What is your comment on the hadith (the one who buries [a child] alive and the one buried alive are in the Fire)? And what is the ruling regarding the people of the period of ignorance?

The questioner: Here, Professor, by the way, the issue of the people of the period of ignorance, based on a comment on the hadith . When we say this is the period of ignorance and the time of ignorance between Isa and Muhammad (peace be upon them), what is the sin of this, meaning the father of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)?

The Shaykh: No, if you want to know how to eat the shoulder and how to exaggerate the doubt, leave the one who buries [a child] alive and hold onto the one buried alive, because the one who buries [a child] alive is an adult and may be of age, and so it is, as the answer will come to you, but what about the one buried alive?

The questioner: Based on the issue of the period of ignorance, the people of the period of ignorance...

The Shaykh: I am asking you a question, "If you don't come with me, come with me." I am asking you a question, what about the one buried alive?

The questioner: First, we need to establish the period of ignorance, then the question will come...

The Shaykh: No, this is the principle, absolutely. If we establish that the people of the period of ignorance are punished, what about the one buried alive?

The questioner: Also, there is a problem.

The Shaykh: No, this is the principle, may Allah guide you. The principle regarding the young one buried alive, how can she be in the Fire, so the question is about the adult who buries [a child] alive?

The questioner: The question about the people of the period of ignorance in general includes the one who buries [a child] alive and includes the worship of idols.

The Shaykh: My brother, if a small child dies in the era of the message, is there any responsibility on him?

The questioner: Meaning, according to the known rules, there is nothing on him.

The Shaykh: Well, if she died in the period of ignorance, is there anything on her?

The questioner: We want to establish this period of ignorance, we need to establish the period of ignorance first.

The Shaykh: Withdraw the one who buries [a child] alive

The Shaykh : And the audience: They laugh
Now, since you are not satisfied to go with me in this part, and this is very important, but we learned in Syria, "If you don't come with me, come with me."

The Shaykh : And the audience laughed.
Now, in your belief, are there people of the period of ignorance or not?

The questioner: Now, there are none.

The Shaykh: Allahu Akbar! Has the call reached every person on the face of the earth, one by one?

The questioner: As for those whom the call has reached.

The Shaykh: May Allah guide you, what was my question? What was my question?

The questioner: People of the period of ignorance.

The Shaykh: Yes, are there people of the period of ignorance or not?

The questioner: The question, I understood you, there are people who were reached and people who were not reached.

The Shaykh: Very good, but can we imagine this before the mission of the Messenger?

The questioner: If we say...

The Shaykh: Don't say "if," the conditional will ruin things for us. You answer with what you believe. Can this answer be valid for answering about the Arab nation that was before the mission of the Messenger, or does the answer differ? We say they are all people of the period of ignorance, or they are all not people of the period of ignorance?

The questioner: Yes, we say they are all people of the period of ignorance, considering that, for example...

The Shaykh: May Allah guide you, the best of speech is what is little and sufficient. You are far from us now, meaning the best of speech is what is little and sufficient. When he asks youThe questioner : a question briefly, you answer him briefly. If he agrees with you, you are at ease and he is at ease. If he does not agree with you, he will demand proof from you, saying, "What is your argument? What is your evidence?" and so on. So my question now, your previous answer: Are the people today on the face of the earth, do we say about all of them that they are people of the call, that it has reached them, or are they people of the period of ignorance, that it has not reached them, and there are some like this and some like that, as you said? Is this answer valid to be transferred to the Arab nation before the mission of the Messenger, or is it not valid?

The questioner: Meaning, in principle, I say it is not valid, considering...

The Shaykh: You want... Listen, we are back to seeking evidence. There is no need for seeking evidence. What is your answer in principle? What do you say? That those who were before the mission of the Messenger are all people of the period of ignorance?

The questioner: Yes, because they...

