The Debate on the Statement of Allah the Exalted: “If you dispute about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day.” Is there evidence in it?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: In our view, meaning in ... .
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: The condition of faith is that it is not possible for a person to have faith unless he refers the matter in dispute to Allah and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). The general evidence is:[An-Nisa 4:59] .
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: So this is a matter in which two people or ... disputed.
The Shaykh : More.
The questioner: Yes, if he does not refer it to Allah and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), then the belief of the one who does not refer it is invalid as faith in Allah and the Last Day.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner: Because he did not refer it.
The Shaykh: Explain to me what “refer it” means.
The questioner: He did not refer the matter in dispute, which consists of ignorances.
The Shaykh: Explain to me what “refer it” means within the limits of what we are currently disputing.
The questioner: It is a doubt, apply ...
The Shaykh: No problem, sir, explain the doubt to me, may Allah reward you. Tell me, is it disbelief because he referred the ruling of Allah and His Messenger with his outward form but not his heart?
The questioner: I did not say he referred it ... What I am saying is that they disputed, so what did he not refer to the command of Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)?
The Shaykh : This is the point, I mean.
The questioner: The best, meaning ... .
The Shaykh: No problem, I am with you, I am with you, okay ... matters ... please, what did he not refer the dispute to the Book and the Sunnah, this is it.
The questioner: ... he may have committed disbelief.
The Shaykh: Why did he commit disbelief? Do not repeat it to me, because he did not refer it, because that is not the point of the research. The research is to say: He committed disbelief because he did not refer it outwardly only, or do you say outwardly and inwardly?
The questioner: Outwardly, because he did not refer it outwardly only.
The Shaykh: And inwardly.
The questioner : We do not know.
The Shaykh: What are we working on now, the outward and the inward, Professor? Say this word from yesterday and the whole matter is finished. Yes, we are researching the outward and the inward now. We are talking about the believer in the sight of Allah, who knows the outward and the inward. And recently, I drew your attention to the fact that our research is not about Islam. One says, “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah,” and that is enough; he has what we have and we have what he has. In his heart, he may be the greatest atheist in the world. So our research is not about Islam, but about faith that saves one with Allah on the Day of Resurrection, even if he has the deeds of ninety-nine.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: If you allow me, now you tell me that outwardly this is a departure from the research. When we say “inwardly,” is that outward or inward?
The questioner: Inward.
The Shaykh: Inward. So why didn’t you say it an hour ago? Now we are talking about the outward. No, sir, our research has two aspects: one aspect relates to the outward, and one aspect relates to the inward. One aspect relates to the limbs and the outward deeds, and one aspect relates to the deeds called by Ibn Taymiyyah the heart, meaning faith. Okay, when we reached your fourth example, instead of coming to confirm what passed, you said “outwardly.” Okay, outwardly and inwardly, you tell me “Allah knows best.” We said, if we gathered all the criminals of the world, we would not imagine them except in two categories: a category of believers because they did not commit a crime, and a category of disbelievers ...
The questioner: He did not consider it permissible, meaning.
The Shaykh: Allow me, this is it.
The questioner: He did not consider it permissible.
The Shaykh: So this one who did not refer the dispute to the Book and the Sunnah has committed disbelief.
The questioner: Not one who considers it permissible, meaning.
The Shaykh: Fine, so is the cause of his disbelief that he did not refer it inwardly and outwardly, or inwardly only? This needs proof, and you are presenting the verse without explaining it to us, while it needs explanation. As for me, I say it is a conjunction with what came before, just as we said about the verse:[Al-Ma'idah 5:51] sometimes from them by deed, sometimes from them by belief ... It is deed, of course, meaning deed ... It is not a problem; because the deed alone, if it stands alone, meaning now one did not commit zina, but in his heart he considered zina permissible, the condition is that he commits zina in order to commit disbelief.
