Continuation of the discussion on the people of the period of ignorance.

The Shaykh : I do not believe that anyone narrows the meaning of this verse to the person of the Messenger. That is, every people must have a Messenger sent to them in person with his call. This is because it is known, first of all, by explicit text, his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): In it, he (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned his saying: "And He " His saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "I was sent to all people," along with the saying of Allah the Exalted: , and His saying: . All of this indicates that the sending of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is not only for his person, but also for the call to reach those after his death (peace and blessings be upon him). Likewise, when he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , it does not mean he was sent only in person, but also with his call after his death (peace and blessings be upon him). These are facts that, in my belief, no one can dispute or argue with, because it would necessitate two prohibitions for them. The first prohibition is to believe that the sending of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to all people is limited to the Arabs whom the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) directly called to Islam, while after his death, his call, sending, and message ended. The other thing, which is undoubtedly false, is similar: to believe that those who doubt and suspect the authenticity of those hadiths—which are authentic without disagreement among scholars—believe that we Muslims today, numbering tens of millions, have not been reached by the call. Why? Because no Messenger came to us directly. Does any rational person say such a thing that they would be compelled to say about the Arabs who were before the sending of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)? Because they would say, "No Messenger came to them," but they know that the call of Ibrahim and Isma'il (peace and blessings be upon them) came to them, which is the call of tawhid (the oneness of Allah). So whoever disbelieved in it disbelieved, and whoever believed in it believed. Therefore, there is no difference between the call of Ibrahim and Isma'il in terms of its comprehensiveness for everyone it reached, even after the death of the Messenger sent directly to them, because the intended purpose of the Messenger's sending is not the person, but rather his call and his message. If we assume a person in the time of the Messenger, sent directly to a people, who was deaf and mute, and he met the Messenger sent to him, but he did not understand anything of what he said due to his deafness and muteness, then the call did not reach him, even though the Messenger reached him in person. The reverse is also the case: when we imagine a people to whom the call of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) came without them seeing the Messenger himself and his person, the argument has been established against them, if the matter is so, and it is so without disagreement among Muslims. In that case, regarding those authentic hadiths that testify that those individuals are from the people of the Fire, it follows that the call reached them and the argument was established against them. Therefore, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) ruled that they are from the people of the Fire. So the one who says in these hadiths that Isma'il or Ibrahim or other prophets sent to the Arabs did not have a Messenger come to them directly, this is as if someone said today that the Tabi'un (the generation after the Companions) and the followers of the Tabi'un until this time and until the end of time, when no one remains on the face of the earth who testifies that there is no god but Allah except that a good wind comes and takes their souls—all these Muslims, followers of the Companions and those after them—we say the call did not reach them because the Messenger did not come to them. Does any rational person say such a word? I think no one says it. So we compel them to say the same word to us, because the intended purpose of sending the messengers before the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is not only their persons, but also their calls. ... There is no difference between a people whom the Messenger called directly with his call and other people to whom the call of the Messenger came through the followers of the Messenger. All of these, both groups, the argument of Allah the Glorious and Exalted has been established against all people through one of these two ways: either the call of the Messenger reached them through him directly, or the call of the Messenger reached them through his followers who believed in him. In that case, we know who the people of al-fatra (the period of ignorance) are. In summary, the people of al-fatra are those to whom the call of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) did not reach directly from him to them, or through any of the followers of this Messenger. Up to here, it seems to me that the answer to the previous question ends. But I must add a short word about the call that must reach people for the argument of Allah to be established against them, because the call may have reached them by a way other than the way of the Messenger, in which case the argument is not established due to a shortcoming on the part of these conveyors. I mentioned earlier that the message may reach by one of two ways. The first way is by the person of the Messenger, and this is undoubtedly and without doubt stronger than the other way, which is that the call reaches a people through the followers of the Messenger, whether these followers are direct followers of the Messenger or in succession, as we say in understanding the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): The other way is that the call reaches some people through the way of the followers of the Messenger, whether the Tabi'un to the Companions, or their followers, or those who came after them, as is our reality today. I want to remind you of this to complete the benefit: the call that reaches a people by the other way, not by the Messenger directly, must reach them pure and clean, without change, alteration, or distortion. Because in this case, if it reaches them so, the call reaching them through the followers is as if it reached them through the Messenger directly. But if the matter is otherwise, meaning that a people or some people were reached by the call of Islam in a distorted, changed, or altered form, especially what is related to its foundations and its creed, then these people, I am the first to say, the call did not reach them, because the intended purpose of the call reaching is in its purity, whiteness, and cleanness. But on the assumption that it reached them changed and altered, then the call did not reach them, and consequently, the argument of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) is not established against them. This is what I wanted to add to the previous explanation to complete the benefit, if Allah wills.