The view of Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen regarding the “excuse of ignorance”

Praise
be to Allah

We could not find the words of Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may
Allah have mercy on him) to which the questioner referred as being in
Fataawa Noor ‘ala ad-Darb, but we found his words in most of his printed
books and audio fatwas, and we did not find any contradiction in his words,
or any retraction of anything he said.

We may sum up what the Shaykh said about the “excuse of
ignorance” in the following points:

1.

The basic principle according to the Shaykh (may Allah have
mercy on him) is that ignorance is an excuse. In fact he thinks that no one
can produce evidence to prove that the one who is ignorant is not excused,
and he thinks that were it not for the excuse of ignorance, there would be
no need to send the Messengers; people would be accountable on the basis of
what is instilled in their innate nature, and there would be no need to send
the Messengers!

2.

There is no differentiation, with regard to the excuse of
ignorance, between issues of belief and practical issues.

3.

There is no differentiation, with regard to the excuse of
ignorance, between issues that are clear and issues that are subtle and
ambiguous, because clarity and ambiguity are something relative that may
vary from one environment to another and from one person to another.

4.

Disbelief that puts a person beyond the pale of Islam may be
connected to beliefs, words uttered, actions done, or something that one
fails to do. The Shaykh does not differ concerning the fact that these
things could put a person beyond the pale of Islam, but the point of the
discussion here is how to apply the description of disbelief to a particular
person, because he may be excused, in which case he is not to be regarded as
a disbeliever.

5.

A person who does an act of disbelief is not a disbeliever if
he is ignorant and unaware of the shar‘i ruling concerning his action, or if
he asked a scholar who gave him a fatwa saying that his action was
permissible.

However he does become a disbeliever if proof is established
and presented to him, and any confusion or misunderstanding on his part was
dealt with.

6.

The excuse of ignorance cannot be accepted from everyone who
claims to be ignorant, because he may have been negligent about learning or
careless about asking and finding out, or he may be stubborn and not accept
the truth or try to seek it. In all these cases, the individual is not
excused according to the Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him). An exception
is made, with regard to having fallen short, if it did not occur to a person
that this action could be haraam, and he had no scholar to advise him. In
this case he is excused.

7.

The ignorant person among those who are originally
disbelievers is to be dealt with as a disbeliever according to shar‘i
rulings in this world, and in the hereafter his fate will be decided by
Allah. The correct view is that he will be tested (in the hereafter).

The ignorant person among those who claim to be Muslim but
who fell into disbelief that puts one beyond the pale of Islam is to be
treated outwardly as if he is a Muslim, according to shar‘i rulings, and his
fate will be decided by Allah in the hereafter.

8.

The Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) quoted texts from
the Qur’an and Sunnah, and the views of scholars, to support this view
concerning this issue, and explained that this is the view of Shaykh
Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allah have mercy on him) – contrary to
those who misunderstood his views. Here we will discuss in some detail what
we have summed up of the words of the Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him),
and we may quote in brief some of what he said. Whoever would like to know
more may consult the references we will mention below.

I.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have
mercy on him) was asked about the excuse of ignorance with regard to matters
of belief.

He replied:

Having different views concerning the excuse of ignorance is
like any other fiqhi issue that is subject to different views. The
difference may be in wording sometimes, by way of applying the ruling to a
particular person. In other words, all are agreed that a certain statement
(made by the person in question) constitutes disbelief, or a certain action
constitutes disbelief, or a failure to do something constitutes disbelief,
but is the ruling applicable to this particular person, because the reason
to apply the ruling to him is valid and there is no impediment, or is it not
applicable because there are some reasons to indicate that the conditions of
applying it are not met in his case, or that there is some impediment to
doing so?