The Shaykh: No, don't justify, may Allah guide you. Don't justify, be at ease. Are they all people of the period of ignorance?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh: I want to understand you, meaning I want to establish my position. If I differ with you, we will not go east and west from each other. We will be in clarity and explanation. And so I want to establish that we say about the Arabs who were before the mission of the Messenger (peace be upon him) that they were people of the period of ignorance. You answered yes, they were people of the period of ignorance. Now, to whom was Isma'il sent? To Arabs or to non-Arabs?

The questioner: To the Arabs, but to the tribe of Jurhum, the tribes of the Hijaz only.

The Shaykh: You want to explain again! This explanation is enough. Do you have evidence for what you say? Here, now, bring your evidence.

The questioner: Isma'il did not leave Mecca and go to Bahrain and Oman and to Najd to convey the message to them, but his call was in the Hijaz.

The Shaykh: Do you have evidence for what you say?

The questioner: Historical evidence, according to a reading of history.

The Shaykh: Is history a proof in the Shari'ah?

The questioner: Yes, there is a hadith .

The Shaykh: I am nowThe questioner : It is not you, I amThe student : It is not you, be at ease, don't tire yourself. In principle, we agree that Isma'il was sent to the Arabs. You specify the sending to the tribe of Jurhum only. And here, take note, you memorize a little and learn from al-Qaradawi and his like that we need to demand proof from you that this was sent to a small group of Arabs, one tribe. Well, we all know that any prophet before our Messenger (peace be upon him) was sent to his people specifically, and the mission of the Messenger (peace be upon him) was to all people. Is the mission of the Messenger to all people a personal mission, or is it a mission of the call, meaning, is it a condition for the call of the Messenger to be general that he conveys it with his own person, or does the situation proceed such that other people who adopted the call and conveyed it to others convey it, so the call of the Messenger reaches them, not from the person of the Messenger? Is it clear what I intended, by his person or by other than his person? Is it clear?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh: What is the answer?

The questioner : .

The Shaykh: Very good. Is the word "and whoever it reaches" and the ruling derived from it specific to the Messenger (peace be upon him), or does it also extend to the messengers who were before him, despite the fact that their message was specific to their peoples? Is my question clear? What is your answer?

The questioner: The answer is yes.

The Shaykh: Without evidence, be at ease, without evidence, because there is no disagreement. We proceed, we prepare. Now, and so on. This house was built and he called the people to Hajj, but to the tribe of Jurhum or to the Arabs? What do you want with the valley now, meaning for this valley only?
Al-Halabi: From the people, not from the valley.

The Shaykh: It was, no, he wants the Professor now, meaning to simplify a little.

The questioner: Because this...The Shaykh : This and it facilitated things for many people, meaning the word of al-Qaradawi, meaning he broadens the scope of the research.

The Shaykh: Now, I have not seen it.

The questioner: I have this book.

The Shaykh: Address this point specifically.

The questioner: He says the speech that we all know that these are people of the period of ignorance and hadiths...

The Shaykh: Excuse me, do not cut off our research, or we will lose what we benefited from. So, did Ibrahim send to the Arabs or to a tribe of the Arabs, and Isma'il also?

The questioner: In reality, he sent to the Arabs.

The Shaykh: But, but, be at ease, may Allah guide you. So, if he sent to the Arabs, and so it is, then the Arabs who he directly contacted, and also to whom it reached, is that not so? Be at ease, you will proceed on the straight path, if Allah wills. The evidence preceded from you.

The questioner: To the Arabs, for example, not those who were his contemporaries.

The Shaykh: You forgot what you said just now.

The questioner: A little while ago.

The Shaykh: There is no god but Allah. Well, if you are in doubt about what you said just now, we excuse you from what you said and we assume that you did not say it. So now, Ibrahim contacted five, ten, twenty, a hundred, and so on, and conveyed the call of tawhid to them. The same number conveyed the call to those they contacted. Did the proof of Allah not become established against them?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: If we return to the thing from which we returned, from which we have no choice, meaning we return to the fact that the ruling of the first messengers is like the ruling of the last sent ones, that he sent with his person to the Arabs who were his contemporaries, and with his call to those whom it reached.