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh: Therefore ... the conjunction of deed to the heart is not necessary. Meaning, the summary, my professor, is that this one who did not refer the ruling to Allah and the Messenger has committed disbelief. Let us see why he committed disbelief? If he did not refer it with his heart - also - meaning he says: no Shari'ah, no such thing, like what they do ... this is disbelief, disbelief of apostasy, there is no disagreement about it. And if he did not accept.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: He tells me, in deed ... for example, he says: no Shari'ah.
The Shaykh: Leave me the examples of individuals. We want to clarify the point of dispute and disagreement, then we will come and apply it. My professor, we are saying that all the criminals of the world are not but two categories: a category of criminals outwardly, believers inwardly, and a category of criminals inwardly and outwardly.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: You do not tell me Zayd, Bakr, sent and subscribed, I don’t know what, and so on. Now, these people committed disbelief because they did not refer the dispute to Allah and His Messenger. I say these people committed disbelief according to their reality in their persons. So whoever did not refer it by deed, as is the case with many who follow their desires, the legal judge whom we gave as an example, so he gave to Zayd what belonged to 'Umar. Did this refer the ruling to Allah and the Messenger? We did not forget the example, Professor. Did he not refer it? Did we declare him a disbeliever? We did not declare him a disbeliever. Why? Because the cause of declaring disbelief was not realized in this judge, and that is the inward referral, which did not happen. Therefore, I say: the verse says:[An-Nisa 4:65] the verse, [An-Nisa 4:59] , okay, so the referral here to Allah and the Messenger will not be realized in the person either by deed, as that judge did, or inwardly, so he is an open sinner and not a disbeliever. Or by deed and inwardly, so he is an apostate from his religion. Is it clear, Professor?
The questioner: Which means it becomes clear that all the examples ... .
The Shaykh: Absolutely not, they are all on one pattern.
The questioner: I have a need.
The Shaykh : Yes, please go ahead.
The questioner: Those who submitted in Makkah and did not emigrate, and they said to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) , but what delayed them in Makkah was, meaning, a share of the shares of this world, out of fear for their trade or for their wealth, and they continued to love Islam and the Muslims, and their belief was correct, and yet they committed disbelief.
The Shaykh: Bring the evidence.
The questioner: This is the evidence: Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Bayhaqi in his "Sunan" narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that he said: "There were people from the people of Makkah who submitted, and they were concealing their Islam, so the polytheists took them out with them on the day of Badr, so some of them were struck and some of them were killed. Then the Muslims said: 'Our companions, these people, were Muslims and were forced, so they sought forgiveness for them.' Then the verse was revealed:[An-Nisa 4:97] " .
The Shaykh: Complete the verse.
The questioner :[An-Nisa 4:97] .
The Shaykh : .
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Okay, let’s get it, our brothers, from the mushaf.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Yes, come on.
The student :[An-Nisa 4:97] .
The Shaykh: Wait, wait, the point of argumentation in the verse.
The questioner: Correct, the verse, Professor.
The Shaykh: I am not memorizing it, so if you are not confident, let us look at the Quranic text.
The questioner : Yes, correct.
The Shaykh: Correct, praise be to Allah, the point of argumentation in the verse.
The questioner: The point of argumentation.
The Shaykh: You are not the one responsible, the first claimant who has something in his mind, please.
The questioner: The point of argumentation in the verse is that this verse mentioned from the causes of declaring disbelief, from the causes of declaring disbelief.
The Shaykh: You are repeating your previous words. I am asking you to clarify where the declaration of disbelief is in the verse.
The questioner: The place of declaration of disbelief is in agreement.
The Shaykh: Was declaration of disbelief mentioned in the verse, Professor?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh: Where?
The questioner: Those who wronged themselves.
The Shaykh: Count, count the verse, I am telling you, those who wronged themselves?!
The questioner :[An-Nisa 4:97] ... .
The Shaykh: No, I am not asking about the cause.
The student: No, the cause clarifies ... .
The Shaykh: Now he read the cause.