Ignorance of that which makes one a disbeliever is of two
types:

The first type is when the individual does not believe in
Islam, or does not believe in anything, and it has never crossed his mind
that there is a (true) religion other than that which he is following. In
shar‘i terms he is to be treated as he appears to be in this world; as for
the hereafter, his fate will be decided by Allah, may He be exalted. The
most correct view is that he will be tested in the hereafter in whatever way
Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, wills, and Allah knows best what
they will do, but we know that he will not enter the Fire except for a sin
that he commits, because Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of
the meaning): “and
your Lord treats no one with injustice”
[al-Kahf 18:49].

Rather we said that he is to be treated as he appears to be
in this world – which means that he is to be treated as a disbeliever
according to shar‘i rulings – because he is not a Muslim, so he cannot be
treated as a Muslim. The reason why we said that the most correct view is
that he will be tested in the hereafter is that there are many reports to
that effect, which were quoted by Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on
him) in his book Tareeq al-Hijratayn, when he discussed the eighth
view concerning the children of the mushrikeen [and their fate in the
hereafter].

The second type is when there is ignorance on the part of an
individual who is a Muslim, but he grew up believing in (or practising) that
thing that makes one a disbeliever, and it never crossed his mind that it is
contrary to Islam, and no one advised him of that. Such a person is to be
treated as a Muslim, and in the hereafter his fate will be decided by Allah,
may He be glorified and exalted. That is indicated by the Qur’an, the Sunnah
and the words of the scholars.

The evidence from the Qur’an includes the following:

“And We never
punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)”

[al-Isra’ 17:15]

“And never
will your Lord destroy the towns (populations) until He sends to their
mother town a Messenger reciting to them Our Verses. And never would We
destroy the towns unless the people thereof are Zalimoon (polytheists,
wrong-doers, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, oppressors and tyrants)”

[al-Qasas 28:59]

“Messengers
as bearers of good news as well as of warning in order that mankind should
have no plea against Allah after the Messengers”

[an-Nisa’
4:165]

“And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his
people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them. Then Allah
misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills”

[Ibraaheem 14:4]

“And Allah will never lead a people astray after He has
guided them until He makes clear to them as to what they should avoid”

[at-Tawbah 9:115]

“And this is a blessed Book (the Quran) which We have sent
down, so follow it and fear Allah (i.e. do not disobey His Orders), that you
may receive mercy (i.e. saved from the torment of Hell).

Lest you (pagan Arabs) should say: ‘The Book was only sent
down to two sects before us (the Jews and the Christians), and for our part,
we were in fact unaware of what they studied.’

Or lest you (pagan Arabs) should say: ‘If only the Book had
been sent down to us, we would surely have been better guided than they
(Jews and Christians).’ So now has come unto you a clear proof (the Quran)
from your Lord, and a guidance and a mercy”

[al-An‘aam 6:155-157].

And there are many similar verses which indicate that proof
cannot be established except after knowledge has been conveyed and
explained.

With regard to the Sunnah, in Saheeh Muslim (1/134) it
is narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “By the One in
Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, no one among this nation, Jew or
Christian, hears of me then dies not believing in that with which I was
sent, but he will be one of the people of the Fire.” 

With regard to the words of the scholars, it says in al-Mughni
(8/131):

If he is one of those who are not aware that (a certain
ruling) is obligatory, such as one who is new in Islam, or one who grew up
in a non-Islamic country, or in the wilderness far away from cities and
scholars, then he is not to be deemed a disbeliever. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn
Taymiyah said in al-Fataawa (3/229, Majmoo‘ Ibn Qaasim): 

I am always – and those who spent time with me know it – one
of those who most emphatically forbid accusing a specific individual of
being a disbeliever, or of being an evildoer or of being a sinner, unless it
is known that proof based on the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah has been
established against him, concerning matters which, if anyone goes against
that proof, he is either a disbeliever, evildoer or sinner. I affirm that
Allah, may He be exalted, has forgiven this ummah for its mistakes, which
includes mistakes that have to do with beliefs or words uttered, or that
have to do with actions and practices. The early generations kept disputing
concerning many issues, but none of them accused another of being a
disbeliever, evildoer or sinner. 

