Some scholars have been deluded by their knowledge; what is the opinion of them?

The Shaykh : ... But I have a reservation or an addition to make; and we are touching this with our own hands: it may be that this discerning person, whom I am assuming to be from the general Muslim public, and you assumed has some culture and has read some books, has become deluded by himself, raised his head to the sky, and says—as was said in the past—“These are men, and we are men,” and knowledge is not about memorization and these shaykhs. So this delusion encourages him to give himself the status of the one who weighs opinions, when he does not have this model or this ability to weigh between these different statements. This hurts the hearts of those scholars, and they say, “Who are you? And who are you?” and so on. But if he comes as a discerning person seeking a ruling, humble, not arrogant, and says, “I am like you, there is no difference; you have lived a long life in knowledge, but that does not prevent me from expressing my opinion,” this arrogance and this overstepping is what I can imagine the people of knowledge disapprove of in these newcomers in this awakening that we all take pride in its occurrence in the present age. But I affirm that this awakening has been accompanied by negligence, which is moral negligence, and distance from Islamic upbringing. If delusion is accompanied by the pursuit of knowledge, the corruption of this knowledge is greater than its benefit. This is what I wanted to add to what was mentioned before.

The questioner : I want to speak about ... the one who does not suffer from those diseases, and he relies on himself and is satisfied with the opinion of a group of scholars.

The Shaykh: Good.

The questioner : So when he is asked, “O Shaykh, what do you say?” Does he remain silent? For fear that when it is an obligation, a matter in which there is a duty and there is ... he will be asked, “Who are you?” ... the scholars, for fear of falling into error?

The Shaykh : This is an important question; if he looks at himself and sees that he is from the people of knowledge, it is obligatory for him to advise the questioner about knowledge. But if he sees the reality of himself that he is not from the people of knowledge; then it is sufficient for him to weigh what his soul is reassured by and his chest opens to. If he is asked about a matter, he says, “I am not a scholar,” and Allah says: . This is the just, middle position that I referred to earlier. He may be discerning, but he may not present his knowledge to others, because he does not look at himself as being from the people of knowledge. Otherwise ... there is His saying (peace be upon him): . So he may weigh for his own private benefit, but he may not issue fatwas for the general public; rather, he refers them to the people of knowledge.
This is the answer to the question.

The questioner : He transmits ... the ruling.

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : And not to transmit this ruling?

The Shaykh : This is the meaning that he does not ... .
Yes, please go ahead.

The questioner : In the end, the weighing was done.

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : The weighing was done, and he chose ; so what is the tool that made him weigh “no harm and no reciprocating harm”? Even though if he entered the other scholar’s view, who tells him that smoking is subject to the five rulings, and he saw in himself that he could not, his mind could not comprehend this; even though it is possible that ... this scholar; so how does he choose “no harm and no reciprocating harm” when he means he cannot or does not comprehend that other ruling, and this becomes ...?

The Shaykh : Imagine yourself in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and you heard this hadith from him, and you have no knowledge of anything else, and it was presented to you ... and you knew that it is harmful and intoxicating and so on; what do you do?

The questioner : We refrain.

The Shaykh : That is it, and this is what this incapable man did, so let us call him incapable to summarize your words.

The questioner : Why does he ask for the evidence?

The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah! So that he is on clear understanding.

The questioner : Okay, he ... .

The Shaykh : Listen a little; what is it, we have two men, one man asks the scholar about smoking and he tells him: forbidden, and another asks him the same question and he says: forbidden - also - because ... , butThe questioner : The second says: Can you mention to me the argument you relied on in your prohibition of smoking? Is this one wrong or is the first one wrong?

The questioner : According to the intellect; meaning, can his intellect bear it?

The Shaykh : You did not answer me! The best speech is what is brief and indicative. Here are two men, both asking the scholar one question. One was answered that it is forbidden, so he was satisfied. The other was not satisfied with this, but added that he asked the scholar—as I said earlier—“Can you show me or explain to me the argument you relied on?” He said to him: Yes; the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: .

The questioner : Is he from the students of knowledge?

The Shaykh : He is from the general Muslim public for your sake, from the general Muslim public, but he understands what “no harm and no reciprocating harm” means. Even if he were a non-Arab who does not understand the Arabic language, and that non-Arab scholar is supposed to know the Arabic language, he says to him: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: ... But he explains to him what this statement means in his non-Arab dialect, okay?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay; now we were with the Arabs and talking about the non-Arabs, which of the two non-Arabs is on the straighter path and more upright in speech; the second or the first?

The questioner : The one who asks for the evidence.

The Shaykh : So then—may Allah bless you—the matter does not need all this dilemma.

The questioner : But there is a limit, a limit that he is able to comprehend what is saidThe Shaykh : ; meaning—for example—let us assume that from the general Muslim public—for example, may Allah honor you all—... a word he does not understand anything, so he comes and asks about smoking, or asks: Do we recite al-Fatihah behind the imam in the loud prayer or not? He tells him: Recite or do not recite. If the common man ... or the common man who has not been specialized, if this comes upon this, we combine ... the absolute common man with the specified common man ... so what does this man understand?

The Shaykh : He does not understand this, but.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Allow me ... , this man does not understand, does not everyone understand?

The questioner : There is a limit in the matter.

The Shaykh : Who defines the limit, you?

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : So who?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Who is it that defines it?

The questioner : The scholar.

The Shaykh : No, the scholar is not in the innerThe questioner ، The questioner : He himself, my brother, and this first example is of the type that you mention; meaning the one who said forbidden or permissible? He said to him: forbidden, and he left without looking back, why? Because he does not have this scientific background to ask for the evidence and ask for the argument and so on. But that one is not like this first one, and therefore he hears more of the knowledge; so why do we care that why is this one asking for the evidence? My brother, here are two men, one wants to be discerning; so either he is able to reach clear understanding or he is incapable of it. As for that one, perhaps he is able, but he does not care about this ability and does not hold onto it. There is no doubt that the one who is on clear understanding of his religion within the limits of what Allah has given him of intellect, understanding, and thought, or knowledge if he has knowledge, otherwise Allah does not burden a soul except with what it can bear.