He was asked about the hadith: “A man entered Paradise in a fly…”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : You said in one of the tapes, in the Hajj tape number one thousand and forty-one, regarding the athar of Salman about a man entering the Fire in a fly and a man entering Paradise in a fly, that its chain of narration is authentic according to the narration of Ahmad, but it contains an anomaly (shudhdh) in that it involves coercion. So this person was coerced, so how does he enter the Fire? Is that not so?
The Shaykh : Before I say whether it is so or not, when you said its chain is authentic, was it marfu' (traced to the Prophet) or mawquf (stopping at a Companion)?
The questioner : Mawquf. I said athar.
The Shaykh : No problem. I am being cautious lest I understand from you something you do not intend.
The questioner: All right.
The Shaykh : So, after this reservation, I tell you now: it is so.
The questioner : Fine, I have a difficulty with that, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Bring it.
The questioner : It is that I read for some scholars that this excuse of coercion did not exist in the Shari'ah of those who came before us, as evidenced by the saying of Allah the Exalted in Surat al-Kahf regarding the People of the Cave:[Al-Kahf 18:20], and other evidence from which we derive that the excuse of coercion did not exist in the previous nations, unlike our nation, for which there is the verse in Surat al-Nahl: [An-Nahl 16:106]. So what do you say about this, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : After accepting what you mentioned regarding the difference in ruling between our Shari'ah and the Shari'ah of those before us, we say: What is derived from the hadith of Salman, while accepting this distinction?
The questioner : What is derived from it is what is derived from the verse in Surat al-Kahf.
The Shaykh : And what is it?
The questioner : And that is that the excuse of coercion was not permitted (rukhṣah).
The Shaykh : No, no. I am saying, as for us now, meaning, what does the Muslim derive, and what does the author derive today in the Shari'ah of Islam and the rulings of Islam when he cites this athar?
The questioner : He derives from the athar I mentioned to you that the excuse of coercion does not exist in that nation. As for us, we do not derive a ruling for us from it.
The Shaykh : In what context is this athar mentioned? Is it to remind people of this which you conceded to me in argument, because the matter requires research? Are they citing this athar to alert the inattentive, like me? I say it plainly, to understand that the ruling on coercion differs previously from later? Or are they citing it for something else?
The questioner : They cite it because there are people who use this athar as evidence for declaring a Muslim a disbeliever (takfir) if he does something that contradicts tawhid (the oneness of Allah). They respond to them with the statement I mentioned to you earlier.
The Shaykh : How? It is not clear?
The questioner : I mean, there are people who use this athar as evidence that if a Muslim…
The Shaykh : That a Muslim today…
The questioner : Today, yes.
The Shaykh : If he does…
The questioner : If he does something that contradicts tawhid, he is not excused for it.
The Shaykh : And is this correct?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is this correct evidence?
The questioner : No, it is not correct, of course.
The Shaykh : So what is the difficulty you started your speech with? You mentioned a difficulty arose for you. We are keen to clarify the status of this athar. First, it is not marfu' (traced to the Prophet) as the words of Ibn al-Qayyim and those who followed him, such asThe Shaykh : Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and others, imply. It is not marfu' to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Second, we want to say that this person can be excused. So if the discussion is now, it is not permissible to mention this athar absolutely, because you concede that the ruling has changed. The coerced person today is not held accountable, whereas in that time he was held accountable. This becomes a historical issue, not a Shari'ah issue for us today. And you know well that they mention this athar because it is related to the Shari'ah, not to ancient history.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So the difficulty I see is not necessary.
The questioner : The difficulty, O Shaykh, is the word "anomaly" (shudhdh) that you said, which confused me?
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. The anomaly is with respect to our Shari'ah!
The questioner : So it must be qualified.
The Shaykh : It is qualified, because we are speaking of our Shari'ah. And when we find an explicit text regarding the impermissibility of something in a previous Shari'ah, or the opposite, we say that the previous Shari'ah is not our Shari'ah, if the text is explicit. How much more so when the matter is still under research? This issue of coercion: if one was coerced into disbelief and committed disbelief, he is a disbeliever, an apostate, eternally in the Fire, if we concede this in argument. This is the Shari'ah of those before us. But the truth is, I hope you will follow up on the research in this detail to save us time in researching it.
The questioner : If Allah wills.
The Shaykh : Because I see it as far removed from the Islamic principle that Allah the Mighty and Majestic does not burden a soul beyond its capacity. Departing from this principle requires a text that is certain in its authenticity and meaning, as they say.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So perhaps you will research it, if Allah wills, or complete the research.
The questioner : If you are able, if Allah wills.
The Shaykh : And may Allah reward you with good.
The questioner : And as for us, O our Shaykh, it is now 'Isha' time. Does it mean we are permitted to continue the conversation with you, or should we go to prayer?
The Shaykh : If the mosque is audible and you hear its adhan (call to prayer), it is obligatory for him to respond…
The questioner : But there is rain, O Shaykh. There is rain?