… I used to explain that what has been transmitted from the
scholars and imams of the early generations, of stating in general terms
that whoever says such and such becomes a disbeliever, is true and correct,
but we must differentiate between general statements and a statement about a
specific individual. 

… Regarding someone as a disbeliever is like a threat of
punishment, because a person may even say something that implies rejection
of what the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said, but
the person who says it may be new in Islam, or he may have grown up in the
remote wilderness. Such a person cannot be accused of being a disbeliever
for rejecting what he rejected, until proof is established against him. He
may not have heard those texts, or he may have heard them but they were not
proven to him to be sound, or the text may contradict something that is
well-established in his mind, which dictated that he should interpret the
text in a manner other than its apparent meaning, even though he may be
mistaken. 

Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab said in ad-Durr
as-Saniyyah (1/56):

With regard to deeming a person to be a disbeliever, I regard
as a disbeliever anyone who learns about the religion brought by the
Messenger, then after learning it he reviles it and tells people not to
follow it, and he opposes those who do follow it. This is the person whom I
regard as a disbeliever. 

On p. 66 he said: As for what they say of lies and
fabrications about us, when they say that we label people as disbelievers in
general terms, and we say that it is obligatory for anyone who is able to
migrate to join us to do so, all of that is lies and fabrications by means
of which they turn people away from the religion of Allah and His Messenger.
As we do not regard as disbelievers those who worship the idol [i.e., the
built-up tomb] on the grave of ‘Abd al-Qaadir, or the idol on the grave of
Ahmad al-Badawi and the like, because of their ignorance and because there
is no one to advise them, then how can we regard as a disbeliever the one
who does not associate anything with Allah, just because he does not migrate
to join us and does not regard others as disbelievers and fight them?! 

If (the view mentioned above, which is not to regard anyone
as a disbeliever until proof is established against him) is based on the
texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the words of the scholars, then it is
also in accordance with the wisdom, kindness and mercy of Allah, may He be
exalted. For He will never punish anyone until He has established proof that
leaves them with no excuse. Reason could not, on its own attain, knowledge
of the duties that one has towards Allah, may He be exalted. If that were
possible, then proof would not depend on the sending of Messengers. 

Therefore the basic principle concerning the one who claims
to be a Muslim is that he is to be regarded as a Muslim unless that
description becomes no longer applicable on the basis of shar‘i evidence. 

… 

So before deeming somebody to have become a disbeliever, two
things must be examined. 

The first is that there should be clear evidence from the
Qur’an and Sunnah that the matter in question makes a person a disbeliever,
so as not to fabricate lies about Allah. 

The second is that the ruling should be applicable to this
specific individual, so that the conditions of deeming somebody to have
become a disbeliever are met in his case, and it is established that there
are no impediments to doing so. 

One of the most important conditions is that he should be
aware of his mistake that led to him being regarded as a disbeliever,
because Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And whoever
contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad (blessings and peace of
Allah be upon him)) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and
follows other than the believers’ way. We shall keep him in the path he has
chosen, and burn him in Hell – what an evil destination”

[an-Nisa’ 4:115]. 

This verse stipulates the condition that the punishment of
Hell becomes due if a person opposes the Messenger after guidance has become
clear to him. But is it stipulated that he should be aware of the
consequences of his infraction and that it leads to him becoming a
disbeliever and so on, or is it sufficient for him to know that it is an
infraction, even if he is unaware of the implications of his error?

What appears to be the case is the latter, i.e., the mere
fact of his being aware that it is an infraction is sufficient for the
application of the ruling connected to this infraction, because the Prophet
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) made it obligatory for the one
who had intercourse during the day in Ramadan to offer expiation because he
was aware that it was an infraction, even though he was not aware of the
requirement of expiation. Moreover the previously-married zaani who is aware
of the prohibition on zina is to be stoned, even if he was ignorant of the
consequences of his zina, and perhaps if he had been aware of the
consequences he would not have committed zina. …

To sum up, the one who is ignorant may be excused for what he
says or does of that which may constitute disbelief, just as he may be
excused for that which he says or does that may be regarded as evildoing.
That is based on evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah, rational thinking, and
the words of the scholars. 

