The discussion regarding the ruling on Muslims who have fallen into major shirk (associating partners with Allah).

The questioner : Now, if someone calls for aid other than Allah, do we say that he is a Muslim? I mean, before the establishment of the prophetic proof that necessitates declaring a violator a disbeliever, regarding the common people who are present.

The Shaykh : I understood your question, but I think the full question is that he testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.

The questioner : Even if he testifies, it would not benefit him.

The Shaykh : No, do not rush me. I am now saying a word for your benefit, Ya Saleh. I am saying that in your question, you mean, and he says, "I testify that there is no god but Allah."

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Or rather, if I were to answer your question, I would say this is not a Muslim. He does not say this; that is what I did not know from him as evidence of Islam. But for that reason, I say, using the Syrian expression, that I have patched up your question. I said you mean the one who says "There is no god but Allah" and yet we hear him calling for aid other than Allah. Here I tell you my previous answer: this person has fallen into shirk without a doubt, but I do not take him out of the circle of Islam until Allah's proof is established against him. What do you think of this?

The questioner : I mean, now, if he slaughters an animal, do we eat his slaughter?

The Shaykh : You have deviated.

The questioner : Yes?

The Shaykh : You have deviated from the deviation.

The questioner : Now, may Allah protect you, as I understand from the words of the Shaykhs.

The Shaykh : No problem, but I hope you will answer me. I have shown you my opinion and asked you, what is your opinion?

The questioner : Now, this is my opinion, and it is that disbelief...

The Shaykh : No, no, it will not come, if Allah wills. It will come. The best of good is its immediate performance.

The questioner : I will answer now. Now, may Allah protect you. This person who has fallen into shirk, there is no doubt that the statement regarding him is that he is not declared a disbeliever, and he is not ruled to be a mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah) in his specific case, and that he has become a mushrik, until the prophetic proof that necessitates declaring a violator a disbeliever and the deterrent from it is established against him.

The Shaykh : So tell me, did I hit the mark in what I said?

The questioner : But here, the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and also the Imam of the Dawah,The Shaykh : Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on him), and the scholars, the scholars of the Dawah after him, distinguished between two matters. The first is that if shirk is established against a person, he is ruled to be a disbeliever in the apparent sense in this world. As for the reality of his matter in the Hereafter, this means that it is not affirmed for him as it is affirmed for the mushrikin regarding the Fire. He is not ruled to be so until the prophetic proof is established against him. As for the one who commits shirk, he is ruled by the apparent rulings of the mushrikin in that his slaughter is not eaten and he is not sought to be forgiven if he dies, but he is not testified to be a disbeliever in both the apparent and the hidden sense, because the prophetic proof has not been established against him.

The Shaykh : Is that all?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Well, if two indications conflict, what do we do with them? We have an indication of shirk and we have an indication of Islam. Which one prevails? You are now, based on the words you attribute to Ibn Taymiyyah and the Imam of the Dawah and the Shaykhs of the Dawah, seemingly assuming a person about whom we know nothing at all, exactly as it came in your question. Your question, which I told you, you mean the one who says "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." And the truth is that it has become clear to me that you do not mean this, but merely that you saw a person calling for aid other than Allah, slaughtering for other than Allah, and so on. I agree with you and say this is a mushrik because the indication is present. But we have another indication, which is the testimony that there is no god but Allah, and he prays and fasts, and perhaps he stands in night prayer while we are sleeping. Have we thrown these indications to the ground and given them no weight, or is it necessary that the jurist, when he falls between two indications, must weigh them against each other, is that not so? I hope you will say it is so, or is it not so? And do not treat me as you treated me before. I told you, what is your opinion? You said, correct. I said in the end, correct. But you brought the opinions of the Shaykhs and so on, and this came to you. So now, I say I hope you will think about what I am saying and answer what you see, but in the briefest phrase. Correct, what is correct? Correct, we have agreed, and praise be to Allah, and we are in agreement along the whole line. If not correct, I hope for clarification. Is my speech clear?

The questioner : This is clear, if you repeat the question.

