A discussion on open disbelief.

The questioner: O Shaykh, my first comment on what you mentioned, in response—also—to this statement about repetition... and Ibn Abbas... they ruled on many issues... not just one issue...

The Shaykh: Is this a comment or an endorsement?

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, please go ahead.
No, but I am asking him: Is it an endorsement or a comment?!

The questioner: An endorsement.

The Shaykh: Good.

The questioner: Do you agree with this, meaning?

The Shaykh: I agreed with what?

The questioner: With what you mentioned yesterday.

The Shaykh : And what is it?

The questioner: That... Ibn Abbas... they ruled on many matters...

The Shaykh: Of course, of course.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Of course, of course.

The questioner: ... This supports what I mentioned.

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner: Now, it is also said—they say... regarding the individuals, and we came to interpreting or judging... is it disbelief less than disbelief or open disbelief...?

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

The questioner: ... open disbelief... I want to move on to another issue.

The Shaykh: Open disbelief is what one declares when he casts aside a part of the Shari'ah by denying it, if he does not deny the entire Shari'ah, and then this exit is what permits the exit; what is the benefit—I say again—?

The questioner: I am with you... the question; judging by other than what Allah revealed... is it considered what we now call disbelief less than disbelief or open disbelief, or specifically...?

The Shaykh: This is open disbelief, my brother, that is what we are telling you.

The questioner: This is open disbelief.

The Shaykh: And I said earlier in the course of my speech that if we hear from a man with his own mouth that this Islam is no longer fit for ruling, and so on; then he is a disbeliever by apostasy, there is no doubt in that, but our discussion is about one from whom we do not hear such words, and on the other hand we see from him practice of Islam in many aspects; so how do we declare him a disbeliever when we have not heard from him anything that necessitates declaring him a disbeliever?

The questioner: We agreed on that, but now we come to another example, one who utters...

The Shaykh: The other example I referred to earlier, and you have now clarified the example, and we told you: this is open disbelief.

The questioner: Even if we exclude... figurative interpretation, he would be ignorant or one who uses figurative interpretation—for example—, would it be speech of the utmost danger?

The Shaykh: His being ignorant is a separate discussion, I tell you: if one disbelieves out of ignorance, he is not a disbeliever in the sight of Allah, and consequently I cannot declare him a disbeliever except after establishing the proof, this is another matter entirely, and this is what we mentioned regarding some of the groups of those who declare people disbelievers, the hadith that came in the two Sahihs from the route of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri and others that: , so when the man died and they carried out this bequest, this is perhaps the most extreme in ignorance and misguidance, that they burned him in the fire and scattered half of the ashes in the prevailing wind, and the other half in the raging sea, they carried out the bequest, the Messenger—peace be upon him—said in the hadith: .
Now, this hadith, people like these hasty ones or the ignorant say: this hadith is false; because it contradicts the Noble Qur'an, and the Qur'an says: , and Allah is truthful, this is a text and a principle that no forgiveness is for a polytheist, and perhaps you all know that the intended meaning of the polytheist here is the disbeliever, and it is not intended to be the linguistic polytheist who sets up another god alongside Allah; the intended meaning is the disbeliever, whatever type of disbelief it is; even if he is not a polytheist who worships Allah alone with no partner, but—for example—denies Islam, the prophethood of the Messenger—peace be upon him—, or denies some verses of the Qur'an, or anything by which a Muslim becomes a disbeliever; then he is a polytheist even if linguistically he is not a polytheist.
The point is: so this one who bequeathed this unjust bequest, in the view of the scholars and jurists and scholars of tawhid, and so on, disbelieved when he said: ; so this means that he doubted the power of Allah—Mighty and Majestic—, and it was as if he was the one intended by His saying—Exalted is He—at the end of Surat Yasin: to the end of the verse, despite this we find here that our Lord—Mighty and Majestic—treated him with special treatment, He forgave him despite the fact that he fell into shirk and disbelief; why? Because we see in the same hadith his admission that he is a sinner with his Lord, so he is a believer in Allah, and a believer that if Allah punishes him, He is just in that, and his fear led him to think about the way of salvation from this punishment which he deserves, so he bequeathed that unjust bequest, so when Allah—Mighty and Majestic—knew that this man acknowledges Allah, and the justice of Allah, and the deserving of the punishment of Allah, and this is what led him to this unjust bequest, and his fear of the punishment of Allah; He said to him: .
So the purpose here is not that everyone who falls into disbelief has disbelief fall upon him and envelop him, we know—for example—from those who are known by the scholars as the people of the period of ignorance, the people of the period of ignorance are disbelievers in reality, but they are not treated by Allah—Mighty and Majestic—as disbelievers; because the call did not reach them: , so it is necessary to distinguish between a man who disbelieves while he knows, and a person who, by Allah, does not know that this is disbelief; so leave this matter aside, the issue of Baraki is that he did not understand that this is disbelief, I am telling the truth and I said it two weeks ago there in Qatar in a discussion with some scholars about the people of the period of ignorance, and who are the people of the period of ignorance; because the famous hadith came when a man came, and asked the Messenger—peace be upon him—about his father, so he said: , so the questioner returned, of course, sad, so the Messenger—peace be upon him—called him and said to him: .
The question was: Is this hadith authentic? We said: Of course, it is an authentic hadith, Imam Muslim narrated it in his Sahih, and it has many corroborating narrations. He said: Does this not contradict His saying—Exalted is He—: ? We said: No, the verse indicates that one to whom the call of the Messenger did not reach is not punished, but the hadith does not indicate that the call did not reach this man, on the contrary; the hadith indicates that when the Messenger—peace be upon him—ruled upon his father and the father of the questioner with the Fire; that indicates that he is not from the people of the period of ignorance, the call reached him, and this is clear from many of the established hadiths from the Messenger—peace be upon him—, and it is sufficient for us that the Arabs had the Sacred House in which Ismail and Ibrahim—peace be upon him—built the Ka'bah, as is explicitly stated in the Qur'an. So these people had the call reached them to the extent that the proof is established against them, as for one to whom the call did not reach, there is no way to rule upon him; because he is a disbeliever eternally in the Fire, even if he is in reality a disbeliever.
And we digressed in the research; because some people were surprised that the call reached these people; meaning those who were before the mission of the Messenger—peace be upon him—. ... I said: O people, now, has the call not reached us even though the Messenger did not come to us directly, but the call came to us? He said: Yes. I said to him: Despite that, I believe in this era there are millions of human beings to whom the call of Islam has not reached, indeed I believe among the Muslims there are those to whom the call has not reached; those who call for aid to Allah and associate partners with Allah morning and evening, and so on, and the shaykhs who are supposed to be guides for them and leaders for them; they say: this has nothing wrong with it, and this is tawassul, and this is permissible, and so on; so has the call reached them with the fewness of the callers to tawhid in this Islamic world which they say counts nine hundred million Muslims.
So the issue of whether he has an excuse or not, or—for example—the call reached him that this is disbelief, or nothing else reached him; because when the discussion revolves in this area, it is for people who know that Islam commands establishing the hudud, for example, killing the killer, and establishing the hudud on the fornicator, whether he is married or unmarried, with the known details, all of this is known to them, so the discussion is in this area, and when Baraki comes, he has no knowledge; he takes this discussion in another direction without a doubt.

The questioner : ... .