Is it possible that the one who rejoices at what is happening in the West, such as the departure of one president and the arrival of another, is a disbeliever?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Shaykh, does this matter have a connection to creed? I mean, can some of our brothers declare that the one who expresses such joy is a disbeliever?
The Shaykh : No, no, this is all wrong. It is a sin. If it has a connection to disbelief, it is practical disbelief, my brother. The disbelief that expels one from the religion pertains to the heart, not the tongue. Now, your question reminds me of another fair division of disbelief. There is verbal disbelief and heart-based disbelief. The previous division was creedal disbelief and practical disbelief. Now, another fair division is verbal disbelief and heart-based disbelief. Heart-based disbelief is equivalent to creedal disbelief, and verbal disbelief is equivalent to practical disbelief. A person who appears to rejoice at the fall of Bush and the success of... this joy, without a doubt, should not come from a Muslim. So we can call this verbal disbelief, but this does not... that he has fallen into... The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), as I believe, it is not hidden from any of you, something like the hadith of Ibn Abbas when he said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) gave a sermon to his Companions one day, and a man stood up to say to him, "What Allah wills and what you will, O Messenger of Allah." He said:As-Sunan al-Kubra lil-Nasa'i 64:1386 This is verbal disbelief. He said to him, "Have you made me equal to Allah?" But he did not compel him to accept any of the implications of creedal disbelief. So we must always and forever keep this correct division before our eyes: creedal or heart-based disbelief, and practical or verbal disbelief, because the verbal is part of the action. So if we see such a thing, we do not rush to say that it is disbelief. Even if he speaks the word of disbelief, we do not rush to declare him a disbeliever and expel him from the religion until we clarify what he intends by this word.
Abu Malik: Shaykh, if you would allow me, before... there is a policy in the Western countries, or among the disbelievers in general. There are principles and branches. The principles do not change over the years, ever. And there are fixed principles of policy, and these fixed principles are the ones from which they launch and which govern the course of the small and large politicians in those countries. The branches are actually derived from these principles. And when we follow the course of international global policies that have surrounded us, especially, and brought us to what they brought us to of calamities, we find that the change that occurred only happened in... which were formulated by these branches derived from these principles. And so we give an example of that, for instance, the issue of Palestine. The issue of Palestine, in reality, for nearly forty-five years, we have followed this issue in a way that has taken us out, every five or ten years... a time period that divided the issue by dimensions of time. We have moved from one state to another, and when we look at the state that preceded, we find it better than the state that follows. And international policy is what leads us to prefer the next stage and not prefer the stage that preceded. And so we have now reached, with these policies that... the disbeliever states, we have reached the conviction that the best thing we can do now regarding the Palestinian issue is to accept everything that happens without asking why or how. And this end that it has reached gives us an idea: what if, for example, Bush had come or remained? Can we imagine that the end that the Palestinian issue reached, and was placed on the table of the negotiations currently taking place in Washington, for example, can Bush hasten the end before his position changes and before the new president has not come? Of course, the answer is no. Will this man who is coming hasten the solution of the issue and say that I saw what was before the policy that Bush drew up for this issue? Will I return to the previous stage to stand there and solve the issue, or make the issue solved by the theories that governed this issue in the previous time period? The answer is no. And so the same policy does not differ. So if we rejoice at the arrival of Clinton, we weep for Bush.
The Shaykh : Allah is the Greatest.
The Shaykh : No, no, this is all wrong. It is a sin. If it has a connection to disbelief, it is practical disbelief, my brother. The disbelief that expels one from the religion pertains to the heart, not the tongue. Now, your question reminds me of another fair division of disbelief. There is verbal disbelief and heart-based disbelief. The previous division was creedal disbelief and practical disbelief. Now, another fair division is verbal disbelief and heart-based disbelief. Heart-based disbelief is equivalent to creedal disbelief, and verbal disbelief is equivalent to practical disbelief. A person who appears to rejoice at the fall of Bush and the success of... this joy, without a doubt, should not come from a Muslim. So we can call this verbal disbelief, but this does not... that he has fallen into... The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), as I believe, it is not hidden from any of you, something like the hadith of Ibn Abbas when he said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) gave a sermon to his Companions one day, and a man stood up to say to him, "What Allah wills and what you will, O Messenger of Allah." He said:
Have you made me a rival to Allah? Say: What Allah wills alone
أجعلتني لله ندا قل ما شاء الله وحدهAbu Malik: Shaykh, if you would allow me, before... there is a policy in the Western countries, or among the disbelievers in general. There are principles and branches. The principles do not change over the years, ever. And there are fixed principles of policy, and these fixed principles are the ones from which they launch and which govern the course of the small and large politicians in those countries. The branches are actually derived from these principles. And when we follow the course of international global policies that have surrounded us, especially, and brought us to what they brought us to of calamities, we find that the change that occurred only happened in... which were formulated by these branches derived from these principles. And so we give an example of that, for instance, the issue of Palestine. The issue of Palestine, in reality, for nearly forty-five years, we have followed this issue in a way that has taken us out, every five or ten years... a time period that divided the issue by dimensions of time. We have moved from one state to another, and when we look at the state that preceded, we find it better than the state that follows. And international policy is what leads us to prefer the next stage and not prefer the stage that preceded. And so we have now reached, with these policies that... the disbeliever states, we have reached the conviction that the best thing we can do now regarding the Palestinian issue is to accept everything that happens without asking why or how. And this end that it has reached gives us an idea: what if, for example, Bush had come or remained? Can we imagine that the end that the Palestinian issue reached, and was placed on the table of the negotiations currently taking place in Washington, for example, can Bush hasten the end before his position changes and before the new president has not come? Of course, the answer is no. Will this man who is coming hasten the solution of the issue and say that I saw what was before the policy that Bush drew up for this issue? Will I return to the previous stage to stand there and solve the issue, or make the issue solved by the theories that governed this issue in the previous time period? The answer is no. And so the same policy does not differ. So if we rejoice at the arrival of Clinton, we weep for Bush.
The Shaykh : Allah is the Greatest.