The student: He did not read it.
The Shaykh: He read the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas.
The student: Read it a second time then, oh.
The questioner: I will read it.
The student: Yes.
The questioner: Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Bayhaqi in his "Sunan" narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that he said: "There were people from the people of Makkah who submitted, and they were concealing their Islam, so the polytheists took them out with them on the day of Badr, so some of them were struck and some of them were killed; then the Muslims said: 'Our companions, these people, were Muslims and were forced, so they sought forgiveness for them.' Then the verse was revealed."
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: Yes, correct; meaning this cause does not indicate ... our brothers, then the verse was revealed in disapproval that they are not our brothers, correct?
The Shaykh: There is no subject of ours in the verse or in the cause, my brothers. Meaning, we are going in circles. Now I am saying: those who wronged themselves, does a person wrong himself only by disbelief? Meaning, the one who committed zina and stole, did he not wrong himself? The one who remained in the abode of disbelief and did not emigrate to the abode of Islam, did he not wrong himself?
The questioner: ... three volumes.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: Three volumes.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner: Wronging that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) does not forgive, and that is shirk (associating partners with Allah), ... supporting the polytheists according to the text, which is ... .
The Shaykh: I say wronging is of types, so what is the evidence that this wronging is disbelief that makes its doer an apostate from his religion?
The questioner: If you permit.
The Shaykh : And then, my brothers, we must not forget, and I am the one who always keeps coming back to this issue, that you will forget me with you. This narration you are arguing from, have you verified its authenticity?
The questioner : We have verified it.
The Shaykh : How have you verified it?
The questioner : Ibn Jarir reported it.
The Shaykh : What Allah willed.
The questioner : And Ibn al-Mundhir.
The Shaykh : What Allah willed.
The questioner : And Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Bayhaqi.
The Shaykh : May Allah will it, and you are now telling me that the scholars of hadith accepted the mursal reports of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib and replaced him with Sa'id ibn Jubayr, and you say that reporting this validates the narration.
The questioner : Okay, now there are other narrations.
The Shaykh : Do not argue, do not argue. You are establishing the authenticity of the narration simply because so-and-so said, "So-and-so reported it."
The questioner: ... Ibn Taymiyyah.
The Shaykh : No problem, my intention is to point out that verification is not done in this way, my professor. That is, it is your duty right now to teach the group that a hadith is not verified simply by seeing it in a book where it is reported by so-and-so and so-and-so.
The questioner : Shaykh, you mean that what you rely on is that if a person does not complete his answer, if he does not complete his statement, it is cut off and becomes void, meaning it is not...
The Shaykh : Yes, by Allah, it is true.
The questioner : Then wait until I complete it.
The Shaykh : You completed it, your honor.
The questioner : I did not complete it.
The Shaykh : Now you are repeating it, my brother. Did you not read the text just now?
The questioner : There is another text.
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah, you are arguing from this text, and I am asking you where is the evidence for takfir in this text? Now you say there is another text. I tell you, we have heard it, but I am warning you that any text you want to argue from, after the Qur'an, you must verify its authenticity. What was your answer? "So-and-so and so-and-so reported it." Verifying it by saying "So-and-so and so-and-so reported it" is not verification, my brother. Now what do you say last? "I have a second text." Okay, we have not heard the second text yet. We are talking about the first text. Have you verified the authenticity of the first text? Your neighbor next to you answered immediately, "Yes, we have verified its authenticity..." He continues his speech. You interrupted him and said, "Yes, so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so reported it." It does not work that way. Bring the second text, my brother, and show it to me. Is it a verification of the second text? Is it a verification of the second text?
The student : He says...
The Shaykh : We want to go to Oman.
The student : You are just spinning in the same circle.
The Shaykh: Yes, by Allah.
The student : There is no example.
The Shaykh : Yes, by Allah, there is no example.
The student : There is none, it is impossible for them to bring one. Yes, let us be done with this.
