The benefits of the hadith.

The Shaykh : In this hadith, there is a wonderful and truly great example, serving as an interpretation of certain texts from the Book and the Sunnah, such as His saying, the Exalted: , and His saying, peace and blessings be upon him, in "Sahih al-Bukhari": . If any scholar in the world—a genuine scholar—were asked about a person who made a bequest like this and it was carried out, would he be a Muslim or a disbeliever? The answer must be: he is a disbeliever, and the evidence is clear and manifest. This is because this person, in this bequest, reminds us of the one whom Allah, Mighty and Majestic, mentioned in the Qur'an, referring to him by saying: to the end of the verse. This person is as if he does not believe; he is as if he belongs to that type who said: . Yet, we find that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, forgave this person. If a scholar is asked about such a person who makes such a bequest, he has no choice but to rule that he is a disbeliever, a disbelief that will keep its owner in the Fire forever, from which he will not emerge. Since this is the case, how can we accept this hadith when its apparent meaning contradicts what is known from the religion by necessity? For this known fact is explicitly stated in the Noble Qur'an when the Lord of the Worlds said: . This verse is explicit in its indication; that is, in the terminology of the scholars of usul al-fiqh, it is definitive in its establishment and definitive in its meaning. Its meaning is that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, can forgive any sin, no matter how great, except shirk (associating partners with Allah), Blessed and Exalted is He, for Allah does not forgive it: .
Someone might say, seeking to reconcile this Qur'anic text, which is definitive in its establishment and definitive in its meaning, with this hadith, from two angles. The first angle is that the verse says, "Allah does not forgive shirk," or "Allah does not forgive shirk," and kufr (disbelief) is not shirk. In other words, what is mentioned in this hadith does not involve shirk, but rather kufr. This is because this person believes in Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and his belief in Allah led him to this unjust bequest because he felt he deserved punishment. So, to escape the punishment of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, he made this bequest. He fears Allah, not merely believes in Him; rather, he fears Allah. So, the result of his fear of Allah was that he made this bequest. Thus, he believed in Allah and did not associate anyone with Allah. So, the reconciliation between the hadith and the verse is to keep the verse on its apparent meaning: . As for kufr that is not shirk, it can be said that Allah can forgive it, and the evidence for that is this hadith. Someone might say this. At first glance, this reconciliation seems acceptable and reasonable, but that is not the case. There is a legal reality that we must be aware of. First, because it is a legal ruling that must be understood in its proper sense and reality. Second, because this understanding helps us reconcile many texts that appear to contradict and conflict with one another. What is this legal reality? It is that every kufr is shirk.
It is known to all people, at least to jurists or students of knowledge, that every shirk is kufr, but the converse is not known to them. They know that every shirk is kufr, but that every kufr is shirk is not known to the majority of people. Yet, this is a truth as clear as your speech; that is, every kufr is shirk, just as every shirk is kufr, with no difference between them whatsoever. One of the proofs of this is the dialogue mentioned by Allah, Mighty and Majestic, in Surat al-Kahf between the believer and the polytheist. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, said: . The owner of the two gardens, who is a disbeliever and polytheist as you will hear, said to his believing companion: "I do not think these will ever perish."

Those present : .

The Shaykh : Yes?

Those present : .

The Shaykh : What did I say?

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh. In common expression and common usage, did he commit shirk or kufr? This is kufr, because he denied the resurrection and the rising. . That is, the believer . He concluded his admonition and dialogue with his companion by saying that he does not associate partners with his Lord as his companion does: . Thus, this clarifies that the man, the owner of the two gardens, when he doubted the resurrection and the rising, associated partners with Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Therefore, his believing companion said to him, "You have committed kufr and shirk, whereas I do not associate anyone with my Lord."
The completion of the story also confirms this, because at the end of the verses: . What did he associate? It appears that he denied the resurrection and the rising. Where is the shirk? Here is the point: shirk is that every disbeliever, for whatever reason his kufr is, has made his desire his god. From here comes the shirk regarding every type of kufr by which his companion disbelieved. From here we said that there is a legal reality, which is that every kufr is shirk.
And this context that we have conveyed to you is the greatest proof of that. Therefore, it is not correct to reconcile the previously mentioned verse: with this hadith in the manner we mentioned earlier. This is because the meaning of the verse, after this explanation, is that Allah does not forgive that He be disbelieved in...
...practically, and praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.

Eid Abbasi : Among the questions, there is one: when I read your book which you authenticated, "The Clear Verses Regarding the Dead Not Hearing According to the Hanafi Sadaat," I found a difference between this title and the title mentioned inside, which is "The Clear Verses Regarding the Dead Not Hearing According to the Hanafi Sadaat." Is there an intended verbal difference? The intention is the verbal difference!

The Shaykh : By Allah, I do not know if the original...