا لأنفسهم التمييز بخاصية في الخروج عن مقتضى العموم فإن قيل فلو صرح مصرح بكفر أبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما ينبغي أن ينزل منزلة من لو كفر شخصا آخر من آحاد المسلمين أو القضاة والأئمة من بعدهم قلنا هكذا نقول فلا يفارق تكفيرهم تكفير غيرهم من آحاد الأمة والقضاة بل أفراد المسلمين المعروفين بالإسلام إلافي شئين أحدهما في مخالفة الإجماع وخرقه فأن مكفر غيرهم ربما لا يكون خارقا لإجماع معتد به الثاني أنه ورد في حقهم من الوعد بالجنة والثناء عليهم والحكم بصحة دينهم وثبات يقينهم وتقدمهم على سائر الخلق أخبار كثيرة فقائل ذلك إن بلغته الأخبار واعتقد مع ذلك كفرهم فهو كافر لا بتكفيره إياهم ولكن بتكذيبه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فمن كذبه بكلمة من أقاويله فهو كافر بالإجماع ومهما قطع النظر عن التكذيب في هذه الأخبار وعن خرق