Continuing the discussion on distinguishing between practical disbelief and creedal disbelief.

The questioner: O our Shaykh, take a little rest.

The Shaykh: Take a little rest, you stay outside for a bit.

The questioner: No, it’s not rest, just... .

The Shaykh: My brother, we are asking you where the declaration of disbelief (takfir) is in the verse and in the hadith? You come to me and say: I want to tell you what so-and-so said? What kind of talk is this? And if you are bold and not afraid, when you say we are bolder than you, but the session has its etiquette. I am telling you: where is the takfir in the verse and the hadith? You come to me and say: I want to tell you what "al-Suddi" said, and I tell you, what do I want to say about "al-Suddi"? His saying is not a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds. You tell me: the saying of "al-Suddi" and the saying of so-and-so, do you accept it? We have not reached that point, my brother. We have not reached the sayings of people. We are now arguing on the basis of the issue, which results in either declaring the majority of Muslims disbelievers or accepting them as disbelievers. Do you want to say "al-Suddi" to solve the problem?!

Another questioner: ... he responds to the rules, and it has been a month... I don’t know, he can’t bring an example, it has been two days; what...?

The Shaykh : ... .

Another questioner: We spoke about it yesterday, if Allah wills, but.

The Shaykh: Do we have... something, Professor, or do we return to completing the research on the verse? Yes, do you think it is best to return now, in the middle of the research, to what we finished yesterday?

Another questioner: We continue, by Allah, O Shaykh Ali.

The questioner: I do not want to ask a question. The issue is that the evidence we bring to support what we say, the same evidence is brought by them. So the issue is one of understanding: we understand it in a specific way, and you understood it in a specific way. We understood it in a specific way from the book "Majmu'at al-Tawhid" and it has its evidence. Therefore, I see that we should read the texts from the book "Majmu'at al-Tawhid" and itemize them point by point to see why we understood it differently from the understanding you state. So I see this method is appropriate, meaning we read the same texts from the book "Majmu'at al-Tawhid" and we see what the reason is for our understanding being different from the understanding you have.

The Shaykh: Well, has it not become clear to you that your understanding is wrong until now? So that... we match the research with the heart, has it not become clear to you that the examples you are not distinguishing between practical disbelief and creedal disbelief in, that you are mistaken in that?

The questioner: The issue has some ambiguity from the perspective that one might clarify it, which would benefit the research.

The Shaykh: It has not become clear until now?

The questioner: What we spoke about now, that... .

The Shaykh: But is it new, meaning? But is it new, what you are talking about now?

The questioner: The issue of the deed that makes its doer a disbeliever.

The Shaykh: I understood, my brother, but within the limits of what we spoke about, or is there something new now?

The questioner: Within the limits of what we spoke about.

The Shaykh: Well, I asked you within the limits of what we spoke about and you did not answer me.

The questioner: Within the limits of what we spoke about.

The Shaykh: Yes, and you did not answer me!

The questioner: ... now within the limits of what we spoke about.

The Shaykh: Why did I ask you: within the limits of what we spoke about?

The questioner: That the issue we want to talk about.

The Shaykh: Glory be to Allah!
I am telling you: the examples you brought and we proved to you that these are not evidence for you; has it not become clear to you that you are mistaken in them until we return to the book?

Another questioner: Excuse me, may I speak?

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

Another questioner: It is as if the brother intends to say that the issue is not an issue of evidence, the issue is the understanding of this evidence.

The Shaykh: Yes, and I explained to them that these evidences, in their understanding of them, are wrong.

The questioner: Excuse me, he says that it is not their personal understanding, that he is conveying the understanding of one of the scholars, who is, as he says, "Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab". So he says: it is better that we read what "Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab" says, which we have read what he says and were convinced by it.

The Shaykh: Baraki, another one said: O my master, it is better that we read... .

The questioner: What I said... .

The Shaykh: Does it have an end, this?

The questioner: And it is not intended by it, and we remove it from... .

The Shaykh: It has no end, verses the professor is bringing, and we are studying them together and writing the facts, it appears that this is creedal disbelief and not practical disbelief, so the evidences fell away. As for the one who wants to continue arguing and saying I am not convinced... .

The questioner: We continue, the correct thing in reality is that all the evidences indicate... if Allah wills, it is as the brother Awni said, from what we benefited, the Imam... "Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab", and I think you are also, then they with this... .

The Shaykh: You are making it clear that the group is Wahhabi... .

The questioner: In reality, the truth we see, if Allah wills, is that all... the Nawaasib, such and such, from it, he has a nullifier in reality, and you know better than us whether it is or not. The nullifier that "Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab" considered, and if Allah wills it is not following of desire, the nullifier in... in mockery, he did not explain the cause of permissibility in all matters, the nullifier in not referring the disputed matter to other than Allah and the Messenger, he did not explain the cause.

The Shaykh: So how did you argue, since he did not explain the cause?

The questioner: He did not explain the cause that clarifies.

The Shaykh: I understood, my master, and he did not explain the cause that you... and he did not explain - also - the cause of yours; so then... .