The Shaykh : We are done, but I did not see, my brother, that the group brought you an example.
The student : It is not wrong.
The questioner : This is an example, I think it is sufficient and does not need interpretations.
The Shaykh : Okay, evaluate yourselves before you are evaluated. I am asking you for the takfir in this text.
The questioner : I am asking you for the takfir.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good.
The questioner : Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim reported from al-Suddi, who said: "When al-Abbas was captured."
The Shaykh : The narration is dropped, the narration is dropped. Learn the science of hadith, then sit down and discuss and argue. Learn the science of hadith, then sit down and discuss and argue. Do you know this al-Suddi? It is not al-Suddi, do you know who he is?
The student : He is a Successor.
The Shaykh : He is a young Tabi'i, so this is mursal, and there is no proof in it. And this is the verified text.
The questioner : I want to give you a statement from him that is not attributed to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). What is his statement regarding this verse?
The Shaykh : It has no value.
The questioner : Why, when we say we want the statement of al-Suddi, or your statement, or the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah, you accept it, but the statement of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and others, you do not accept it? Why? Are these not men and you are not men? We want truth, meaning something that returns to the truth, not that what you say is correct and what others, like Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, say is incorrect.
The Shaykh : Calm down a bit, you, stay out of it.
The questioner : No, it is not...
The student : Calm down, I am telling you.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: The condition of faith is that it is not possible for a person to have faith unless he refers the matter in dispute to Allah and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). The general evidence is:
And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day
فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِThe Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: So this is a matter in which two people or ... disputed.
The Shaykh : More.
The questioner: Yes, if he does not refer it to Allah and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), then the belief of the one who does not refer it is invalid as faith in Allah and the Last Day.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner: Because he did not refer it.
The Shaykh: Explain to me what “refer it” means.
The questioner: He did not refer the matter in dispute, which consists of ignorances.
The Shaykh: Explain to me what “refer it” means within the limits of what we are currently disputing.
The questioner: It is a doubt, apply ...
The Shaykh: No problem, sir, explain the doubt to me, may Allah reward you. Tell me, is it disbelief because he referred the ruling of Allah and His Messenger with his outward form but not his heart?
The questioner: I did not say he referred it ... What I am saying is that they disputed, so what did he not refer to the command of Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)?
The Shaykh : This is the point, I mean.
The questioner: The best, meaning ... .
The Shaykh: No problem, I am with you, I am with you, okay ... matters ... please, what did he not refer the dispute to the Book and the Sunnah, this is it.
The questioner: ... he may have committed disbelief.
The Shaykh: Why did he commit disbelief? Do not repeat it to me, because he did not refer it, because that is not the point of the research. The research is to say: He committed disbelief because he did not refer it outwardly only, or do you say outwardly and inwardly?
The questioner: Outwardly, because he did not refer it outwardly only.
The Shaykh: And inwardly.
The questioner : We do not know.
The Shaykh: What are we working on now, the outward and the inward, Professor? Say this word from yesterday and the whole matter is finished. Yes, we are researching the outward and the inward now. We are talking about the believer in the sight of Allah, who knows the outward and the inward. And recently, I drew your attention to the fact that our research is not about Islam. One says, “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah,” and that is enough; he has what we have and we have what he has. In his heart, he may be the greatest atheist in the world. So our research is not about Islam, but about faith that saves one with Allah on the Day of Resurrection, even if he has the deeds of ninety-nine.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: If you allow me, now you tell me that outwardly this is a departure from the research. When we say “inwardly,” is that outward or inward?
The questioner: Inward.
The Shaykh: Inward. So why didn’t you say it an hour ago? Now we are talking about the outward. No, sir, our research has two aspects: one aspect relates to the outward, and one aspect relates to the inward. One aspect relates to the limbs and the outward deeds, and one aspect relates to the deeds called by Ibn Taymiyyah the heart, meaning faith. Okay, when we reached your fourth example, instead of coming to confirm what passed, you said “outwardly.” Okay, outwardly and inwardly, you tell me “Allah knows best.” We said, if we gathered all the criminals of the world, we would not imagine them except in two categories: a category of believers because they did not commit a crime, and a category of disbelievers ...