The Shaykh : Well done.
Abu Layla : Your health is precious to us, Ya Shaykh.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. I say, may Allah bless you. In the previous speech, it is implied that if we see a person calling for aid other than Allah or doing an act that indicates he is a mushrik with Allah, we say he is a mushrik. But there is another person who has other appearances that indicate he is not a mushrik and not a disbeliever, but rather these appearances indicate that he is a Muslim. He testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, he establishes the prayer, and he gives zakah. And I told you, perhaps he prays at night while we are sleeping. We, the people of tawhid (the oneness of Allah), are sleeping, and he is praying. Why? Because he believed in Allah and His Messenger, but he has entered into deviation, he has entered into aberration, so he fell into shirk as we said. Here I said just now, and the question returns: it is necessary to weigh them, it is necessary to prevail one of the two appearances. The first appearance that you spoke of, the other appearance that I mentioned just now, it is necessary to prevail one of them over the other. What is your opinion of this? Is it necessary or not?

The questioner : It is as you wish.

The Shaykh : No, "as you wish" does not work. This is a creed.
Al-Halabi : It seems that he supported your answer.

The questioner : The Shaykh : Good. He said either this or that. So I say that weighing is not applicable here.

The Shaykh : Why?

The questioner : Why? Because we are now weighing his good deed in its appearance, while in its reality...

The Shaykh : Slow down, Ya Saleh. The truth is what is in the heart, and you do not know it.

The questioner : But it has an indication.

The Shaykh : Slow down. And there is another indication for this reality, which is the testimony that there is no god but Allah.

The questioner : On the assumption that he testifies.

The Shaykh : Subhan Allah (Glory be to Allah), how "on the assumption"? There is no need now for assumption. We have just mentioned two conflicting indications. There is no need to repeat words and say "on the assumption." The research now is in these two appearances. You say the truth, and I say another truth. This speech is not correct.

The questioner : I say that shirk here indicates the occurrence of shirk, especially if it is from the scholars who hear or read the Qur'an and hear the words of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). The occurrence of shirk from him indicates that he is not a monotheist.

The Shaykh : Slow down, Ya Shaykh Saleh, may Allah bless you. This does not indicate the heart; it indicates the appearance, which is the deed. And now I am developing the question for you, perhaps we will find guidance, if Allah wills. What is your opinion of a person you saw slaughtering for other than Allah? Is it not shirk?

The questioner : The slaughter is shirk.

The Shaykh : Well, this is a deviation, and I am recording it against you.

The questioner : You are asking, what is your opinion of a man who slaughtered?

The Shaykh : Is this slaughter not shirk?

The questioner : The slaughter is shirk.

The Shaykh : I did not ask, is he not a mushrik?

The questioner : Yes, without a doubt.

The Shaykh : Well, the question is: he slaughtered, and from here he said, "I testify that there is no god but Allah." Did he become a Muslim?

The questioner : He did not become a Muslim.

The Shaykh : This is a very serious error.

The questioner : Why?

The Shaykh : How did he not become a Muslim?

The questioner : Because he says this word before his deed, and then after his deed, he is like a hypocrite.

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you. What is the difference between this and the one whom the mushrik killed? That mushrik who killed the Companion?

The questioner : That one did not say the word before.

The Shaykh : What "before"? What is the difference? I mean, in that we know that one to be a mushrik a million percent. So why did the word "There is no god but Allah" intercede for him so that he is not killed?

The questioner : Because he understood its meaning and he had not said it before.

The Shaykh : No problem, but how do we know that he intended its meaning? Do you not know that in the era of Prophethood and Messengership, dozens of people said "There is no god but Allah" and they were hypocrites?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Well, how do we know that this person said this word while meaning what he says and believing what this good word contains? How do we know? Is it not only this apparent testimony that we have?

The questioner : This is true, but he did not say it before. Now, the mushrik who slaughtered, he says before the slaughter, "I testify that there is no god but Allah," and he calls for aid, and he says after that, "I testify that there is no god but Allah."

The Shaykh : Ya Shaykh, may Allah bless you. All the mushrikin are like this. Subhan Allah. The mushrikin: 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, when he became a Muslim, was not slaughtering for other than Allah.

The questioner : But he was not testifying before.

The Shaykh : He was a mushrik in the depths of his heart. So merely saying "There is no god but Allah," do you believe that in one moment his creed changed upside down?

The questioner : There is no doubt.

The Shaykh : How is there no doubt?

The questioner : There is no doubt that "There is no god but Allah" removes the servitude of other than Allah and singles out Allah with servitude.

