Continuation of the discussion on the people of the period of ignorance.

The questioner : It is evidence for the possibility that the concept of the verse there has two possibilities regarding the concept of the verse.

The Shaykh : And I asked you why I asked you, and I did not ask you in vain, and therefore you must answer so that we can discuss. Either you mean the Messenger by his person and his call, or you mean the call itself, even if it is through a person other than the person of the Messenger. Then I add to this and say: The verse negates being held accountable for the non-arrival of the call, correct? Is there a detail here? Is this detail in the verse?

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : So we say, either the Messenger by his person or his call. I assumed an answer to your question that the call of the Messenger came to him, but this Messenger was not from his people. However, we say that when this call came to him, the proof was established against him. And you know, incidentally, I say that some scholars say it is not necessary that there be a message that reaches a people or a person or persons. That is, the intellect. So everyone who realizes with his intellect that this universe has a Creator, a Provider, a Giver of life, a Giver of death, and that He is the one who deserves worship without any other, and he knows this truth with the intellect that Allah gave him, then he denies and disbelieves, the proof is established against him. I do not say this, but I draw your attention to this. In addition to this, the call of the Messenger came to him, but this Messenger was not from his people, as I gave you an example earlier to explain your question. An Arab man came to him the call of Ibrahim (peace be upon him), which is the call of truth, and this call became clear to him, then he disbelieved in it. Would he be excused by Allah because this Prophet was not from his people? Where is the evidence if we say he is excused, and the proof has been established against him? Then the hadith that we always boast about, the Ummah of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) This truth concerns our belief. As for the peoples who were before us, the important thing for them is that the proof of Allah is established against them, either by a Messenger from among them and in them, as He said, and among them, transmitting the call to them directly, or one of his followers transmitting this call to the same people. Now, in answer to your question, we say the proof is established even if the call came to him from a Messenger who was not from his people, because the important thing is the call, and the important thing is not the sending of the Messenger by his person. Yes, the sending of the Messenger by his person directly to the people, because as the Exalted said in the noble verse, So this is the wisdom that our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, before He sent a Messenger, He only sent from a people to the people. But if we assume the scenario you asked about earlier, that the call of this Messenger came to a people who were not from his people, the proof has been established and the matter is finished. How? And some say the proof is established by the intellect alone. Here, the proof was established by both the intellect and the transmitted text.
The point is, I feel that the actual research took more time than I had imagined, but in my opinion, if Allah wills, it will be beneficial and will clarify what a Muslim must be upon in this time when the sects, schools of thought, and parties have multiplied more than ever before. The sects and parties of the past are not, as some people think, extinct; it is not the case that there are no more Khawarij and no more Mu'tazilah. No, the names have gone, but their realities and designations remain. Perhaps some of those present know that in this country specifically, there is a man who boasts and brags, saying, "I am a Mu'tazili." He denies truths of the Shari'ah that are not only from the Sunnah but from the Noble Qur'an itself. We even tried to meet with him, and after a while, he agreed with us, came, and sat here. But he began his speech by sanctifying the intellect and exalting and valuing it more than the Shari'ah did. So I wanted to draw his attention to the saying of Allah the Exalted: He answered me with words that are disbelief itself, saying, "The Qur'an does not constitute a proof, because the Qur'an has multiple aspects and several interpretations." I said, "Allahu Akbar." He said, "Allah the Exalted said: Are there two opinions in this verse? In some verses, there are undoubtedly some opinions, but even so, the Sunnah explains them. For example, has two opinions: this touching, and the other meaning is an euphemism for intercourse. But the Sunnah clarified that the intended meaning is intercourse. However, specific verses related to the knowledge of the unseen do not have many opinions. Therefore, when he stated this clearly, the session ended without any research at all, because as they say, "The content of the letter is clear from its title." If he doubts every verse in the Noble Qur'an, by what means can you communicate with him? He thinks his intellect is above the intellect of the Prophets and Messengers. The Messengers established proof against their peoples with the word of Allah, not with his intellect. The point is that the parties, sects, and groups today are a repetition of the previous sects, and perhaps there is something new of misguidance that the previous misguided sects did not say. This is the example: this Mu'tazili who stated that there is no verse in the Qur'an that does not have two or more opinions. For this reason, we advise our Muslim brothers to recognize this reality, which is the disagreement of the Ummah, and this is what ... in the Noble Qur'an: And let them remember with me the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): And