The questioner: He did not consider it permissible, meaning.
The Shaykh: Allow me, this is it.
The questioner: He did not consider it permissible.
The Shaykh: So this one who did not refer the dispute to the Book and the Sunnah has committed disbelief.
The questioner: Not one who considers it permissible, meaning.
The Shaykh: Fine, so is the cause of his disbelief that he did not refer it inwardly and outwardly, or inwardly only? This needs proof, and you are presenting the verse without explaining it to us, while it needs explanation. As for me, I say it is a conjunction with what came before, just as we said about the verse:
And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them
وَمَنْ يَتَوَلَّهُمْ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْThe questioner: No.
The Shaykh: Therefore ... the conjunction of deed to the heart is not necessary. Meaning, the summary, my professor, is that this one who did not refer the ruling to Allah and the Messenger has committed disbelief. Let us see why he committed disbelief? If he did not refer it with his heart - also - meaning he says: no Shari'ah, no such thing, like what they do ... this is disbelief, disbelief of apostasy, there is no disagreement about it. And if he did not accept.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: He tells me, in deed ... for example, he says: no Shari'ah.
The Shaykh: Leave me the examples of individuals. We want to clarify the point of dispute and disagreement, then we will come and apply it. My professor, we are saying that all the criminals of the world are not but two categories: a category of criminals outwardly, believers inwardly, and a category of criminals inwardly and outwardly.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: You do not tell me Zayd, Bakr, sent and subscribed, I don’t know what, and so on. Now, these people committed disbelief because they did not refer the dispute to Allah and His Messenger. I say these people committed disbelief according to their reality in their persons. So whoever did not refer it by deed, as is the case with many who follow their desires, the legal judge whom we gave as an example, so he gave to Zayd what belonged to 'Umar. Did this refer the ruling to Allah and the Messenger? We did not forget the example, Professor. Did he not refer it? Did we declare him a disbeliever? We did not declare him a disbeliever. Why? Because the cause of declaring disbelief was not realized in this judge, and that is the inward referral, which did not happen. Therefore, I say: the verse says:
But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among
فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْAnd if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.
فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًاThe questioner: Which means it becomes clear that all the examples ... .
The Shaykh: Absolutely not, they are all on one pattern.
The questioner: I have a need.
The Shaykh : Yes, please go ahead.
The questioner: Those who submitted in Makkah and did not emigrate, and they said to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)
We face your qiblah and pray your prayer.
نتوجَّه قبلتكم ونصلي صلاتكمThe Shaykh: Bring the evidence.
The questioner: This is the evidence: Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Bayhaqi in his "Sunan" narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that he said: "There were people from the people of Makkah who submitted, and they were concealing their Islam, so the polytheists took them out with them on the day of Badr, so some of them were struck and some of them were killed. Then the Muslims said: 'Our companions, these people, were Muslims and were forced, so they sought forgiveness for them.' Then the verse was revealed:
those whom the angels take [in death] while wronging themselves
الَّذِينَ تَوَفَّاهُمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ ظَالِمِي أَنْفُسِهِمْThe Shaykh: Complete the verse.
The questioner :
[the angels] will say, "In what [condition] were you?" They will say, "We were oppressed in the land." The angels will say, "Was not the earth of Allah spacious
قَالُوا فِيمَ كُنْتُمْ قَالُوا كُنَّا مُسْتَضْعَفِينَ فِي الْأَرْضِ قَالُوا أَلَمْ تَكُنْ أَرْضُ اللَّهِ وَاسِعَةًThe Shaykh :
So that you might migrate therein.
فَتُهَاجِرُوا فِيهَاThe questioner :
So that you might migrate therein.
