What is known from the religion by necessity?

The questioner : What is the extent of the correctness of "what is known from the religion by necessity," and if it is correct, what is its meaning and criterion?

The Shaykh : Of course, it is a correct matter that does not need explanation, because the meaning of "known from the religion by necessity" is that merely by being a Muslim, one knows it. Let us give an example, as they say in the lands of Syria, a high example. Does a Muslim not know that the first pillar of Islam is *La ilaha illa Allah*? Yes. What is the evidence for this? This is what is intended by "known from the religion by necessity": merely by being a Muslim, one knows this thing which is described as known from the religion by necessity. You need to be patient, because your question had branches. We said we would give a very high example, so we took the first pillar of Islam. Can one imagine a Muslim who does not know that *zina* (unlawful sexual intercourse) is forbidden? I will give you examples of descending levels. I will say: Can one imagine a Muslim who does not know the prohibition of *khamr* (intoxicants), and so on? However, the matter may be confusing for some people from one perspective: the discussion concerns the Muslim who lives in an Islamic environment. As for the Muslim who has recently embraced Islam, some matters that scholars and jurists describe by the rule in question—namely, "what is known from the religion by necessity"—may be hidden from him. For example, a European or American man who believes and enters Islam, but lives in an environment full of *khamr* (intoxicants), where their meat is pork, and so on, and he has not learned of Islam except the two testimonies of faith. It is possible that he does not know the prohibition of *khamr* (intoxicants) and the prohibition of pork, and so on. This differs from the first case. The Muslim who lives in an Islamic environment is not excused if he is ignorant of any of these matters that are said to be known from the religion by necessity. From this, we take the correct opinion in the issue that many people today frequently raise and differ greatly over: Is the Muslim excused for his ignorance, or is he not excused? The answer requires detail: some are excused and some are not. What falls into the first category is what is known from the religion by necessity, and if he is ignorant of it, he is not excused for that. As for what is not so, he is excused. For example, some questions came to me that a man spent many years in Ramadan while having intercourse with his wife during the day, and he did not know that intercourse is one of the things that break the fast! This man is not excused, because this is a matter known to every Muslim. But this person appears to be one of the "geographical Muslims," meaning a Muslim in name only, and in addition, he did not live in scholarly environments, even in such blessed seasons as Ramadan. So, in conclusion, there are matters in which one is excused and matters in which one is not. Those in which one is excused are what we referred to earlier when we spoke of knowledge in its two categories: individual and collective. There are matters that occur to a person, and the general public does not know their ruling, but the specialists among the people, the scholars, do know them. So, one who does not know them may be excused, and his worship is acceptable to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). As for matters that are individual obligations (*fard 'ayn*) and are constantly repeated among Muslims in their Islamic environment, one is not excused for being ignorant of them, and thus he has been ignorant of what is known from the religion by necessity. I do not know if I have answered all of your question?

The questioner : Does it not mean that it is not permissible for you to be ignorant of these? I mean, it is not conceivable that there is a person who does not know the things known from the religion by necessity. That is not the meaning.

The Shaykh : It is not clear to me.

The questioner : What I understood from you is that the issue is about excuse: is one excused or not excused?

The Shaykh : Yes, but one is connected to the other. What is known from the religion by necessity, if the Muslim is ignorant of it, he is not excused.

The questioner : The definition, my Shaykh, is: Is it permissible to be ignorant if it is known from the religion by necessity?

The Shaykh : It is not permissible.

The questioner : If so, how do we reconcile this with the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ?

The Shaykh : You forgot the previous condition I mentioned to you: an Islamic environment. I gave you some examples.

The questioner : The Shaykh says, "We found our fathers," meaning they are not recent converts from disbelief.

The Shaykh : My brother, what were our fathers upon? Ignorance like theirs? Now, we are giving a realistic example, and I often advise my brothers today. Many Muslims who testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, who pray and fast, and who may be more devoted than some of us, at least, but they do not know the meaning of *La ilaha illa Allah*. Is this correct or not?

The questioner : Correct.

The Shaykh : Is learning this not part of what is known by necessity? That *tawhid* (the oneness of Allah) must be in its three known categories among the scholars? But what is the opinion of Islamic societies? What predominates in them today? We were speaking with some people and asked them, "What is the meaning of *La ilaha illa Allah*?" They said, "No worshipped one but Allah." We said, "This is wrong. This is not *tawhid* (the oneness of Allah). Rather, *tawhid* is 'No worshipped one with truth but Allah.'" The word "with truth" (*bi haqq*)—today, most Muslims do not know it. Why? Because they live in an environment where even the scholars, except for a few, do not know it. Therefore, one who lacks the thing cannot give it. So they do not explain to people the meaning of this word, which is the key to Paradise. So this society is the society about which you are arguing using the hadith of Hudhayfah. When we say an Islamic society established on knowledge of the rulings of the Shari'ah, and a Muslim lives in it, he is excused or not excused. But when the Islamic society becomes a society in its understanding of Islam like any non-Islamic society, that is another matter. It is like the example I gave you: he does not know that *khamr* (intoxicants) is forbidden and pork is forbidden. Why? Because he embraced Islam in a disbelieving society. But the issue is observing the precision of an Islamic society: is this precision realized in a certain society or not? So, one must take this reality into account. The hadith of Hudhayfah speaks of a society where they found their fathers upon it without understanding, as is the situation now, unfortunately. So His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He) does not mean "Know that there is no Lord but Allah," but rather it means "Know that there is no god, i.e., no worshipped one." And not only that, but it is necessary to add "with truth." So the meaning of this word *La ilaha illa Allah* is "No worshipped one with truth but Allah." And this means that the objects of worship on this earth are many, and very many . And the other verse says . So, the objects of worship are many. How can one say "No worshipped one but Allah"? This means affirming the unity of existence, because they say that whatever you see with your eye is Allah. And they say that when the Majus (Zoroastrians) worshipped the fire, they did not worship anything but the One, the Subduer. So, *tawhid* (the oneness of Allah) in the correct concept is "No worshipped one with truth in existence but Allah." This, unfortunately, is a very necessary matter. But Allah has spoken the truth .