The questioner: From the Arabs only.

The Shaykh: No, I am not saying about the Messenger now. Also, since the cause is one, we return to the call of Ibrahim and Isma'il. It is a specific call, not a general one like the call of our Messenger (peace be upon him). But it is specific from one aspect and general from another. It is specific because it does not include non-Arabs, but it is general in that it includes the Arabs whom the call of tawhid reached from Ibrahim and from Isma'il. Is this speech correct?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh: Well, is it possible rationally, or is it impossible religiously, because these people judge by their opinions and their minds? Is it possible rationally that we set a limit, we say, for example, one century, two centuries, and that is it, the end of the reaching of the call without the person of the Messenger? Can we set a limit?

The questioner: We cannot.

The Shaykh : Is that not so? But I hope we do not go back to the old ways, for that would ruin things for us... We are now returning to the parents of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), the problem of problems for these rationalists, or the Mu'tazilah of the last days. Let us assume we are accommodating them in a debate: did the call not reach them properly? Fine, what about their father? Their grandfather? Their great-grandfather? Can we set a limit?

The questioner : We cannot.

The Shaykh : We cannot. If we hold onto the generation that received the call of Ibrahim directly, that is the first generation. Then their children came after, who received the call of Ibrahim through their fathers; let us call that the second generation. The third, the fourth, the fifth, the twentieth—I do not know how many generations it is when we reach the parents of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Is it possible that the call reached them through transmission, or is it not possible?

The questioner : It is possible.

The Shaykh : It is possible. Now, let us say the call reached them or did not reach them. Can we affirm or deny this rationally? Rationally?

The questioner : Rationally, it is possible.

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : The intellect says it is possible.

The Shaykh : I did not understand. Is it possible rationally for us to say the call reached them, or to say the call did not reach them? Rationally?

The questioner : Rationally, as long as it reached the first generation or the generation before them, it is possible.

The Shaykh : It is possible, Professor. It is not certain that it reached them, but it is possible that it reached them. However, do not forget, and this is what allows us to say that it is possible that it did not reach them, because we are now dealing with a time we did not live in, using our current time. We have established that there must have been people there to whom the call was conveyed and people to whom it was not conveyed, is that not so?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Fine, but can you say that a specific person, like George Antonius, did not receive it or did receive it? You cannot say that specifically, but you can say it is possible that the call reached him and possible that it did not reach him, correct?

The questioner : Correct.

The Shaykh : Now we have come to the problem of problems: the parents of the Messenger. Rationally, is it possible that the call reached them and possible that it did not reach them? Yes or no?

The questioner : As long as it is...

The Shaykh : My brother, is it correct or not? May Allah guide you?

The questioner : Correct. He lived in the place where revelation descended.

The Shaykh : Where is the place where revelation descended?

The questioner : Makkah.

The Shaykh : The mission of the Messenger is between the era of the parents and between Ibrahim and Isma'il. Do you know how many centuries that is? If we do not say thousands of years, there are centuries. I say my words are possible, and you are trying to ruin things for yourself, why? Let us complete the argument: it is possible that the call reached them or did not reach them. Rationally, is it possible to be certain of either possibility?

The questioner : It is possible.

The Shaykh : I want you to be firm... The answer is clear, like the sun at noon.

The questioner : There is a possibility.

The Shaykh : There is a possibility that it reached them and a possibility that it did not reach them. If the intellect is involved here, there is no room for it to affirm or deny, correct?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : What are your companions doing now?

The questioner : They are being categorical.