The Shaykh : The details. I am speaking about the details. Do you believe that the mushrik who fought the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) for a long time, merely by saying "I testify that there is no god but Allah," understood tawhid in the meaning that we understand now?

The questioner : In its details, or in general, that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is the one to be worshipped?

The Shaykh : If you ask me this question, I will answer you in detail or in summary. What do you want? The thing that saves one from disbelief.

The questioner : The thing that saves one from disbelief. That is achieved.

The Shaykh : No, the answer is that it is achieved. I say it is achieved, but do you imagine that every polytheist, at the moment of declaring his Islam, says "La ilaha illa Allah" and understands this saving creed?

The questioner : This saving creed that is contained in the word of tawhid. Yes.

The Shaykh : This is, by Allah, something strange. When the Messenger wrote letters to the kings and said to Heraclius , if the king had embraced Islam and the people with him, did all the people at that moment understand tawhid as we want it?

The questioner : They understood the foundation of tawhid that the word indicates.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. I am saying that I am saving you from a lot of talk, and I am presenting you with a question like what they say in our newspaper, meaning a journal, I mean such and such and such. It might take a long page. Is it permissible in practice or not? The mufti tells him it is permissible or not permissible. So I am telling you: did those who embraced Islam following the kings understand the creed of the testimony and the saving tawhid merely because their king said "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah" and they believed with him?

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : Okay, did this word benefit them or not?

The questioner : It benefits them.

The Shaykh : Without a doubt. In other words, may Allah bless you, when he (peace and blessings be upon him) said , we return to the detail you mentioned earlier, which is that we judge by the apparent, while the judgment with Allah is for Allah to handle. So now we must study the reality of the disbelievers who were called. It is impossible to imagine that merely because a nation or people were called to the testimony that there is no god but Allah, and their leader believed and they followed him in this belief, that they understood the saving faith. They will understand it with time, but the key is that they say "La ilaha illa Allah." So we return to our previous topic, my brother. This is a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and he prays and fasts. He said the word of Islam, so it is not permissible for us to take him out of the circle of Islam except with something decisive. And this action he performs is the action of polytheists without a doubt, but we have no evidence that compels us to invalidate his testimony, which is what raises the banner of Islam for him. We have no evidence other than that he is misguided and deviant. Then, regarding the previous discussion, we agreed that we assume he did that out of belief. Was the argument established against him?

The questioner : It was not established.

The Shaykh : So why do we take him out of the circle of Islam? I am telling those who want to declare the Muslim rulers disbelievers: my people, what is the fruit of your call to declare the rulers disbelievers? If you want to rebel against them and overthrow their thrones, by Allah, you are not capable of overthrowing the Jews who occupied your lands, let alone overthrowing the rulers and those who take refuge with them, and so on. So what is the fruit of the research and the nagging about these being disbelievers and apostates? Suppose they are apostates, what is the benefit? The benefit is implementing a legal ruling, without a doubt, but there is no one now who implements the legal ruling. Return now to this point: this one who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, slaughters for other than Allah, calls for aid to other than Allah, and makes vows to other than Allah. All these are signs of polytheism and idolatry, without a doubt or hesitation. But first, I say, first, these are things that, with time, they were taught by bad scholars as not contradicting Islam. Second, no one established the argument against them as individuals, meaning from among the individuals, when we want to take them out of the circle of Islam, as I said earlier, and we leave their matter to Allah in the Hereafter. Do you see? The argument was not established against him. So why do we take him out of the circle of Islam while he is still praying with us and fasting with us, and so on? Is it not obligatory for us, as much as we are able, to try to make him understand the correct creed, so that at least we are reassured that this man is a stubborn disbeliever, meaning that the description of a disbeliever applies to him, as Allah the Exalted says ? But, my brother, most of the common Muslims, and even their elites, we know them; they did not know the call of tawhid, nor did they know its proofs. So in my view, they are sick and must be treated with all compassion and mercy, not by raising the sword against their necks on the pretext that they are polytheists and apostates from their religion, while they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. This is an observation that I hope you will study well, because the issue is truly serious and very serious, and it includes the largest part of the Islamic world. The largest part of the Islamic world has not smelled tawhid. The reason is not that they do not have scholars who explain tawhid to them. If there is one, he is a lost voice in this flood, a lost voice. And as you know, therefore, you must distinguish between your situation and the situation of the rest of the Islamic world, and look at the difference between the common Muslims among you and the common Muslims among us, let alone the elite Muslims among you and the elite Muslims among us. There is a very big difference. Therefore, it is not permissible to apply the ruling to all peoples, whether due to the difference in culture or the difference in knowledge. And perhaps this is sufficient.
Al-Halabi : The story of the Anwa tree. Will you not clarify in summary what you mentioned?

