Explaining the severity of speaking without knowledge, with a mention of the types of ignorance and their examples.

The Shaykh : If someone were to say such a statement, would it be correct to describe him as a scholar? Answer: No. In fact, I say that the one who speaks without knowledge while claiming to be a scholar is, in reality, one who possesses compounded ignorance. Compounded ignorance is worse than simple ignorance, because the one with simple ignorance may know his own standing and perhaps seek knowledge, since he knows that he is ignorant. As for the one with compounded ignorance, he does not know his own standing and does not seek knowledge, because he considers himself a scholar. This is the calamity. Compounded ignorance consists of two ignorances: one is the person's ignorance of his own state, and the second is the person's ignorance of the reality of the situation. I give an example for this, or rather three examples, by which the one with simple ignorance, the one with compounded ignorance, and the scholar are distinguished: A questioner asked, "When was the Battle of Badr?" The respondent said, "I do not know." How do we describe this? He is ignorant with simple ignorance, because he knew his own standing and that he was ignorant of the reality, and he said, "I do not know." Another person was asked, and he said, "The Battle of Badr was in Dhul-Hijjah." How do we describe this ignorant person? He is ignorant with compounded ignorance, because he was ignorant of when the Battle of Badr took place and was ignorant that he was ignorant of it. For this reason, he was certain that the Battle of Badr was in Dhul-Hijjah. A third man was asked, "When was the Battle of Badr?" He said, "It was in Ramadan in the second year of the Hijrah." What do we call this? We call him a scholar, because he knew the reality and spoke about it.