The Shaykh : That the call did not reach them. Do you see how they come from here to deny without evidence? Emotions are doing their work here. The parents of the Messenger, woe to you from Allah! You say they are in the Fire of Hell. What about the parents of the Messenger? They are from the people of the interval (ahl al-fatra). Fine, is it the case that every single person among the people of the interval who were before the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) up to the time between the Messenger and Isma'il, did the call not reach them individually, or did the call reach them all individually? We, who are passionate about what will be explained in the text, do not say this. And therefore we say to you, we are with you now, so do not ruin things for me. These people, al-Ghazali and al-Qaradawi, this group of rationalists, they deny established beliefs on the pretext of contradicting the Book and the Sunnah, and then they affirm beliefs based on their own opinions that contradict the Book and the Sunnah. So where is the evidence now? As long as sound intellect rules in every age, in every age we can say there are people of the interval, and we can say there are no people of the interval. At the very least, we will narrow it down. It is possible that one person, two people, millions, billions of humans are currently alive. One, two, it is possible the call did not reach them. Any intellect is constrained. Any human intellect is constrained. It is not possible that the call reached them all. No fool would say this. And no one would say it is impossible that the call did not reach them. It is possible this, as we said, and possible that. If they say that the parents of the Messenger are among the saved because they are from the people of the interval, this is equivalent to them knowing with certainty, and there is no way to this except by a definitive text, in their expression, definitive in establishment and definitive in meaning. They cannot prove that every individual among the people of the interval whom they call those to whom the call did not reach, by a definitive proof in establishment and meaning. So by what do they prove it? By mere opinion. And they certainly ignore this, because the discussion taking place between you and me is a rational discussion, because we see that we are agreeing. It is not possible for us to differ from them when their goal is to reach the truth, because this is logical speech. Is the lamp lit or not? No fool will say it is off. He will say it is lit. And so they understand. They come to ignore this rational truth in which two people do not differ and in which two camels do not butt heads. If the parents of the Messenger fall under one of the two possibilities, we do not say rationally that the call reached them or did not reach them. Are we in agreement up to here?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Perfect. Now let us take a step, and I hope it is the last. If a definitive text comes regarding a tribe of people that they are in the Fire, can it be said that they might be from the people of the interval?

The questioner : If a correct text comes?

The Shaykh : Not just correct, may Allah guide you. I said definitive, for your sake.

The questioner : What is the difference between correct and definitive?

The Shaykh : Your group distinguishes. These are the people of al-Azhar.

The questioner : A report from a single narrator.

The Shaykh : Or did you forget? If we have a definitive text that a tribe among the tribes is in the Fire, can they be from the group of the interval to whom the call did not reach?

The questioner : No, it is not possible according to the rules.

The Shaykh : I do not like his answer.

The questioner : As long as it is definitive, it is cut off... Every orator.

The Shaykh : We have finished with all of this, may Allah guide you.

The questioner : Let us return now to the buried alive.