Majmoo‘ Fataawa ash-Shaykh al-‘Uthaymeen
(2/answer to question 224). 

II.

The Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: 

We have read an answer you gave about the excuse of ignorance
with regard to acts that lead to a person being deemed a disbeliever, but in
the book Kashf ash-Shubuhaat by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab,
he said there is no excuse for ignorance, and he said something similar in
his book at-Tawheed. Even though in your answer you quoted the views
of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, and those of Ibn Taymiyah in al-Fataawa
and of Ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughni. We hope that you can explain. 

He replied: 

Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allah have
mercy on him) stated in his essays that no one is to be deemed a disbeliever
if he is ignorant. If he is stated in Kashf ash-Shubuhaat that there
is no excuse for ignorance, it is to be understood that what he was
referring to was the kind of ignorance that results from a person being
negligent in not making any effort to learn, such as if he knows that there
is a view different to what he is following, but he is negligent and too
careless to find out and learn. In that case, ignorance is not an excuse. 

Duroos wa Fataawa al-Haram al-Makki
(1411 AH, tape 9, side A)

III. 

The Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: Can a
person be excused for ignorance regard to Tawheed? 

He replied: 

The excuse of ignorance is proven with regard to all issues
of religion, because Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says
(interpretation of the meaning):

“Verily, We have inspired you (O Muhammad (blessings and
peace of Allah be upon him)) as We inspired Nooh (Noah) and the Prophets
after him…

Messengers as bearers of good news as well as of warning in
order that mankind should have no plea against Allah after the Messengers””

[an-Nisa’ 163-165]

“And We never
punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)”

[al-Isra’ 17:15]

“And Allah will never lead a people astray after He has
guided them until He makes clear to them as to what they should avoid”

[at-Tawbah 9:115]. 

and because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him) said: “By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, no one among
this nation, Jew or Christian, hears of me then dies not believing in that
with which I was sent, but he will be one of the people of the Fire.”

And there are many texts to that effect. 

Therefore the one who is ignorant will not be brought to
account, because of his ignorance, with regard to any issue of religion. But
we should note here that some of the ignorant are somewhat stubborn – i.e.,
when they are told about what is right and correct, they do not go and
research the matter or follow it; rather they carry on following what their
shaykhs and those whom they venerate teach them, and they follow them. In
fact such an individual is not excused, because proof has reached him which
at the very least should have created some doubt that would prompt him to go
and search for the truth. This person who venerates whomever he venerates of
his leaders is like those of whom Allah tells us that they said
(interpretation of the meaning): “ ‘We
found our fathers following a certain way and religion, and we will indeed
follow their footsteps’”[az-Zukhruf
43:22], and in the
following verse, He tells us that they said: “ ‘We found our fathers
following a certain way and religion, and we will indeed follow their
footsteps’” [az-Zukhruf 43:23].

Conclusion: 

The ignorance for which a person may be excused is when he
does not know the correct view and he has not been told about it. This is
what excuses him for sin. The ruling on how this person is to be dealt with
depends on his deeds. Moreover, if he claims to be a Muslim and he testifies
that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah,
he is to be regarded as a Muslim. If he does not claim to be a Muslim, then
in this world he is to be treated like the people of the religion that he
claims to follow. As for the hereafter, then he comes under the same heading
as the people of the period between Prophets, and his fate will be decided
by Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, on the Day of Resurrection. The
most correct view concerning them is that they will be tested however Allah
wills; whoever among them obeys will enter Paradise, and whoever disobeys
will enter Hell. But it should be noted that we are living at a time where
there is hardly any place on earth that the call of the Prophet (blessings
and peace of Allah be upon him) has not reached through various media, and
through people mixing with one another, and disbelief usually stems from
stubbornness. 

