If there is contempt in the heart, does it make its owner a disbeliever?

The questioner : If the contempt, O Shaykh, is accompanied by the heart.

The Shaykh : Okay.

The questioner : Does it make its owner a disbeliever?

The Shaykh : That is it.

The questioner : Does it make him a disbeliever?

The Shaykh : How could it not be?

The questioner : Merely that he committed a sin, like fornication for example, and showed contempt for it as soon as he committed it.

The Shaykh : My brother.

The questioner : And he believed in the prohibition in the depths of his heart, does it make him a disbeliever, O Shaykh, and cause him to exit the religion?

The Shaykh : My brother, you agreed with me on dividing contempt into two categories.

The questioner : Even though it can be in the belief, but is every belief, is contempt in the belief like believing it is permissible, like believing it is halal.

The Shaykh : It is enough that you imagine a separation in it.

The questioner : Yes, I imagine, O Shaykh, whether every belief makes a person a disbeliever, or is it only the belief of permissibility that makes a person a disbeliever?

The Shaykh : Belief of permissibility?

The questioner : The permissibility that it is halal, he considers this sin permissible?

The Shaykh : As long as, my brother, may Allah bless you, you agreed that contempt is of two types, we set aside the practical one, what does contempt of the heart mean? The prohibition?

The questioner : If it means.

The Shaykh : Listen to me, listen to me, contempt of the heart, can you imagine it with the belief of prohibition.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : This is not contempt of the heart, this is practical contempt, and we have finished with this, how do you combine two contradictions in the heart, he shows contempt in his heart and in his heart he believes it is haram, how is this, and in any case, I want brothers to participate with us in the topic ...

Another questioner : I want to say something, I understand from Salman's words that he judges the apparent state of the person that he showed contempt, and with this judgment and this apparent contempt that Salman mentioned, he judged them with this, but it is possible that this station requires that we detail, and the detail is not with me nor with you, the detail requires asking the man: I wonder, when you judged him with contempt for the sin apparently, and judged him with apostasy or disbelief, did you judge him with a judgment without his contempt in his heart and without his considering this matter permissible, or with his considering this matter permissible? Here the question returns, and I do not possess this, neither I nor you, so my opinion about Salman, in truth, that his judgment on this man like what he judged him with, he only judged him by his apparent action from which contempt appears, and which indicates necessarily, in the majority of cases, in such open sinners that they mostly show contempt for it with contempt of the heart, this is what I see, and Allah knows best, and I see, meaning before that, I mentioned to you, O brother Fadi, there, I told you the reality is that it was good with all the brothers who wrote, and the responses between them flew across the horizons and spread, that some of them contact each other, and that these questions be defined precisely what is intended by your words, O so-and-so, and was your intention what we attribute to good or bad opinion, this was better, meaning, so this is what I am saying, and in truth, our Shaykh's words have no one to follow after them, we do not say that we, and by Allah, meaning, and contempt of the heart is a matter that does not appear, it does not appear at all, who is the one who wants to make his words appear, he says, I believe that this action is haram or halal, considering the haram permissible or considering the halal haram explicitly, this is it.

The questioner : ... This is in this example that you mention lastly, it did not happen, the man does not judge a man by his specific knowledge, the man judges, and among them and among them, he judges people who have these characteristics.

Another questioner : It can apply to one in his mind, or to two, or to ten, or to everyone who did this thing.

The questioner : And this also requires asking him, this also requires asking him.

The Shaykh : O Professor Fares, do you hear, you must say the phrase: "The tongue of the state is more eloquent than the tongue of speech," you digest this speech, it is digested in you.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, what does the tongue of the state mean?

The questioner : That a person, by what happens to him from ..

The Shaykh : From actions.

The questioner : From actions that are more eloquent than his speech.

The Shaykh : Very beautiful, so if one expresses with his tongue that he committed this sin and he considers it permissible in his heart, what do we say, did he disbelieve or not?

The questioner : There is no doubt that he disbelieved.

The Shaykh : So if there is a tongue of the state that is sometimes more eloquent than the tongue of speech, then it is not appropriate that we stop at the fact that if we judge by the tongue he said that he disbelieved, then by the tongue of the state he is more clearly a disbeliever, and with that, I say the matter, my brother, is not this easy, it is not permissible for us to say that this man, this one who is speaking, and his carrying of that was his Islamic zeal, that this makes the one who commits a major sin a disbeliever.

The questioner : Our Shaykh, in another matter, the scholars in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia judge a general ruling in this issue.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you.

The questioner : That is it.

The questioner : How do you mean?

The questioner : They declare the one who abandons prayer a disbeliever, they declare the one who abandons zakah a disbeliever.