The Shaykh : So you are excused in advance!
The questioner : So let us continue the conversation, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The Shaykh : Before I say whether it is so or not, when you said its chain is authentic, was it marfu' (traced to the Prophet) or mawquf (stopping at a Companion)?
The questioner : Mawquf. I said athar.
The Shaykh : No problem. I am being cautious lest I understand from you something you do not intend.
The questioner: All right.
The Shaykh : So, after this reservation, I tell you now: it is so.
The questioner : Fine, I have a difficulty with that, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Bring it.
The questioner : It is that I read for some scholars that this excuse of coercion did not exist in the Shari'ah of those who came before us, as evidenced by the saying of Allah the Exalted in Surat al-Kahf regarding the People of the Cave:
Indeed, if they come to know of you, they will stone you or return you to their religion. And never would you succeed, then - ever."
إنهم إن يظهروا عليكم يرجموكم أو يعيدكم في ملتهم ولن تفلحوا إذا أبداexcept for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith
إلا من أكره وقلبه مطمئن بالإيمانThe Shaykh : After accepting what you mentioned regarding the difference in ruling between our Shari'ah and the Shari'ah of those before us, we say: What is derived from the hadith of Salman, while accepting this distinction?
The questioner : What is derived from it is what is derived from the verse in Surat al-Kahf.
The Shaykh : And what is it?
The questioner : And that is that the excuse of coercion was not permitted (rukhṣah).
The Shaykh : No, no. I am saying, as for us now, meaning, what does the Muslim derive, and what does the author derive today in the Shari'ah of Islam and the rulings of Islam when he cites this athar?
The questioner : He derives from the athar I mentioned to you that the excuse of coercion does not exist in that nation. As for us, we do not derive a ruling for us from it.
The Shaykh : In what context is this athar mentioned? Is it to remind people of this which you conceded to me in argument, because the matter requires research? Are they citing this athar to alert the inattentive, like me? I say it plainly, to understand that the ruling on coercion differs previously from later? Or are they citing it for something else?
The questioner : They cite it because there are people who use this athar as evidence for declaring a Muslim a disbeliever (takfir) if he does something that contradicts tawhid (the oneness of Allah). They respond to them with the statement I mentioned to you earlier.
The Shaykh : How? It is not clear?
The questioner : I mean, there are people who use this athar as evidence that if a Muslim…
The Shaykh : That a Muslim today…
The questioner : Today, yes.
The Shaykh : If he does…
The questioner : If he does something that contradicts tawhid, he is not excused for it.
The Shaykh : And is this correct?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is this correct evidence?
The questioner : No, it is not correct, of course.
The Shaykh : So what is the difficulty you started your speech with? You mentioned a difficulty arose for you. We are keen to clarify the status of this athar. First, it is not marfu' (traced to the Prophet) as the words of Ibn al-Qayyim and those who followed him, such asThe Shaykh : Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and others, imply. It is not marfu' to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Second, we want to say that this person can be excused. So if the discussion is now, it is not permissible to mention this athar absolutely, because you concede that the ruling has changed. The coerced person today is not held accountable, whereas in that time he was held accountable. This becomes a historical issue, not a Shari'ah issue for us today. And you know well that they mention this athar because it is related to the Shari'ah, not to ancient history.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So the difficulty I see is not necessary.
The questioner : The difficulty, O Shaykh, is the word "anomaly" (shudhdh) that you said, which confused me?
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. The anomaly is with respect to our Shari'ah!
The questioner : So it must be qualified.
The Shaykh : It is qualified, because we are speaking of our Shari'ah. And when we find an explicit text regarding the impermissibility of something in a previous Shari'ah, or the opposite, we say that the previous Shari'ah is not our Shari'ah, if the text is explicit. How much more so when the matter is still under research? This issue of coercion: if one was coerced into disbelief and committed disbelief, he is a disbeliever, an apostate, eternally in the Fire, if we concede this in argument. This is the Shari'ah of those before us. But the truth is, I hope you will follow up on the research in this detail to save us time in researching it.
The questioner : If Allah wills.
The Shaykh : Because I see it as far removed from the Islamic principle that Allah the Mighty and Majestic does not burden a soul beyond its capacity. Departing from this principle requires a text that is certain in its authenticity and meaning, as they say.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So perhaps you will research it, if Allah wills, or complete the research.
The questioner : If you are able, if Allah wills.
The Shaykh : And may Allah reward you with good.
The questioner : And as for us, O our Shaykh, it is now 'Isha' time. Does it mean we are permitted to continue the conversation with you, or should we go to prayer?
The Shaykh : If the mosque is audible and you hear its adhan (call to prayer), it is obligatory for him to respond…
The questioner : But there is rain, O Shaykh. There is rain?
The Shaykh : So you are excused in advance!
The questioner : So let us continue the conversation, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.