Does the excuse of ignorance vary from one environment to another?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : O Shaykh, the principle you mentioned is that the excuse of ignorance varies from one environment to another. So, if it is in an environment where the oneness of Allah is widespread, the one who commits this act is not excused, and the opposite is the opposite. The fact that Mu'adh (may Allah be pleased with him) prostrated to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), even though he lived in an environment where the oneness of Allah was widespread, yet he was not declared a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : But have you not heard why he prostrated and what you did not understand?
The questioner : I mean, does this principle have any restrictions?
The Shaykh : No, the restriction is not what you said last. Stick to your first statement. Do you think that Mu'adh knew that prostration to other than Allah is associating partners with Allah?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : So, the argument has been taken against you now.
The questioner : No, O Shaykh, my intention in this matter is that a man may live in an environment where the oneness of Allah is widespread, and yet, for example, despite his adherence to the scholars' lessons
and his listening to lessons on the oneness of Allah, something may still be missed by him.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide us and you. Say, "Ameen." O my brother, if this person is sitting among scholars in an environment with scholars and has not heard Allah's ruling in a matter in which he fell, what do you say about him?
The questioner : He is excused.
The Shaykh : Good, and this is what we say. Now, we argue against you with this hadith. When I asked you, do you believe that Mu'adh (may Allah be pleased with him), when he went to the land of disbelief, shirk, and misguidance, the Christians, and saw them honoring their priests and monks by prostrating to them, so he prostrated to the Messenger, did he have knowledge before going to that land that this prostration is not for a human being? You said just now, "No," and this is the correct answer. So, is he excused or not excused?
The questioner : He is excused.
The Shaykh : Good, and so we say. If he is the one who, in the expression of the present age, was raised by the hand of the Messenger, studied in the school of the Messenger, and this ignorance occurred from him, is it permissible for us to say that this ignorance occurred from him or not? It is permissible. Was he held accountable? He was not held accountable. Why? Because up to that hour, at least as far as he was concerned, the argument had not been established against him. If this happened while the Messenger was among them, what do you think of today?
The questioner : That is not my intention, O Shaykh. I do not intend declaring someone a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. I am not asking about your intention; I am asking about your wording. And so we always tell people. You started with something and wanted to argue with the story of Mu'adh, while the story of Mu'adh aligns with the principle you mentioned and does not contradict or differ from it.
The questioner : It specifies it, O Shaykh. My intention is that it specifies it, because many young people use this principle to declare as disbelievers, for example, one who lives in this land, for instance, because the oneness of Allah is widespread there, and so on. As soon as a person among the people falls into something known from the religion by necessity, they say he is not excused by his ignorance. So, I brought up this example to restrict this principle only. That is my intention.
The Shaykh : Good, may Allah reward you with good. Was the principle restricted?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The Shaykh : But have you not heard why he prostrated and what you did not understand?
The questioner : I mean, does this principle have any restrictions?
The Shaykh : No, the restriction is not what you said last. Stick to your first statement. Do you think that Mu'adh knew that prostration to other than Allah is associating partners with Allah?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : So, the argument has been taken against you now.
The questioner : No, O Shaykh, my intention in this matter is that a man may live in an environment where the oneness of Allah is widespread, and yet, for example, despite his adherence to the scholars' lessons
and his listening to lessons on the oneness of Allah, something may still be missed by him.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide us and you. Say, "Ameen." O my brother, if this person is sitting among scholars in an environment with scholars and has not heard Allah's ruling in a matter in which he fell, what do you say about him?
The questioner : He is excused.
The Shaykh : Good, and this is what we say. Now, we argue against you with this hadith. When I asked you, do you believe that Mu'adh (may Allah be pleased with him), when he went to the land of disbelief, shirk, and misguidance, the Christians, and saw them honoring their priests and monks by prostrating to them, so he prostrated to the Messenger, did he have knowledge before going to that land that this prostration is not for a human being? You said just now, "No," and this is the correct answer. So, is he excused or not excused?
The questioner : He is excused.
The Shaykh : Good, and so we say. If he is the one who, in the expression of the present age, was raised by the hand of the Messenger, studied in the school of the Messenger, and this ignorance occurred from him, is it permissible for us to say that this ignorance occurred from him or not? It is permissible. Was he held accountable? He was not held accountable. Why? Because up to that hour, at least as far as he was concerned, the argument had not been established against him. If this happened while the Messenger was among them, what do you think of today?
The questioner : That is not my intention, O Shaykh. I do not intend declaring someone a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. I am not asking about your intention; I am asking about your wording. And so we always tell people. You started with something and wanted to argue with the story of Mu'adh, while the story of Mu'adh aligns with the principle you mentioned and does not contradict or differ from it.
The questioner : It specifies it, O Shaykh. My intention is that it specifies it, because many young people use this principle to declare as disbelievers, for example, one who lives in this land, for instance, because the oneness of Allah is widespread there, and so on. As soon as a person among the people falls into something known from the religion by necessity, they say he is not excused by his ignorance. So, I brought up this example to restrict this principle only. That is my intention.
The Shaykh : Good, may Allah reward you with good. Was the principle restricted?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Very well.