The Shaykh’s clarification to the student being examined that he is merely a memorizer and not an understanding one. And his emphasis that the disagreement between them is not about the distinction, but about the ruling for each type.

The student : Please, Shaykh.

The Shaykh: My brother, why are you taking me to task? You are a man who memorizes the lesson and delivers it, but you do not accept discussion. All these words you have put forth, there is no one who disagrees with them. But the issue is applying these restrictions and conditions to a specific ruler today. You see, you distinguish between one who adopts terrestrial laws alongside divine laws, and another who does not adopt divine laws at all. Do you distinguish between the two or not? What is the benefit of this lecture you are delivering? You are a mere memorizer; one person memorizes the Qur'an and recites it, but he does not engage with the contents of these texts. This distinction that you have just acknowledged, what is its result? Do you equate them or do you distinguish between them? The fruit of the distinction. The fruit of the distinction. We believe, so we agreed on the distinction. Is this one who adopts types of terrestrial laws, and many of the rulings of the Shari'ah are applied to him, the one this lecture I delivered is about?

The questioner: Repeat, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Repeat.

The Shaykh: All right, I say, since you agreed with us on the distinction between two rulers: a ruler who adopts terrestrial laws, and another ruler who adopts some of these and a great deal of the rulings of the Shari'ah. You agreed with us that you distinguish between this one and that one.

The questioner: I did not understand.

The Shaykh: You did not agree with us.

The questioner: I did not understand this speech at first.

The Shaykh: Then.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: ... I want to tell you this joke from the beginning of the session. What was it? They said, "This is it." So you say, "I did not understand you," or "I fell short with you and you did not understand me." Nevertheless, you build upon that. So this is an error. Say, "My brother, I did not understand you," not "Yes, I distinguish."

The questioner : No, Shaykh.

The Shaykh: And now you say, "No, I do not distinguish."

The questioner: The ruler does not rule with what he has no ruling for. Then you said, "A ruler who rules by a text and rules by a text."

The Shaykh: My brother, now you are repeating my words. I repeated my words to you. I repeated them to you twice. The first time you said, "Yes, I distinguish." The second time you said, "No, I do not distinguish." We told you, "My brother, we are reminding you." You said just now, "I distinguish with you." Then you said, "I did not understand you." And why did you say, "I distinguish"? So, since you did not understand me, may Allah reward you. My intention was not to deny you for the sake of denial, but to point out that if you understood me, how many times did I say to you, "I did not understand"? There is no harm in a person saying to another, "I did not understand." It is permissible.
The student: Peace be upon you.

The questioner : And upon you be peace, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.

The Shaykh: It is permissible. And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah. There is no harm in a person saying to his companion, "By Allah, I did not understand." There are many reasons: either he heard poorly, like my story, or he understood poorly, like my story, or for other reasons.