فَتُهَاجِرُوا فِيهَاThe Shaykh: Okay, let’s get it, our brothers, from the mushaf.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Yes, come on.
The student :
Indeed, those whom the angels take [in death] while wronging themselves - [the angels] will say, "In what [condition] were you?" They will say, "We were oppressed in the land." The angels will say, "Was not the earth of Allah spacious [enough] for you to emigrate therein?" For those, their refuge is Hell - and evil it is as a destination.
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَوَفَّاهُمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ ظَالِمِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ قَالُوا فِيمَ كُنْتُمْ قَالُوا كُنَّا مُسْتَضْعَفِينَ فِي الْأَرْضِ قَالُوا أَلَمْ تَكُنْ أَرْضُ اللَّهِ وَاسِعَةً فَتُهَاجِرُوا فِيهَا فَأُولَئِكَ مَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيرًاThe Shaykh: Wait, wait, the point of argumentation in the verse.
The questioner: Correct, the verse, Professor.
The Shaykh: I am not memorizing it, so if you are not confident, let us look at the Quranic text.
The questioner : Yes, correct.
The Shaykh: Correct, praise be to Allah, the point of argumentation in the verse.
The questioner: The point of argumentation.
The Shaykh: You are not the one responsible, the first claimant who has something in his mind, please.
The questioner: The point of argumentation in the verse is that this verse mentioned from the causes of declaring disbelief, from the causes of declaring disbelief.
The Shaykh: You are repeating your previous words. I am asking you to clarify where the declaration of disbelief is in the verse.
The questioner: The place of declaration of disbelief is in agreement.
The Shaykh: Was declaration of disbelief mentioned in the verse, Professor?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh: Where?
The questioner: Those who wronged themselves.
The Shaykh: Count, count the verse, I am telling you, those who wronged themselves?!
The questioner :
those whom the angels take [in death] while wronging themselves - [the angels] will say, "In what [condition] were you?" They will say, "We were oppressed in the land." The angels will say, "Was not the earth of Allah spacious [enough] for you to emigrate therein?"
الَّذِينَ تَوَفَّاهُمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ ظَالِمِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ قَالُوا فِيمَ كُنْتُمْ قَالُوا كُنَّا مُسْتَضْعَفِينَ فِي الْأَرْضِ قَالُوا أَلَمْ تَكُنْ أَرْضُ اللَّهِ وَاسِعَةً فَتُهَاجِرُوا فِيهَاThe Shaykh: No, I am not asking about the cause.
The student: No, the cause clarifies ... .
The Shaykh: Now he read the cause.
The student: He did not read it.
The Shaykh: He read the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas.
The student: Read it a second time then, oh.
The questioner: I will read it.
The student: Yes.
The questioner: Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Bayhaqi in his "Sunan" narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that he said: "There were people from the people of Makkah who submitted, and they were concealing their Islam, so the polytheists took them out with them on the day of Badr, so some of them were struck and some of them were killed; then the Muslims said: 'Our companions, these people, were Muslims and were forced, so they sought forgiveness for them.' Then the verse was revealed."
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: Yes, correct; meaning this cause does not indicate ... our brothers, then the verse was revealed in disapproval that they are not our brothers, correct?
The Shaykh: There is no subject of ours in the verse or in the cause, my brothers. Meaning, we are going in circles. Now I am saying: those who wronged themselves, does a person wrong himself only by disbelief? Meaning, the one who committed zina and stole, did he not wrong himself? The one who remained in the abode of disbelief and did not emigrate to the abode of Islam, did he not wrong himself?
The questioner: ... three volumes.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: Three volumes.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner: Wronging that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) does not forgive, and that is shirk (associating partners with Allah), ... supporting the polytheists according to the text, which is ... .
The Shaykh: I say wronging is of types, so what is the evidence that this wronging is disbelief that makes its doer an apostate from his religion?
The questioner: If you permit.
