Is there a difference in the Shari'ah between establishing the proof and understanding it?

The questioner : Another question related to the topic as a whole, I mean... Is there a difference in the Shari'ah regarding the matter of warning or establishing the proof, between establishing the proof and understanding it, so that it becomes one of the causes of the proof of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) against His servants?

The Shaykh : Do you mean understanding it or making it understood?

The questioner : No, understanding it.

The Shaykh : Understanding it, of course, there is a difference. If a man were insane, or if he were a non-Arab who does not understand the Arabic language, or there are many possibilities, perhaps we would have to mention some of them or not, would the proof be established?

The questioner : No, of course, there is no doubt.

The Shaykh : Of course not. My answer to your question reminds me of a discussion that took place in a gathering for the first time when I was appointed to teach at the Islamic University. Before the doors of study were opened, we gathered in a session in the evening with some of the people of knowledge and virtue. This topic was raised, and some of them said that the call to Islam has now reached all the lands of the world. He followed his words by saying: The Qur'an, praise be to Allah, is broadcast from all Islamic countries to all corners of the world. And I answered with the essence of which is: Professor, you are saying the Qur'an, and I say: you are right as you said, but among the Arabs as a people or as a nation, there are now those who do not understand the Qur'an. So how do you expect the non-Arabs, the Germans, the British, and the Americans to understand the Qur'an in the language of the Qur'an, when it is not at least translated into their language? How is the proof established against these people by hearing the Qur'an recited in the language of the Qur'an? This does not mean that the proof has been established against them. And therefore, I say: it is necessary that the one to whom the proof has reached understands it, that he understands it. And I add something else: not everyone who conveys the proof is good at conveying it. The one to whom the proof was conveyed may understand it, but the conveyor may not have conveyed it well. And therefore, establishing the proof against a person is not easy for us to say that the proof has been established against so-and-so. And therefore, I often object to some of our brothers who are beginners in the pursuit of knowledge and who walk with us on this path of the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the pious predecessors, and who are enthusiastic. One of them says: I met yesterday with so-and-so or Dr. so-and-so and discussed with him the issue of calling for aid other than Allah, or seeking nearness to Allah through a means, or something similar. And I said: this is not permissible, this is forbidden, this is associating partners with Allah, and so on. And he prays with us as an imam, and I have established the proof against him. Is my prayer behind him permissible?The Shaykh : So, so-and-so, or Dr. So-and-so, and I discussed with him the issue of calling for aid other than Allah, or seeking nearness to Allah through a means, or something similar. I told him, "This is not permissible, this is forbidden, this is associating partners with Allah," and so on. He is the imam who leads us in prayer, and I have established the proof against him. Is my prayer behind him permissible?
The Shaykh : I say: How do you imagine that you have established the proof against him when you are still in the Syrian expression of the shallow, meaning the very beginning of knowledge? So it is not befitting for us to imagine that every student of knowledge can establish the proof against the misguided Muslim, let alone the disbeliever who associates partners with Allah. But every person is obligated to convey what he is able to. As for whether the proof has been established against him or not, that is knowledge with my Lord. Therefore, I do not imagine that every person who understands the proof has thereby had the proof established against him. But we say: Whoever Allah the Exalted knows from him that the proof has been established against him, and it became clear to him, and he denied it, he is the one who is judged with the Fire on the Day of Resurrection. And therefore, as you all know, disbelief is derived from the meaning of covering. So when we say so-and-so is a disbeliever, it means the truth became clear to him and then he deviated from it. And therefore Allah the Exalted said: So any disbeliever to whom the proof of Allah the Exalted was conveyed, and he understood it well, and then he denied it, he is the one who is punished. And therefore our Lord the Exalted described some of the People of the Book by His saying, meaning His Prophet (peace be upon him): They know that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a messenger, truthful, and sent to all people, not just to the Arabs as some of the sects of the Jews said. They do not know him as they know their own sons, but despite that, they were biased toward those they were expecting to be sent from among them and within them. This is what I believe regarding your question mentioned above.