The Shaykh : No, not yet, may Allah guide you. Is the reward for goodness anything but goodness? We tried to drag you along to look into the buried alive. I told you this is the most important, but you refused and insisted. We told you, "If you do not come with us, come with us." So we came with you. Do you not want to come with us? Is the reward for goodness anything but goodness? Fine, let us complete the previous discussion. In truth, this research should be recorded and published, because this group are rationalists, and they are not rationalists, do you understand me or not? They judge by intellect, but there is no intellect, because the intellect stripped of religious knowledge is the intellect of the disbelievers. They are the ones who said These are the disbelievers who have no intellect So when this group deals with these creedal issues, they deal with them through non-Shari'ah intellect, not the Shari'ah intellect supported by the Book and the Sunnah and what the righteous Salaf were upon. There is no doubt that this type appears and overcomes all the intellects of the world, however much they are pleased with their intellects. So you see now, I have been sitting with us for half an hour or more, and I have not said "Allah said" or "The Messenger of Allah said." It is all a logical, rational research. We have demolished what they built their creed upon: that it is possible the call reached them, and possible it did not reach them. How do you say the call did not reach them? They say they are from the people of the interval. We conceded for the sake of argument, but did the call not reach every individual among the people of the interval? The argument returns to the same point: no, it is not possible. Now, I said to some of them, when they did not pay attention to this truth: is the reaching of the call of that Messenger like the reaching of the call of another Messenger? We agreed, yes. How not? In terms of reaching, we said that the call of the earlier Messengers is specific in one aspect and general in another. Specific to their peoples, and general to those to whom the call reached from their peoples, even if they did not connect with them personally. Is that not how we agreed?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : All right, and Ibrahim and Isma'il were sent to the Arabs. No one can know what comes out of his mouth to say that every Arab who did not personally encounter Ibrahim and Isma'il was not reached by the call. Consequently, he cannot say that if the call had reached him, the argument would have been established against him, for in that case he would make the call personal. Must every messenger and every nation that Allah the Exalted tested, punished, and tormented for their disbelief and misguidance have had a messenger sent directly to them? Are those to whom no messenger was sent directly considered among the people of the period of ignorance? No Muslim says this. Therefore, we are on a solid foundation, on a common word between us and them. So, what is your evidence that the Prophet's parents were not reached by the call? They have no answer except that they take the general text that they are among the people of the period of ignorance, but this general text does not stand as evidence for every individual in the general text, especially when there is an agreed-upon testimony that the call reached them individually. It is possible the call did not reach them individually; it is possible it reached some and not others. So, what is your evidence that Zayd, Bakr, and so on were not reached by the call? Now, from the standpoint of good logic and debate, let us drop the word "doubt," the word "people of the period of ignorance," and use the clear word "call." We say: did it reach them or did it not? Where is the evidence that the call did not reach these specific individuals? Then they must be required to have evidence that, according to their belief, is definitive in its establishment and definitive in its meaning. Here, they will not find even probable in its establishment and probable in its meaning, let alone definitive in its establishment and definitive in its meaning. We return now: since the matter from the rational side allows for both affirmation and denial, we enter with them into a new discussion. Since reason judges that this is possible or the opposite, is it not permissible for us to argue with ahad hadiths in such a case? A question? Perhaps the matter has become clear to you now. The matter now has no relation to creed. Yes, the matter is a detail. The matter now, may Allah reward you, Professor, has no relation to creed; rather, it is a legal ruling. Reason judges that it may be established or not established. We may establish, by legal evidence, what is forbidden and what is lawful, what is permissible and what is not permissible. Legal rulings by such evidence: do we prefer one of the two possibilities or not?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : They do not do that. Now, I am entering into the evidence of the Shari'ah after we have removed the obstacles and the dynamite, and so on, and the path has become paved.
Al-Halabi : Al-Ghazali argues with it too. And even though the answer to this evidence has been given, but so that it is mentioned specifically Yes, so... meaning the answer preceded, but we want to shed light on it further.

The Shaykh : Indeed, the answer preceded, but your question is useful. My answer was for this journey I made in Saudi Arabia in al-Madinah al-Munawwarah.
Abu Layla : I recorded it, my Shaykh, for an hour and a half.

The Shaykh : An hour and a half. I said that those who argue with this verse are like one who is under the rain and becomes under the gutter. We are now among the people of the period of ignorance...
Al-Halabi : Based on this argumentation.

The Shaykh : Yes, we are now among the people of the period of ignorance. So, if all Muslims today were to become disbelievers, they would be among the people of the period of ignorance. Why? No warner came to us. What do you say, may you be honored? Did a warner come to us?

The questioner : Of course, the Book is a warner. A warner and a bringer of good news, the Book as long as it exists among us.

The Shaykh : Do you want to follow the same path I took, a rational, logical path? Did a warner come to us? No warner came to us. Are we among the people of the period of ignorance? No, we are not among the people of the period of ignorance. If the Arabs before the mission of the Messenger were like us, what is the difference? The one who claims a difference now brings the evidence. You are now, God forbid, placing yourself in the position of al-Ghazali or al-Qaradawi. What is the evidence between us and the Arabs before the mission of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)? We were not warned. Yes, we were not warned, nor were our fathers warned, let alone that we ourselves were warned. So, are we among the people of the period of ignorance? Do you imagine a Muslim saying, "Yes, we are today among the people of the period of ignorance"? I do not think you imagine it. All right, what is the difference between us, for the thousand years after the Companions, and the people of the Messenger and those before them and those before them, to whom no warner came? What is the difference? Is there a difference? Strange.