Majmoo‘ Fataawa ash-Shaykh al-‘Uthaymeen
(2/answer to question no. 222) 

IV. 

The Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: 

What is the ruling on describing those who are excused for
ignorance as holding the views of the Murji’ah? 

He replied: 

As for the excuse of ignorance, this is based on the general
meanings of the texts, and no one can produce evidence to prove that the one
who is ignorant is not to be excused. Allah, may He be exalted, says
(interpretation of the meaning):

“And We never
punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)”

[al-Isra’ 17:15]

 “Messengers
as bearers of good news as well as of warning in order that mankind should
have no plea against Allah after the Messengers”

[an-Nisa’
4:165]. 

Were it not for the excuse of ignorance, there would be no
need to send the Messengers; people would be accountable on the basis of
what is instilled in their innate nature, and there would be no need to send
the Messengers. The excuse of ignorance is what is indicated by the Qur’an
and Sunnah, as was stated by the leading scholars such as Shaykh al-Islam
Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him), and Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn
‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allah have mercy on him). But a person may be negligent
in seeking knowledge, so he is sinning in that respect. In other words, it
may be possible for him to learn, but he does not care to do so; or he may
be told that something is haraam, but he does not care. In this case he is
falling short in this regard and he is sinning thereby. As for a man who
lives among people who commit a sin and think that it is permissible, then
we say that he is accountable for his sin, when the message did not reach
him, this is far-fetched. In fact we cannot issue rulings on the basis of
our emotions; rather we issue rulings on the basis of what is indicated by
sharee‘ah. The Lord, may He be glorified and exalted, says: “My mercy
prevails over My wrath.” So how can we take a person to task for his
ignorance when it has never crossed his mind that this is haraam? In fact
Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allah have mercy on him)
said: We do not regard as kaafirs those who placed an idol [i.e., a built-up
tomb] on the grave of ‘Abd al-Qaadir al-Jilani or on the grave of al-Badawi,
because of their ignorance and the lack of anyone to advise them. 

Liqaa’aat al-Baab al-Maftooh
(33/question no. 12). 

V. 

The Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

But there remains the issue of a man who was negligent and
put no effort into seeking the truth, because he was heedless and he saw
what people were doing and did likewise, without researching the matter.
Such a person may be sinning; in fact he may be falling short in seeking the
truth, and he may not be excused in this case. Or he may be excused if it
never occurred to him that this action was an infraction but he had no
scholar to advise him. In this case he may be excused. Hence the most
correct view is that if someone lives in the wilderness, far away from the
cities, and he did not fast Ramadan because he thought that it was not
obligatory, or he used to have intercourse with his wife during the day in
Ramadan, thinking that doing so was permissible, then he does not have to
make up the fast, because he was ignorant, and one of the conditions of
being accountable for adhering to sharee‘ah is that the accountable person
should have heard of the ruling and learned of it. 

To sum up: a person may be excused for ignorance, but he will
not be excused for falling short in seeking knowledge of the truth. 

Liqaa’aat al-Baab al-Maftooh
(39/question no. 3) 

VI. 

The Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: 

What is your view on one who says Laa ilaaha ill-Allah
Muhammad Rasoolullah, then he slaughters a sacrifice for something other
than Allah? Is he a Muslim? Please note that he grew up in a Muslim
country. 

The Shaykh said: 

The one who seeks to draw close to something other than Allah
by means of offering a sacrifice to it is a mushrik in the sense of major
shirk, and he will not benefit from saying Laa ilaaha ill-Allah, or
from praying or any other deed, unless he grew up in a remote land, where
the people did not know of this ruling. In that case he is excused for his
ignorance, but he should be taught, like one who lives in a remote land
where they offer sacrifices to something other than Allah, such as offering
sacrifices to graves or to the awliya’ (“saints”), and they do not see
anything wrong with that, and they do not know that this is shirk or that it
is haraam. Such a person may be excused for his ignorance. But as for a
person who is told that this constitutes disbelief, but he says: No, I will
not stop offering sacrifices to the “saint”, in this case proof has been
established against him, so he is to be deemed a disbeliever. 

