The Ruling on Accepting Divine Decree and Taking Pleasure in Calamity
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Question:
They say, for example, regarding the children of the days of Tashriq, that the system is by divine decree and destiny, absolutely, and for example, it is recommended
Answer:
until it becomes so. He says, and the addition of the decision and the bond of destiny is different from the truth. Accepting destiny and destiny is recommended, it is recommended. No, accepting divine decree and destiny is obligatory, it is obligatory, there is no recommendation in it; it is necessary that one accepts divine decree and destiny. Whoever does not accept divine decree and destiny is not a believer in it. Acceptance and faith are inseparable; if he does not believe in it, he is a disbeliever regarding divine decree and destiny. So it is necessary to accept divine decree and destiny.
But the point of discussion is: is it obligatory for a person to take pleasure in the calamity and consider it, meaning to consider it a gain for him and take pleasure in it, or is it permissible for him to feel pain in his heart and it is not obligatory for him to take pleasure in it?
This is the point of disagreement: taking pleasure in it. Taking pleasure in a calamity—human nature is human; one feels pain in oneself and finds the pain. Only the select few among people take pleasure in it. So a person is not held accountable if he weeps over a calamity. Is not weeping evidence that he was pained by it? This is what a person is not held accountable for, because the nature of a person is that he feels pain from sadness and from pains. But the discussion is about displaying anger, wailing, and the actions of tearing the chest, slapping the cheeks, and the actions of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance. This is what is forbidden. As for feeling pain in his heart and not taking pleasure in it, this is the point of disagreement among the scholars. As for acceptance, it is necessary.
They say, for example, regarding the children of the days of Tashriq, that the system is by divine decree and destiny, absolutely, and for example, it is recommended
Answer:
until it becomes so. He says, and the addition of the decision and the bond of destiny is different from the truth. Accepting destiny and destiny is recommended, it is recommended. No, accepting divine decree and destiny is obligatory, it is obligatory, there is no recommendation in it; it is necessary that one accepts divine decree and destiny. Whoever does not accept divine decree and destiny is not a believer in it. Acceptance and faith are inseparable; if he does not believe in it, he is a disbeliever regarding divine decree and destiny. So it is necessary to accept divine decree and destiny.
But the point of discussion is: is it obligatory for a person to take pleasure in the calamity and consider it, meaning to consider it a gain for him and take pleasure in it, or is it permissible for him to feel pain in his heart and it is not obligatory for him to take pleasure in it?
This is the point of disagreement: taking pleasure in it. Taking pleasure in a calamity—human nature is human; one feels pain in oneself and finds the pain. Only the select few among people take pleasure in it. So a person is not held accountable if he weeps over a calamity. Is not weeping evidence that he was pained by it? This is what a person is not held accountable for, because the nature of a person is that he feels pain from sadness and from pains. But the discussion is about displaying anger, wailing, and the actions of tearing the chest, slapping the cheeks, and the actions of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance. This is what is forbidden. As for feeling pain in his heart and not taking pleasure in it, this is the point of disagreement among the scholars. As for acceptance, it is necessary.
Source
الرضا بالقضاء والقدر — alfawzan.live
The Arabic text is a machine transcription of the audio recording.