The questioner : There is a difference. The long years, the centuries that came after Isma'il, long centuries, the covenant with its teachings was lost, and the worship of idols was introduced to them. Meaning, if the Ka'bah had three hundred and sixty idols, it means tawhid (the oneness of Allah) was destroyed. The signs of tawhid were very few, which forced people like Waraqah ibn Nawfal to embrace Christianity.

The Shaykh : Look, you are demolishing what you built just now. Be careful. You want to complete your speech, although I am warning you and being frank with you that you are not demolishing your previous speech.

The questioner : In order for us to say the doubt they raise.

The Shaykh : Oh Professor, perhaps keep in mind that my question had a bit of an error. Yes, I asked what is the difference between us and them. The question was a bit general. I should have narrowed it. And so you took the side of this breadth and started... You are not with us in this difference. I agree with you on this, and so we do not stop at it, because this is not exactly the point of research. What is the difference between us and them in that we, like them, were not personally reached by the call of the Arab Messenger, just as we ourselves were not personally reached? What is the difference?

The questioner : In terms of form, it is one, but in terms of content, the difference still remains.

The Shaykh : What is it?

The questioner : And that is that we were reached, meaning generation after generation. The news is mutawatir (mass-transmitted) to us. The Qur'an is mutawatir to us, preserved by thousands upon thousands, thousands after thousands. So, the Book reached us.

The Shaykh : You returned to your old habit, Halimah.

The questioner : But there were some to whom a written Book was not reached, and to whom the teachings of Ibrahim were not reached either, a group that transmitted the teachings of Ibrahim and continued from generation to generation.

The Shaykh : From these, may Allah guide you, who are these who were not all reached, or some of them?

The questioner : Some of them.

The Shaykh : See how it is, may Allah guide you.

The questioner : But they are few.

The Shaykh : My brother, this is not our topic. Whether there are few or many, one person, or less than one—do not say half! One person to whom the call did not reach, or one person to whom it did reach. If there are some to whom it reached and some to whom it did not, we are back to the first point of inquiry: looking at the people on the face of the earth in this age. Do we say that the call reached all of them? No. Do we say that the call did not reach any of them? No. We return to the same subject we agreed upon, and you demolish it by saying, "Yes, there is a difference between us," despite the fact that I defined the subject. We did not receive a warner, and our fathers—your father and my father—did not receive a warner. Are they from the people of the interval (al-fatra)? The answer is no. So, what about the father of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)? No warner came to his father. What is the difference? From this perspective, there is no difference. If you want to return and say, "Whoever the call did not reach is excused," we also say today that whoever the call of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not reach is excused, and whoever the call did reach is not excused, whether in this age or in the past. The parameters of the research have become clear. The conclusion of the research is that those who claim that the Arabs before the mission of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) were from the people of the interval and that they are not punished on the Day of Judgment because the call did not reach them—during our long and complex research, we mentioned that there is no evidence in the Book or in the Sunnah that the Arabs before the mission of the Messenger (peace be upon him) were all, individually, among those to whom the call of Ibrahim and Isma'il (peace be upon them) did not reach, for they were sent to the Arabs. Those who classify the Arabs before the message of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as people of the interval, meaning those to whom the call did not reach at all, individually, have no evidence whatsoever other than the claim that they are people of the interval. This is a term among scholars meaning those to whom the call did not reach. But now, the term "people of the interval" has become a cause for raising doubts about established legal facts and authentic Prophetic hadiths that scholars have no room to refute with the Sunnah. So when they say that the Arabs before the mission of the Messenger were people of the interval, we now reject the use of the term "people of the interval" and establish in its place what is intended by it, which is that the call did not reach them. They have no evidence that every individual among the Arabs before the mission of the Messenger (peace be upon him) was not reached by the call, just as no one claims that every individual among them was reached by the call. We compared that era before the mission of the Messenger to our current era, and there is no difference in one respect, which is that it is possible...