What is the ruling on one who says: "Prayer is regressive"? And is our ruling of disbelief against him based solely on saying it, or on the belief of the one who said it?

The questioner : I understand from your words that the phrase "La ilaha illa Allah" (There is no god but Allah).

The Shaykh : Please, do not sit on the floor, do not sit on the...

The questioner : I understand from what you said that the phrase "La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" has faith-based and Islamic implications, as you expressed it. And you gave the example that one who says that prayer is regressive has negated the testimony. So, do we rule that he is a disbeliever because he said the word, or do we rule based on his belief in this word?

The Shaykh : Did he believe it?

The questioner : I don't know, you said...

The Shaykh : No, no, I am asking you. I am not answering you. I am asking for clarification of what you are saying, of what you are asking.

The questioner : I am asking you for clarification of what you said.

The Shaykh : My brother, I did not understand. Are you not asking me? I did not understand your question, meaning, so I am repeating your question.

The questioner : I understand from what you said that the testimony, represented by "La ilaha illa Allah" and "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah," has implications. One who negates one of them has exited this testimony and this religion. You gave the example that one who says that prayer is regressive has negated the testimony. So, does the mere statement of this man that prayer is regressive take him out of the religion, or is there another detail to this?

The Shaykh : This statement indicates what is in his heart, just as his testimony indicated what is in his heart outwardly. So, when he indicated with his tongue what is in his heart, he denied what he had previously indicated by his testimony to his Lord and His Messenger.

The questioner : So, there are statements that take a person out of the religion?

The Shaykh : Certainly. Who said: No?

The questioner : And how do we know that he believes it, or that he said it...

The Shaykh : It goes back to the issue of faith, Professor. Do not mix faith and Islam.

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : This one who said that prayer is regressive does not know that he is exiting [the religion].

The Shaykh : How does he not know?

The questioner : "La ilaha illa Allah," he does not know that if he says this statement, he exits [the religion].

The Shaykh : No, he does not know that prayer was an obligation for the believers at fixed times, and that five prayers were made obligatory for the Muslims every day and night. Does he know or not?

The questioner : He knows.

The Shaykh : Okay, and does he know that these prayers were not legislated by any earthly, plant, or human system, but rather by the Lord of the worlds?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : So, when he said: "This prayer is regressive," it is as if he is blaming the Lord of the worlds (Glorified and Exalted is He), who legislated this. The issue is that he does not know that this is among the necessities of the testimony "La ilaha illa Allah." This is more of a scientific, classificatory issue than a matter of belief.

The questioner : So, let us leave the "regressives" aside. A man living in the desert.

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner : He said "La ilaha illa Allah," and he knows nothing other than "La ilaha illa Allah." Then he came and denied that there is prayer, prayer, and prayer. He denied the obligation of prayer. What do you say?

The Shaykh : And he believes in Allah and His Messenger?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : And in the Book of his Lord?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : And the verses were recited to him?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : And he denied them?

The questioner : When the verses regarding the obligation of prayer and such were recited to him, he denied them because he did not know, he did not learn.

The Shaykh : It is fine, it is fine, but I say: What is his position regarding these verses that were recited to him? Did he deny them or did he accept them?

The questioner : When he heard them, he said: "I deny prayer." I am the one who wants to understand: Is it necessary that he understands these verses and that the argument be established against him from these verses, or is it just because he said: So-and-so?

The Shaykh : My professor, we said: We have faith and we have Islam. The mere declaration by a person of "La ilaha illa Allah" enters him into Islam. But to be safe with Allah, he must follow the steps. Among following the steps is believing in what Allah has legislated. So, you assumed a Bedouin who did not know the prayers. Okay, he did not know the prayers. Until when? Did he remain like that without a person informing him that Allah legislated the five prayers, and this is the Qur'an and this is the Hadith? Or did the argument come to him and the proof be established against him? So, it is one of two things. Either we say: By Allah, he lived and died without knowing that there is prayer in Islam. This has a ruling. And more severe than him are the people of the period of ignorance (Ahl al-Fatrah). Not only does he not know prayer, he does not know "La ilaha illa Allah" at all. But the other picture is that the argument was established against him, then he denied and rejected it. This is disbelief of apostasy.

