On the meaning of His saying, the Exalted: ((So, by your Lord, they do not believe))

The questioner : This brother who was with you two days ago, I said that he agreed with us and then disagreed with us... or do you mean that he is in agreement with us in our position...?

The Shaykh : I mean that, from his perspective... regarding your expansion in using the term of disbelief, he agrees with you in declaring the rulers disbelievers without any detail or...

The questioner : A contradiction.

The Shaykh : That is it, I am telling you: he agrees with you, he is not one of you, while he opposes you, and he does not realize that he is with you in some matters...

The questioner : The truth is, I asked you before about the verse: , and you... ruled in it as complete faith, like what was mentioned in the hadiths.

The Shaykh : This is if it is practical disbelief, and we have also discussed this with...

The questioner : ...meaning usually... I mean... practical disbelief, and I want to talk to you about this, we say: complete faith, but what happened... I looked at an article by the brother you mentioned in "Al-Islam Magazine" where he refutes this with three proofs, and he mentions that Ibn Hajar states that he said: complete faith... but he means to say that Ibn Hajar erred in this aspect, and he cites Ibn Hajar's statement and says that this proof is to be taken at its apparent meaning, and no proof came before or after it to take it out of its apparent meaning, and he answers most of the proofs, mentioning them and refuting them. The first proof tells you that the word "complete" (i.e., as an attribute) is not suitable to be placed unless the absolute object exists; meaning, "they do not believe" we can put "complete" in it; the verse from the linguistic aspect.

The Shaykh : Who is saying this?

The questioner : The man, yes, that is right.

The Shaykh : Okay, and what does he say about his saying, peace be upon him: ?

The questioner : This is what I expect...

The Shaykh. They said: Who, O Messenger of Allah? He said: .

The questioner : Okay, this first proof, I expect your answer to this issue, but the second proof, here the issue has specification, it does not have generalization, and it is not generalized... the specification is not specified.

The Shaykh : In his style, does the issue have specification?

The questioner : It has specification...

The Shaykh : Meaning?

The questioner : And it is not generalization, he gives an example that the issue...

The Shaykh : ... .

The questioner : But he cites an example... an example meaning... he tells you: if a standing person swears or takes an oath not to eat food, and then the lunch or dinner meal comes, and he says: I intended to eat specific food; he excludes it from the original oath, so he tells you: in our case, it is not permissible, it is invalid.

The Shaykh : This is correct...

The questioner : So he used as evidence... generalization and specification, so generalization and specification tell you that the verse has specification, it does not need specification and specification, so I did not understand that the word of faith is that faith has specification, meaning it is not generalization, or the second point as well.

The Shaykh : The apparent meaning of his words in the example is that he does not eat food, so "food" is absolute, it is not permissible to make an exception afterwards, and he said: absolutely, he did not say: they believe with complete faith. This statement is correct if a person wants to interpret the verse specifically regarding the verse, but this is an error from the legal aspect, and I do not know - also - did you clarify or explain a scientific fact, meaning one known to the people of knowledge; the specific issue is not taken from a specific text, otherwise one would go astray, one must gather all that relates to this text in that issue and take the ruling from the totality of them; for example: it is like the statement referred to, if someone is asked: Is it permissible to eat liver, spleen, fish, and locusts? He tells you: No, it is not permissible, He, the Exalted, said: ... absolute; blood and carrion, both are absolute; so where do we make these things we mentioned permissible now? So regarding this specific look at the Quran, the statement is correct, but is it permissible for a Muslim to look at a specific text in the Quran without touching the other texts, whether they are in the Quran or in the Sunnah? Of course, it is not permissible.
Therefore, you need to add to this verse what may be related to it, and if you take the ruling other than what appears from the absoluteness, and so on , and this method is the method of the Khawarij and the method of the Mu'tazilah.

The questioner : And the Zahiriyyah.

The Shaykh : No. Looking at one text without another, for example: , this adherence to its apparent meaning is contrary to... and this is the principle of what? The Khawarij... why? This is the apparent meaning of the text, okay, the hadith of Abu Dharr... and the explicit hadiths that and so on, when you add them to this hadith, you are forced to understand from the hadith a meaning other than the meaning that comes to your mind at first when you hear it, so you say - for example - as this hadith says... like this hadith and others, meaning... in its beginning, it is not that he does not enter Paradise absolutely; because it conflicts with the hadiths that enter... even if there is in his heart the weight of a mustard seed of...
except after... ...

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : ...does not enter Paradise except if Allah wills, whoever said: , so talebearing is not from shirk; therefore Allah forgives it.
Thus, the issues, whether they are creedal... or legal rulings, all do not stand... in issuing a ruling on an issue except after gathering all the texts that come in the topic.