in the other narration: So this disagreement that we have seen historically and that we see in reality is what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) foretold. But the important thing is not merely to know this disagreement as a reality first, and as something foretold by the Messenger second. This is not as important as knowing what the way out of this disagreement is. The answer came to you in the words of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) when he was asked about the saved sect, and he said: So here, it is not permissible for a Muslim to spend his life clinging to one of the creedal schools, such as the Maturidiyyah, the Asha'irah, the Ibadiyyah, the Mu'tazilah, and the like, or in the branches, clinging to the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, or Hanbali school. This is not salvation. Salvation is for the Muslim to live upon what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions were upon. What is the way? What is the path to knowing what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his noble Companions were upon? I tell you a clear word: the path is not for the Muslim to read a book on the Maturidi school of creed, or the Ash'ari school, or so on. Nor is the method to read a book on rulings according to the Hanafi school, or so on. Rather, it is to understand the religion through the Book of Allah and the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and through the reports of the righteous Salaf. I do not want every individual Muslim to climb the heights of ijtihad and reach the point of interpreting the Qur'an and distinguishing the authentic from the weak among the hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) while he is still in elementary school. No, that is not my intention. My intention, as a creed and methodology, is that every Muslim, no matter who he is, even if he is a layman, must believe that the religion is the Qur'an and the Sunnah. If he is not a scholar, Allah the Mighty and Majestic has made clear to him the path of learning, and He said: The people of knowledge are the people of the Qur'an; they are those who know the interpretation of the words of Allah the Mighty and Majestic and the hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So if he is a student of knowledge, he should proceed in seeking knowledge slowly, little by little, and his goal in seeking knowledge should be to reach the knowledge of what people have disagreed upon, to know the truth from what people have disagreed upon, and not to remain as each of us is, as he learned from his environment. This one lived in a Hanafi environment, so he is a Hanafi. This one lived in a Shafi'i environment, so he is a Shafi'i. And where is the one who lived in a pure Muslim environment for the sake of Allah the Mighty and Majestic? This cannot exist except upon this methodology that we mentioned to you just now, which is to recognize what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions were upon. There is no doubt that this does not mean, in any way whatsoever, not benefiting from the sciences of the four Imams and those who came after them. By no means! No student of knowledge can do without the efforts of the scholars, regardless of their schools and inclinations, whether they are scholars of tafsir, scholars of hadith, or scholars of fiqh, whether in school-specific fiqh or comparative fiqh. One cannot do without the efforts of the scholars. We do not want our words to be a belittling of these scholars; rather, we want to act upon their principles and rules that they established in their books, including their saying, "If a hadith is authentic, it is my madhhab." Now, in our Islamic world, this hadith or this phrase, which is established, praise be to Allah, from the four Imams, is hardly followed by any school on the face of the earth as their methodology and the principle from which they proceed. They are still in taqlid: this one is a Hanafi, this one is a Shafi'i, and so on. You do not find, except very rarely, a Hanafi who performs very simple actions, such as raising his hands. Now, I gave you an example of the disagreement on faith. I do not say you do not find a Hanafi who believes that faith is speech, belief, and action; rather, he says, as he received it since his youth, that faith is speech and belief, and he adds nothing and subtracts nothing. You do not find a Hanafi who believes in the evidence of the Book and the Sunnah in this issue, let alone in a specific branch issue, as they call it, such as raising the hands at ruku' and rising from it, or placing the hands on the chest based on the authentic Sunnah. Rather, he places them at his awrah, as he said, below the navel. Why? Because they grew up with narrow madhhabism and turned away from acting upon the text that they all agreed upon: "If a hadith is authentic, it is my madhhab." So all these words revolve around acting upon what is established in the Book and the Sunnah for every Muslim. If he is a knowledgeable mujtahid, he takes the ruling from the Book and the Sunnah. If he is a student of knowledge, he investigates what the scholars have disagreed upon and refines and extracts from it what is closest to the Book and the Sunnah. And if he is from the general Muslims, And by that, the previous verse is realized: And by that, the Muslim can realize in himself that he is beloved to his Lord by remembering His saying, and with this I conclude this session: So whoever among you is eager to be beloved to Allah the Mighty and Majestic, let him be sincere in following the Messenger of Allah. He should not be sincere in following a madhhab, or a father, or a grandfather, but rather the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). And this is sufficient, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. And if there is a question from some of those present, there is no harm; otherwise, it is eleven o'clock.