The Shaykh : Without a doubt, many things. What do we say about this hadith? Bring it, let me see. We answered according to what you see of expanding the circle of declaring Muslims disbelievers. How is this?

The questioner : First, how is this? May Allah protect you. This hadith, and the hadith of the Anwa tree, and similar ones, as you know, declaring someone a disbeliever is only done after knowledge. And these people did not know that this is one of the instances of shirk. But they understood the word of tawhid to be that true worship is for Allah (Mighty and Majestic) alone, and that du'a is worship, and that istighathah is part of du'a. This is the foundation of the religion. And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says .

The Shaykh : Do not look for something that is a matter of disagreement, as if you are now talking to one of these polytheists.

The questioner : I seek refuge in Allah.

The Shaykh : Do not look for this. This is a matter of agreement. May Allah bless you.

The questioner : I said expanding the circle. I said we expand the circle to look at the point of agreement.

The Shaykh : I am still saying you expanded the circle, meaning that you judged him as a disbeliever in the apparent, and we are not with you in this, because there is a second apparent. This is clear. But now we say, what is your answer to this hadith? And this hadith . You gave me the correct answer. Okay, this correct answer, all my talk revolves around it. Have you heard a disagreement with this?

The questioner : But there is a difference. May Allah protect you. The difference is that in this hadith, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) alerted the Companions when they said, "Make for us an Anwa tree as they have an Anwa tree." He said . So when they were alerted, they became aware and repented. But as for these people...

The Shaykh : Oh, glory to Allah. This is an argument for us. May Allah bless you. We say these people were not alerted.

The questioner : We agree on this.

The Shaykh : How do we agree?
Al-Halabi : This is the crux of the research.

The Shaykh : All my talk revolves around this.

The questioner : The Shaykh : (May Allah preserve him) says you are expanding the circle of takfir.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : The circle of takfir. I did not notice that there is an expansion of it, because you, my Shaykh, just poked me a little in this.

The Shaykh : Allow me. If we want to open the topic of mutual criticism, the apparent criticism.

The questioner : Far be it.

The Shaykh : And I say likewise, you established an apparent, and I established an apparent, is that not so?

The questioner : And it is so.

The Shaykh : It is this. I preferred this apparent over that apparent. So if you agree with me, you have agreed with your counterpart, and he embraced you. And if you do not agree with me, and this is what seems to me, then you are with your apparent, and my words are still applicable to you. So why are you upset by my returning your merchandise? Your tongue says, "This is our merchandise returned to us." Why are you upset by this?

The questioner : I was not upset except when you said that you are expanding the circle.

The Shaykh : Yes, Professor, this is still your talk.

Another questioner : Unless you agree with...The Shaykh : .

The questioner : I agree with you, my Shaykh, and I am coming to benefit here.

The Shaykh : We do not doubt this.

The questioner : May Allah protect you.

The Shaykh : But it has not appeared to me until now that we are restraining ourselves from using the word takfir on the masses of Muslims when they commit acts of shirk and idolatry. And you keep saying the word of truth, and we are with you in it, that the word of tawhid must be understood with its realities and practiced. I gave a lecture and I told you a word earlier that did not please you. I drew your attention to the fact that there is no need for this talk because we are completely in agreement, and praise be to Allah. But what is your answer to the hadith ? Your answer was "they were made clear." And I am telling you, these people were not made clear.

The questioner : But if they were made clear.

The Shaykh : But I told you, glory to Allah, do you want to listen to the tape?

The questioner : No, I am observing your words. I am saying that if you clarified it to a person...

The Shaykh : I told you just now: as for a man to whom we clarified the matter and established the proof against him, and he believed in it, this is recorded. Allah the Exalted said: Do you remember this statement?

The questioner : This is correct.