The Shaykh : And then, my brothers, we must not forget, and I am the one who always keeps coming back to this issue, that you will forget me with you. This narration you are arguing from, have you verified its authenticity?
The questioner : We have verified it.
The Shaykh : How have you verified it?
The questioner : Ibn Jarir reported it.
The Shaykh : What Allah willed.
The questioner : And Ibn al-Mundhir.
The Shaykh : What Allah willed.
The questioner : And Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Bayhaqi.
The Shaykh : May Allah will it, and you are now telling me that the scholars of hadith accepted the mursal reports of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib and replaced him with Sa'id ibn Jubayr, and you say that reporting this validates the narration.
The questioner : Okay, now there are other narrations.
The Shaykh : Do not argue, do not argue. You are establishing the authenticity of the narration simply because so-and-so said, "So-and-so reported it."
The questioner: ... Ibn Taymiyyah.
The Shaykh : No problem, my intention is to point out that verification is not done in this way, my professor. That is, it is your duty right now to teach the group that a hadith is not verified simply by seeing it in a book where it is reported by so-and-so and so-and-so.
The questioner : Shaykh, you mean that what you rely on is that if a person does not complete his answer, if he does not complete his statement, it is cut off and becomes void, meaning it is not...
The Shaykh : Yes, by Allah, it is true.
The questioner : Then wait until I complete it.
The Shaykh : You completed it, your honor.
The questioner : I did not complete it.
The Shaykh : Now you are repeating it, my brother. Did you not read the text just now?
The questioner : There is another text.
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah, you are arguing from this text, and I am asking you where is the evidence for takfir in this text? Now you say there is another text. I tell you, we have heard it, but I am warning you that any text you want to argue from, after the Qur'an, you must verify its authenticity. What was your answer? "So-and-so and so-and-so reported it." Verifying it by saying "So-and-so and so-and-so reported it" is not verification, my brother. Now what do you say last? "I have a second text." Okay, we have not heard the second text yet. We are talking about the first text. Have you verified the authenticity of the first text? Your neighbor next to you answered immediately, "Yes, we have verified its authenticity..." He continues his speech. You interrupted him and said, "Yes, so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so reported it." It does not work that way. Bring the second text, my brother, and show it to me. Is it a verification of the second text? Is it a verification of the second text?
The student : He says...
The Shaykh : We want to go to Oman.
The student : You are just spinning in the same circle.
The Shaykh: Yes, by Allah.
The student : There is no example.
The Shaykh : Yes, by Allah, there is no example.
The student : There is none, it is impossible for them to bring one. Yes, let us be done with this.
The Shaykh : We are done, but I did not see, my brother, that the group brought you an example.
The student : It is not wrong.
The questioner : This is an example, I think it is sufficient and does not need interpretations.
The Shaykh : Okay, evaluate yourselves before you are evaluated. I am asking you for the takfir in this text.
The questioner : I am asking you for the takfir.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good.
The questioner : Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim reported from al-Suddi, who said: "When al-Abbas was captured."
The Shaykh : The narration is dropped, the narration is dropped. Learn the science of hadith, then sit down and discuss and argue. Learn the science of hadith, then sit down and discuss and argue. Do you know this al-Suddi? It is not al-Suddi, do you know who he is?
The student : He is a Successor.
The Shaykh : He is a young Tabi'i, so this is mursal, and there is no proof in it. And this is the verified text.
The questioner : I want to give you a statement from him that is not attributed to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). What is his statement regarding this verse?
The Shaykh : It has no value.
The questioner : Why, when we say we want the statement of al-Suddi, or your statement, or the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah, you accept it, but the statement of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and others, you do not accept it? Why? Are these not men and you are not men? We want truth, meaning something that returns to the truth, not that what you say is correct and what others, like Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, say is incorrect.
The Shaykh : Calm down a bit, you, stay out of it.
The questioner : No, it is not...
The student : Calm down, I am telling you.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.