The questioner : The one who calls others, and I bring him the verses and the hadiths that calling upon other than Allah is shirk (associating partners with Allah).

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Are these verses and hadiths for the first time or the second time that the argument is established against him, or do I keep repeating it to him until his disbelief is proven?

The Shaykh : I will answer you about this, with the permission of Allah. If you believe that the one you are calling understands the language in which you are calling him, and understands the Qur'an from which you are establishing the argument against him, first. Then, if you believe in yourself that you have understood well from Allah and His Messenger and conveyed that to him, and he understood what you were saying, then he denied it. Then he is a disbeliever who will remain in the Fire. But if you were negligent as a messenger, meaning like many of the sheikhs who want to teach people tawhid (the oneness of Allah), they teach them shirk! People, the issue has serious and very serious sensitivity and precision. So, in the course of their explanation of "La ilaha illa Allah," they make them understand "La Rabb illa Allah" (There is no Lord but Allah), and that it does not contradict this testimony to call upon other than Allah in times of distress. Has the argument been established against him, Professor?

The questioner : It has not been established.

The Shaykh : The argument has not been established against him, and this is the clear and evident from the texts of the Book and the Sunnah. The first time I went, I will never forget that night, to the Islamic University. And the first evening that was held there with the sheikhs, a discussion took place about whether there are people of the period of ignorance (Ahl al-Fatrah) today or not. One of them said: There are no people of the period of ignorance today. The Qur'an is broadcast day and night from the radio, and there is no spot on earth where the voice of the Qur'an has not reached. I was greatly surprised by this statement. I said: Professor, this Qur'an is in clear Arabic. The Arabs themselves no longer understand the words of Allah and know them. So what do you say about the non-Arabs? Do the French, when they hear the verses of Allah recited about tawhid, prophethood, resurrection, and the hereafter, and the Germans, and so on, understand what is recited to them of the verses of Allah (Mighty and Majestic)? No. And more than that, I said to him that night: A group of Qadianis came to Damascus about twenty years ago. They call Muslims to believe in their prophet, "Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadri." And these people are spread in parts of the earth, and they have power and state in America and in some German countries. They established mosques. Do you think these Europeans whom the Qadiani Islam called, did they convey to them your Islam or the Islam of the Qadianis? The Islam of the Qadianis. Was the argument established against them? No, the argument was not established against them. Therefore, I say: It is not permissible to declare the Germans who were misled by these people as disbelievers, because these people did not convey Islam to them.
Therefore, I say in the issue of Islam and in the issue of faith, if it is not permissible for us to say: The one who prays and fasts and they are disbelievers in our view, because they were misled by them, at the same time we say: The argument of Allah was not established against them, because these misguided, misleading preachers made them understand that this is the Islam that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) brought.
So, it is sufficient, my teacher, for us to imagine this. I am saying this to our brothers in Damascus. I am speaking of a person who may have been in the call for a year or two, and he is an ordinary person; he is not cultured, nor is he a student of knowledge, nor anything else. But, praise be to Allah, he is saturated with the idea of tawhid (the oneness of Allah), and he has memorized the meanings of verses and the meanings of hadiths, and so on. As for himself, he is on the right path. But he is not able to guide people, teach them, or establish the proof against them. And as long as I am asked—and recently I was asked—a young man came from Aleppo, visited me, and asked me: I researched with one of the shaykhs there regarding tawassul (seeking nearness to Allah through a means), and I established the proof against him that tawassul is not prescribed and that he is an imam. He still practices tawassul and still leads people in prayer as an imam. Do I pray behind him or not? So I said to him: Do you believe, my brother, that you have knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah to the degree that you can say: I have established the proof against this man with the Book and the Sunnah, and he did not submit to it; therefore, he is a disbeliever? He was stunned and fell silent, and he realized his own state. And as the Sufis say: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord."
Therefore, I hope that we are precise in our position regarding this point. That Bedouin whose situation you described has two cases; briefly: either the proof was established—and I do not mean your proof or my proof; the proof that Allah knows is a proof against this person, the proof that Allah knows that this person is like those about whom Allah said: , so whoever is like this is the disbeliever who has committed apostasy, and the testimony that there is no god but Allah does not benefit him.