Questioner: 

If he is given advice and told that this is shirk (but he
persists in it), can I describe him as a mushrik or kaafir? 

Shaykh: 

Yes, he is a mushrik, kaafir and apostate. He should be asked
to repent, and if he repents, all well and good; otherwise he is to be
executed. 

Questioner: 

Is there a difference between issues that are very clear and
issues that are subtle and ambiguous? 

Shaykh: 

That which is ambiguous needs to be discussed, such as this
issue. If we assume that he says: “I live among people who slaughter
sacrifices to the saints (awliya’), and I do not know that this is haraam,”
then this matter is ambiguous for him, because what is ambiguous or clear is
something relative. That which is clear to me may be ambiguous to you, and
that which is clear to you may be ambiguous to me. 

Questioner: 

How can I establish proof against him? What is the proof that
I should present to him? 

Shaykh: 

The proof against him is what it says in the verses
(interpretation of the meaning):

“Say (O
Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)): ‘Verily, my Salat
(prayer), my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allah, the Lord of
the Alameen (mankind, jinns and all that exists).

‘He has no partner. And of this I have been commanded…’”

Al-An‘aam 6:162, 163]

“Verily, We
have granted you (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) Al-Kauthar (a river in
Paradise),

Therefore turn in prayer to your Lord and sacrifice (to Him
only)”

[al-Kawthar 108:1, 2]. 

This indicates that offering sacrifices as a means of drawing
close and veneration is an act of worship, and whoever directs worship to
anything or anyone other than Allah is a mushrik. 

If proof is conveyed and he is told that this act of his
constitutes shirk (but he persists in it), then he no longer has any excuse
for doing it. 

Questioner: 

Should he be told then? 

Shaykh: 

He has to be told. 

Questioner:

There is a specious argument which says that his action is
shirk but he is not a mushrik. How should we respond?

Shaykh:

This is correct. He is not a mushrik if no proof has been
established against him. Didn’t the one who said “O Allah, You are my slave
and I am your Lord” speak words of disbelief? Yet he did not become a
disbeliever thereby, because he made that mistake out of extreme joy (at
finding his lostcamel in the wilderness, as mentioned in a lengthy hadith).
Is it not the case that the one who is forced to disbelieve may disbelieve
outwardly but he does not do so in his heart, for his heart is at ease with
faith? With regard to the scholars who say that a word of disbelief is
distinct from the one who utters it, this applies if no proof has been
established and we do not know his situation. But if we do know his
situation, then what do we do now? Do we say that he cannot be deemed a
disbeliever? Does it mean that no one can be deemed a disbeliever, or that
no one can become a disbeliever, and even the one who does not pray cannot
be described as a disbeliever? Even Ibn Taymiyah said that if proof reached
him, then proof has been established against him (and he is left with no
excuse). … It is not enough for proof to reach him, unless he also
understands it, because if we assume that someone is a non-Arab and we
recite the Qur’an to him morning and evening, , but he does not know what it
means, can we say that proof has been established against him? Allah, may He
be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his
people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them”

[Ibraaheem 14:4].

Liqaa’aat al-Baab al-Maftooh
(48/question no. 15)

We hope that the matter has become clear, and that you
understand the meaning of what Shaykh ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy
on him) said, and that his view is that ignorance is an excuse. This is
applicable in the case of one who is new in Islam, or one who lives far away
from places of knowledge, or who lives among people to whom it has never
occurred that they are going against Islamic teachings, even though in fact
their actions are causing them to fall into major shirk.

And Allah knows best.