What is the ruling on a person who is told that this is disbelief and apostasy from Islam, but he is not convinced by this statement after the proof has been established against him?

The Shaykh : And I wanted to conclude with the statement I made at the beginning, which is different from what you raised. I assumed a scenario that does not admit of debate, whereas your scenario admits of discussion. Perhaps you all remember with me: I said a man knew that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said such and such in a secondary issue. He knew, he knew. There is no difference whether the issue is secondary, creedal, or foundational. Your question is not like that. You want to say, "He was not convinced." Did the one who was not convinced know?

The questioner : No, he did not know. He did not know.

The Shaykh : So, if he did not know, the proof has not been established against him.

The questioner : And if he was knowledgeable...

The Shaykh : Be patient, I mean, in the discussion. May Allah reward you all. We actually need patience and deliberation. We have now agreed that you mean that after the proof was established, according to the claim of the claimant, who is a student of knowledge, or let us say with you, a scholar. But you say: he did not know, he did not know. If he did not know, the proof has not been established against him. Now, do you not distinguish between a person who spoke with an infallible Prophet and was presented with the conclusive proof? Can you say here that he did not know?

The questioner : No, he knew.

The Shaykh : He knew. So, the proof has been established against him. Now, a scholar, a scholar within the limits of his claim and knowledge, and so on, spoke with an ignorant person. And in the claim of this scholar, he established the proof against him. Can you say that the one against whom the proof was established knew?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : Yes, between this and that, there are degrees that only Allah knows. Correct. So, let us take, for example, the Greatest Friend, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq. He comes after what? After the Messenger. Then we take, as some of the Salaf said about some of the Companions, and he is mistaken in saying: "We do not take his statement because he was running on his heels." He wants to distinguish between a noble Companion like Abu Bakr and a Companion who heard of the Messenger, came to him, believed, and learned from him how many prayers, how much, and so on, and then returned to his village. They are not equal. For example, if Abu Bakr al-Siddiq met a disbeliever, a Jew or a Christian or an atheist, and discussed with him and established the proof of Allah, we say he established the proof of Allah. But for that one, we cannot say so except in proportion. So, in the end, where do we want to arrive? We want to arrive at the one whom Allah knows has known the proof and then disbelieved in it and denied it. That is the disbeliever. Today, it does not benefit us at all to go around and say: "Was the proof established against so-and-so, or was it not established against so-and-so?" Why? Because we do not have the sword in our hands now to implement his saying (peace be upon him): There must be a Muslim ruler, and it is obligatory that this Muslim ruler be knowledgeable of the Book and the Sunnah, as is the principle. And if he is not, it is obligatory that he have a council of consultation from the people of knowledge and virtue. They are the ones who establish the proof against the one who did not know. If he then transgressed, rebelled, and disbelieved, at that time the legal limit is established against him, or the legal limit is carried out against him, which is killing. So, our duty today, my brothers, is to convey knowledge to the people. It is not our duty to say, for example, "This is disbelief, apostasy, or disbelief that is not apostasy," because what is the difference? This one deserves killing and this one does not deserve killing, except after the proof has been established.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : We are not in this position now. We are now in a position where people have strayed far, even those who say "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." Therefore, I advise students of knowledge in general to devote themselves to seeking knowledge and studying the Book and the authentic Sunnah, and what the righteous Salaf were upon, and to convey this correct knowledge to the people within the limits of their abilities and capacities. As for us going deep and being extreme and ruling that Zayd has not disbelieved, while this one has disbelieved, because nothing practical follows this distinction today. If we could... but we have no way to do that. Have I answered you?